i10100 for $100 or wait for i11?

I am very tempted to buy the i10100. It's a 4 core that i can clock up to 4.3 and perhaps closer to 4.5. I can grab one for 100 dollars. It should work great but with the i11's coming, it makes me wonder if they will be out performing them by a lot. Meaning spending just a bit more could get me a decent jump but everything is just a guess right now. I really just wanna finish the system, but i could put it off a few more months, perhaps i can get an even better deal on the 10100 then?

Why get this chip in the first place? Well basically everything i play runs just fine on a quad core, my i5-3350 runs at 3.4 ghz and is paired very nicely with my 1060 6GB +8 GB ram, but this would be a nice little upgrade going to a faster board (z77-a to a 490z,) better/more ram from (8 gb DDR 1600 to 32 DDR4 at 3200) and a m.2 SSD from a sata6

My thinking is, spend just 100 now on the lowest end /cheapest chip i can put into the system now which will still be a very nice upgrade. Then in a couple years get a nice i11 chip and pair it with an RTX-3060 ti and add another 32 gb ram, for a total of 64. Basically making the upgrade a new CPU/GPU and stick of ram. You know for when star citizen comes out. :p And perhaps some new games like the new dragon age and mass effect games, maybe i'll even pick up cyberpunk by that point. My thinking is, save the money now, and in a few years when more games are using more than 4 cores take the larger upgrade then.

So what are your thoughts? Buy the chip now, Wait a few months see if they are cheaper, or maybe grab an I11 instead? Again keep in mind i am planning an upgrade in about 1-2 years.
Well, if you have a functioning system thats working well enough for you then I would wait. Preliminary benchmark leaks are suggesting that the newer Rocket lake chips are going to be a bit more of a jump. As I understand it this is because Intel has been using the same basic architecture since the 6000 series. Now they are finally moving on

Also from my own experience I went from an overclocked 3570k to a 7700K a few years ago and I also have to say that I wasnt expecting the difference to be so noticeable in the overall smoothness of the system, even with just the addition of hyperthreading. Both systems had 16GB RAM and exactly the same other components so it was definitely the CPU.

I particularly noticed how smooth some strategy games became when I sat down in front oif the new system. Newer games are starting to suggest 4 core/4threads as a minimum, which is a sign to me to try and stay ahead of the curve.

Worth considering too that unless you know why you need 32GB of RAM you may not need it. That money would certainly give more benefit to gaming if you put it into the CPU. No reason you cant use 2 sticks of 8GB and got to 4 sticks of 8GB, although matching up memory kits can cause other kinds of problems you should be aware. Using 2 sticks of RAM across 2 channels also gives some performance benefits, although a lot of a time in gaming this is relatively minor.
  • Like
Reactions: Brian Boru
Im curious now about GalCiv 3 and this other game thats using 64GB of RAM for you?

Do you experience hitching and slowdown from the game using the swap file or is it just that task manager is allocating that amount and you can see it there, but performance is otherwise unaffected?

I had a quick look at the Stardock forums and it seems some people are reporting huge memory usage and others are saying 16GB is more than enough. Which leads me to wonder whether its actually meant to be doing that.

Threads here

I know that some people will also leave Chrome open with 1000 tabs and using up the memory and want more RAM out of convenience. I dont know how normal that is, I personally close my browser and other programs pretty much every time I'm not using them. Probably a hold over from having PC's that could barely run anything when I was younger :)
You see, that's why I said if you don't know why you might not need 32 GB of RAM :)

Considering you can still, for the most part, get away with 8GB and 8GB was the gaming sweet spot around 8 years ago, doubling again from 16GB to 32 might well take at least as long. No way to tell the future so best to put money into what has the greatest effect now IMO. Unless you have a specific use case, usually its something professional.

Mods and DLC's on Cities Skylines look like they drive it bananas. I have played the base game casually on 16GB with my old 3570k system and it ran fine. Aside from that I have no personal experience with the games you're playing, so I wont comment further. I've heard Flight Simulator is a beast all round, no doubt.

Leaks are saying the 11th gen will have a double digit IPC increase over 10th, it seems clocks will probably stay around the same. You may have to wait a little longer for the I3's, up to you if that's worth the wait. If you don't want to consider an I5 at 6/12, that is :D
Fair enough, I always look at it like I can usually upgrade anything down the line when I have the funds. So I'll save it for later if I dont think I need it right now. :)

I was just nosing about earlier and found a post from 2018 by one of the Galciv developers explaining the crazy RAM requirements. Quite interesting, I dont know if you've read about this.

He's suggesting that you should really only have 2 AI players per logical thread for best performance, as well as 32GB RAM on 'Ludicrous' map size which I assume is the one under 'Insane'. Which would explain a 64GB requirement if Insane maps are an order of magnitude bigger than ludicrous.

Just saying because, then as per that advise you wouldnt want to have more than 16 AI players on an 8 thread CPU like the 10100/1100 for good performace. I guess it might have changed in the meantime though.


Latest posts