# Upgrade from z97 to z390



## Animalpak (Mar 6, 2019)

Guys i need some opinions about my next upgrade after 5 year im still using z97 chipset and the i7 4790k. Time for me is to step up, even i see that is still a good system.

Current setup:

Asus Maximus XI Impact z97 ( mini ITX )
Intel 4790k
Corsair Dominator DDR3 1866 mhz 2x8 GB
Samsung M.2 960 Pro 512 GB as main for O.S and games / for storage ( WD blue 500GB SSD )
Asus Strix Adv. GTX 1070 Ti
Corsair AX760 powersupply.

Desired setup:

Asus Maximus XI Gene ( micro ATX )
i7 9900 KF ( currently im waiting for the release date )
Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB DDR4 3200 mhz 2x8 GB  <<< please give me advice for the speed i see and heard that 3200mhz is enough and in games actually you get more FPS
The rest will be the same.


----------



## king of swag187 (Mar 6, 2019)

I'd decide if you actually need to upgrade, and go from there. 

Board: If you're deadset on Z390 (or 1151 in general) I can give a high recommendation to Gigabyte's Z390 lineup of boards, very spartan but can cool their VRM's with ease and handle a 9900K for good prices.

CPU: 9900K is definitively the best gaming CPU on the market, but its up to you if you want to decide if it's $200-300 markup over the 8700K/9700K

RAM: Intel chips don't need highly clocked RAM to function to their full perf, but some games due take advantage of the extra bandwidth (CSGO etc)


----------



## Vario (Mar 6, 2019)

Do you desire the KF series because it may be cheaper (lacks iGPU)?
To save money over the Asus ROG tax you could run the ASRock Z390 Phantom Gaming ITX/AC.  7 power phase with 60 amp chokes.  Thats fewer than the Asus but reviewers seem to like it.
https://www.tweaktown.com/articles/...-gaming-itx-ac-motherboard-preview/index.html
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13407/intel-z390-motherboard-overview-every-motherboard-analyzed/9
The Z390M Pro4 mATX is also a possibility for 4 ram slots and two PCIE full length.  10 power phase with 45 amp chokes.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13407/intel-z390-motherboard-overview-every-motherboard-analyzed/10

I would go for G Skill 3200 C14 TridentZ if you want the best ram.


----------



## Animalpak (Mar 6, 2019)

king of swag187 said:


> I'd decide if you actually need to upgrade, and go from there.
> 
> Board: If you're deadset on Z390 (or 1151 in general) I can give a high recommendation to Gigabyte's Z390 lineup of boards, very spartan but can cool their VRM's with ease and handle a 9900K for good prices.
> 
> ...





I want to go to z390 because i've always had Intel chipsets and intel CPUs.

I am skeptical and frightened to switch to another brand of motherboards. I do not know but i have the feeling that i will not find the same things as with the ASUS boards.

So on these two components i do not move ( Intel CPU/Mobo), i point on the 9900k because i upgrade rarely and only after at least 4-5 years of use, i need components that are top notch. I know that i will spend a lot, but at least I will not have to worry about upgrading year after year





Vario said:


> Do you desire the KF series because it may be cheaper (lacks iGPU)?
> To save money over the Asus ROG tax you could run the ASRock Z390 Phantom Gaming ITX/AC.  7 power phase with 60 amp chokes The Z390M Pro4 mATX is also a possibility for 4 ram slots and two PCIE full length.  10 power phase with 45 amp chokes.
> https://www.tweaktown.com/articles/...-gaming-itx-ac-motherboard-preview/index.html
> 
> I would go for G Skill 3200 C14 TridentZ if you want the best ram.



Thanks for the advice but i would like you to recommend me a micro ATX board,i do not want more mini ATX motherboards

Those ram's have the same price as the dominators rgb, so for me is just an aesthetic question which to choose.


----------



## Vario (Mar 6, 2019)

CAS Latency 14 means it has the Samsung B-Die ICs.  I think the ram kit you picked is C16.


----------



## ArbitraryAffection (Mar 6, 2019)

Maybe... just maybe wait for July-ish with the 4790K. It is not a bad CPU. btw I say this because *Ryzen 3000 may be a game changer*. Even if you don't want to get an AMD, _there is a possibility Intel may reduce pricing of current CPUs_, such as 9900K, potentially by a lot.

But remember: don't let the Intel Mindshare get you. I can understand your skeptisim over current Ryzen, sure, the Intels are better in games (if only by a small amount). But they are also a lot more expensive and the platform is pretty much dead end at this point.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Mar 6, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> But remember: don't let the Intel Mindshare get you


oh for god's sake do you guys ever get tired of shilling ? does a cpu purchase always have to be a manifestation of a person's subconscious for you?
only thing that is confirmed for ryzen 3xxx at this point is they're gonna be selling more cores as usual.


----------



## king of swag187 (Mar 6, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> Maybe... just maybe wait for July-ish with the 4790K. It is not a bad CPU. btw I say this because *Ryzen 3000 may be a game changer*. Even if you don't want to get an AMD, _there is a possibility Intel may reduce pricing of current CPUs_, such as 9900K, potentially by a lot.
> 
> But remember: don't let the Intel Mindshare get you. I can understand your skeptisim over current Ryzen, sure, the Intels are better in games (if only by a small amount). But they are also a lot more expensive and the platform is pretty much dead end at this point.


"Small amount"
10fps at a *minimum*
Also, I wouldn't rely on Ryzen 3000, diminishing returns and all that. All the leaks are quite promising however, a 16 core CPU with half decent IPC for $500


----------



## cucker tarlson (Mar 6, 2019)

at this point we should wait and see whether we'll be getting a real "game changer" or a mainstrem threadripper with a +300MHz clock boost.
I think some people gotta understand that a person who runs a 240hz monitor has other needs than that.

I think when it comes to ram to feed a 9900k and a 240hz monitor get yourself a 3600 cl16 kit and see what extra oc you can get out of it at the same latency.it plenty fast out of the box,anything more is just a bonus.A budget-conscious choice would be 3200 cl16 and oc.


----------



## adulaamin (Mar 6, 2019)

I'm in the same boat. I've had my 4790k since I bought it a few weeks after it's release date. Like you, I upgrade CPU, mobo, and RAM every 4-5 years. I was able to buy a 4 x 16 gb 3600mhz C17 G. Skill kit for cheap a couple of months ago and I had my mind set on a 9900K and an ASUS Maximus XI Formula until I thought about waiting for Ryzen. My only problem is if Ryzen doesn't release around May which is when I'm gonna be upgrading. I've been looking at used 8700K/8086K as well and I think that's the route I'm going to take unless Ryzen releases around May or I can find a good deal for a 9900K.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Mar 6, 2019)

I got 5775c as a replacement for 4790k in 2017,it's still ploughing through games nicely.I'm able to get 150-160 fps in BF1 unless the map is gpu limited at less than that.


----------



## ArbitraryAffection (Mar 6, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> *oh for god's sake do you guys ever get tired of shilling* ? does a cpu purchase always have to be a manifestation of a person's subconscious for you?
> only thing that is confirmed for ryzen 3xxx at this point is they're gonna be selling more cores as usual.


Bit rich coming from you. ~shrug~ I'm not a shill, AMD cannot afford shills. I try to combat misinformation for free. Intel on the other hand.. Well they have the money to pay you  (jk).

Yes I am very passionate about this subject. Doesn't mean I'm a shill. I'm just a fanboy lol. But what I said makes sense. Ryzen 3000 could beat Skylake clock for clock, match it in GHz and have more cores on top of that. But I don't mind if you wanna pay 50% mark-up more for an overheating potato with security vulnerabilities. Thats none of my business . (this is a light-hearted poke of fun btw. Just thought i'd clear that up).

I am actualy a bit offended that you would call me a shill, which i find a bit hypocritical honeslty but I'm not here to argue with you i've said my piece 



king of swag187 said:


> "Small amount"
> 10fps at a *minimum*
> Also, I wouldn't rely on Ryzen 3000, diminishing returns and all that. All the leaks are quite promising however, a 16 core CPU with half decent IPC for $500


It's a small amount. Yes Intel wins at 240 Hz so yes he should get an intel for that. As i said i was simply saying he could save money if Intel decide to cut prices. Which is a possibility. I always like to put forward another option. And yes I am a Ryzen fan.

My 2700X manages 144Hz in many matches on Warframe, and solid 144fps in Paladins. It is almost always over 80ps in the former, even when _lots_ of stuff is happening. Intels get maybe 20% more FPS so you'd be looking at 95-100fps with an Intel 9900K. Is that really worth paying more than twice as much for? The 9900K is almost useless for gaming because 9700K is consistently matching it and is 100 bux cheaper. But the OP wants future proof so i agree the 9900K with its 16 threads is looking more future ready. But maybe he can save some money if Intel price cut, see what i am saying? Actually who am i kidding they wont because people like you will pay whatever they charge XD.

If Ryzen 3000 comes out and Intel loses the gaming leadership, I would like to see you eating your words please~


----------



## cucker tarlson (Mar 6, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> I try to combat misinformation for free


by suggesting that his mindshare fooled him into thinking that an unreleased *even more heavily productivity-oriented *amd cpu is a better choice than a "potato" 9900k for a 240hz monitor.
sounds not misinformed at all to me.
There's scenarios where Ryzen wins hands down,there's ones where it's competitive,there's ones where it wins by delivering good performance but at lower price.This is neither of them.


----------



## ArbitraryAffection (Mar 6, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> by suggesting that his mindshare fooled him into thinking that an unreleased even more productivity-oriented amd cpu is a better choice than a "potato" 9900k for a 240hz monitor.
> sounds not misinformed at all to me.


I didn't say it is better. I said it _could _be better. the key word in my post is *may*. Not *will*. 

Okay you're right about the mindshare remark, i apologise for that. I didn't mean it offensively.

*edit: i'm just going to shut my stupid figurative mouth and never say anything about recommending hardware ever again. Sorry I said anything.*


----------



## cucker tarlson (Mar 6, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> I didn't say it is better. I said it _could _be better. the key word in my post is *may*. Not *will*.
> 
> Okay you're right about the mindshare remark, i apologise for that. I didn't mean it offensively.


I just think we should wait and see,you're hyping this thing up,do you ever learn to wait for it to drop ?
It could be better,but it's just as possible it's a productitivity oriented cpu with a core increase.



ArbitraryAffection said:


> *edit: i'm just going to shut my stupid figurative mouth and never say anything about recommending hardware ever again. Sorry I said anything.*


lol,just be patient.I don't think I ever recommended someone buy a cpu that does not exist,has no release date and the performance is unknown.I think you should stick to that too.
You gotta understand that more than 16 threads can't do dick for the OP. 9900K is the highest he can get from a gaming oriented cpu still made using the ring bus that clocks at 5GHz.
You got a point about the pricing though.



ArbitraryAffection said:


> Actually who am i kidding they wont because people like you will pay whatever they charge XD.


there's no need for that.
and it sounds silly from a person who bought a 2700x just cause their corez were selling cheaper than intel's.


----------



## Charcharo (Mar 6, 2019)

With all being said, aren't productivity CPUs no less important than "Gaming" CPUs? 

I'd argue that they are more important. They bring value be it in art/media or scientific/engineering work or even medicine/startups/university students. The advancement of humanity, however small, is a big deal. 

Still we shall see. For simple gaming, I expect the 9900K to still be king, but for Intel to lose pretty much every other scenario + prosumers + large portions of the Computing markets. And the 3000 series to be very good in gaming still and make all CPUs under 9700K/9900K obsolete in that too.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Mar 6, 2019)

Charcharo said:


> With all being said, aren't productivity CPUs no less important than "Gaming" CPUs?
> 
> *I'd argue that they are more important.* They bring value be it in art/media or scientific/engineering work or even medicine/startups/university students. The advancement of humanity, however small, is a big deal.
> 
> Still we shall see. For simple gaming, I expect the 9900K to still be king, but for Intel to lose pretty much every other scenario + prosumers + large portions of the Computing markets. And the 3000 series to be very good in gaming still and make all CPUs under 9700K/9900K obsolete in that too.


they are.


----------



## Vario (Mar 6, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> Intels get maybe 20% more FPS so you'd be looking at 95-100fps with an Intel 9900K. Is that really worth paying more than twice as much for? The 9900K is almost useless for gaming because 9700K is consistently matching it and is 100 bux cheaper. But the OP wants future proof so i agree the 9900K with its 16 threads is looking more future ready. But maybe he can save some money if Intel price cut, see what i am saying? Actually who am i kidding they wont because people like you will pay whatever they charge XD.


Looks to me like you just made an argument in favor of the purchase of the 9900K.  It does fit both his needs and budget quite well.  And I would say if it is indeed 20% better, we really need a source on that number, that is an entire generation faster.  Also need to consider minimum frame rate in currently demanding games and the 9900K does that much better than the 2700X.  Minimum frame rate is more important than maximum anyway.  That is when you notice the dip in performance while playing and say "this isn't smooth enough".  The gap in minimum frame rate will worsen as both CPUs age.
See the benchmarks shown here
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/10


----------



## Charcharo (Mar 6, 2019)

Vario said:


> Looks to me like you just made an argument in favor of the purchase of the 9900K.  It does fit both his needs and budget quite well.  And I would say if it is indeed 20% better, we really need a source on that number, that is an entire generation faster.  Also need to consider minimum frame rate in currently demanding games and the 9900K does that much better than the 2700X.  Minimum frame rate is more important than maximum anyway.  That is when you notice the dip in performance while playing and say "this isn't smooth enough".  The gap in minimum frame rate will worsen as both CPUs age.
> See the benchmarks shown here
> https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/10



The WoT Encore benchmark is no longer relevant for the game.


----------



## Vario (Mar 6, 2019)

Charcharo said:


> The WoT Encore benchmark is no longer relevant for the game.


Sure only picked that one to post the URL because it is the first gaming benchmark that Anandtech has in that multipage review.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Mar 6, 2019)

just accept things for what they are.that's a start.and that's actually all there is to it.


----------



## Vario (Mar 6, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> so i accept that all the things in my head for ryzen since 2017 are all lies
> 
> actually you know what i'm done for today, i dont want to embarras myself further


You are not your computer.  Your computer does not define who you are as a person and does not define or limit your personal value.  Your computer is respectable.  If you had a lesser computer would that make you a lesser man? No.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Mar 6, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> so i accept that all the things in my head for ryzen since 2017 are all lies


I don't know what they are,so I can neither confirm or disagree.
Sounds like a case of too high expectations and lack of perspective.
I don't think ryzen disappoints a person who looked at the numbers in reviews and said "that's what I want".


----------



## ArbitraryAffection (Mar 6, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> I don't know what they are,so I can neither confirm or disagree.
> Sounds like a case of too high expectations and lack of perspective.
> I don't think ryzen disappoints a person who looked at the numbers in reviews and said "that's what I want".


The grass is always greener on the other side and I am extremely fickle. Ryzen gives me more than enough FPS in my games for me to be happy and also let's me do wcg better for less money I think. Now that I'm passionate about that.. the problem is everyone tells me Ryzen sucks for gaming and I start questioning my choices and get upset over it.

Go ask anyone from disqus on wccftech about the user "kittens". I was a complete mess there too. I am the dictionary definition of fickle


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Mar 6, 2019)

Not sure why this thread turned into a AMD vs Intel debate lol. I agree though being this close to Ryzen 3000 it makes a lot of sense to wait a couple months and see how the 2 compare. The 4790k is still more than fast enough for your GPU. With your original question about Ram if all you're needing is 16gb kit I would go with whatever 3200 CL14 kit you like.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Mar 6, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> The grass is always greener on the other side and I am extremely fickle. Ryzen gives me more than enough FPS in my games for me to be happy and also let's me do wcg better for less money I think. Now that I'm passionate about that.. the problem is everyone tells me Ryzen sucks for gaming and I start questioning my choices and get upset over it.
> 
> Go ask anyone from disqus on wccftech about the user "kittens". I was a complete mess there too. I am the dictionary definition of fickle


lol,no one says it sucks for gaming,with the exception of you saying we all do  what you should've understood from this exchange is that different people have different priorities when it comes to hardware shopping,not that ryzen sucks. neither amd nor intel have found a formula for a cpu solution that'd dominate *every* possible use and scenario.


----------



## ArbitraryAffection (Mar 6, 2019)

I'm sorry for making an idiot of myself and getting the thread off topic


----------



## cucker tarlson (Mar 6, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> I'm sorry for making an idiot of myself and getting the thread off topic


well he might wait for the 3xxx in the end so your hard work could produce something to show for it actually


----------



## Animalpak (Mar 6, 2019)

Guys thank you for your respectable opinions and knowledge that you have shared on AMD CPUs.

But I will never go to AMD I'm sorry with all due respect.





Vario said:


> Do you desire the KF series because it may be cheaper (lacks iGPU)?




I forgot Vario, yes i hope 9900KF will be cheaper and from what i heard, they can use the extra dedicated part as GPU ( they call it black silicon when is unactive ) to improve the  thermal of the CPU. A better heat spread and more stable overclock. Maaaaaaaybe will be cooler and OC better than the regular 9900K.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Mar 6, 2019)

https://www.scan.co.uk/products/int...tm_medium=awin&utm_campaign=Editorial+Content 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...80684i99900kf_boxed_intel_core_i9_9900kf.html

From everything I've seen/read the KF will be more expensive and the temp difference will be negligible. Also since these are likely cpu that have defective igpu your're still playing the silicon lottery as far as how they overclock at a given voltage.


----------



## Vario (Mar 6, 2019)

Animalpak said:


> Guys thank you for your respectable opinions and knowledge that you have shared on AMD CPUs.
> 
> But I will never go to AMD I'm sorry with all due respect.
> 
> ...


With previous Intel CPU missing IGP, it doesn't run cooler nor does it overclock higher.  Usually its about the same price too.  I would just get the 9900K because the IGP can be useful for certain situations such as if you are troubleshooting a graphics card.  Probably will hold its value better too.


----------



## Mats (Mar 6, 2019)

Animalpak said:


> I forgot Vario, yes i hope 9900KF will be cheaper and from what i heard, they can use the extra dedicated part as GPU ( they call it black silicon when is unactive ) to improve the  thermal of the CPU. A better heat spread and more stable overclock. Maaaaaaaybe will be cooler and OC better than the regular 9900K.


<My reply contains speculations>

That's a *big* maybe. Don't expect miracles.  You're looking at the hottest mainstream CPU (possibly ever) made by Intel. This is not the time to upgrade if you do it every 5 years. If you upgrade every 2 years then I wouldn't say anything.

If I was all set on Intel I'd wait until whatever 10 nm shows up. (Yeah some people here will say it's like waiting for HL3.) That i7 4790K is solid, but then again I don't know what you're using it for. 

Intels Ice lake is supposed to be the biggest upgrade in maybe 10 years. Do you want to miss out on that?
https://www.techpowerup.com/250573/...-combine-sunny-cove-cpu-cores-with-gen11-igpu


----------



## John Naylor (Mar 7, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> If Ryzen 3000 comes out and Intel loses the gaming leadership, I would like to see you eating your words please~



As much as I would like to see a competitive market place, AMD has a mindshare issue.  Among the uninformed it's the medal thing ... everyone remembers who won the gold medal but no one remembers the silver, that guy / gal never makes the cover of the Wheaties box and they don't make the magazine covers and talk shows.  But the other side of it has nothing to do with bias, but their own actions.

HBM is gonna change everything
Mantle is gonna change everything
More cores is gonna change everything

Now for the loyal brand followers, whether it be MoBo brands, CPU brands, GFX Card brands, they don't see the numbers.   This is the source of the  "this xxx thing overclocked is almost as fast as the other brand's yyy" posts that never seem to consider the fact that the other thing can be OCd too.   Or "Yeah but while it isn't as fast in the things we do everyday, it is faster in things that we almost never do".     For the "hardware whores" out there that just look at the numbers, too many folks has had the itch to upgrade, waited 6 months to see if the promises pan out  and when they repeatedly fail to deliver on the promises, that has an impact.    Sometimes, that costs money but everytime when the promises don't pan out, folks get frustrated and resentment sets in.  So while folks used to be content waiting to see what happens, past disappointments from letting that itch go unscratched so long "for nothing" has made that much less of a popular option.

I don't think it's a "Ryzen sucks for gaming thing" given the choice, if ya live in a  city with two sports teams .... (Jets / Giants ... Mets / Yankees ... Knicks / Nets ... Rangers / Islanders) outside the life long fans, the tickets everyone wants are the ones with a shot at the title.  If ya go to the souvenier stand, you won't find a giant foam finger saying "We're No. 2".\

Now with that out of the way to the OP's questions ...

1.  If ya not in a rush ... nothing wrong with waiting.   Not for release tho ... we alays recommend waiting for the 2nd or 3rd steppings on componentry.   Look what happened on the early 20xx series cards for example.  Sometimes it's the base hardware (P67 MoBos) , sometimes it's just certain models (i.e. EVGA 970, EVGA 1060 - 1080s)

2.  The approach we recommend is price out two systems, figure out the relative performance and price it out.   If you will be overclocking, make sure that is accounted for.  If secondary features matter, (i.e. GFX card fans off on idle, power usage, increased cost from higher temps and bigger PSUs, etc ...), make sure that is accounted for.  If you will be overclocking, factor in the performance.   If cost matters, forget the prices of individual components, just the total. 

3.  The Hardware

a) - Asus Maximus XI Gene ( micro ATX ) ... things have changed much in recent years ... up thru Z87, we were pretty much an Asus shop.  Asus peformance tanked with Z87 / Z97 MoBos but came back with Z170, but then they decided to start using lower quality sound and LAN subsystems while competition did not ... then after on other manufacturer's followed suit.   I understand your comfort level from the Asus "of the old days"; I am using an Asus Maximus Formula and despite waiting for the C.1 stepping which resolved many problems, it's sti;l been a horror story and tech support is now non-existent.   When you call, they take a message and never call back...when you email they provide answers to questions you never asked but don't answer the ones you did.  Not that MSI and Giga are all that much better.n  Asus still has the most navigable BIOS.   Since Z97, I'd say about 50% of our builds have had MSi, 490% Gigglebyte and 10% Asus, the latter being from the TUF series.   Then there's the RoG tax which adds 450- $75 for having the RoG logo.  I can say definitely that you "will not find the same things as with the ASUS boards" from 5 years ago..

My issues with this specific board are 1) reviews have not been good with cons including, Only two DIMM slots, doesn't support dual graphics cards in x8/x8 mode, No legacy SATA M.2 support, despite having only four SATA ports, Enabling CPU storage drops PCIe x16 slot to x8 mode, high RAM voltage when using the double capacity stuff.  Has solid voltage regulation but it experiences extreme temps, WiFi if not usually "a thing" on a  desktop, good LAN and audio subsystems.  User reviews from board owners have not been good either.   At $500+, I see it as far too much of a risk with no return on investment whatsoever.     Before making a recommendation, I'd need to know the intended use of this build.   If it's for gaming, I'd suggest something in the $150 - $200 price range.

Mini ITX seems to have been given short shrift w/ 390 with few ITX boards available and of those, none of them strike my fancy.  So concur with your desire to go mATX,

MSI MPG Z390M Gaming Edge AC - DDR4 support tops out at 4500l ALC 1220, Intel I219-V, 5 fan headers, 8 + 4 pin EATX connector
Gigabyte Z390 M Gaming Aorus Pro WIFI - DDR4 support tops out at 2666, substandard Realtek ALC892, Intel GbE LAN chip, 4 fan headers, 8 + 4 pin EATX connector
Asus TUF 390M Gaming  -DDR4 support tops out at 4266, ALC 1220, Intel I219-V, 5 fan headers, 8 pin EATX connector only

There's a pair of TUF MoBos from Asus in the $250 range but they are very new such that I'd rtather let someone else suffer the bleeding edge.

of those 3, have to rec0mmend the MSI ... it also has the best user reviews on newegg

b)  - i7 9900 KF ( currently im waiting for the release date ) .... I see the logic, but that IGP provides a nice option for a 2nd monitor.  Again, if gaming, it's very big $ spike to go from 9600k to 9900k with very, very little to be gained over 9600k / 9700k

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_9600K/images/relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png

c)  - Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB DDR4 3200 mhz 2x8 GB  <<< please give me advice for the speed i see and heard that 3200mhz is enough and in games actually you get more FPS

Some games respond to lower CAS some games respond to more speed.  Most are not affected to any observable extent.  Cost wise, the sweet spot is 3000 / CAS 15 or 3200 / CAS 16 better performance rings inordinate increase in pricing.

Gskill Trident Z as example
3000 / 15 costs about $115
3200 / 16 costs about $110
3300 / 16 costs about $165
3466 / 16 costs about $170
3600 / 17 costs about $165
3733 / 17 costs about $215
3866 / 18 costs about $216
4000 / 18 costs about $241
4133 / 19 costs about $215
4266 / 19 costs about $235
4400 / 19 costs about $280
4500 / 19 costs about $380

While it's not a "real value" or anything, when judging what combo makes sense, you can get an approximate relative ranking using CAS x 1000 / DDR speed... smalles numbers are better.  And of course, as was said above, some games react better to lower CAS, some to higher speed and some not at all.   The biggest impact in the past has been with min fps as opposed to average and in multi GPU performance.



Mats said:


> Intels Ice lake is supposed to be the biggest upgrade in maybe 10 years. Do you want to miss out on that?



Last I read (2018/08), 10nm was anticipated for 2020 ... and with the problems / delays they have had on 14nm, I expect that has been pushed back too, Have you seen anything newer ?


----------



## Mats (Mar 7, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> Last I read (2018/08), 10nm was anticipated for 2020 ... and with the problems / delays they have had on 14nm, I expect that has been pushed back too, Have you seen anything newer ?


I know, it doesn't look good. The last thing I heard was that 10 nm Ice lake mobile is planned for the end of this year, but given that the rarely seen 10 nm Cannon lake Core i3-8121U has been on the market for 6 months, I don't find that hard to believe. The GPU is disabled, and an AMD Radeon 540 is used instead. which is odd for a budget model. Makes you wonder what issues Intel have with the graphics..

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/boards-kits/nuc/mini-pcs/nuc8i3cysn.html
https://geizhals.eu/intel-nuc-8-hom....html?hloc=at&hloc=de&hloc=eu&hloc=pl&hloc=uk

Cannon lake in itself isn't that interesting, it just shows that 10 nm works in some capacity, which we already know. The question is how long it will take to make  an Ice lake CPU faster than a 9900K.
The only Cannon lake review I've seen is looong, and is more interesting for those who wants to read up on Intel's delays rather than the product itself. *Except for AVX512...*




https://www.anandtech.com/show/13405/intel-10nm-cannon-lake-and-core-i3-8121u-deep-dive-review


----------



## Vario (Mar 7, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> a) - Asus Maximus XI Gene ( micro ATX ) ... things have changed much in recent years ... up thru Z87, we were pretty much an Asus shop.  Asus peformance tanked with Z87 / Z97 MoBos but came back with Z170, but then they decided to start using lower quality sound and LAN subsystems while competition did not ... then after on other manufacturer's followed suit.   I understand your comfort level from the Asus "of the old days"; I am using an Asus Maximus Formula and despite waiting for the C.1 stepping which resolved many problems, it's sti;l been a horror story and tech support is now non-existent.   When you call, they take a message and never call back...when you email they provide answers to questions you never asked but don't answer the ones you did.  Not that MSI and Giga are all that much better.n  Asus still has the most navigable BIOS.   Since Z97, I'd say about 50% of our builds have had MSi, 490% Gigglebyte and 10% Asus, the latter being from the TUF series.   Then there's the RoG tax which adds 450- $75 for having the RoG logo.  I can say definitely that you "will not find the same things as with the ASUS boards" from 5 years ago..


ASRock has been fantastic for me, they respond to tech support in a few hours and they will actually attempt to build a duplicate system with the same components as yours (CPU, RAM, MOBO) when they test it.


----------



## hat (Mar 7, 2019)

I agree with waiting for Zen 2 at this point. It may finally overtake Intel. Or it may not. If you don't want a bajillion cores, there are going to be lessor models with less cores available. In any case, it's bound to shake things up in the CPU market, a bit. If Zen 2 fails to impress, or you still want Intel for some reason, at least the prices should be lower.

If you must buy right now, might I suggest taking a look at the 9700k instead? You still get 8 cores. You just give up HT and save $100. No HT would mean lower temps too. They'll all clock up to around the same 5GHz mark, anyway. These chips are already damn close to the limit out of the box.


----------



## RealNeil (Mar 7, 2019)

Sounds like he's dead set against AMD parts for his system, so maybe we should respect that choice.

To the OP: Your parts choices are good. 
I have a 9900K ready to build here, but my current PC is an 8700K and it's pretty sweet for gaming and such. 

I'll end up keeping both of them.


----------



## Vario (Mar 7, 2019)

I'd still consider getting the ram that is B-Die if it is the same price as the Corsair ram you selected. It overclocks a lot better than any other brand/model of ram.  You can get corsair that is B die as well.  You are paying a premium to have the Dominator Platinum heatsink on it, might as well have good ICs as well since thats the part that matters.  Otherwise, just buy cheaper ram.  It really doesn't matter much for gaming as long as its over 3200.  C16 is fine.   But if you are into overclocking, keep in mind B die can overclock into the upper 4000s.  If overclocking and benchmarking is your thing, it would be worth it.
This site shows you which kits have it.  https://benzhaomin.github.io/bdiefinder/


----------



## Animalpak (Mar 10, 2019)

Guys know that goes against everything i said but i found some deals on z270 chipset a local store still sells some brand new Asus Maximus IX Apex for 280.- swiss francs








And on a site of small ads in my region i found a new i7 7700K CPU never used and opened with warranty valid until October 2019 for 300.- swiss francs

For RAM i will pick up something like you guys mention 3000/3200 C16.

Also i need to change the case to an ATX one mine is only micro ATX

Is it too old z270 and the 7700k?  I state that so i save a lot of money and i do not have to wait for the 9900KF that costs as much as this system alone.


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 10, 2019)

You're wasting your money by going with yet another quad core, get the hex core at least even it it's locked. 7700k is seriously bad value & even less of an upgrade than say 8700k -> 9900k, if you're getting it dirt cheap sure go ahead but it's still not worth it IMO.


----------



## RealNeil (Mar 10, 2019)

I agree. The six or eight-core CPUs are much better now, and will remain so for a lot longer.
8700K is pretty sweet for the money.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Mar 10, 2019)

I agree with the last 2 post that 7700k would be a pretty big waste of an upgrade vs going with a slightly more expensive 8700k or 9700k... Your hate for AMD is much more than I originally thought if you're willing to spend that much on a dead platform over a 2700 that is substantially more future proof and probably cheaper.


----------



## hat (Mar 10, 2019)

Another vote against the 7700k. No reason to get another quad core when you already have a 4790k.


----------



## king of swag187 (Mar 11, 2019)

A OC'd 4790K will come close to a stock 7700K, no point in when a 2600X/8600K will beat it.


----------



## FireFox (Mar 11, 2019)

I read just 3 or 4 posts and i noticed that as always when it comes to provide help about choosing a CPU the Thread turn into an Intel vs AMD debate, does it always has to be that way?


----------



## Vario (Mar 11, 2019)

Animalpak said:


> Guys know that goes against everything i said but i found some deals on z270 chipset a local store still sells some brand new Asus Maximus IX Apex for 280.- swiss francs
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My opinion is I would rather have an i5 8400 than a i7 7700K.  The 7700K is in reality only one generation newer than the 4790K, if you ignore the poor selling broadwell.  Its the same CPU as the 6700K.  The biggest innovation in the Lake architecture over Haswell besides DDR4 was really just having 6 or 8 cores instead of 4.  Don't buy a quad core in 2019 if your intention is a high end gaming system.  Get at-least a six core.  Don't buy a Z270.  Don't pay the Asus ROG tax on a 3 year old motherboard. 
Don't buy 3000/3200 C16 if you can find 3000 or 3200 C14 instead for the same price, the lower latency means it has the higher quality Samsung B Die that can be overclocked to the mid 4000s easily.  The C16 stuff is lower quality ICs.



Knoxx29 said:


> I read just 3 or 4 posts and i noticed that as always when it comes to provide help about choosing a CPU the Thread turn into an Intel vs AMD debate, does it always has to be that way?


----------



## Animalpak (Mar 13, 2019)

Vario im a big fan of the Republic of Gamers brand and Asus motherboards in general ... 

Thanks guys for all the advice means alot for me. The 9900KF is close to be release and is just 60-70 swiss francs cheaper than the 9900K.

I found a ROG Maximus X APEX Z370 motherboard again brand new that is cheaper than the Z390 Gene ( my first and only choice ) for 281.- swiss francs a good deal !








The z370 chipset supports core i9 via BIOS upgrade. I will spare some money with this motherboard that also i like alot for features and design.

The rest of the Maximus z390 line is expensive and with things and others stuff that i dont need, i just want a system that performs high and overclock's well and stable.

But a question how im gonna upgrade a brand new motherboard BIOS with the 9900KF on it ? If at least will boot on the BIOS i will able to upgrade it via USB stick ( the only way to upgrade it )


----------



## moproblems99 (Mar 13, 2019)

Animalpak said:


> The z270 chipset supports core i9 via BIOS upgrade. I will spare some money with this motherboard that also i like alot for features and design.



You may wanna double check the power delivery on that board.  The 9900K isn't gentle.


----------



## Vario (Mar 13, 2019)

Animalpak said:


> The z270 chipset supports core i9 via BIOS upgrade. I will spare some money with this motherboard that also i like alot for features and design.
> 
> The rest of the Maximus z390 line is expensive and with things and others stuff that i dont need, i just want a system that performs high and overclock's well and stable.
> 
> But a question how im gonna upgrade a brand new motherboard BIOS with the 9900KF on it ? If at least will boot on the BIOS i will able to upgrade it via USB stick ( the only way to upgrade it )



First I want to check, you mean Z370 correct? Because Z270 requires hardware modification to support Coffeelake processors as the socket is different.  I assume Z370 as you show the Maximus X, but wanted to be sure.

To update the bios
https://rog.asus.com/technology/republic-of-gamers-motherboard-innovations/usb-bios-flashback/


> Since it's first introduction on the Rampage III Series motherboards, USB BIOS Flashback has become the simplest and most fail-safe method of (UEFI) BIOS updating possible. Simply drop the (UEFI) BIOS file onto a FAT32 formatted USB stick, plug it into the USB BIOS Flashback port and press the Flashback button next to it. No CPU or memory install is needed, _only_ the ATX power connector is required.






moproblems99 said:


> You may wanna double check the power delivery on that board.  The 9900K isn't gentle.


Maximus X Apex is a good board and should be able to run a 9900K...  it was considered one of the best Z370 boards for the 8700K.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Mar 13, 2019)

I think the gene would likely overclock higher or at least more stable with a 9900k you also wouldn't have to hassle with either buying a cheap coffee lake cpu or getting a shop to update the bios for you which could also cost you more money... Asus switched up the design for better transient response on their Z390 motherboards ditching doublers. On the Z370 Apex it looks like an 8 phase with doublers on the gene you have 10 power stages grouped in 2 which makes it technically a really strong 5 phase that should outperform an 8 phase with doublers. I believe the Z390 apex is something crazy like a 16 power stage 8 phase and actually may be the best motherboard for you because it lacks igp support using those power stages for the CPU. 

More info on the z390 Gene









More on the z390 Apex









maybe all this is redundant and you've already done a ton of research on these asus motherboards you love. My Asus Maximus XI Code handles a 9900k at 5.1ghz no problem and both the Z390 Gene/Apex have better Vrm.


----------



## Vario (Mar 13, 2019)

oxrufiioxo said:


> I think the gene would likely overclock higher or at least more stable with a 9900k you also wouldn't have to hassle with either buying a cheap coffee lake cpu or getting a shop to update the bios for you which could also cost you more money... Asus switched up the design for better transient response on their Z390 motherboards ditching doublers. On the Z370 Apex it looks like an 8 phase with doublers on the gene you have 10 power stages grouped in 2 which makes it technically a really strong 5 phase that should outperform an 8 phase with doublers. I believe the Z390 apex is something crazy like a 16 power stage 8 phase and actually may be the best motherboard for you because it lacks igp support using those power stages for the CPU.
> 
> More info on the z390 Gene
> 
> ...


He will not have any problems updating his bios without a processor because the board supports the USB BIOS Flashback feature that does not require a CPU installed to flash the bios.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Mar 13, 2019)

Vario said:


> He will not have any problems updating his bios without a processor because the board supports the USB BIOS Flashback feature that does not require a CPU installed to flash the bios.


That's good to know.. I'm actually on my first Asus motherboard previously I've always used MSI I just didn't care for the MEG ACE.


----------



## Vario (Mar 13, 2019)

oxrufiioxo said:


> That's good to know.. I'm actually on my first Asus motherboard previously I've always used MSI I just didn't care for the MEG ACE.


I was all ready to dispense advice to buy a celeron, an ebay bios chip, or have a shop flash it then I found on Asus's forum that these motherboards have that ability USB BIOS Flashback CPU-less flash function, which sounds fantastic.


----------



## Animalpak (Mar 13, 2019)

Asus claims on the support page that the 9900K and 9900KF are fully supported by the Maximus X APEX z370. ( of course after BIOS update )

So guys do i REALLY need a higher number of VRM components to feed a 9900KF with a light overlock ? I dont want to compete or to let the CPU working at the highest O.C that i can get ( it depends of the chip i know ). Silicone lottery we all know.

For this year i will use it by default and next year i will begin to raise the CPU clock until i get to push it to the maximum in its last years of life.

So i can have a CPU that is still fresh from overclocking and use it when there are more powerful CPUs around


----------



## Vario (Mar 13, 2019)

Animalpak said:


> Asus claims on the support page that the 9900K and 9900KF are fully supported by the Maximus X APEX z370. ( of course after BIOS update )
> 
> So guys do i REALLY need a higher number of VRM components to feed a 9900KF with a light overlock ? I dont want to compete or to let the CPU working at the highest O.C that i can get ( it depends of the chip i know ). Silicone lottery we all know.
> 
> ...


Should be fine I think.  A lot of people had good results with 8700Ks on that board.  I am not an expert on VRM though.  The Overclock.net Z370/390 VRM discussion rated it pretty high.  Despite its 8+2 power phase design compared to the 10+2 Taichi and 16 powerphase MEG Godlike.  A lot of the Z390 top end designs were recycled from Z370 top end designs.  Maybe someone more experienced with this can comment.  For some reason the Overclock.net Z370/390 VRM discussion thread is unable to load for me.




> The ASUS Maximus X Apex comes with a digital 8+2 phase power design. The power design on this board is pretty solid and it's good for extreme overclocking. Digging a little bit deeper into the details we find a PWM controller that's been labelled ASP1405I, which might be an IR35201 fully digital PWM controller that offers up to 8 phases. Each PWM phase from the digital PWM is doubled by an IR3599. On the PCB there are four of these chips. Furthermore there are ten IR3535 chips on the backside of the motherboard. The MOSFETs are Infineon OptiMOS BSG0812ND and they are rated for 50A.


https://ocaholic.ch/modules/publisher/item.php?page=3&itemid=4133



> The power delivery area in the Apex is in an 8+2 mode using ASUS's 10K capacitors as well as microfine alloy chokes. Driving these are the ASUS ASP14501 which is set up in a 4+2 phase configuration. Each phase for VCore from the digital PWM has doublers via IR3599 phase doublers. Each doubler outputs to an IR3535 driver which we counted 10 on the backside (2 for iGPU, 8 for CPU). The MOSFETs are Infineon OptimMOS BSG0812ND rated at 50A. The VRMs are fed from two 8-pin EPS 12V connectors (one is optional) found in the upper left-hand corner.


https://www.anandtech.com/show/12506/the-asus-rog-maximus-x-apex-review/2


der8auer


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Mar 13, 2019)

Animalpak said:


> Asus claims on the support page that the 9900K and 9900KF are fully supported by the Maximus X APEX z370. ( of course after BIOS update )
> 
> So guys do i REALLY need a higher number of VRM components to feed a 9900KF with a light overlock ? I dont want to compete or to let the CPU working at the highest O.C that i can get ( it depends of the chip i know ). Silicone lottery we all know.
> 
> ...



Just because a board supports a 9900k doesn't mean it'll do it well. Some 370/390 boards only maintain like a 4.4ghz boost but since it's over the base clock of 3.6ghz it's considered supported. The z370 Apex on the other hand should be fine depending on how good that heatsink is the vrm will run pretty hot though. I was just pointing out that the Z390 gene and apex are better. The 10 and 12 phase Z390 boards tend to have much cooler VRM compared to the 8 phases I've seen tested how much that matters will probably depend on how good a chip you get Some 9900k can't even maintain 4.9 stable regardless of voltage. mine does 5ghz at 1.28 and 5.1 at 1.325 both are really hard to cool even with a 360mm AIO as it is.


----------



## algamer (Mar 13, 2019)

Animalpak said:


> Guys i need some opinions about my next upgrade after 5 year im still using z97 chipset and the i7 4790k. Time for me is to step up, even i see that is still a good system.
> 
> Current setup:
> 
> ...



For 1070ti going for 9900k not sure i think even 9600k will match the 1070ti easily unless you are upgrading your gpu or you have specific reason for going with 9900k apart from gaming. future proof i dont think so as even other cpus 9600k/8700k/9700k are future proof for gaming for next 4 to 5 years easily.


----------

