Upgrade from z97 to z390

[Animalpak]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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

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]

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

 

[ArbitraryAffection]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

"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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Vario]

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]

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]

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]

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.