Amd 3700x or intel i7 9700k

[Los]

I don’t know if I should go with the i7 9700k or the 3700x my only focus is on gaming and nothing else like editing.

[Mister Woof]

Don't buy anything without HT/SMT

 

In my opinion

 

You'll regret it like every other person who comes on this forum who has an i5 and makes a thread asking for upgrade advice

[Sorenson]

3 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

Don't buy anything without HT/SMT

 

In my opinion

 

You'll regret it like every other person who comes on this forum who has an i5 and makes a thread asking for upgrade advice

I sold my old PC and went from the 8700k to a 9700k. SMT is not a big deal. the 9700k is faster even though it has 4 less threads, but has two more cores. The i5s that people have problems with are typically the 4c/4t ones. Last year all the youtuber were testing how much hyperthreading mattered and it wasn’t much.

 

That said, for now the 9700k is the better gaming CPU in most games. There is an argument for the R7 having more threads and being upgradeable down the line.

[Mister Woof]

7 minutes ago, Sorenson said:

I sold my old PC and went from the 8700k to a 9700k. SMT is not a big deal. the 9700k is faster even though it has 4 less threads, but has two more cores. The i5s that people have problems with are typically the 4c/4t ones. Last year all the youtuber were testing how much hyperthreading mattered and it wasn’t much.

 

That said, for now the 9700k is the better gaming CPU in most games. There is an argument for the R7 having more threads and being upgradeable down the line.

 

That's your opinion and I respect that, but I personally would not upgrade as for gaming, an equally clocked 8700k and 9700k are pretty much within margin of error or humanly imperceptible difference.

 

A 6/6 or 8/8 tomorrow may be in the same boat as a 4/4 is today.

 

There are already instances where the lack of HT on the 9700k causes problems, even if it is only because of poor game coding.

 

In a perfect world all games are optimized like Doom 2016, but alas, they aren't.

 

 

[jj9987]

3 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

There are already instances where the lack of HT on the 9700k causes problems, even if it is only because of poor game coding.

Speaking from own experience with a 6-core 9600k - I haven't had any issues with games. If anything, I have seen some better numbers as CPU does not have to deal with the threads in certain scenarios (e.g. more cores than necessary). Can't look up any benchmarks right now tho.

[Mister Woof]

2 minutes ago, jj9987 said:

Speaking from own experience with a 6-core 9600k - I haven't had any issues with games. If anything, I have seen some better numbers as CPU does not have to deal with the threads in certain scenarios (e.g. more cores than necessary). Can't look up any benchmarks right now tho.

 

It really depends on the games; in RDR2 the lack of HT and the framecap killed 9600k/9700k performance because of bad coding.

 

But either way, it's 99% times more beneficial to have HT/SMT than not. It's an old tech and frankly it's shameful Intel released the 9700k as an i7.

[Princess Luna]

I'd get the i7 9700K personally, it's better for gaming and all in all a very good CPU.

[Sorenson]

9 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

 

That's your opinion and I respect that, but I personally would not upgrade as for gaming, an equally clocked 8700k and 9700k are pretty much within margin of error or humanly imperceptible difference.

 

A 6/6 or 8/8 tomorrow may be in the same boat as a 4/4 is today.

 

There are already instances where the lack of HT on the 9700k causes problems, even if it is only because of poor game coding.

 

In a perfect world all games are optimized like Doom 2016, but alas, they aren't.

 

 

I severely doubt that as the next gen consoles are going to be 8core cpus. Also as this video shows disabling Hyper threading on the 9900k makes pretty much no difference in gaming, and even improves performance in some cases. The same thing has been seen on the 3700x. 

 

I’ve never seen issues caused by lack of hyperthreading, but if you want to link the sources i would be interested to look at them.

[Mister Woof]

2 minutes ago, Sorenson said:

I severely doubt that as the next gen consoles are going to be 8core cpus. Also as this video shows disabling Hyper threading on the 9900k makes pretty much no difference in gaming, and even improves performance in some cases. The same thing has been seen on the 3700x. 

 

I’ve never seen issues caused by lack of hyperthreading, but if you want to link the sources i would be interested to look at them.

[CPUguy101]

25 minutes ago, Los said:

I don’t know if I should go with the i7 9700k or the 3700x my only focus is on gaming and nothing else like editing.

Easiest recommendation of the year a 3700X the 9700K SUCKS! If it was a 6 core with 12 threads and was 280$ or so then no but for the price of that CPU you get no HT and you get what 5% better ST performance on a dead platform with only a chance to upgrade to a 9900KS in the future. With the AM4 platform in 2-3 years i bet a 3950X will be 200$

[Flying Sausages]

5 minutes ago, Sorenson said:

I severely doubt that as the next gen consoles are going to be 8core cpus. Also as this video shows disabling Hyper threading on the 9900k makes pretty much no difference in gaming, and even improves performance in some cases. The same thing has been seen on the 3700x. 

 

I’ve never seen issues caused by lack of hyperthreading, but if you want to link the sources i would be interested to look at them.

If you watch this benchmark video, the 9700k has higher cpu usage than 3700x which is no good.

 

[Mister Woof]

Feel free to get a 9700k that lacks a premium feature every desktop i7 has had over the past decade (and who's competition mainstream CPUs come with standard) because Intel wanted to sell defective 9900k's at a premium price.

 

It will probably be fine, but you will probably wish at some point you got a chip with that efficiency feature.

[Sorenson]

4 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

 

Red dead is a very buggy poorly optimized PC game. I don't think it should be considered the benchmark for good and bad hardware. This issue will likely also be fixed relatively quickly. 

[Mister Woof]

3 minutes ago, Sorenson said:

Red dead is a very buggy poorly optimized PC game. I don't think it should be considered the benchmark for good and bad hardware. This issue will likely also be fixed relatively quickly. 

I already explained my reasoning - as time goes by game developers seem to be trending towards worse optimization than better, and expecting retail sales to act as betas.

[Sorenson]

4 minutes ago, OlympicAssEater said:

If you watch this benchmark video, the 9700k has higher cpu usage than 3700x which is no good.

 

I mean its also getting higher frame rate in most of the cases. If I understand your argument, you suggest the 3700x because it has less utilization meaning it is less likely to bottleneck in the future. However, the 3700x is already bottlenecking a lot of those games due to the slower per core speed. I think we have already seen the jump in games taking advantage of more cores. I do not think that there are going to be many games taking advantage of 16 threads in the near future, because most people are either gaming on a console or laptop.  

[Mister Woof]

I mainly have a problem with the entire concept of the 9700k.

 

It's whole existence is a big middle finger to the consumer.

 

The 9700k isn't a clear cut better at everything upgrade over the previous generation. It's a side grade. It exists only because Intel had defective 9900ks and were too greedy to shift the segment down like they historically have. So instead of the 9900k being the mainstream i7, it is now a whole new segment the mainstream i9.

 

And now we have an i7 that lacks hyperthreading and isn't 100% of the time better than the last i7.

 

So either its only an i7 in name, and is really an i5, or Intel cut out a standard efficiency feature out of the i7. Either way it's shitty to the consumer.

 

The 8700k was the same relative price as the 7700k, the previous i7. However, it was better in every respect. 33% more cores and threads. More clock speed. But the 9700k? Uh....kinda better kinda worse. Shrug? But here's the one that's actually better all around, the i9-9900k. Only now your increase is $100 more. This sounds a lot like the 1080ti/2080 and 2080ti bullshit.

 

Combined with the fact their competition has this feature standard on all of their chips, it's a very poor value.

 

[Flying Sausages]

1 minute ago, Sorenson said:

I mean its also getting higher frame rate in most of the cases. If I understand your argument, you suggest the 3700x because it has less utilization meaning it is less likely to bottleneck in the future. However, the 3700x is already bottlenecking a lot of those games due to the slower per core speed. I think we have already seen the jump in games taking advantage of more cores. I do not think that there are going to be many games taking advantage of 16 threads in the near future, because most people are either gaming on a console or laptop.  

5 to 7 fps more for almost 100% usage in game is not worth it for me. It won't take long for games to push 100% on 9700k and that you will experience stutter and lag. The 3700x is not bottleneck. It has 8 core and 16 thread compare to 9700k which is 8 core and 8 thread. 

[CPUguy101]

 

 

Here is a good video to compare the 2, again I would go with the 3700X then again that's what i have lol

[Mister Woof]

3 minutes ago, SMBGUY said:

 

 

Here is a good video to compare the 2, again I would go with the 3700X then again that's what i have lol

I have mostly Intel chips and I have criticized AMD in the past. So if there's bias from me it should be in Intels favor.

 

In a vacuum, the 9700k is fine. But in it's environment, it's a poor value and is feature-inconsistent in it's own manufacturer's past, current, and if rumors are true, future lineups.

[Sorenson]

14 minutes ago, OlympicAssEater said:

5 to 7 fps more for almost 100% usage in game is not worth it for me. It won't take long for games to push 100% on 9700k and that you will experience stutter and lag. The 3700x is not bottleneck. It has 8 core and 16 thread compare to 9700k which is 8 core and 8 thread. 

It is bottlenecking otherwise it would be getting higher fps. In some of the games intel was ahead by almost 50fps. You could have a cpu with 9 million cores and still have it bottleneck. In games a large amount of work is done on 1 core. Modern games are utilizing more cores but still, one core will do more work than the rest. So when this single core is pinned at 100% it acts as a bottleneck. 
 

Also I have never seen my 9700k with usage like that, is he recording off of the system he is gaming on?

[CPUguy101]

1 minute ago, Plutosaurus said:

I have mostly Intel chips and I have criticized AMD in the past. So if there's bias from me it should be in Intels favor.

 

In a vacuum, the 9700k is fine. But in it's environment, it's a poor value and is feature-inconsistent in it's own manufacturer's past, current, and if rumors are true, future lineups.

I just think its silly not having HT on these things i mean if it was like your 8700K then maybe i would say something else i mean last gen i easily recommended that over the 2700x for gaming but i just can''t recommend anything from Intel right now but the 9900K and that is for pure 100% high frame rate today gaming. 

 

9700K shouldn't even exist, back in the day when Ryzen 3 came out i also complained about the lack of SMT as 4C/4T just seemed to limiting from Zen. SMT and HT are free to put in as you actually have to go out of your way to disable the feature. 

[CPUguy101]

Plus lets not forget how red dead redemption acted on CPU's without SMT. The 9700K was seriously choking the experience, sure it might be a bad port but do gamers really want to worry about that. Back when devils cannon came out the first thing i did was jump over and overclocked that thing to 4.8Ghz and i loved the feeling of knowing that my hardware was going to easily run any game with no issues coming from a crappy 8350. 

 

Nothing sucks more then building a high-end gaming machine just to have the new game come out(the same year) and ruin your experience 

[Mister Woof]

4 minutes ago, SMBGUY said:

I just think its silly not having HT on these things i mean if it was like your 8700K then maybe i would say something else i mean last gen i easily recommended that over the 2700x for gaming but i just can''t recommend anything from Intel right now but the 9900K and that is for pure 100% high frame rate today gaming. 

 

9700K shouldn't even exist, back in the day when Ryzen 3 came out i also complained about the lack of SMT as 4C/4T just seemed to limiting from Zen. SMT and HT are free to put in as you actually have to go out of your way to disable the feature. 

If rumors are true for the next generation of Intel chips (which are still 14nm+++) then Intel agrees.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/wccftech.com/intel-10th-gen-comet-lake-desktop-cpu-family-400-series-platform-leak/amp/

 

If this is true, or mostly true, then it means the 9700k truly is the black sheep of the Intel family, as the new i7 will basically be a 9900k, the new i5 will be an 8700k, and the new i3 will he a 7700k. 

 

The 9700k would be the only i7 desktop mainstream chip to lack HT.

 

So it begs the question as to why? Was this by design? Or....to recover losses?

 

I wonder which one it is....lol

[Flying Sausages]

23 minutes ago, Sorenson said:

It is bottlenecking otherwise it would be getting higher fps. In some of the games intel was ahead by almost 50fps. You could have a cpu with 9 million cores and still have it bottleneck. In games a large amount of work is done on 1 core. Modern games are utilizing more cores but still, one core will do more work than the rest. So when this single core is pinned at 100% it acts as a bottleneck. 
 

Also I have never seen my 9700k with usage like that, is he recording off of the system he is gaming on?

Show me where 9700k is ahead 3700x by 50 fps. Intel is faster in gaming because it got the clockspeed higher than 3700x. 3700x at 4.2ghz vs 4.6ghz on 9700k. The 9700k got clockspeed advantage over 3700x, but when it comes to cpu usage the 3700x is ahead of 9700k thanks to 16 threads instead 8 threads on 9700k. 8700k to 9700k is not even worth it at all. The 9700k is literary Intel middle finger to customers to buy the i9 for hyperthreading. I don't know why ya support the 9700k.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mister Woof]

GN is pretty spot on, only thing he misses is where I complain about segmentation

 

"The move did not feel productive for Intel. The 9700K is fine. It’s not a bad product, it does well in testing (overall), and it both wins and loses some tests, as any product would do. The oddity is just that it’s losing tests against its predecessor, even when those are simple tests of value, not necessarily performance. This was true for the likes of the RTX 2080 as well, for instance, where performance was fine, but value was a clear regression from the previous generation. We feel similarly about the 9700K. We need to see price come down to around where the 8700K is – around $350 – to really feel comfortable with the 9700K. Even then, it feels like an odd, lateral move from the 8700K before it."