I7 8700k vs 9700k

[JustSum]

I was going amd but since my ram is only 3000mhz, i already have a z370 evga ftw that i will be selling to a friend , but i also got a board on amazon hope it works "Gigabyte Z390 AORUS PRO", since it was " like new". The 2 reason why i didn't go AMD is I dont want to deal with ram overclock and cpu overclock on it, also since i already have 4 sticks on corsair vengeance 3000, and ryzen needs 3600, from what i gathered .

 

So my problem is 

i7 8700k 279.99

or i7 9700k 299.99

I'll try to do price match on Bestbuy with Microcenter.

I'll Also oc the cpu to 5ghz if the cpu lets me.

Not sure if my 360 Thick rad will be enough for the cpu and a 1080 ti i hope it is.

 

I mostly play BF5 and any fps games to come out.

I play at 144hz 1440p.

Im one of those people who play at low-mid settings to get 144hz+.

 

So my Question is i7 8700k or i7 9700k?

6 core 12t vs 8 core 8t?

Not worth the 20$ difference ?

 

I am planning not to change cpu/gpu for a good 2 years.

[Damascus]

9700k IMO, because of how hyperthreading works.  Each of the extra threads is optimistically, about 45-50% of the power of a "true core" from there, we can do some maffs and see an incredibly rough idea of the total performance each chip could output in a full load scenario (all other factors being equal) 

 

9700k 

8*1=8

8700k

6*1 + 6*0.5 = 9

 

The theoretical lead with an 8700k becomes slim, right?  But now we add in three major factors - IPC, clockspeed and latency.  The 9700k will have higher IPC/clockspeed, and lower latency as there are less cores to divvy up the work.  The 8700k wins out in situations that require a lot of instances with less of a speed requirement, but that is definitely not your usecase.

[Jurrunio]

15 minutes ago, JustSum said:

also since i already have 4 sticks on corsair vengeance 3000, and ryzen needs 3600, from what i gathered .

No one says you "need" them, they just work better with higher frequency. You wont lose more than 5% of performance at worst, usually not even that noticeable without hitting specific workloads

 

17 minutes ago, JustSum said:

I dont want to deal with ram overclock and cpu overclock on it...

I'll Also oc the cpu to 5ghz if the cpu lets me.

*confused*

Ryzen 3rd gen nearly doesnt have overclocking headroom on the core, so that's 1 less trouble

[JustSum]

7 minutes ago, Damascus said:

9700k IMO, because of how hyperthreading works.  Each of the extra threads is optimistically, about 45-50% of the power of a "true core" from there, we can do some maffs and see an incredibly rough idea of the total performance each chip could output in a full load scenario (all other factors being equal) 

 

9700k 

8*1=8

8700k

6*1 + 6*0.5 = 9

 

The theoretical lead with an 8700k becomes slim, right?  But now we add in three major factors - IPC, clockspeed and latency.  The 9700k will have higher IPC/clockspeed, and lower latency as there are less cores to divvy up the work.  The 8700k wins out in situations that require a lot of instances with less of a speed requirement, but that is definitely not your usecase.

That make sense,  Not a expert but it makes sense 9700k it is.

I was just asking since i was looking at some benchmark that yes the 9700k had 1-5 fps more then the 8700k , but the 9700k was at like 90-100% usage and the 8700k was at 80sh%. The 2 cpu where at 5ghz.

[JustSum]

8 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

No one says you "need" them, they just work better with higher frequency. You wont lose more than 5% of performance at worst, usually not even that noticeable without hitting specific workloads

 

*confused*

Ryzen 3rd gen nearly doesnt have overclocking headroom on the core, so that's 1 less trouble

Yes but then again i'm just a gamer , so i only need speed :).

The only amd cpu would be the 3700x, same price as the intel, Sure more threads ,but losing fps from the core speed and ram and still try to get the max oc i'll stick with intel for now.

 

thats only from 3200 probably another 5fps going to 3000.

[NumLock21]

3000MHz ram will still work fine with Ryzen, so I don't see what the huge deal is.

[Jurrunio]

14 minutes ago, JustSum said:

The only amd cpu would be the 3700x, same price as the intel, Sure more threads ,but losing fps from the core speed and ram and still try to get the max oc i'll stick with intel for now.

The argument for AMD is to actually spend less (say a R5 3600) and get faster cards. What will you use?

[JustSum]

3 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

The argument for AMD is to actually spend less (say a R5 3600) and get faster cards. What will you use?

 

I'll be using a 1080 ti.Since i already have a z370/z390 coming from amazon , sure i can cancel/return it if i want.

and since i do want 144fps stable at 1440p every fps matters i guess.

and since i do have a cpu waterblock that i think its only for intel since its a xspc block i would also probably need a xspc amd kit. Too much work .

 

12 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

3000MHz ram will still work fine with Ryzen, so I don't see what the huge deal is.

Not much really just that if i'm looking for most fps and i already have most intel part.

if i do go amd i would have to do a few things that i just dont want to deal with.

[Mister Woof]

Equally clocked, generally they are pretty even. Most benchmarks you see compare stock for stock, and that's going to be a 4.3ghz vs 4.6ghz all-core comparison. That said, nobody (should) be running these at stock, and a conservative 5ghz for each pretty much brings them into margin of error. In cases where they are similarly clocked, the difference is in fps is so far beyond perceivable difference it may as well not even exist.

 

HT gives about a 25-30% efficiency boost, but it can be tricky to really calculate exactly how it affects each individual application, if it even uses HT effectively.

 

In some cases, it won't matter either way, but in other cases, the lack of HT can cause some problems in some poorly coded software.

 

Personally, I wouldn't take anything without HT/SMT.

 

I would personally also choose the 8700k because the STIM in the 9th generation is not renowned for being very good, and the 8700k is much easier to delid and apply LM.

 

I also personally have a gripe with the existence of the 9700k, as it's just an excuse to sell defective 9900ks which Intel chose to elevate to a whole new mainstream segment, the i9.

[NDRE28]

I had to make the same choice 1 year ago, between i7-8700K and i7-9700K. 

I chose i7-9700K, and I don’t regret it! 

 

The i7-9700K has more “muscles”, it stays cooler, and it works better in games. 

[NumLock21]

8700K for its HT

9th gen desktop i7 are the only i7s ever in Intel history without HT. 

[Mick Naughty]

I was in the same boat. Got the 8700k. Kinda wish I got the 9700 but after all this back and forth and them being so close, I realized I should have got the 9900k. 

[JustSum]

thanks for the help i'll just play,eeny meeny,since there are no wrong answers.

i do plan to oc to 5ghz if the cpu lets me and if temps are in control if anything i'll delid it if i do go 8700k. got tp wait till tomorrow still since bb wont price match on Holiday .

[NDRE28]

28 minutes ago, JustSum said:

thanks for the help i'll just play,eeny meeny,since there are no wrong answers.

i do plan to oc to 5ghz if the cpu lets me and if temps are in control if anything i'll delid it if i do go 8700k. got tp wait till tomorrow still since bb wont price match on Holiday .

I’d take the advice of Mick Naughty and buy the i9-9900K, or even i9-9900KS, (if you can afford that, of course...)

[JustSum]

55 minutes ago, NDRE said:

I’d take the advice of Mick Naughty and buy the i9-9900K, or even i9-9900KS, (if you can afford that, of course...)

if i where to do that i would def just go AMD, ryzen 9 3900x for 500$. I'll stick with the i7 for now.

[Noah0302]

I have the 8700k, but the 9700k just seems like a better buy.

 

8 true cores

no toothpaste between the ihs and the die

easier to OC in my experience