add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Best CPU to pair with a 2080 Ti?

ReG-Gunner.YT
  • 13 months ago

Hi I was wondering what the best CPU for pairing with a 2080 Ti would be. I've heard people say Ryzens 2700X and I've heard people say Intels I9-9900K. I would be playing Fortnite and Rainbow 6 Siege mainly.

Comments

  • 13 months ago
  • 4 points

You should pick your CPU based on your performance goals, not based on your GPU selection.

Using a 60hz display? Any modern ~$150 CPU will work fine.

Using a 144hz+ display, you'll probably want Intel 6-8 cores, K model chips. 9700K is a great CPU for maximizing gaming performance.

  • 13 months ago
  • 1 point

You don't need an Intel cpu for 144fps+ i have a ryzen 5 2600 paired with a rtx 2060 and in r6 siege I get 150-160 fps with max settings

  • 13 months ago
  • 5 points

In that title, yes. What about.... other games?

  • 13 months ago
  • 1 point

In apex I get 100-130 without changing any settings. I haven't played any other games yet but he says he will be playing siege mainly so...

  • 13 months ago
  • 2 points

I've heard people say Ryzens 2700X and I've heard people say Intels I9-9900K. I would be playing Fortnite and Rainbow 6 Siege mainly.

2700X is AMD's best although for gaming workloads like that it trades blows with the locked I5 8400/9400F falling behind the 9600K, 9700K, 9900K and their last generation models.

Since You are pairing it with a 2080ti making compromises in potential performance by dropping to a less capable CPU doesn't make much sense unless You are looking at lower refresh rate high resolution monitor.

Otherwise the 2700X is going to limit You faster for available frame rates which in titles built around twitch timing is less then desirable.

  • 13 months ago
  • 1 point

This is the List iI have. https://pcpartpicker.com/list/2kzYsZ The Cpu cooler is an EK thing.

  • 13 months ago
  • 1 point

Solid list besides storage unless You already have a SSD for boot drive.

  • 13 months ago
  • 1 point

Well I could pull one off my Last PC lol

  • 13 months ago
  • 1 point

They spoil You once You have one You can't live without them.

  • 13 months ago
  • 1 point

Wouldn't the 2700x be a good choice since he is playing at 1440p?

  • 13 months ago
  • 2 points

9700k or 9900k. That simple.

  • 13 months ago
  • 1 point

Ryzen 7 2700X is far more cost effective and is on a better platform for short term support - i.e. if you wanted to upgrade to Ryzen 3000 series it will be doable. Intel's next i9 chip release probably would be on an entirely different platform - i.e. the Z390 is one shot. It never makes sense to upgrade each generation but some folks do it as routine - in principle, my comment on upgradability should be moot given you should own the CPU for a few years and then do total overhaul.

In conclusion, cannot go wrong with Ryzen 7 2700X here. Price and short term future support is better. Performance wise, you will not notice the difference with i9. Benchmarks support i9 being faster, reality suggests you will not notice.

  • 13 months ago
  • 2 points

Buying a 9700K now, would be less expensive than buying a 2700X and then a Ryzen 3000 upgrade for the build later this year or next year. The 9700K would also out-perform the 2700X in gaming, and likely perform as well or better than any 3000 upgrade anyway for gaming, making the 9700K more cost effective in terms of performance/$.

Assuming nobody would buy a 2700X now only to replace it in a few months, the 9700K would only costs about $100-200 more than a 2700X to implement, which is peanuts in a build with a 2080Ti. This will likely have less than a 10% impact on overall build cost, yet add 20-30% performance advantages in CPU bound conditions in gaming.

  • 13 months ago
  • 0 points

Agreed, buying a processor now and then upgrading in 6 months would be crazy, got to keep the CPU at least a couple of years. Still though, a Ryzen option opens the door to an upgrade without replacing the motherboard, formatting drives, and reinstalling windows etc...

With a 2080Ti, it would be a fair assumption that the builder will run this one on a 2K or 4K display. Whatever advantage the i7 might have in low gaming loads will vanish/diminish at higher resolutions. Even if he does not upgrade (recommended), the Ryzen 2700X is still a fine chip. He will not be missing out on a 9700K at all. That an upgrade option exists is to this purchase's benefit.

We have no clue how well Ryzen 3000 will perform. Murmur's from the Internet can usually be ignored. If we make a well placed assumption, that being that AMD will improve on the performance of the current gen chips, then Ryzen 3000 series will be well placed to out-compete Intel. You do not have to improve the Ryzen 2700X much for it to beat Intel handily. If Intel keep with iterations of Skylake (which is what they have been using for years now), they cannot compete with AMD hoping old beats new. Huge innovations come with new chipsets, which is why I recommended AMD. Compatibility with older boards? Awesome. Even Sony are learning - PS5 will be back compatible with PS4. People like this.

  • 13 months ago
  • 2 points

With a 2080Ti, it would be a fair assumption that the builder will run this one on a 2K or 4K display.

It would be an equally fair assumption that the builder will run a 165-240hz display, and wants to maximize performance.

As it turns out, OP has selected a 165hz display.

Whatever advantage the i7 might have in low gaming loads will vanish/diminish at higher resolutions.

So you're saying that at higher resolution, less CPU power is required for a particular performance goal?

Or are you saying that with higher resolution, people automatically are assumed to have lower performance goals?

Either way, wrong. sorry.

the Ryzen 2700X is still a fine chip. He will not be missing out on a 9700K at all.

On a 165hz display, there's going to be a ~20% performance discrepancy between a 9700K and 2700X in a large number of games and conditions.

Huge innovations come with new chipsets, which is why I recommended AMD. Compatibility with older boards? Awesome.

This statement doesn't make any sense. If huge innovation comes with new chipsets, then why are you recommending the company that recycles the same chipset for many generations of CPU, only upgrading platform I/O and interfaces every 3-6 years?

Realistically speaking, CPU upgrade "path" is largely determined by what CPU is chosen at the outset of a build, not by whether the platform supports numerous generations of CPU's... Consider for a moment, someone who built around a B350 board and a Ryzen 3 1200, vs someone on the same board who installed a 1700X on day 1. The person who builds with the budget CPU, creates an upgrade path by cheaping out on the CPU. Nothing has happened that would give cause for anyone to upgrade a 1700X at this time, the margins for performance improvement are too small to bother. Even when Ryzen 3000 launches, it is looking very unlikely that there will be a compelling reason for the owner of the 1700X to want/need to upgrade within the useful life of this platform.

The important point here, is that upgrade paths come primarily from selecting lower end CPU's, not from selecting the "right" platform.

  • 13 months ago
  • 1 point

Yup, a 1440p monitor. 1440p > 1080p.

I never said the Ryzen was better than the i7, just that demanding resolutions like 4k or 1440p are going to be strongly limited by the GPU you have in there. If the CPU has to wait clock cycles for an interrupt, the GPU will be the limiting factor. It has always been this way.

It is not hard to observe that a Ryzen 2700X build and a i9-9900K build with same GPU perform similarly at 4K and to a somewhat lesser degree, at 2K. Yes they may differ by a few fps. Big deal? Not really. Might be to some but I suggest rather than invest in PC equipment they invest in a life. Modern AAA title, very hard to get it above 100fps on high settings. Perspective and context here is "mean minimum".

Upgrade paths? You have no idea how Ryzen 3000 will perform. It seems like you are an Intel fanboy. Not that I care which side you bat for. We have no idea what Ryzen 3000 will be like. Entertain this concept: What if Ryzen 3000 is exceptional and a 30-50% boost on the current Ryzen's? Unlikely, but what if?

I agree in that I do not think it is a great idea to buy now and upgrade in 6 months. However, if you bought now and upgrade with a used chip two years down the line, nothing wrong with that. I have done that with X299. Bought the i7-7820X CPU on launch and recently upgraded to the i9-9980XE I got second hand for $900. I could get further mileage out of the chipset if Intel do another Skylake Refresh. No rule says that I cannot do this either. The 7820X gave me 18 months approx of use and then I upgraded. No reason why the OP cannot do the same - two years from now the 3700X might retail at a nice price. Gets good use out of 2700X, has a nice path to a 16 core, nicer if he has a mobo with compatibility...that is if the 3700X is such a thing...

  • 13 months ago
  • 4 points

I never said the Ryzen was better than the i7, just that demanding resolutions like 4k or 1440p are going to be strongly limited by the GPU you have in there. If the CPU has to wait clock cycles for an interrupt, the GPU will be the limiting factor. It has always been this way.

This "always been this way" mentality requires assuming that games only have 1 visual quality setting, ultra.

Games have had vastly adjustable visual quality for 20 years+. Resolution is just 1 of many adjustments.

Might be to some but I suggest rather than invest in PC equipment they invest in a life.

Tell that to the person who just bought a 2080Ti.... ;)

It seems like you are an Intel fanboy.

Sitting in front of a 1700X machine at home and a 2600 at work.

I'm a fanboy of picking the right tool for the job, not trying to rationalize a way to an AMD solution for everyone, which so many people seem keen to do on here.

We're talking about a gaming rig with a 2080Ti and a 165hz display and we have people in this thread trying to rationalize why Ryzen CPU solutions make sense for this build, despite being at a significant performance deficit compared to Intel alternatives for the intended use. That's blatant fanboyism.

  • 13 months ago
  • 1 point

Wouldn't make a difference.

Both CPU options would be plenty powerful for the games you are mentioned regardless resolution, and especially with an RTX 2080Ti.

So if you wanna spend less get the 2700X, if not get the i9-9900K. :)

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube