Intel i7 14700K + nvidia 4070ti super 4K?
-
@Atlas no it’s pretty crazy, for an individual desktop system – unless you’re doing video editing … or big-data analysis … training ML models, that sort of thing
but people doing those things, know exactly how much ram they need (answer: as much as they can get!) and won’t ever ask.
-
Capacity of that RAM means nothing without a speed rating. What is the CAS latency and what are the memory timings?
Best RAM is the fastest, lowest latency sticks you can afford in the capacity you require which are also present on the Memory QVL (Qualified Vendors List) of the motherboard you are planning to use them in.
I can’t imagine many workflows that would make use of 96GB of memory - wasn’t stated above yet why so high on RAM - but speed should never be sacrificed for higher capacity memory.
-
I don’t bother counting FPS but I’m running a 13600K and an NDVIDIA 2060 and it’s butter smooth at 4K in every campaign I’ve run thus far. You may be engaging in overkill! As is 96mb ram. I run 32 on this machine and have yet to encounter any issues with… well… anything really, and it’s my work machine…
-
@m1tp2king I’m pointing you in a direction for you to do your homework before you buy and see if you find the same.
-
@Atlas If IPC is high due to multicore and virtual cores, it won’t help with most games or sims. It obviously doesn’t do much for the i9-14900k if its only around 7% faster than the i7-13700k.
-
@airtex2019 said in Intel i7 14700K + nvidia 4070ti super 4K?:
but people doing those things, know exactly how much ram they need (answer: as much as they can get!) and won’t ever ask.
Or would say so right off the bat. Or would say nothing as they would know at that size, it’s irrelevant.
Besides, for those of us in the know, we all confirm we can just download more RAM!!@SemlerPDX said in Intel i7 14700K + nvidia 4070ti super 4K?:
Capacity of that RAM means nothing without a speed rating. What is the CAS latency and what are the memory timings?
Even so, you quickly approach a point of diminishing returns. I’ve always gone with the idea of getting mid-range speeds or slightly above, but bleeding-edge speed of RAM does not justify the extra cost and that money can be better spent elsewhere for more tangible results.
@Icarus said in Intel i7 14700K + nvidia 4070ti super 4K?:
@Atlas If IPC is high due to multicore and virtual cores, it won’t help with most games or sims. It obviously doesn’t do much for the i9-14900k if its only around 7% faster than the i7-13700k.
Not sure what you mean?? Again, you are comparing Intel vs. Intel, plus I am not sure about the IPC difference between 14 vs 13. I was comparing AMD vs Intel with AMD having higher IPC while Intel having higher clock speeds, yet AMD was trading blows with Intel on gaming while absolutely dominating Intel on productivity. This was before those X3D chips.
-
@Atlas I was comparing Intel to intel since I was comparing i7-13700k and i9-14900k. All I am saying is difference in gaming/simming between those two chips is so minimal its not really worth the much bigger price and is not a necessary upgrade for 4K gaming/simming. I am not talking about AMD at all.
-
@Icarus
Yes, of course, I realise that. I was just adding that clock speed is not be-all and end-all as AMD had shown that lower clock speed but higher IPC beats Intel’s high clock speed but lower IPC in productivity tasks. Now if we think of simulation calculations as “productivity tasks,” there could be a case made that higher IPC is also a factor to look at. -
@Atlas Agreed but between the two chips I was comparing there was little difference in gaming/sim benchmarks so in that case neither clock speed nor IPC made any difference except a savings of about $250 and lower electricity bills.
-
As usual chiming in a bit late to the party, but:
First lets ask what this system is going to do, what is supposed workload is going to be like?- 96GBs of RAM needed only if you’re going to run lots of VMs at the same time, or work on huge datasets for tasks AI training, video editing, CAD modeling maybe …
- 14Gen i7 not a bad choice, but again it’s good at tasks that can be parallelized a lot, like code compilation, 3D renders using engines that do tiled rendering .
From purely BMS + typical home/office tasks POV I think best option is AMD R7 7800X3D, 32GB of low latency PC6000 DDR5 RAM should be enough, 'tho if you want to be on safe side 64GB is not bad option too. GPU if you really need something really strong now then RTX 4080 Super is the way to go, eventually if you’re brave RX 7900 XTX. But if it just for flat panel 4k then I’d get something like second hand 3080 or RX 6800 preferably sub 400$. It should handle BMS in this resolution just fine. Once RTX 50x0 and RX 8x00 are out in late 2024/early 2025 you can reassess your option. IMHO from BMS perspective RTX 40x0 and RX 7x00 series of GPU are in a bit of awkward position, a bit overkill for flat screen 4k but not fast enough to handle comfortably 4.38 VR in every situation.
-
@Xeno said in Intel i7 14700K + nvidia 4070ti super 4K?:
IMHO from BMS perspective RTX 40x0 and RX 7x00 series of GPU are in a bit of awkward position, a bit overkill for flat screen 4k but not fast enough to handle comfortably 4.38 VR in every situation.
Not even 4090? Is this possible?
-
@dumba
Yep 4090 it definitely a top dog here, but 2k$ price ain’t seem to be worth over 1-1.2k$ for 4080 Super.
As noted at the end of my post i’m not big advocate of buying current gen GPUs now.
From what it seems next gen is gonna bring substantial uplift in both pure perf and FPS/$ metrics. My rough calculation from I-Hawk posts related to expected 4.38 hardware requirements, you need something 15-20% stronger than 4090 to run future BMS in VR maxxed out with at least solid 60fps. It might be just me, but if I’d be going to spend 2 grands on GPU I’d wanted it to handle everything I can throw at it with ease for next few years. -
@Xeno
I believe that when you are talking about 4090 specs for VR, you’re also pairing it with a ££££ headset like Crystal or Aero, at which point spending the extra money for a 4090 isn’t really out of the ordinary. 3080 spec should be fine for lower PPD headsets, I would assume.@Xeno said in Intel i7 14700K + nvidia 4070ti super 4K?:
- 96GBs of RAM needed only if you’re going to run lots of VMs at the same time, or work on huge datasets for tasks AI training, video editing, CAD modeling maybe …
32GB of low latency PC6000 DDR5 RAM should be enough, 'tho if you want to be on safe side 64GB is not bad option too.
Agreed. RAM is like a table. If you have a lot of work to do and only a small TV-dinner-sized table (say, 4GB RAM) to do the work, then you will lose a lot of time as you transfer stuff from the table to the floor or to the chair beside you. 32GB RAM will be like a good-sized study desk so you can fit more books and papers within reach so it’s easier to do your work. 64GB will be like a dinner table where you can spread out more.
96GB is like having 2 or 3 dinner tables together… unless you really need that much space for the work you do, what’s the point?
- 96GBs of RAM needed only if you’re going to run lots of VMs at the same time, or work on huge datasets for tasks AI training, video editing, CAD modeling maybe …
-
@Atlas
Well today headsets have not that much smaller PPD compared to Crystal and Aero and regardles of that, you still want to render the scene in +3000 pixels per eye to get well readable MFDs.
I’m currently running Pico 4 on R5 5600X + RX 6800 rig and there are scenarios where I wish I have double of that GPU performance and that’s 4.37u3.2.
VR is still quite a demanding tech I don’t deny it and it’s gonna take high-end hardware to run it at decent fps.
I just think, for HMDs we have today, it’s gonna take next 1-2 generations of GPUs to handle future BMS releases comfortably. So spending ~2k $$$ n a GPU now that’s still may not hit target performance is a bit extravagant move, when ones that probably could do are in 12 months or less away.
Unless those 2k $$$ is not a problem, then sure, sky is the limit.
I’m just for spending the money, even big ones on equipment that does the job well enough for the price. -
@Xeno
Pico 4 is 21 PPD, Crystal is 35 PPD, that is 60% more. I think the Reverb G2 that I have is 24 PPD, so that is 45% more for the Crystal.
(I hope my math is right, it’s been a long day at work )I’m waiting on the 5XXX series of GPUs to make my upgrade. I think once you go into VR, and at these prices of headsets (Crystal, Aero, etc.), you should be ready and realistic with your expectations.
-
@Atlas
[paste my reply here as I’ve messed up and answered in wrong thread ]My bad yup you’re right Aero has 1.67 and Crstal 1.77 higher res per display. But still I’d keep game render resolution at 1.4 of actual res which makes it 3024x3024 per eye.
My target GPU is about 20% stronger than 4090 for about 1000$ preferably made by AMD as Linux is my main system. That’s should be about what RDNA 5/ RX 9x00 series could do. 'till then RX 6800 has to suffice. So far it’s running BMS 4.37 just fine. -