i7 gaming CPU upgrade

[AvogadrosDog]

Hey guys,

 

So I've been messing around with my 9600k for a while and enjoyed playing games on it however (using MSI afterburner) I sometimes see it spiking to 100% load when playing BFV at 1080p and that in other applications I could get more performance out of an i7 for future games and so on. I've decided that I want to upgrade within the next month or so to an i7 (9900k is out of the question for me budget-wise) with someone already keen to buy my i5 off of me. My question is, for games like BFV, AC: Odyssey, Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Anthem, what CPU is best suited? 8700k, 8086k or 9700k? Their prices are relatively close over here in the UK (£360~, £400~ and £410~, respectively).

 

Let me know what you think please and before people ask I just want to maximise my gaming build with the parts I've got - if I can upgrade a component to make it last much longer and maximise performance I will.

 

I appreciate any and all feedback

[Mister Woof]

You should just get the 9900k; none of the others are really going to be enough of an upgrade to notice imo

 

If you have to choose, 8700k gets my vote. Same chip at 8086k, easier to delid than 9700k, more threads more flexible

[GoldenLag]

would never even consider that upgrade. spiking to 100% just means it gets drawn to its full potential. (in other words, those spikes to 100% are meaningless)

 

also core i5 and i7 mean practically nothing in terms of the CPU. 

 

also dont upgrade unless you feel that you need to, which you clearly dont. 

 

save your cash, especially considering the CPUs you will be upgrading wont be top of the line in a couple of months. 

[xg32]

i'd probably want for zen 2 at this point, even if you upgrade to 9700k you'll still see 100% load at a slightly higher frame rate.

[AvogadrosDog]

6 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

would never even consider that upgrade. spiking to 100% just means it gets drawn to its full potential. (in other words, those spikes to 100% are meaningless)

 

also core i5 and i7 mean practically nothing in terms of the CPU. 

 

also dont upgrade unless you feel that you need to, which you clearly dont. 

 

save your cash, especially considering the CPUs you will be upgrading wont be top of the line in a couple of months. 

Fair argument.

 

I considered waiting for Zen 2 but seeing as all we have is rumours I'm not expecting TOO much out of it plus an upgrade to that would mean CPU + motherboard and for me it will only be worth it if Zen 2 is really as good as some people believe it to be.

[Mister Woof]

7 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

would never even consider that upgrade. spiking to 100% just means it gets drawn to its full potential. (in other words, those spikes to 100% are meaningless)

 

also core i5 and i7 mean practically nothing in terms of the CPU. 

 

also dont upgrade unless you feel that you need to, which you clearly dont. 

 

save your cash, especially considering the CPUs you will be upgrading wont be top of the line in a couple of months. 

Given the 9900k is already 6 months old, with the 8700k closing on 18 months old, none of them are top of the line anymore anyway.

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, xandredu said:

I considered waiting for Zen 2 but seeing as all we have is rumours I'm not expecting TOO much out of it plus an upgrade to that would mean CPU + motherboard and for me it will only be worth it if Zen 2 is really as good as some people believe it to be.

i mean, we know the 8 core beats the 9900k at cinebench. and the 8 core is afaik the ryzen 5 part. with 12 core Ryzen 7 and probably 16 core ryzen 9

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, Plutosaurus said:

Given the 9900k is already 6 months old, with the 8700k closing on 18 months old, none of them are top of the line anymore anyway.

they are all "top of the line" in gaming performance where most of them essentially tie. 

[Mister Woof]

4 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

i mean, we know the 8 core beats the 9900k at cinebench. and the 8 core is afaik the ryzen 5 part. with 12 core Ryzen 7 and probably 16 core ryzen 9

"Beats" is a loose statement. Cinebench variance run to run is always pretty big.

 

Also historically, CB favors SMT over HT. Likely in that same test, the i9 scored a better single threaded score.

 

That was statistically margin of error tie.

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, Plutosaurus said:

"Beats" is a loose statement. Cinebench variance run to run is always pretty big.

 

That was statistically margin or error tie.

yes, its a tie. while there is run to run variance. we know they were confident enough to show them go head to head. 

[Mister Woof]

3 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

yes, its a tie. while there is run to run variance. we know they were confident enough to show them go head to head. 

I think we'll see parity with coffeelake, except more cores for less money.

 

Which is a good thing.

 

But in terms of gaming, if you have a coffeelake 6/12 or better I doubt there's going to he a meaningful difference in whatever Zen2 brings, because games aren't going to care about 12 or 16 cores for a long time.

 

8-threaded consoles came out in 2013, and we are just NOW seeing the shift in games where 4/4 isn't enough.

 

Will be another 5 years before 6/12 or 8/16 become noticably slow.

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, Plutosaurus said:

I think we'll see parity with coffeelake, except more cores for less money.

we will see what we will get. in the end we dont know what singlecore performance will be offered. but we know an early piece of silicon tied the 9900k.

 

still doesnt change the fact OP shouldnt be upgrading. (mostly cuz it really isnt one)

[AvogadrosDog]

6 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

we will see what we will get. in the end we dont know what singlecore performance will be offered. but we know an early piece of silicon tied the 9900k.

 

still doesnt change the fact OP shouldnt be upgrading. (mostly cuz it really isnt one)

Fairs, I think people made valid arguments. I'll stay as is and see what Zen 2 brings. 

[Mister Woof]

3 minutes ago, xandredu said:

Fairs, I think people made valid arguments. I'll stay as is and see what Zen 2 brings. 

If you got the 8700k or 9900k at launch instead, it would be an easier time to justify.

 

8700k will be almost 2 years old and 9900k almost one year old by the time Zen2 launches. The premiums pay for itself in terms of 10-20 months of superior performance.

 

It's just that right now you are at the cusp of a generation shift.

[Kitsan]

Value wise, 8700K wins out for 1080p but i'd buy a used one if possible as already mentioned we are not far from a 10nm release for intel and 7nm for amd, we don't know how much of a difference it'll actually make yet though obviously.

 

If you bought the 9600K used then i'd say sell it and get a 8700K, if you bought the 9600K new then it's not so clean cut.