Ryzen 7 3700x or I7 9700f?

[Nickolass]

I've needed a new cpu recently and ive nailed it down to these two. Which one is better for gaming overall?

[LIGISTX]

1 minute ago, Nickolass said:

I've needed a new cpu recently and ive nailed it down to these two. Which one is better for gaming overall?

The 9700 will be better for RAW FPS, at least right now.... In a couple years, its hard to say, more threads may start to have an advantage. But, right now, Intel high end desktop chips which the 9700 is, do take the lead for FPS in most games.

[Nickolass]

3 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

The 9700 will be better for RAW FPS, at least right now.... In a couple years, its hard to say, more threads may start to have an advantage. But, right now, Intel high end desktop chips which the 9700 is, do take the lead for FPS in most games.

I just dont know which one to really choose.

[Escapenz]

3 minutes ago, Nickolass said:

I just dont know which one to really choose.

Go for the cheap one. Both will be a great option.

[Mister Woof]

skip the 9700k. it's a defective part that is missing a critical efficiency feature.

 

get the 3700x for less money since the cooler works and with the 9700k you need to buy one.

[LIGISTX]

1 hour ago, Nickolass said:

I just dont know which one to really choose.

Both will be good. For pure raw FPS, the 9700 will be a little better, but not my all that much. This is also pretty dependent on what GPU you pick anyways. The more of a bottleneck the GPU is, the less the CPU speed will matter. If you have a 1080p screen and a 2080 ti, CPU will be a bigger factor, but if you have a GTX 1060 an da 4k screen, CPU will basically not matter at all. Thats sorts how the scale of it goes, the more GPU load, the less the CPU matters. 

[LIGISTX]

2 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

skip the 9700k. it's a defective part that is missing a critical efficiency feature.

 

get the 3700x for less money since the cooler works and with the 9700k you need to buy one.

I mean... every part is a defective part. Your 8700k is "defective", as is my 9900k. Its hardly a reason to advise not getting a chip, thats how the product stack works.

 

The 9700 has no HT simply because intel wanted to create a differentiation in the market so the 9900k can exist, and honestly, it was a fine move. The 9700 is a great chip, but Ryzen 3 has thrown a bit of a wrench in Intels cogs which was much needed and long overdue.

 

But saying its defective really is selling the CPU short, and is extremely miss-leading. Remember, every chip is defective, just some are less defective then others... 

[Mister Woof]

8 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

I mean... every part is a defective part. Your 8700k is "defective", as is my 9900k. Its hardly a reason to advise not getting a chip, thats how the product stack works.

 

The 9700 has no HT simply because intel wanted to create a differentiation in the market so the 9900k can exist, and honestly, it was a fine move. The 9700 is a great chip, but Ryzen 3 has thrown a bit of a wrench in Intels cogs which was much needed and long overdue.

 

But saying its defective really is selling the CPU short, and is extremely miss-leading. Remember, every chip is defective, just some are less defective then others... 

From a business practice-consumer perspective, the 9700k is insufficient in its market competition where there 8/16 chip has been the standard premium desktop chip for a year already by the time of launch.

 

It's defective, just like everything else in the segmented product stack, which is fine, but Intel nickel and dimed a previous i7 feature into the i9 to make a few extra bucks. I take SERIOUS issue with that.

[Mister Woof]

The i7-8700k was a clear upgrade over the 7700k, as was the 7700k over the 6700k; the 9700k? eh, kinda not really sometimes maybe. They needed to just make an all around better i7, not a kinda not really sometimes maybe.

[LIGISTX]

2 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

From a practice-consumer perspective, the 9700k is insufficient in its market competition. It's defective, just like everything else in the segmented product stack, which is fine, but Intel nickel and dimed a previous i7 feature into the i9 to make a few bucks. I take SERIOUS issue with that.

I don't understand why you call it defective. But as far as taking issue with their business strategy, its a fair point, I don't agree with it, but I understand where your coming form. The 9700 is basically a 8700 rebrand as far as performance goes, but they did go about it differently with 2 more physical cores and removing HT. Thats sort of expected from a company with little competition plus being stuck on the 14nm node. What else would you have done? Reduce your profit margin which ultimately reduces your R&D budget which is what will hopefully get you out of the funk your in vs "keeping HT in the product segment and nullifying the i9 9900k from existing"? They wanted to charge a premium for the 9900k, and thats how they went about it.

 

Trust me, I would love a 9900k as the "i7" option and a more core variant as the i9 option, but then they start gouging their HEDT line. Its a difficult position to be in. But that said, the 9700 is still a fantastic performing chip. Its one of the best gaming chips out there, only beat by the 9900k and 9900ks...

 

Now if you do anything highly threaded, yes, AMD makes a hell of a lot more sense. 

[LIGISTX]

5 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

The i7-8700k was a clear upgrade over the 7700k, as was the 7700k over the 6700k; the 9700k? eh, kinda not really sometimes maybe. They needed to just make an all around better i7, not a kinda not really sometimes maybe.

I mean, was the 3770 much better than a 2700? Was a 4770 much better than a 3770? Not really... I agree, the 8700 to 9700 was the worst intel has done in years. But, I get it. And the 9700k for instance does still run at 4.9 GHz on a single thread workload, and 4.6 on on core. That really isn't too bad.

 

I am just saying, take the chip for what it is. It stands on its own two feet and performs well. Its not a great step up from the 8700k, but that happens sometimes. The 8700k was a great chip, I had one and loved it. I still would if my mobo VRM didn't poo itself and take that chip out which still bugs me. 5 GHz @ 1.300v was pretty fantastic on my 8700k, and I only went to a 9900k vs a 9700k because I agree, I didn't feel like the 9700 was a worthwhile "upgrade", hell it was a side grade at best and you can't find 8700k's much anymore. So 9900k I have. But, that was an abnormal situation, anyone upgrading from sub 8700 would see fine to great performance gains with a 9700.

[Mister Woof]

1 minute ago, LIGISTX said:

I don't understand why you call it defective. But as far as taking issue with their business strategy, its a fair point, I don't agree with it, but I understand where your coming form. The 9700 is basically a 8700 rebrand as far as performance goes, but they did go about it differently with 2 more physical cores and removing HT. Thats sort of expected from a company with little competition plus being stuck on the 14nm node. What else would you have done? Reduce your profit margin which ultimately reduces your R&D budget which is what will hopefully get you out of the funk your in vs "keeping HT in the product segment and nullifying the i9 9900k from existing"? They wanted to charge a premium for the 9900k, and thats how they went about it.

 

Trust me, I would love a 9900k as the "i7" option and a more core variant as the i9 option, but then they start gouging their HEDT line. Its a difficult position to be in. But that said, the 9700 is still a fantastic performing chip. Its one of the best gaming chips out there, only beat by the 9900k and 9900ks...

 

Now if you do anything highly threaded, yes, AMD makes a hell of a lot more sense. 

The defective comment was mostly intended to be inflammatory as a means to emphasize my disdain for their marketing decision.

 

So, take that as what you will. I'll admit that it is much like putting a vegan sucker on a water bottle. It's been this way for ages, but it helps drive my point home.

 

The good thing about my perspective is that it's from a consumer. I personally don't give a shit about Intel's bottom line, as I'm not a shareholder.

 

So caring about why they could justify creating a whole new segment to rename the i7 to an i9 to make ends meet..... Doesn't mean anything to me.

 

Which is perfectly fine, because it allows me to choose what to buy as a consumer.

[Mister Woof]

7 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

I mean, was the 3770 much better than a 2700? Was a 4770 much better than a 3770? Not really... I agree, the 8700 to 9700 was the worst intel has done in years. But, I get it. And the 9700k for instance does still run at 4.9 GHz on a single thread workload, and 4.6 on on core. That really isn't too bad.

 

I am just saying, take the chip for what it is. It stands on its own two feet and performs well. Its not a great step up from the 8700k, but that happens sometimes. The 8700k was a great chip, I had one and loved it. I still would if my mobo VRM didn't poo itself and take that chip out which still bugs me. 5 GHz @ 1.300v was pretty fantastic on my 8700k, and I only went to a 9900k vs a 9700k because I agree, I didn't feel like the 9700 was a worthwhile "upgrade", hell it was a side grade at best and you can't find 8700k's much anymore. So 9900k I have. But, that was an abnormal situation, anyone upgrading from sub 8700 would see fine to great performance gains with a 9700.

It's not about "much better"... It's about picking up the next generation chip in the naming segment without having to consider "well is this better?" 

 

You shouldn't have to ask if it's better. It should always be better, even if just by a little. Not "most of the time".

 

Otherwise it's like the feeling of "moving up" from a Phenom II to an FX chip, which was terrible. At least they didn't call it the same name.

 

The 9700k is great in a vacuum, but compared to it's competition and the feature list of it's own predecessors, it's a poor product.

[LIGISTX]

2 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

It's not about "much better"... It's about picking up the next chip in the name m segment name without having to consider "well is this better?" 

 

You shouldn't have to ask if it's better. It should always be better, even if just by a little. Not "most of the time".

I mean I don't disagree. I would like that to be the case as well. But AMD, nvidia, Intel, and AMD have all done this from time to time. I agree, its bad practice and poor optics as folks do talk them down for it. But, I guess thats life. Like you said, if you don't agree with it, vote with your wallet.

 

To me, Intel has been a stand up company... When my 8700k did take a dump, they cut me a 370 dollar check to replace it "since they couldn't send me a new chip to replace it". I took that and turned around and got a 9900k as my PC's main focus is gaming, photoshop, and lightroom. So, the way they handled my RMA (my check has already been deposited, my MSI Mobo was shipped the same day, to a closer location, and I have not even had a confirmation of it being delivered from MSI yet) has showed me they are at least a stand up company and this kept me on their platform. I really did intend my next CPU to be AMD, but between not wanting to buy a new waterblock and the way they handled the RMA, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .

[Mister Woof]

2 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

I mean I don't disagree. I would like that to be the case as well. But AMD, nvidia, Intel, and AMD have all done this from time to time. I agree, its bad practice and poor optics as folks do talk them down for it. But, I guess thats life. Like you said, if you don't agree with it, vote with your wallet.

 

To me, Intel has been a stand up company... When my 8700k did take a dump, they cut me a 370 dollar check to replace it "since they couldn't send me a new chip to replace it". I took that and turned around and got a 9900k as my PC's main focus is gaming, photoshop, and lightroom. So, the way they handled my RMA (my check has already been deposited, my MSI Mobo was shipped the same day, to a closer location, and I have not even had a confirmation of it being delivered from MSI yet) has showed me they are at least a stand up company and this kept me on their platform. I really did intend my next CPU to be AMD, but between not wanting to buy a new waterblock and the way they handled the RMA, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .

AMD did worse with Phenom II --> FX. Nvidia basically did what Intel did with the original RTX launch and pricing/naming.

 

But IMO, with the segmentation of the upcoming 10th generation essentially agreeing with me, I think even Intel knows they did customers a dirty one with the 9700.

[Nickolass]

jeez guys, so amd?

[toasty99]

This forum is so against Intel it's amazing. 

 

Look, do I love them? Not really. However, I see nothing wrong with the i7 9700. It's clearly communicated what the specs are and it's up to the buyer to make an informed decision. 

 

In games the i7 9700 outperforms a Ryzen 3700. That's a fact and a valid reason to buy it for some people who consistently upgrade every 2 years or so and only game on their PC. 

 

Is it a great value? No. 

 

Does Intel do anything wrong that AMD or Nvidia doesn't do? Actually... AMD and Nvidia have had much bigger issues than Intel. Intel's only major blunder was the Spectre and Meltdown issue which affected 0 people and was never exploited before being fixed. Meanwhile AMD got caught in a class action suit for the FX series calling 8 modules as 8 cores. Speaking of misleading names, Radeon 5670 was better than 6670, 5850 better than 6850, etc. Nvidia has had their own issues as well... See the GTX 680 (2gb Vram), GTX 780 (3gb Vram), GTX 980 (4gb Vram). All intentionally released with low amounts of vram to obselete them before performance would otherwise have declined. Even worse, the GTX 970 was marketed as 4gb of vram and was actually 3.5gb... Lawsuit lost. 

[Nickolass]

9 minutes ago, toasty99 said:

This forum is so against Intel it's amazing. 

 

Look, do I love them? Not really. However, I see nothing wrong with the i7 9700. It's clearly communicated what the specs are and it's up to the buyer to make an informed decision. 

 

In games the i7 9700 outperforms a Ryzen 3700. That's a fact and a valid reason to buy it for some people who consistently upgrade every 2 years or so and only game on their PC. 

 

Is it a great value? No. 

So between an i7 9700F or ryzen 7 3700x witch would you choose for gaming?

[toasty99]

6 minutes ago, Nickolass said:

So between an i7 9700F or ryzen 7 3700x witch would you choose for gaming?

Neither. 

 

I'd get a Ryzen 3600 and upgrade again in 2 years. 

 

Both at $300+ are nearly double the price of the 3600 for maybe 15 percent more FPS at most. 

 

Save the money now for a meaningful upgrade in a few years. 

 

[TheDankKoosh]

32 minutes ago, Nickolass said:

So between an i7 9700F or ryzen 7 3700x witch would you choose for gaming?

Honestly, a 3700x will be more relevant as time goes on provided that it's paired with decent memory, the raw fps from a 9700kf isn't going to be worth it since these chips will most likely have the same issues as current i5 processors (bad frametime performance with high end gpus) down the line. Overall get a 3700x unless you don't plan on keeping it for more than a couple years AND are planning on getting a 2080 ti.

[Nickolass]

2 minutes ago, TheDankKoosh said:

Honestly, a 3700x will be more relevant as time goes on provided that it's paired with decent memory, the raw fps from a 9700kf isn't going to be worth it since these chips will most likely have the same issues as current i5 processors (bad frametime performance with high end gpus) down the line. Overall get a 3700x unless you don't plan on keeping it for more than a couple years AND are planning on getting a 2080 ti.

Thank you! Does the 3700x not run well with a 2080 ti?

[TheDankKoosh]

11 minutes ago, Nickolass said:

Thank you! Does the 3700x not run well with a 2080 ti?

It would, but depending on resolution, it may end up being a bottleneck. at 4k there's next to no difference, at 1440p the 9700kf would pull ahead some, and at 1080p the gap would get wider, but a 2080 ti is meant for 1440p and up honestly. I don't see any reason why somebody would use a 2080 ti at 1080p, just a huge waste.

[Nickolass]

46 minutes ago, TheDankKoosh said:

It would, but depending on resolution, it may end up being a bottleneck. at 4k there's next to no difference, at 1440p the 9700kf would pull ahead some, and at 1080p the gap would get wider, but a 2080 ti is meant for 1440p and up honestly. I don't see any reason why somebody would use a 2080 ti at 1080p, just a huge waste.

Cool. Also, whats the difference between the i7 9700KF and the i7 9700F?

[talklogan]

Just get the i7 9700k

or wait for 10th gen

[Nickolass]

1 minute ago, talklogan said:

Just get the i9 9900KS

or wait for 10th gen

im getting ryzen 7 3700x