3800x vs 8700k for gaming.

[maizenblue]

Looking to upgrade from an i7 4790k. Mainly concerned about future proofing. Which cpu would likely be better for gaming 4 years from now?

 

Im a little confused by benchmarks. Most seem to show the 8700k winning in most modern games now but some show the 3800x clearly ahead. Which is better in cpu intensive multiplayer games like battlefield v?

[Dedayog]

Your current rig looks really good, what's your 4790K overclocked to?

 

If you really want to upgrade, either will do you fine.  No such thing as future proofing.  If games can utilize 8 cores in 4 years, then the 3800X most likely even tho it's a bit slower.

 

8700K eats anything thrown at it, so it's not like that's a bad call.

[Princess Luna]

These 2 options doesn't make sense when the Intel 9th gen is out and the R7 3800X is just an overpriced R7 3700X

[jones177]

9 minutes ago, maizenblue said:

Looking to upgrade from an i7 4790k. Mainly concerned about future proofing. Which cpu would likely be better for gaming 4 years from now?

 

Im a little confused by benchmarks. Most seem to show the 8700k winning in most modern games now but some show the 3800x clearly ahead. Which is better in cpu intensive multiplayer games like battlefield v?

I think right now an 8 core CPU is the way to go.

 

I have i7 8086ks but if one died I would replace it with an 8 core + CPU. So to me it would either be a 3800x or a i9 9900k. 

[Mick Naughty]

Well the current cpu is so bad, anything would be an upgrade. 

 

My 8700k isn’t too great though it was better than the last. Kinda wish I got the 9700k but everyone said they are the same. 

 

But I imagine it would be enough for bfv with that card and the frames it can get. Mine can sit at 90% just playing cod bo4. 

 

Id get the best thing I could afford. More cores seems to be the answer for today’s games. 

[Brooksie359]

The 8700k and the r7 3800x are so close in performance you wouldn't be able to tell the difference if you couldn't see the numbers. I would personally get an r7 3700x or jump to the 3900x. The 3800x is sorta that awkward middle child that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The extra cores on the 3700x is going to make a difference over time and in some games it already does so it would be my go to. Also the r5 3600x is in spitting distance of the 8700k performance in gaming which makes the 8700k not make a whole lot of sense in general. My personal opinion is that at this point you either get the 9900k or you dont go Intel. 

[Brooksie359]

4 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

Well the current cpu is so bad, anything would be an upgrade. 

 

My 8700k isn’t too great though it was better than the last. Kinda wish I got the 9700k but everyone said they are the same. 

 

But I imagine it would be enough for bfv with that card and the frames it can get. Mine can sit at 90% just playing cod bo4. 

 

Id get the best thing I could afford. More cores seems to be the answer for today’s games. 

The 9700k and the 8700k are essentially the same CPU tbh. If the 8700k struggles in a game then so would the 9700k. Honestly I wouldn't touch the 9700k with a ten foot pole. 

[Dedayog]

2 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

Well the current cpu is so bad, anything would be an upgrade. 

 

My 8700k isn’t too great though it was better than the last. Kinda wish I got the 9700k but everyone said they are the same. 

 

But I imagine it would be enough for bfv with that card and the frames it can get. Mine can sit at 90% just playing cod bo4. 

 

Id get the best thing I could afford. More cores seems to be the answer for today’s games. 

Curious what performance you're getting with a 8700K that's not satisfactory?  

 

 

[maizenblue]

6 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

The 8700k and the r7 3800x are so close in performance you wouldn't be able to tell the difference if you couldn't see the numbers. I would personally get an r7 3700x or jump to the 3900x. The 3800x is sorta that awkward middle child that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The extra cores on the 3700x is going to make a difference over time and in some games it already does so it would be my go to. Also the r5 3600x is in spitting distance of the 8700k performance in gaming which makes the 8700k not make a whole lot of sense in general. My personal opinion is that at this point you either get the 9900k or you dont go Intel. 

The 3900x is way more expensive, assuming you can find one, and for gaming doesnt seem to be any better. 

 

9900k is possible, its also more expensive and requires a pretty good cooling solution which adds to the cost. The 3800x stock cooler seems adequate if im not mistaken. 

[maizenblue]

23 minutes ago, jstudrawa said:

Your current rig looks really good, what's your 4790K overclocked to?

 

If you really want to upgrade, either will do you fine.  No such thing as future proofing.  If games can utilize 8 cores in 4 years, then the 3800X most likely even tho it's a bit slower.

 

8700K eats anything thrown at it, so it's not like that's a bad call.

My 4790k is stock. I have a corsair h60 cooler. Is that really gonna cut it for ocing?

 

i usually oc gpu but leave cpu stock. 

[Dedayog]

1 minute ago, maizenblue said:

The 3900x is way more expensive, assuming you can find one, and for gaming doesnt seem to be any better. 

 

9900k is possible, its also more expensive and requires a pretty good cooling solution which adds to the cost. The 3800x stock cooler seems adequate if im not mistaken. 

The argument of the 3800X is much more expensive than the 3600 without providing much more gaming performance is an argument too.

 

I personally don't see 6 cores being shit in 4 years.  I think 8 may be useful, but the 7700K is still a solid CPU after 4 years... 

[Dedayog]

Just now, maizenblue said:

My 4790k is stock. I have a corsair h60 cooler. Is that really gonna cut it for ocing?

 

i usually oc gpu but leave cpu stock. 

Why are you buying K chips then?

[Mick Naughty]

11 minutes ago, jstudrawa said:

Curious what performance you're getting with a 8700K that's not satisfactory?  

 

 

It if effects gameplay, i consider that an issue. Isn’t every map but that’s still 1/4 of the time as I like to play the whole game. 

[maizenblue]

7 minutes ago, jstudrawa said:

Why are you buying K chips then?

Because it was already clocked higher out of the box, has higher resale value and was what was available and on sale at the time. Plus while i generally dont oc im not opposed to doing it, so why not get a k, the price difference is small. 

[Mick Naughty]

16 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

The 9700k and the 8700k are essentially the same CPU tbh. If the 8700k struggles in a game then so would the 9700k. Honestly I wouldn't touch the 9700k with a ten foot pole. 

Yea but I could have upgraded or swapped to 9900k. May check to see how an 8086k compares. 

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

Yea but I could have upgraded or swapped to 9900k. May check to see how an 8086k compares. 

You could have bought a z390 motherboard with the 8700k as well....

That is a mistake in motherboard choice not CPU tbh. 

[Mick Naughty]

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

You could have bought a z390 motherboard with the 8700k as well....

That is a mistake in motherboard choice not CPU tbh. 

Price of it and limitations are why I didn’t. 

[SpookyCitrus]

25 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

It if effects gameplay, i consider that an issue. Isn’t every map but that’s still 1/4 of the time as I like to play the whole game. 

I have an 8700K and even when I ran stock clocks with a 1080ti my CPU never got that maxed out by B04. I don't think I've seen 100% outside of synthetic stress testing on my 8700K.

[Mick Naughty]

4 minutes ago, SpookyCitrus said:

I have an 8700K and even when I ran stock clocks with a 1080ti my CPU never got that maxed out by B04. I don't think I've seen 100% outside of synthetic stress testing on my 8700K.

Well the game is plagued with the issue. So it isn't enough cpu regardless how people who don't have the issue see it.

[melete]

8700k ought to beat 3700X/3800X in the vast majority of games, especially if it's delidded and overclocked. (Obviously GPU matters more in many scenarios)

 

Same goes for 9700k and 9900k.

 

Intel is just the best choice for high-end gaming CPUs right now. 3700X is more of a compromise between gaming and various productivity workloads, it's a middle-ground CPU.

 

 

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, melete said:

8700k ought to beat 3700X/3800X in the vast majority of games, especially if it's delidded and overclocked. (Obviously GPU matters more in many scenarios)

 

Same goes for 9700k and 9900k.

 

Intel is just the best choice for high-end gaming CPUs right now. 3700X is more of a compromise between gaming and various productivity workloads, it's a middle-ground CPU.

 

 

I wouldn't really call it Intel beating AMD in the vast majority of games. I would say they are about equal with Intel slightly edging out AMD in alot of titles but not enough to be noticeable. Most benchmarks I have seen show them within 5% of each other and honestly if you put the two systems next to each other you most likely wouldn't be able to guess which one is which. Yeah you can say that intel is better for gaming but it's a hard sell when the difference is not noticeable. I like the 8700k and it's a great cpu but I wouldn't buy it at this point even if for mainly gaming. I got mine on sale at microcenter about a year ago and there was an incredible sale so it was worth it but I do not see a reason to buy it at this point. I mean the r5 3600 and 3600x perform not far off from the 8700k for much cheaper. 

[Dedayog]

2 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I wouldn't really call it Intel beating AMD in the vast majority of games. I would say they are about equal with Intel slightly edging out AMD in alot of titles but not enough to be noticeable. Most benchmarks I have seen show them within 5% of each other and honestly if you put the two systems next to each other you most likely wouldn't be able to guess which one is which. Yeah you can say that intel is better for gaming but it's a hard sell when the difference is not noticeable. I like the 8700k and it's a great cpu but I wouldn't buy it at this point even if for mainly gaming. I got mine on sale at microcenter about a year ago and there was an incredible sale so it was worth it but I do not see a reason to buy it at this point. I mean the r5 3600 and 3600x perform not far off from the 8700k for much cheaper. 

As much as I agree with you, and how much you are hedging around it... Intel DOES beat AMD in the vast majority of titles.  Edging out, barely noticeable, AMD basically tying... those are all phrases that simply do NOT make AMD beat Intel.  

 

I 100% agree with the rest of what you said, but the fact is Intel beats AMD.   

 

 

[melete]

4 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I wouldn't really call it Intel beating AMD in the vast majority of games. I would say they are about equal with Intel slightly edging out AMD in alot of titles but not enough to be noticeable. Most benchmarks I have seen show them within 5% of each other and honestly if you put the two systems next to each other you most likely wouldn't be able to guess which one is which. Yeah you can say that intel is better for gaming but it's a hard sell when the difference is not noticeable. I like the 8700k and it's a great cpu but I wouldn't buy it at this point even if for mainly gaming. I got mine on sale at microcenter about a year ago and there was an incredible sale so it was worth it but I do not see a reason to buy it at this point. I mean the r5 3600 and 3600x perform not far off from the 8700k for much cheaper. 

Yeah, it's not a big difference. But i7 9700k and 9900k are still ahead in most titles. @maizenblue should go look at the benchmarks for sure, because the difference is often quite small. But there's still a difference there, and I figure that if someone is buying a CPU for gaming (and nothing else) it makes sense to buy the best CPU for gaming.

[maizenblue]

1 hour ago, melete said:

Yeah, it's not a big difference. But i7 9700k and 9900k are still ahead in most titles. @maizenblue should go look at the benchmarks for sure, because the difference is often quite small. But there's still a difference there, and I figure that if someone is buying a CPU for gaming (and nothing else) it makes sense to buy the best CPU for gaming.

I am considering the 9900k, as expensive as it is. The 9700k just doesnt seem very future proof due to no hyper-threading. I thought the 3800x with its extra cores and threads might be better in the long run. 

 

I could hold out another year but it doesnt sound like intel will even have anything then, and if amd did it likely wouldnt be a big improvement. 

[melete]

25 minutes ago, maizenblue said:

I am considering the 9900k, as expensive as it is. The 9700k just doesnt seem very future proof due to no hyper-threading. I thought the 3800x with its extra cores and threads might be better in the long run. 

 

I could hold out another year but it doesnt sound like intel will even have anything then, and if amd did it likely wouldnt be a big improvement. 

Yeah, the future proofing thing - it's hard to say. Right now the 9700k is superior over 3700X or 3800X because games don't really need all those extra threads, so the extra frequency and similar enough IPC pushes 9700k up ahead by some percent. That hasn't really changed in the year or so since 9700k came out. But it's hard to know what the future will bring for certain, newer games that aren't out yet could start to push the standard for more threads.

 

3700X is still a very good CPU, which I would recommend over 3800X, all the benchmarks I've seen show 3800X being 2-3% faster. I'm actually writing this post on a 3700X right now. I don't think you could go wrong with either CPU here, or 9900k (aside from the price tag). They're all really great. I'm just saying that 9700k does have a mild advantage for gaming right now in 2019, especially once it's overclocked.