Upgrading from an 8700K?

[Reytime]

I've been researching for a quite a while now, trying to figure out whether or not an upgrade to a 3900X, 3900XT, 10700k or 10900k would be even worth it when coming from a 8700k.

Its main use would be gaming (paired with a RTX 2080) and some graphic design on the side, mainly Creative Cloud apps.

 

Does anybody have real time experience with any of the above mention CPUs and seen a noticeable performance increase?

 

Or wight I as well wait for 11th gen or Zen 3 to see anything noteworthy?

[WambleCropped]

2 minutes ago, Reytime said:

I've been researching for a quite a while now, trying to figure out whether or not an upgrade to a 3900X, 3900XT, 10700k or 10900k would be even worth it when coming from a 8700k.

Its main use would be gaming (paired with a RTX 2080) and some graphic design on the side, mainly Creative Cloud apps.

 

Does anybody have real time experience with any of the above mention CPUs and seen a noticeable performance increase?

 

Or wight I as well wait for 11th gen or Zen 3 to see anything noteworthy?

wait for ryzen 4000

[jaslion]

For gaming a 8700k is not at all holding you back. Same for the creative work it's more than plenty.

[Mister Woof]

You'd be downgrading in gaming by going Ryzen right now

[-rascal-]

14 minutes ago, Reytime said:

I've been researching for a quite a while now, trying to figure out whether or not an upgrade to a 3900X, 3900XT, 10700k or 10900k would be even worth it when coming from a 8700k.

Its main use would be gaming (paired with a RTX 2080) and some graphic design on the side, mainly Creative Cloud apps.

 

Does anybody have real time experience with any of the above mention CPUs and seen a noticeable performance increase?

 

Or wight I as well wait for 11th gen or Zen 3 to see anything noteworthy?

 

If you overclock your i7-8700K to match the frequency of the i5-10600K (e.g. 8700K @ 5 GHz vs 10600K @ 5 GHz), it is pretty much exactly the same.

 

The i7-10700K isn't even worth it; either i9-10900K (for the extra cores and tech), or i5-10600K.

For gaming, the i5-10600K is the one to get (= 8700K / 8086K).

 

Best is to wait for Ryzen 4000-series if you can, again, unless you need the extra cores.

[zeusthemoose]

18 minutes ago, Reytime said:

I've been researching for a quite a while now, trying to figure out whether or not an upgrade to a 3900X, 3900XT, 10700k or 10900k would be even worth it when coming from a 8700k.

Its main use would be gaming (paired with a RTX 2080) and some graphic design on the side, mainly Creative Cloud apps.

 

Does anybody have real time experience with any of the above mention CPUs and seen a noticeable performance increase?

 

Or wight I as well wait for 11th gen or Zen 3 to see anything noteworthy?

If your current performance is enough for you, no need to upgrade. That said, for gaming, an upgraded cpu most likely wouldn't be worth it.

[Reytime]

8 hours ago, WambleCropped said:

wait for ryzen 4000

Yeah.. that's what I've been thinking. It's just been so long that you can't help but want to upgrade sooner than later. But from what I see people saying I should be just fine until Zen 3. Very excited to see what that's going to offer.

[Mister Woof]

People hung onto their i7-2600's for years past when new and slightly faster stuff came out. I'm not saying hold onto it until 2030, but I would not consider anything under a 30-40% upgrade in the things you do to be worthwhile.

[Nena Trinity]

Unless the game ya need a upgrade for is heavily multi threaded why not keep it a bit longer? Less e-waste = good right? :3

[jones177]

17 hours ago, -rascal- said:

 

If you overclock your i7-8700K to match the frequency of the i5-10600K (e.g. 8700K @ 5 GHz vs 10600K @ 5 GHz), it is pretty much exactly the same.

 

The i7-10700K isn't even worth it; either i9-10900K (for the extra cores and tech), or i5-10600K.

For gaming, the i5-10600K is the one to get (= 8700K / 8086K).

 

Best is to wait for Ryzen 4000-series if you can, again, unless you need the extra cores.

All these sites have been saying 8 core for future proofing and now they don't like the 8 core for $100 less. I am done buying 6 cores.

 

If you look at the charts in that video you will see the i7 8086k winning the most and it is a 2018 CPU. They thought it was a joke when it first came out. I thought so to after buying one and comparing with my i7 8700k but then the 2080 ti came out and I stopped using the i7 8700k for gaming.

 

18 hours ago, Reytime said:

I've been researching for a quite a while now, trying to figure out whether or not an upgrade to a 3900X, 3900XT, 10700k or 10900k would be even worth it when coming from a 8700k.

Its main use would be gaming (paired with a RTX 2080) and some graphic design on the side, mainly Creative Cloud apps.

 

Does anybody have real time experience with any of the above mention CPUs and seen a noticeable performance increase?

 

Or wight I as well wait for 11th gen or Zen 3 to see anything noteworthy?

There is no upgrade for you if your CPU can do 5ghz and in my tests 5ghz only matters if you have a 2080 ti.

 

[Nena Trinity]

1 hour ago, jones177 said:

All these sites have been saying 8 core for future proofing and now they don't like the 8 core for $100 less. I am done buying 6 cores.

 

If you look at the charts in that video you will see the i7 8086k winning the most and it is a 2018 CPU. They thought it was a joke when it first came out. I thought so to after buying one and comparing with my i7 8700k but then the 2080 ti came out and I stopped using the i7 8700k for gaming.

 

There is no upgrade for you if your CPU can do 5ghz and in my tests 5ghz only matters if you have a 2080 ti.

 

I bought a 8-core in 2014-2015 lasted me over 5 years while my quad-core lasted me about 3-4 years but I pushed it a few extra year(s) by some tweaking and settings etc etc... Cores help more long term while clocks helps in the here and now IMO so if you are happy with here and now get more cores, not happy? Well why not buy the fastest cores each time then wait until a worth upgrade come along? :I (IMO getting a Ryzen 7 3700X is probably safest bet since consoles uses em)

[xg32]

21 hours ago, Reytime said:

I've been researching for a quite a while now, trying to figure out whether or not an upgrade to a 3900X, 3900XT, 10700k or 10900k would be even worth it when coming from a 8700k.

Its main use would be gaming (paired with a RTX 2080) and some graphic design on the side, mainly Creative Cloud apps.

 

Does anybody have real time experience with any of the above mention CPUs and seen a noticeable performance increase?

 

Or wight I as well wait for 11th gen or Zen 3 to see anything noteworthy?

I've been thinking alot of cpu upgrades lately for a 8600k rig and my own 9900k rig. The 10600k is a great budget cpu if paired with the z490 prime, you do have to spend a bit more on memory and fine tune it to squeeze last bit of juice out of the single core performance out of 14nm. On benchmarks by the techtubers, the 10600k did the best, and the remaining games was either csgo (zen) or benefited from more cores.

 

a b450 tomahawk+ a r5 3600 is 300usd, but given console specs and ur 8700k that's out of the question

a z490 prime+10600k (if u can find one) is around 450usd and beats even the 9900k and 3700x in gaming most of the time

If you play csgo competitively, wait for zen 3

the 10700k covers most of the remaining games that needs 8 cores, but that tacks on another 150 to the cost,n bringing it to 580~

the 10900k draws an ALOT of power when oc'd, and actually makes gaming slower compared to the 10600k and 10700k, also probably cost 80usd more in electric bill a year, but if u make money with the pc, it might be worth the extra $ and heat.

Wouldn't touch any old zen 2 atm with XT coming out and zen 3 still slated for thisyear.

 

So depending on if you play csgo competitively/budget, i'd go with the 10600k+z390 prime or  10700k+ apex (memory overclocking), or just wait for zen 3.

 

My personal preference right now is the 10700k and zen 3 if it finally beats on single core (i'm hyped)

[jones177]

2 hours ago, Nena Trinity said:

I bought a 8-core in 2014-2015 lasted me over 5 years while my quad-core lasted me about 3-4 years but I pushed it a few extra year(s) by some tweaking and settings etc etc... Cores help more long term while clocks helps in the here and now IMO so if you are happy with here and now get more cores, not happy? Well why not buy the fastest cores each time then wait until a worth upgrade come along? :I (IMO getting a Ryzen 7 3700X is probably safest bet since consoles uses em)

Consoles don't have to run Windows so they win.

Best to wait for Ryzen 3. 

[Nena Trinity]

38 minutes ago, jones177 said:

Consoles don't have to run Windows so they win.

Best to wait for Ryzen 3. 

XBOX ONE uses Windows 10 Lite

[jones177]

28 minutes ago, Nena Trinity said:

XBOX ONE uses Windows 10 Lite

I have one and it has not been turned on in over a year. It is kind of awful. I loved the 360. 

[Reytime]

On 6/18/2020 at 11:08 AM, xg32 said:

My personal preference right now is the 10700k and zen 3 if it finally beats on single core (i'm hyped)

 

Yes, I was really thinking of getting the 10700k but from what I've gathered it's just not that much of an upgrade over the 8700k. At least not for my situation. And I really wish AMD would get better single core performances with their CPUs. Would be a much easier sell to current Intel customers.

[Nena Trinity]

39 minutes ago, Reytime said:

 

Yes, I was really thinking of getting the 10700k but from what I've gathered it's just not that much of an upgrade over the 8700k. At least not for my situation. And I really wish AMD would get better single core performances with their CPUs. Would be a much easier sell to current Intel customers.

The IPC or instructions per clock is actually higher with AMD now the issue is mainly GHz they run at not going to 5GHz or higher...