Best CPU/GPU combo, and other important hardware factors for Paradox games

[Axe99]

It looks like this question hasn't been asked in a while (I've done a search, latest I could find was March this year, which is past the point where you get the warning for bumping the thread) - so thought I'd ask. Apologies if it's a re-run or it's been asked recently and I've messed up my search. If this thread is inappropriate, please kill with fire.

I spend probably about half the time on my PC playing games from PDS (and it's by far the heaviest load my CPU/GPU has to deal with) - and I'm in the fortunate position of being able to spend a bit more than usual on a new computer, so can tailor it a bit towards the performance I'm looking for (which, more or less, is good performance for PDS games). If anyone has any thoughts and is happy to share, I'd love to hear them.

 

[Furleppe]

For Paradox games, the golden rule was a very strong CPU with focus on single-threaded performance paired with good low-latency and high-frequency RAM (although lately some PDX titles got better at taking advantage of more cores/threads) and a sufficient mediocre GPU.

So atm the best would probably be any high tier (e.g 9900k, 10700k, 10900k and others) overclocked Intel CPU with a good cooler, but new Ryzen 5xxx series looks very tempting, if their single-threaded performance is as strong as they claim it to be. For GPU probably anything equal/above 1060 is ok.

 

[Axe99]

For Paradox games, the golden rule was a very strong CPU with focus on single-threaded performance paired with good low-latency and high-frequency RAM (although lately some PDX titles got better at taking advantage of more cores/threads) and a sufficient mediocre GPU.

So atm the best would probably be any high tier (e.g 9900k, 10700k, 10900k and others) overclocked Intel CPU with a good cooler, but new Ryzen 5xxx series looks very tempting, if their single-threaded performance is as strong as they claim it to be. For GPU probably anything equal/above 1060 is ok.

Many thanks I wasn't aware of the new Ryzen 5xxx series, and at least according the Passmark site their single-threaded performance looks like it'll be very good, and a deal cheaper than the same from a 9900/10900. Looks like they're due to debut this week too, so have sent a query to the store I was planning to use (I haven't built my own PC in over two decades, so was going to leave it to people that knew what they were doing!) to see if they'll get them in anytime soon. If not, I'll probably go with the 9900k. Very much appreciate your thoughts

 

[Vetgirig]

CPU
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X
GPU
AMD Radeon RX 6900

However they are very costly.

PS You asked for the best. Not the most optimal.

 

[Furleppe]

No problem.

Personally I upgraded form Xeon X5670 and Radeon 480 to Ryzen 3600 and GTX 1070 and I got a significant boost in performance in PDX games, although I didn't do any specific testing. Also, I will warn you that even the best CPU cannot prevent characteristic late-game lagging in PDX titles late-game. Sure, it will help, but PDX still has to optimize things on their end.

 

[Axe99]

CPU
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X
GPU
AMD Radeon RX 6900

However they are very costly.

PS You asked for the best. Not the most optimal.

Hahaha, right you are I don't have that much floating around though, so will go for something a bit more reasonable (not divorce-inducing is my general rule of thumb ). If you have any thoughts re something in the 9900 price range would be interested. Probably won't go higher than a 2070 graphics-wise, as I do my non-strategy gaming on PS4 (and eventually PS5, although new PC spend will push that back a bit), so really don't need much heft in the PC for that. Thoughts on RAM and motherboards (I'm keen on good heat management, and it looks like not all heat sinks are created equal) all very welcome, but appreciate if most people focus their thinking on CPU/GPU and RAM.

No problem.

Personally I upgraded form Xeon X5670 and Radeon 480 to Ryzen 3600 and GTX 1070 and I got a significant boost in performance in PDX games, although I didn't do any specific testing. Also, I will warn you that even the best CPU cannot prevent characteristic late-game lagging in PDX titles late-game. Sure, it will help, but PDX still has to optimize things on their end.

Oh aye, I'm not expecting that - the way the games are built means it will always slow down later in the game - but appreciate the heads-up I find I can't play Stellaris anymore, there's just far too much "sit and wait" time in-between the actual playing, so the main aim is to make Stellaris enjoyable again (Imperator Rome, while also being under min spec, is much more reasonable in terms of late-game lag, and HoI4/EU4 fine, and CK3 was the fastest of the lot, showing that they're not forgetting optimisation in their new titles ) - although I'm also hoping to do a degree (ideally 5+ years) of future-proofing as well.

 

[Mousetick]

Hi Axe

You may want to put some of your budget towards storage, while not spending too much on GPU if all the games you play on PC are Paradox in particular or non-graphics-intensive strategy in general. I don't know your current situation and whether you'll be recycling your current storage into the new box, but investing in some big and fast SSD would help in improving overall performance in games as well as regular usage.

I'm currently still using a spinning disk for my Paradox game saves, and I get very annoyed by the interruptions and pauses of the autosaves, which become worse over time as the game data increases in size.

Also you may want to buy plenty of RAM outright and not have to worry about it during this new system's lifetime. RAM is reportedly very cheap these days. I don't know how much RAM you have in your current setup, but 32 GB would be good, if not more. It may not be necessary to have that much RAM, but it's always nice to have more room, especially if you juggle between a lot of different simultaneously open applications, e.g. while tinkering with mods in Adobe Creative Cloud And as you have probably noticed from experience, newer applications are more and more memory-consuming. Just looking at the Paradox Launcher, for example: this little 'gadget' uses up about 250 MB of memory just by itself...

Regarding motherboards, your choice should be mainly driven by features, quality and support rather than performance. Don't fall for the 'gaming' motherboard gimmicks. Do you need to overclock? Do you need a lot of external ports to connect peripherals? Do you need Wi-Fi? Do you need Thunderbolt? Etc.

Regarding CPU cooling, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Unless you're overclocking, the stock cooler that comes with the CPU should be good enough. Heat (and noise) management will depend on how big a CPU, GPU and power supply you put in the box, and what kind of box it is. Some GPUs can turn their fans off when idle or under light load such as regular desktop usage, which is nice.

Cheers

 

[Axe99]

Thank you very much Mousetick, all very helpful thoughts, and very much appreciated After much thinking, and with the knowledge that the Ryzen 5 5600 likely won't be available soon enough for me to be confident the current machine will last that long, I'm going to go for the i9 9900 with a 6GB GTX 2060. Will place an order tomorrow as long as the store (or you/anyone here) doesn't tell me what I'm going with is daft.

I don't know your current situation and whether you'll be recycling your current storage into the new box, but investing in some big and fast SSD would help in improving overall performance in games as well as regular usage.

My current storage is an old 128GB SSD I installed into my Playstation3, that was repurposed when the original 128GB SSD on my current PC died - definitely won't be recycling, I'm probably lucky it's still running! Very much agree re the SSD and running the games off it - I can only fit HoI4 on my SSD, so EU4, Stellaris, CK3, Imperator and Vicky 2 have to live on the standard HDD. Current plan is a 500GB Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVMe - I'd like to go to 1GB, but realistically I can still store most of my non-gaming data (like modding assets) on the HDD. At least last time I checked, the SSD made a big difference on loading times as well, which is a big help with modding.

Regarding motherboards, your choice should be mainly driven by features, quality and support rather than performance. Don't fall for the 'gaming' motherboard gimmicks. Do you need to overclock? Do you need a lot of external ports to connect peripherals? Do you need Wi-Fi? Do you need Thunderbolt? Etc.

This is good to know - I probably won't go down the overclocking path, and don't need Wifi or Thunderbolt, so going for something fairly standard (ASUS Prime B365M-A).

I don't know how much RAM you have in your current setup, but 32 GB would be good, if not more.

Agreed and thanks I've ummed and ahhed about whether to go with 16GB or 32GB, and settled on 32GB of Team T-Force Dark Za 3200Mhz CL 16 DDR4 (it looks like it might be a bit faster than the CPU/motherboard can handle (although that's based on a super-sketchy understanding of how it all works), but it was either 2133 or 3000/3200 in terms of the options available with the store I'm going with). My current ram is 8GB at 1067Mhz, so all being well it'll be a noticeable difference.

Regarding CPU cooling, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Unless you're overclocking, the stock cooler that comes with the CPU should be good enough. Heat (and noise) management will depend on how big a CPU, GPU and power supply you put in the box, and what kind of box it is. Some GPUs can turn their fans off when idle or under light load such as regular desktop usage, which is nice.

I'm erring on the side of caution here, and possibly ridiculously, but I haven't had the best of luck with PCs, and the room I use it in can get quite warm, so think that might be contributing.

 

[Vetgirig]

Optimal build would be a Ryzen 3600, NVIDIA 2060 with 16M speced at 3200Mhz and a 500M to 1000M NVME SSD disk. The Ryzen 3600 really is the best CPU if you want performance/dollar. Sadly its replacement in the new CPU lineup has not been announce yet from AMD. Stock cooler for 3600 is better and you don't need an aftermarket one, like if you buy a more power hungry Intel CPU. If you only play Paradox game a 1660 Super should be good priceworthy option for GPU.

None of Paradox games benefit from 32M of internal memory so its overkill. NVME is really important for fast load times in games like Battletech who really suffer from playing from a HDD and for very fast autosaves in all games. .

Personally I use a Ryzen 3400G without a dedicated graphics card (but with a NVME SSD) and with it months fly fast even in late game for EU4 which is my main go to game. On speed 5 I find fps go down to 10-15 but I don't care since I prefer lower speeds when in war. Its a strategy game so fps is unimportant.

 

[Axe99]

None of Paradox games benefit from 32M of internal memory so its overkill.

Thank you very much for more thoughts Vetgirig I wouldn't have asked if I knew what I was talking about already, so appreciate all the input In terms of memory, I also do some photo editing, and have definitely bumped up against memory issues there (but with 8GB of ram) and I do want this machine to last a good while (half-decade at least). It's not much more to bump it up to 32GB, but I'll think about it some more. Back to the umming and ahhing stage

Optimal build would be a Ryzen 3600

Agree AMD better value/dollar, but I also want decent single-threaded performance (as per Furleppe's comment above), and all the AMDs in my price range looked like they didn't compare as well with the Intels on that front. I was just looking at the Passmark site, and so was looking at:

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 vs Intel Core i9-9900 @ 3.10GHz vs AMD Ryzen 7 3800X vs AMD Ryzen 9 3950X vs AMD Ryzen 5 3600X [cpubenchmark.net] by PassMark Software

No question the 3600 is (much) better value for money, but the only options I've got for Ryzens with the mob I'm buying through (they've got a great reputation and I've used them before, and I'd rather go with someone I know) is the 3600X, 3700X, 3800X and 3950X, and the i9 9900 has better single-core performance than all of them (on the other hand, all the AMDs have better multi-core performance, with the 3950X being super-strong). EU4 is also one of the better-performing PDS games - I enjoy playing that with my current Ryzen 5 1600, a low-ish end GPU and 8GB of 1067Mhz RAM - but Stellaris is so slow now I don't play it any more, and I miss it . Not suggestion the 3600 couldn't handle Stellaris, but I also want whatever I get to be able to handle whatever else might be on the horizon.

Its a strategy game so fps is unimportant.

Very much agree .

 

[Mousetick]

I've ummed and ahhed about whether to go with 16GB or 32GB, and settled on 32GB of Team T-Force Dark Za 3200Mhz CL 16 DDR4 (it looks like it might be a bit faster than the CPU/motherboard can handle (although that's based on a super-sketchy understanding of how it all works), but it was either 2133 or 3000/3200 in terms of the options available with the store I'm going with).

The specs for your selected motherboard (ASUS Prime B365M-A) and CPU (i9 9900) indicate that the max supported RAM speed is 2666 MHz, so it's a bit of a shame that your vendor can only supply you with 2133 or 3200. You'll be paying a (probably smallish, but still) premium for the 3200 RAM that will be wasted because the higher speed won't provide any benefit.

If you really have no other choice, personally for the same budget I would go with the lower speed (2133 vs. 2666), but more of it (32 GB vs. 16 GB), because I don't think the performance difference is really noticeable in normal usage (it's good for benchmarks and a few specialized cases, but that's about it) and because you're using a dedicated GPU with its own very fast RAM, while more RAM provides more flexibility and lets the OS cache more stuff in memory, speeding up everything.

Practical example: if you need to launch HOI 4 several times in a row, as you would typically do while testing a mod, you'll notice that the first launch after booting the computer is very slow, but subsequent launches are much faster due to caching. But if you launch, or work in, other applications in between HOI 4 launches, the OS may need to flush its cache to make room for the new activity, and the next HOI 4 launch will again be very slow.

TL;DR: The more RAM you have the more of it the OS can use for caching, bypassing slow disk access while switching between tasks. You can see the amount of RAM used for caching in Windows' Task Manager:

But of course that's just my preference. It may not apply to your needs or workloads.

I'm erring on the side of caution here, and possibly ridiculously, but I haven't had the best of luck with PCs, and the room I use it in can get quite warm, so think that might be contributing.

You're right to be worried about that, heat is bad for the pricey shiny electronics. However in the last few years components have much improved power-efficiency and generate less heat. The biggest source of heat in your setup would be the GPU, but since you won't be playing Call of Duty or mining bitcoins with it, it's probably not going to be an issue.

You could ask your vendor to suggest an aftermarket CPU cooler with a large heatsink and appropriate high-quality silent fan to go with, assuming they can fit in the case. But good cooling comes mostly from the case IMHO. If you want good cooling with low noise, a case with a couple of large (120 or 140mm) slow-spinning fans is preferable.

Just my 2 cents, take them for what they're worth

Good luck with your purchase!

 

[Axe99]

The specs for your selected motherboard (ASUS Prime B365M-A) and CPU (i9 9900) indicate that the max supported RAM speed is 2666 MHz, so it's a bit of a shame that your vendor can only supply you with 2133 or 3200. You'll be paying a (probably smallish, but still) premium for the 3200 RAM that will be wasted because the higher speed won't provide any benefit.

Many thanks again for your thoughts I hadn't looked at the CPU - thanks for pointing that out (but I had noticed the motherboard blocking it). Will umm and ahh some more - and see whether the 9900K/KF supports a higher speed of memory, as the mob that do the builds have a motherboard option for that chipset (Z-390P) that does support faster speeds (as best my mostly clueless brain can tell). I've got some wiggle room with finances (I could go with the 10700 and 32GB of RAM if I wanted to) but I don't want to pay a couple of hundred dollars more for differences in performance I'm unlikely to notice, and for higher power consumption to boot.

If you really have no other choice, personally for the same budget I would go with the lower speed (2133 vs. 2666), but more of it (32 GB vs. 16 GB), because I don't think the performance difference is really noticeable in normal usage (it's good for benchmarks and a few specialized cases, but that's about it) and because you're using a dedicated GPU with its own very fast RAM, while more RAM provides more flexibility and lets the OS cache more stuff in memory, speeding up everything.

Thanks - I've always had the "more RAM" mentality from waaaaaayyyyyyyy back (I wrote my first game on a 'PC' (it was PC-DOS or MS-DOS back then, but the line of computer development that ended up with windows) - a very simple thing of course - on a machine with 512k RAM ), and very much appreciate your thoughts .

Just my 2 cents, take them for what they're worth

They're very helpful indeed - I'd prefer to have a motherboard and chipset that can use the max frequency of the RAM if I can - and will look a little bit further as to how that all fits together Many thanks

 

[Mousetick]

Will umm and ahh some more - and see whether the 9900K/KF supports a higher speed of memory, as the mob that do the builds have a motherboard option for that chipset (Z-390P) that does support faster speeds (as best my mostly clueless brain can tell).

The 9900K/KF are based on the same chip as the 9900, and all are limited to 2666 MHz RAM (the memory controller is built into the chip). If you put faster RAM than that, it will work but at the max speed of 2666 MHz, unless you overclock but I would advise against going down that rabbit hole.

	Base speed	Max (turbo) speed	Overclockable	Integrated GPU	Heat dissipation	MSRP (USD)
i9 9900	3.10 GHz	5.00 GHz	No	Yes	65 W	$ 440
i9 9900K	3.60 GHz	5.00 GHz	Yes	Yes	95 W	$ 490
i9 9900KF	3.60 GHz	5.00 GHz	Yes	No	95 W	$ 470

You could go for the 9900KF, it's faster (base speed) and it lacks an integrated GPU, which you don't need. But not suprisingly it consumes and produces more power/heat. The 9900K looks like a bad deal (for you).

As others have mentioned in this thread, Intel CPUs don't benefit as much from faster RAM as AMD CPUs.

The Z-390 chipset provides more motherboard features (overclocking, Wi-Fi, Thunderbolt, more USB ports, more network ports, more NVMe SSD ports, more and more stuff...), but it still won't allow faster RAM, unless you overclock! It's a bad deal IMHO: you'll be paying for features you won't use...

I've got some wiggle room with finances (I could go with the 10700 and 32GB of RAM if I wanted to) but I don't want to pay a couple of hundred dollars more for differences in performance I'm unlikely to notice, and for higher power consumption to boot.

The 10700 is actually a bit slower than the 9900 (2.90 GHz base speed vs. 3.10, 4.80 GHz turbo vs. 5.00) but it does support slightly faster RAM (2933 MHz vs. 2666), and is significantly cheaper. In other aspects it's pretty much equivalent to the 9900. Could be a good fit for you, but you'll need a different motherboard for it, as it uses a different socket and I/O chipset.

Or did you mean the 10900?

Lastly, note that the 10X00 series is the current generation while the 9X00 series is the previous generation - in case it matters to you.

So many choices, too many choices

I've always had the "more RAM" mentality from waaaaaayyyyyyyy back (I wrote my first game on a 'PC' (it was PC-DOS or MS-DOS back then, but the line of computer development that ended up with windows) - a very simple thing of course - on a machine with 512k RAM ).

Haha that was a while ago indeed. I did some programming on 'PC-compatibles' with MS-DOS too back then, using so-called 'DOS-extenders' to be able to access more than 640K of RAM on 386 CPUs. When I see the monstrosity that is the Paradox Launcher, using so much memory for so little functionality and so much clunkiness and slowness, I cry a little

Hope my comments are clear and helping you guide your choices a little. Shopping for PC hardware can be overwhelming and confusing - I don't particularly enjoy it. I've been postponing a major rebuild of my PC for this reason. And it's pointless to try to keep up to date: every 3 months or so a new shinier thing comes out.

 

[Axe99]

Hope my comments are clear and helping you guide your choices a little. Shopping for PC hardware can be overwhelming and confusing - I don't particularly enjoy it. I've been postponing a major rebuild of my PC for this reason. And it's pointless to try to keep up to date: every 3 months or so a new shinier thing comes out.

They are very helpful and hugely appreciated . Totally get you on the getting a new PC is a pain, and very much appreciate all the thoughts in this thread. If my current machine wasn't starting to show signs of potential failure (the first sign was a couple of months ago, and I hoped it was a one-off - second sign was on the weekend and I was like "Really? Do you have to?!") I'd still be putting this off - but the wobble on the weekend was too clear a sign for me to ignore. I'm definitely not trying to stay up-to-date (I tend to buy a PC, flog it for as long as it'll last, it dies and I get another PC), but rather get something that'll stay relevant for a bit longer than the last one, which was very much a compromise when purchased, and was almost definitely a case of saving pennies to lose pounds.

Agree on overclocking - I've only got so much capacity to get my head around things, and would prefer spending that energy on modding in any event

I've narrowed it down to three choices, in the spoiler below (prices in Australian dollars) - no need to comment, but any thoughts very welcome - my wife has very kindly told me to "in if doubt, go higher" (I'm well aware of how blessed I am to be in this situation, let alone to have the money available to spend on something like this in the first place) so while last night I was almost locked into the i9900 build, the i10900K is, strictly speaking, following my wife's instructions.... but I don't want to blow $500 for a difference I wouldn't notice.

Spoiler

$2505 (probably the sensible option, and better value in terms of performance):

• Intel Core i9 9900 Processor
• Corsair Hydro Series H60 V2 120mm Liquid CPU Cooler
• ASUS Prime B365M-A Motherboard
• Team T-Force Dark Za 32GB (2x16GB) 3200MHz CL16 DDR4 (there is an option for 32GB of Corsair DDR4 at 2666Mhz, but it's more expensive, and it has RGB lights)
• MSI GeForce RTX 2060 Ventus XS OC V1 6GB
• Samsung 970 EVO Plus NVMe SSD 500GB
• Be quiet! Pure Power 11 600W Power Supply

$2700 (Given the similarity in performance, and greater power usage of the 10700, I'm not sure about the benefits in terms of taking advantage of better RAM performance - which I imagine would be pretty marginal - vs cost)

• Intel Core i7 10700K Processor Avenger Edition
• Corsair Hydro Series H75 V2 120mm Liquid CPU Cooler
• ASUS Prime Z490-P Motherboard
• Team T-Force Dark Za 32GB (2x16GB) 3200MHz CL16 DDR4
• MSI GeForce RTX 2060 Ventus XS OC V1 6GB
• Samsung 970 EVO Plus NVMe SSD 500GB
• Be quiet! Pure Power 11 600W Power Supply

$3014 (A bit better, but it is worth $500 more than an i9900 build?)

• Intel Core i9 10900K Processor Avenger Edition
• Corsair Hydro Series H75 V2 120mm Liquid CPU Cooler
• ASUS Prime Z490-P Motherboard
• Team T-Force Dark Za 32GB (2x16GB) 3200MHz CL16 DDR4
• MSI GeForce RTX 2060 Ventus XS OC V1 6GB
• Samsung 970 EVO Plus NVMe SSD 500GB
• Be quiet! Pure Power 11 600W Power Supply

 

[Mousetick]

Did you have a fixed budget in mind before shopping? It sounds like you're in a hurry to replace your current PC, and are tempted or worried to get the best there is and be done with it. I understand the feeling. If you can afford it, go for it. But it can be a slippery slope that vendors will be too happy to lead you on, so if you care about spending your money wisely and not regretting it afterwards, you may want to think about it for a little while before making a decision.

Random remarks in no particular order, while trying to remain as objective as possible:

All 3 suggested configurations are fine, and even the 3rd one is worth $500 more than the first one, based on its specs on paper. The question is, is it worth AUD 500 more to you? It's your money and only you can answer.

#3's CPU is the fastest in raw speed for sure, but on the flip side it has a power/heat rating of 125W. It has 10 cores and 20 threads. Think about it, what are the chances that you're going to utilize that many cores or threads, now, or in 5 years, unless you start dabbling in machine-learning or run 10 virtual machines simultaneously. Would you notice the speed difference with the 9900 in everyday use? I don't know. Probably not, I guess, unless you time it with a high precision stopwatch or a benchmarking tool.

I think a better reference point would be your current configuration. You'd be more easily able to guesstimate how much of a leap you'd make at the best possible price, that you will really notice and benefit from in everyday use. That may be a better estimation of 'bang' for 'buck'.

#2 uses the K variant of the 10700, which is the overclockable variant, and is spec'ed with a higher-tier motherboard and cooler than #1, hence the jump in price. If #2 were using the 'plain' 10700 or its F variant, with a motherboard and cooler in the same feature-tier as #1, I suspect it would actually end up cheaper than #1.

#2 and #3 use higher-tier motherboards with bells and whistles that you mentioned previously don't need or don't know that you need, and overclocking features that you won't ever look at. They can't be really compared side-by-side with #1.

In configuration #2 and #3 you could also ask for the F variant of each CPU, they lack an integrated GPU and are cheaper. You don't need the integrated GPU, you will have another, dedicated GPU.

Random suggestion, kind of a compromise between your needs and wants (or your wife's instructions): ask your vendor for a quotation of the following configuration based on #3

Spoiler

Differences with original #3 are underlined

• Intel Core i9 10900F Processor Avenger Edition
• Corsair Hydro Series H60 V2 120mm Liquid CPU Cooler
• ASUS Prime B460M-A Motherboard (i.e. equivalent to #1 but for 10X000 series)
• Team T-Force Dark Za 32GB (2x16GB) 3200MHz CL16 DDR4
• MSI GeForce RTX 2060 Ventus XS OC V1 6GB
• Samsung 970 EVO Plus NVMe SSD 500GB
• Be quiet! Pure Power 11 600W Power Supply

Based on prices of parts in euros taken from online shops, it should be about € 275 cheaper, so about AUD 450 cheaper than the original #3. With the money saved you could upgrade your NVMe SSD to 1 TB, which could be useful in the future, and still have some left... for buying a Windows license... do the quoted prices include a Windows license?

10900F vs 10900K comparison:

	Base speed	Max (turbo) speed	Overclockable	Integrated GPU	Power/heat	Cores/threads	Cache	RAM speed
10900K	3.70 GHz	5.30 GHz	Yes	Yes	125 W	10/20	20 MB	DDR4-2933
10900F	2.80 GHz	5.20 GHz	No	No	65 W	10/20	20 MB	DDR4-2933

Note: the base speed is the speed of the CPU when idle or under light load, that is when you read this forum, navigate your desktop, or write some code for your mod. These activities require very little CPU power, so don't be fooled by a lower base speed. The power/heat ratings provided by Intel are for the base speed. In actual real world heavy usage, as the CPU switches to higher speeds, power/heat increase accordingly, from twice up to 3 times the given ratings. Something to keep in mind, for your electricity bill, as well as for the potential waste of energy and its impact on the planet.

Sorry for the messy thoughts - I'm afraid this was not very helpful in narrowing further down your choices

 

[Axe99]

do the quoted prices include a Windows license?

Hahaha - a very sensible question - the answer is yes, but I'd have been perfectly capable of forgetting it! Prices also include putting it together for me, and then it's about $50 for postage on top of that.

Sorry for the messy thoughts - I'm afraid this was not very helpful in narrowing further down your choices

Quite the contrary, your thoughts have been exceptionally helpful, and very much appreciated What I hadn't realised, was that the non-K versions of the various Intel, and I really like the idea of the 10900F, as it's only 65W TDP, but comfortably close enough to the 10900K for me to be not worried about the difference. Of course, to make things more difficult, the mob I'm going to go with have their custom assembly service suspended until mid-November (roughly - so could be longer - I just looked then, wasn't aware of this until now), so I'm more-or-less stuck with the options you've shown (or building my own, but I've been out of the game too long to be comfortable doing that, and as this is also my work machine, I need it to be reliable).

All 3 suggested configurations are fine, and even the 3rd one is worth $500 more than the first one, based on its specs on paper. The question is, is it worth AUD 500 more to you? It's your money and only you can answer.

Just knowing that all three configurations are fine is super-helpful, let alone all the extra info you've provided After much thought, and keeping in mind I'm a little restricted in what I can go with, I've gone with the #2 build with the #1 cooler like you suggested (the motherboard I've gone with is at the bottom of the range of options available, or I'd go lower there too). Because the motherboard has two slots that can support an NVMe SSD, I"ll just go with the 500GB for now, and I can pop in another SSD later if space runs low. Thoughts and ramblings in the spoiler in case of interest (or proof of my insanity ) - I very much appreciate all your thoughts and assistance - invaluable - I'll do my best to provide many more quotes as thanks* .

*The last couple of books I read were slim pickings for good quotes, but I'm sure there'll be more soon.

Spoiler

Using the Passmark data, it looks like the difference between the 9900 and 10900K build is 20.3 per cent more price, 9.7 per cent more single-thread performance, and 41.6 per cent more overall performance (although, as you well point out, it's unlikely I'd get full benefit from the 41.6 per cent difference in the two). Thinking from a modding perspective, though, if this meant the game ran 15% faster, that's a noticeable benefit. After I've modded anything mechanical (stats for units, defines, balance, etc.,) I'll run hands-off tests, and these finishing 10-15% quicker would be genuinely helpful in terms of being able to turn things around.

The equivalent numbers from #1 to #2 are 7.8 per cent more price, 6.5 per cent more single-thread performance, and 14.8 per cent more broader performance. So running maybe 8-12 per cent faster. The jump between the 9900 and the 10700K is the big one, and the jump between the 10700K and 10900K significantly less (I doubt this will surprise you at all).

As you've suggested, coming from my existing CPU, it works out as:

Ryzen 5 1600 to i-9900 -> 38.5 per cent faster single-core performance, 38.0 per cent faster overall.
Ryzen 5 1600 to i-10700K -> 47.5 per cent faster single-core performance, 58.4 per cent faster overall.
Ryzen 5 1600 to i-10900K -> 52.0 per cent faster single-core performance, 95.4 per cent faster overall.

For me, the jump between the i-9900 and 10700K is meaningful enough to be valuable, and worth the extra couple of hundred dollars, but the $310 AUD difference between the 10700K and 10900K probably isn't, given I expect it's likely to only give me 3 per cent or so faster speeds. As a bonus, it's not the lowest of the options I'm looking at (which I'm well aware isn't a "low" option more broadly), so I'm doing what I'm told (the key to any successful marriage), and I'm highly unlikely to have buyers' remorse as I'll see a big difference from my existing system, and would be confident that the difference would have been noticeably less with the i-9900.

Once again, many many thanks

Did you have a fixed budget in mind before shopping? It sounds like you're in a hurry to replace your current PC, and are tempted or worried to get the best there is and be done with it. I understand the feeling. If you can afford it, go for it. But it can be a slippery slope that vendors will be too happy to lead you on, so if you care about spending your money wisely and not regretting it afterwards, you may want to think about it for a little while before making a decision.

About 3K is the upper limit - even if I was into playing action games on PC, I wouldn't be going for a GTX 3090 (I didn't realise these exist - I just looked at their price - just a tad eye-watering!), but I would probably go for a bit more emphasis towards the GPU and less the CPU. Time-wise, if this computer dies, I can't work until I get another one, so I'm fairly keen to get this squared away and minimise the chance of a forced period of time off work (I'm also hoping that the current machine will last until then and a bit after, so it'll be a good backup in case of failures down the track - but that's just gravy - it really only needs to last for about two days longer than it takes for me to get the new machine delivered).

I definitely don't need the best, but I will admit mild "Stellaris anxiety" (ie, I don't want to be in this situation again in a few years time where I don't enjoy a strategy game because my machine can't manage it) - but thinking that through a bit, I'd be a tad surprised if the 10900K was necessary to avoid that (and PDS would be being all sorts of cruel and unusual on its userbase!) - and I expect a 10700K would be well enough to cover me for anything PDS developed for the next 5 years at least, and I suspect closer to 10 (although this is a very rough guess).

 

[Mousetick]

I'll do my best to provide many more quotes as thanks* .

Don't worry about it You've helped me before so I was glad to try and return the favor, albeit in a less tangible way.

Using the Passmark data

It looks like Passmark is based in Australia, so I assume they must be cool nice smart guys but I'd still take their benchmarks with a grain of salt. Especially since they don't document their methodology, unless I missed it.

I think you've got the right idea in comparing the single-thread performance between your current CPU vs. the options you're considering. Even though the benchmarks are synthetic tests, not reflective of actual real-usage performance or productivity, they allow for comparing apples-to-apples and thereby giving you an idea of how much improvement you can expect.

The overall performance rating however, is meaningless to me. Since they don't explain what they measure and how, we can only speculate. My guess would be that they take all cores/threads into account, which again, is far removed from typical everyday usage or even multithreaded applications. This would explain why the 10900K is twice as "performant" as your Rizen 5, which is ridiculous, because you will never utilize 20 threads simultaneously in practice. Your interpretation of this benchmark as being "95.4% faster overall" than your Rizen 5, is incorrect and may give you wrong expectations IMHO. I took the 10900K as an extreme example, but my point applies to the same comparison with the other CPUs. The same comparison with the 2 other CPUs make a little more sense to me, as they all have the same number of cores/threads, hence the 10700K is "only" 58.4 more "performant" than your Rizen 5.

I definitely don't need the best, but I will admit mild "Stellaris anxiety" (ie, I don't want to be in this situation again in a few years time where I don't enjoy a strategy game because my machine can't manage it).

I find your bad experience, performance-wise, with Stellaris a bit puzzling. Admittedly I've only played 75 hours of it so far (I didn't quite like it) and only the base game without any DLC, but as far as I recall I didn't find it particularly slow or taxing on my machine, at least compared to HOI 4 which can really struggle sometimes. That was a few months ago with the previous version (2.7).

Looking at the system requirements for Stellaris on Steam, your Rizen 5 1600 is below the recommended spec, that may explain your issues. I think Paradox is guilty of underestimating their system requirements and of not updating them as they update their games and make them more demanding. HOI 4 is a good example of this bad practice: the recommended spec hasn't been updated since the game was released in 2016. "Recommended CPU: Intel Core i5 750 @ 2.66 GHz / AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.20 GHz". Yeah, right. Gimme a break.

Good luck with your new gear, and enjoy the exhilarating feeling of speed (while it lasts ).

 

[Axe99]

You've helped me before so I was glad to try and return the favor, albeit in a less tangible way.

Favour very well returned, and information is still tangible on the internet

The overall performance rating however, is meaningless to me.

Aye, I appreciate the numbers are very 'wishy washy', and appreciate your insight here. Single-core performance was the main driving factor. I am very curious to see what it's like in practice.

I think Paradox is guilty of underestimating their system requirements and of not updating them as they update their games and make them more demanding.

Aye, very much agree - I would be very leary of playing HoI4 on much lower than what I'm using now. On the plus side, CK3 runs really well on my current machine (better than any new PDS game in ages - possibly ever relative to the general state of PCs at the time), so there's some hope that they're refocussing on performance after some time giving it a bit less emphasis.

Good luck with your new gear, and enjoy the exhilarating feeling of speed (while it lasts ).

Oh aye, I remember the joy of booting from an SSD took a long time to wear off, so am hoping it lasts a good while now Imagine booting from a HDD?!

Assuming this machine lasts long enough, I may do a couple of side-by-side tests to see actual in-game difference in performance (at the start of the game). I know HoI4 has some console commands to measure the time it takes to process each day/week/month (I've used these to test the extra performance load of my mods in the past) and I imagine Stellaris and the other PDS games have similar.

as far as I recall I didn't find it particularly slow or taxing on my machine, at least compared to HOI 4 which can really struggle sometimes.

Aye, I suspect there might be something in my setup that's a bottleneck for Stellaris that isn't for HoI4, although there are also some game-design elements at play, as mid-to-late game HoI4 normally has a player at war (so it doesn't need to run that fast for the player to have new things to do), while I found if I was at peace in Stellaris after the first 50 years or so, there was an awful lot of waiting between doing anything. That said, I can play until 1956 before declaring war (as Bulgaria - not my usual way of playing!) in HoI4 and still find it "interesting enough"*, while Stellaris got too slow for me to enjoy far quicker and that, and with its normal gameplay cycle (not declaring war until 1956 is clearly not normal gameplay for a game designed to cover WW2 between 1936 and 1948!) But it is slower than I'd like, and I wouldn't recommend my build to play HoI4 on.

 

[Mister Analyst]

@Axe99

Here is a condensed spreadsheet from the Intel website regarding the CPU's in the three computers under consideration; it may help you in your decision.

Also, since your spouse has blessed the extra $500 dollar expense, you might want to put that towards increasing the size of your Samsung 970 EVO Plus NVMe SSD from 500GB to 1TB rather than getting the more expensive CPU.

 

[Axe99]

@Axe99

Here is a condensed spreadsheet from the Intel website regarding the CPU's in the three computers under consideration; it may help you in your decision.

Also, since your spouse has blessed the extra $500 dollar expense, you might want to put that towards increasing the size of your Samsung 970 EVO Plus NVMe SSD from 500GB to 1TB rather than getting the more expensive CPU.

Many thanks Mister Analyst (and good analysis, as one would expect ). I ended up going with the 10700K-based machine - it turned up on the weekend and am happy to report it runs Stellaris very well on a medium galaxy at least (my old machine struggled on small galaxies) and smashes its way through HoI4. Also great for running optical character recognition on old RAN navy lists All being well, it'll stand the test of time and last a good while.