Close
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Showing results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1

    Default Which is the better Multiboxer CPU i9-9900k or i9-9920 and why?

    Heya. I'm trying to get down the fundamentals of designing a new rig for multi boxing and thought this comparison could generate some insights. I'm thinking of getting a single Nvidia 2080 ti graphics card but could use some recommendations on a CPU, motherboard and ram. My current rig is not holding up to the new system requirements too well and I'm looking for an upgrade that will last a while. I realize there is a large disparity in price but for the sake of discussion which card will perform better multi boxing (if at all) and why?

    The i9-9900k is 8 Cores, 16 Threads @3.6GHz, Coffee Lake. This Cpu has a 10% faster single core speed and a 9% faster quad core speed than the 9920x according to userbenchmark.com
    Release date: Q4 2018.

    The i9- 9920 is 12 Cores, 24 Threads @3.50 GHz, Skylake.
    This CPU has a 37% faster multicore speed and a 44% faster OC multicore speed than the 9900k according to userbenchmark.com.
    Release date ≈ Q4 2018.

    The 9900k is considered a "gamers" cpu but with the unique multi instance use of WoW for multi boxing I'm not sure if more cores will improve performance over a slightly more overclocked gamer's cpu.

    Thanks in advance.
    Last edited by MiRai : 03-21-2019 at 09:11 PM Reason: Formatting - Automatic Text Color

  2. #2
    Member Ughmahedhurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North of The Wall, South of The Line
    Posts
    6916

    Default

    If you're 5-boxing WoW, the answer should be the 9920 will be better as you can dedicate two physical cores for every client and still have two left over for browser, or dxNothing, streaming, etc.
    Now playing: WoW (Garona)

  3. #3
    Multiboxologist MiRai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Winter Is Coming
    Posts
    6352

    Default

    When architecture and per-core performance are similar, then more cores are preferable.

    Then again, AMD is about to release new stuff that could walk all over the Skylake-X refresh, so... /shrug
    Do not send me a PM if what you want to talk about isn't absolutely private.
    Ask your questions on the forum where others can also benefit from the information.

    Author of the almost unknown and heavily neglected blog: Multiboxology

  4. #4

    Default

    Thanks for the reply. So maybe waiting for AMD mega cores? So Ryzen 3000 is set to release mid July.
    Last edited by Chumbucket : 03-21-2019 at 10:40 PM

  5. #5
    Multiboxologist MiRai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Winter Is Coming
    Posts
    6352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chumbucket View Post
    Thanks for the reply. So maybe waiting for AMD mega cores? So Ryzen 3000 is set to release mid July.
    No date has been revealed, but we're expected to see them at Computex at the end of May, and every rumor has them slated for a June release.
    Do not send me a PM if what you want to talk about isn't absolutely private.
    Ask your questions on the forum where others can also benefit from the information.

    Author of the almost unknown and heavily neglected blog: Multiboxology

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MiRai View Post
    AMD is about to release new stuff that could walk all over the Skylake-X refresh
    Would be great but I'll believe it when I see it. This will be the fifth (?) product launch AMD will market as "even better than Intel/Nvidia!!!" since their Ryzen rebrand but they never seem to get there.
    Last edited by Apatheist : 03-24-2019 at 03:21 PM

  7. #7
    Multiboxologist MiRai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Winter Is Coming
    Posts
    6352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apatheist View Post
    Would be great but I'll believe it when I see it. This will be the fifth (?) product launch AMD will market as "even better than Intel/Nvidia!!!" since their Ryzen rebrand but they never seem to get there.
    To be fair, since they released Ryzen, AMD has been able to offer amazing performance at, usually, a fraction of the cost compared to what Intel wants us to pay, for just a little more performance. So, unless you were starved for single-threaded performance, AMD could have easily been the better choice when upgrading in the past two years, especially since their multi-threaded performance has been quite competitive, overall.


    However, it recently dawned on me that, unless AMD changes something with the release of their X570 chipset, they won't be able to offer me enough PCIe lanes, and so I'll either have to wait for Threadripper, which won't be here until later this year, or just stick with Intel for the time being. If AMD's 7nm performance is better than Intel's Skylake-X refresh, then I may just have to stick with my current 6950X for the time being, which isn't the end of the world, but I was hoping to clean out my water loops at the same time I upgraded.
    Do not send me a PM if what you want to talk about isn't absolutely private.
    Ask your questions on the forum where others can also benefit from the information.

    Author of the almost unknown and heavily neglected blog: Multiboxology

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MiRai View Post
    a fraction of the cost.
    Price-wise, of course. If you're looking to save money AMD is an attractive choice.

    Intel CPU's are anywhere from 15-40% ahead of AMD's comparing equal core count variants last I checked regardless of single or multi.

  9. #9

    Default

    Which is better= just depends on what kind of goals you have with your system.

    I have several computers that have a 4770k, 4 cores / 8 threads.
    It works just fine with 5 games. I run all those on lowest settings, 1080p, with a 1060, 6 gb vram, 32 gb RAM.
    I have them at 60 fps front, 20 fps back. Each pc costed me around 850-1000 dollars.
    It plays buttersmooth outside major citites and crowded areas. Then fps drops to low 20s when crowded (orgrimmar on busy times, and in the bfa cities all the time).

    But i dont mind, i use these primarly for farming.


    Ideally, you want to assign atleast 2 cores and its 2 hyperthreaded coresponding threads to each game, if you want "max performance". Overclock the cpu best you can. *Unless they changed wow to benefit from 4 cores, which i doubt. And if you want to run on 1 pc, the 12 core/24threads cpu would be one of the best, you then have 2 cores/2hyperthreaded left for the OS etc.
    If you run 1080p, 32 gb RAM is enough and then you need atleast 1gb vram per game, but to be safest, get something like the 8gb vram 1070 or better. The performance boost is nice vs the 1060 6gb.

    But the 9900k will also work well for a 5man. Then again. Only you can decide what kind of performance you aim to get.

    If you want "top" performance = 100 fps on all 5 games with high settings. You are definitly going to pay for it.


    If i were on a budget, i would have gotten a ok pc to only use my main character on, then some cheaper pc to run 4 slaves on.
    In this case you can have "100 fps" with settings 6ish on you main the entire time, then run the slaves on settings 1 on the other pc. Chances are you already have a pc thats capable of running your main game only at high settings. So you only need need to invest in 1 more pc, to run the slaves.
    But, if you dont know how to setup multiple pcs, it can be troublesome indeed.


    But if money isnt no object, ofcourse get the best single pc you can afford. It wont be cheap though.
    (Ex: for "flawless 5man at 1080p": i9- 9920X, minimum 32 gb RAM, 2080 ti, 500ish gb nvme ssd, 3 x 12 or 14 cm fan aio cooler, 750 watt 80 pluss gold rated psu, or better). Overlock cpu and gfx card if able too. All in all, this would easily cost 3300 dollars in total. Add a copy a win 10 + the extra monitor and monitor stand you maybe need. And possibly more.
    Last edited by WOWBOX40 : 03-25-2019 at 11:29 AM

  10. #10

    Default

    Thanks for the detailed reply and thanks for the info on the cores. I have been confused about that subject for a while.

    I actually hadn't thought of splitting the load between multiple computers though I have done so in years past. You've touched on many of my concerns as I think my real question is, with the new graphics requirements what gear will give a 5 boxer what type of experience in the current graphics environment?

    My current system baffles me to some degree as I'm able to play a single account at about 156fps with level 7 settings in high populated areas. When I play 5 accounts however, I can generally play in the world at 60fps on my main and 15fps with the alts with all accounts set to 1 (DX11 Legacy) and using Slot Swap macros to boost a few things slightly, like distance to 5 and environment to 3 and downgrading alts resolution to .3 of the main. (Everything else is 1). In Stormwind however, my fps drops very low at times and sometimes my computer just locks up completely. I also get random crashes occasionally for no apparent reason in world play as my pc and gpu usage seems to hover around 40% with temps in the mid 30s Celsius. But it happens and didn't before the latest patches, I can't figure out why.

    My current system is:
    i7-4960x 3.6GHZ overclocked to 4.6 GHZ (not sure if it's a problem)
    GTX 780 Ti x 3 SLI (only 3 gb of vram which is a problem)
    64 Gb Ram (more than adequate)
    1080p at the moment but maybe go to 4k at some point.

    Slot Swap macros have been extremely helpful in keeping the video ram requirements below 3 GB at 60fps on any character I switch to in world play.

    I was thinking of keeping my current CPU and just upgrading the GPU. Otherwise, I could build a system so I guess I can design one just for the alts or maybe go for a single computer option. I would like, of course, to play the game at highest settings possible on my main (hopefully at least 7 @ 60fps) and potato the alts or create a SSM that achieves a similar 7ish experience at 60 fps across all toons.

    I originally ordered the 1080 ti thinking that would be sufficient but found the price of the 2080 ti to be similar so I got that instead.

    Though I would love to get the i9-9920x with compatible Mobo etc. it's just too rich for my blood. The 9900k seems like a reasonable option but I have seen no reports on how it performs multi boxing. It's probably fine. At least one person reported pretty decent performance with an i9-7920 and a 2080 ti. I can save a few bucks getting an earlier CPU but at what point does it not handle the job of boxing 5 toons in a mostly seamless way at 7ish settings with the 2080ti gpu? I was thinking maybe the i7-8700k would be a good compromise? That one uses the Z370 mobo instead of the Z390 and saves a little money.

    Or, keeping the i7-4960 and using it with the 2080ti? That saves a lot of money.
    Last edited by Chumbucket : 03-27-2019 at 02:10 PM Reason: Formatting - Automatic Text Color

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •