Best approach for tackling cpu bottleneck in vr mode?

[HadMatter]

My specs:
* i7 9700k
* rtx 3070
* 32g ram
* Valve Index

I'm running the game with a mix of high/low settings following some recommendations I found (I'll link later if I can dig it up - I've bumped up a few settings, but mostly followed the core philosophy here). I get some stuttering and fps can be all over the place, but like most vr'ers I've come to accept it's the price we pay for total immersion. Generally it all looks great and I'm happy to experience it, but I can't help but wonder what it might be like if I were able to push the settings higher (if only I could apply this same drive to exercise). According to fpsVR, my graphics card tends to bounce comfortably between green and orange, but my cpu seems to always be in the red. So I thought, ok, get new cpu --> win. So I ordered (kind of on impulse) an i5 11600k, thinking newer equals better. But now that I'm looking around online I'm seeing the 9700k often still being touted as the go to cpu for gaming (at that price point) making me think there hasn't really been much improvement since the 9th gen (nobody even mentions 11th gen). So now I'm wondering what might be the best approach for tackling this bottleneck - what would bring the best results? I figure the options are :

* Get that i5 11600k. Benchmark sites do show some improvement over the 9700k, though will it actually make much of a difference?

* Upgrade to a i9 9900k. It's always been my understanding that i5s & i7s were the sweet spot for gaming, and that i9s were just extra cores for gamers that want to also be able to stream and such. But do they also offer significant gains in general over their i5/i7 brothers? Or perhaps the nature of vr (the fact that you're kinda calculating everything twice, once for each eye) is such that it benefits from the extra cores? Or would it just be wasted power for me? Side pro: I also wouldn't need a new mobo.

* I tumble down the overclocking rabbit hole. I've never tried it, and it makes me nervous, but if higher clocks are the only true consideration, then it may be the only thing to show significant improvement. Also, even in worst case scenario of me blowing up my cpu and having to buy a new 9900k, it's still the cheapest of the options....assuming I don't explode the whole rig, that is. [gulp]

* Or [insert your option I didn't think of here].

Out of curiosity, is anybody here actually able to run the game in vr mode at max settings...at least somewhat smoothly? If so, how you do that?

Thanks for your time and your advice.

[Vyrtualis]

I wouldn't keep that i5. While it is newer, it's not much more powerful than your current CPU, and you'd have to have a new motherboard to even use it. The meager performance bump doesn't justify the cost. Right now what you're most definitely experiencing is a CPU bottleneck. Honestly IMO there aren't any CPUs on the consumer market currently that can go shoulder to shoulder with a 3070/3080/3090/etc without at least a small bottleneck.

The 9900K is a good idea, specifically the KS variant. It was touted as the fastest gaming CPU only about a year and a half ago. It's still in the top bracket of gaming CPUs today, and you can drop it right into your existing system. The extra cores *should* help with VR performance, especially if you're running something that's resource heavy like Link/Airlink.

Speaking of overclocking, the 9900K was one of the best binned chips in recent memory. The KS is even more highly binned, so pushing either one to 5.0GHz is child's play. You could probably even do it with your onboard OC profile in BIOS if you're feeling lazy. The worst case scenario is the OC is unstable and you reset it. It's not going to blow up your CPU lol, they all have safety measures now to prevent any real damage from overclocking.

I don't think anyone can play NMS VR at its highest settings yet. It's just so resource heavy. There's no reason you shouldn't be able to have a smoother experience though. I'd say look into getting a 9900KS, max out your current chipset, and see how that improves your VR experience.

[HadMatter]

Yeah, the more I've read today, the more I'm convinced that i5 is a waste - that's one Best Buy order that's going to go unclaimed.

Well, you've convinced me it's time to dive on into the big boy pool and get my feet wet with overclocking. I don't think the 9900KS is in the cards, though - that ♥♥♥♥♥ is 2 grand!! I like to pretend money doesn't matter, but even my irresponsibility with money has limits. The 9900K version looks doable, though I think I'm going to see what I can do with my current gear first and THEN look into upgrading. Overclocking has long been something I've been curious about, and sort of loosely prepared for....well, enough to already have a Dark Rock Pro 4 cooler installed. It might not get the numbers water cooling can, but apparently it IS meant for overclocking, so might as well see what it can do.

It is reassuring, if a little sad, that max settings isn't achievable in vr. It's certainly understandable, as you say, there's just so much going on. But if I can't see max settings, at least no one else can't either. 😝

I really appreciate you taking the time to cut away the chaff and focusing me on what can get results. And for the informative rabbit hole you inadvertently sent me on when I looked up what 'binning' is. I had no idea how much uncertainty went into chip manufacturing; you'd think a chip either works or it doesn't. I'm especially grateful for your helping put my mind at ease about overclocking - confident in the knowledge I can do no wrong. *attaches jumper cable to processor*

[Hellsmoke]

The only reason to buy a "K" is if you are going to overclock. If you don't intend to overclock, you're wasting your money on the "K".

That said you have to build your whole PC with overclocking in mind. If you don't have the right motherboard and proper cooling then overclocking isn't a great idea.

Edit: To clarify, the K is the unlocked version and costs more than the others for that feature. If you 100% do not intend to overclock, save the few bucks and buy another model.

[luZk]

Messaggio originale di Hellsmoke77:

The only reason to buy a "K" is if you are going to overclock. If you don't intend to overclock, you're wasting your money on the "K".

That said you have to build your whole PC with overclocking in mind. If you don't have the right motherboard and proper cooling then overclocking isn't a great idea.

A K processor is better quality, it will last longer, be able to take more heat on average.

[OriginalGrubby]

Messaggio originale di luZk:

A K processor is better quality, it will last longer, be able to take more heat on average.

I think you've got it a bit confused. K series chips have unlocked multipliers, allowing you to overclock the chip. Overclocking a chip creates far more heat, heat kills components faster over time.

They are in no way able to take heat better than a non K variant, which is why they require far greater cooling solutions in order to actually over clock them.

Also, their is no way of knowing if they are a better build quality. You would hope that they would pick out the better wafers for it, but their is no guarantee.

[Hellsmoke]

Messaggio originale di luZk:

Messaggio originale di Hellsmoke77:

The only reason to buy a "K" is if you are going to overclock. If you don't intend to overclock, you're wasting your money on the "K".

That said you have to build your whole PC with overclocking in mind. If you don't have the right motherboard and proper cooling then overclocking isn't a great idea.

A K processor is better quality, it will last longer, be able to take more heat on average.

Wrong. Do some research.

[OriginalGrubby]

Not really sure what you've got going on. I run an 8700K with no overclock, 32GB of memory, a 3070, with a Quest 2, and see no issue. Run everything on ultra.

The only place I was noticing a slight hiccup was on leaving a planet, which started with prism. I hardly notice it when playing without VR, but in VR it's slightly more noticeable. Aside from that it's silky smooth.

[luZk]

Messaggio originale di Hellsmoke77:

Messaggio originale di luZk:

A K processor is better quality, it will last longer, be able to take more heat on average.

Wrong. Do some research.

I did. My i9 10850k is sitting on 4.9ghz unclocked just with turboboost on all cores.

[Vyrtualis]

Messaggio originale di luZk:

Messaggio originale di Hellsmoke77:

The only reason to buy a "K" is if you are going to overclock. If you don't intend to overclock, you're wasting your money on the "K".

That said you have to build your whole PC with overclocking in mind. If you don't have the right motherboard and proper cooling then overclocking isn't a great idea.

A K processor is better quality, it will last longer, be able to take more heat on average.

K series chips aren't binned separately from non-K afaik, they just have unlocked multipliers, and they usually have a slightly higher stock speed.

[luZk]

Messaggio originale di Vyrtual:

Messaggio originale di luZk:

A K processor is better quality, it will last longer, be able to take more heat on average.

K series chips aren't binned separately from non-K afaik, they just have unlocked multipliers, and they usually have a slightly higher stock speed.

Correct, they are on average 2% faster than non K even stock and unclocked.

[Vyrtualis]

Messaggio originale di luZk:

Messaggio originale di Hellsmoke77:

Wrong. Do some research.

I did. My i9 10850k is sitting on 4.9ghz unclocked just with turboboost on all cores.

Not sure what that has to do with what you said lol. The turbo speed on your CPU doesn't really have anything to do with CPU silicon quality or TDP.

[Hellsmoke]

Messaggio originale di luZk:

Messaggio originale di Vyrtual:

K series chips aren't binned separately from non-K afaik, they just have unlocked multipliers, and they usually have a slightly higher stock speed.

Correct, they are on average 2% faster than non K even stock and unclocked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsJdjYNlYes

[luZk]

Messaggio originale di Hellsmoke77:

Messaggio originale di luZk:

Correct, they are on average 2% faster than non K even stock and unclocked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsJdjYNlYes

Yeah he is saying the important part at 2:32 https://youtu.be/zsJdjYNlYes?t=154

[Hellsmoke]

Messaggio originale di luZk:

Messaggio originale di Hellsmoke77:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsJdjYNlYes

Yeah he is saying the important part at 2:32 https://youtu.be/zsJdjYNlYes?t=154

I'm not going to watch a video on a topic I thoroughly researched over 10 years ago lol. This is beginners level stuff. I have overclocked countless computers, the only noticeable benefit you will be getting from a K is that 200MHz turbo your motherboard offers you. That IS overclocking btw... This is hardly noticeable in games these days and I'd rather put that extra money into better ram or a better motherboard before I pay for a K I'm not going to properly use.

Edit: So basically what you are saying is "my K is faster because I'm overclocking it using the "turbo feature" that is on every motherboard. That is overclocking, it's the auto-overclock that every motherboard offers but is still overclocking none the less and hardly noticeable with today's hardware.

[luZk]

Messaggio originale di Hellsmoke77:

Messaggio originale di luZk:

Yeah he is saying the important part at 2:32 https://youtu.be/zsJdjYNlYes?t=154

I'm not going to watch a video on a topic I thoroughly researched over 10 years ago lol. This is beginners level stuff. I have overclocked countless computers, the only noticeable benefit you will be getting from a K is that 200MHz turbo your motherboard offers you. That IS overclocking btw... This is hardly noticeable in games these days and I'd rather put that extra money into better ram or a better motherboard before I pay for a K I'm not going to properly use.

You brought the video to the table, now you deny it's content.