9700K vs 2700X for 1440p Gaming & Handbrake transcoding system?

[Gerr]

I am considering upgrading my gaming PC to be better at Handbrake transcoding as I recently setup a Plex server and need to rip & transcode my large Blu-Ray library.  My current CPU is an i7-7700K@5.0Ghz, 1.39v cooled by a Corsair H100iv2 AIO with upgraded 120mm ML fans on an Asus Z170 TUF Sabertooth S mobo.  My monitor runs at 1440p@144Hz and is powered by a MSI 1080 Ti Trio and I have a 750W Gold Seasonic PSU powering the whole system.  It's a good gaming PC, but lacks transcoding power as it takes 4-5 hours to transcode each movie based on my preferred settings.  An 8-core CPU should be able to cut that time nearly in half, and when you have hundreds of movies to transcode, that's a LOT of time and extra power consumption.  Thus I am considering selling my CPU & mobo and buying either a 9700K & Z390 mobo or a 2700x and X470 mobo. 

 

While I would love a 9900K or Threadripper CPU, they are just too expensive.  A 9700K/Z390 combo will likely cost around $600 and a 2700X/X470 combo will cost around $460.  Those prices are with a solid mid-tier overclocking motherboard.  It seems initial benchmarks show these two CPU's to be around the same in Handbrake, but the 9700K is faster in gaming.  Plus I should be able to OC the 9700K farther beyond its stock settings(4.6Ghz->5.0Ghz = +400Mhz) than the 2700X (4.0Ghz->4.2Ghz = +200Mhz), which would push the 9700K farther in front of the 2700X.  However, is the $140 price difference worth it, pending I can even get the 9700K due to stock storage?  Looking to do this around Black Friday, so might get some sales too.  Thoughts/recommendations?

[Princess Luna]

2 minutes ago, Gerr said:

However, is the $140 price difference worth it, pending I can even get the 9700K due to stock storage?

Worth it is subjective solely to how much you're comfortable paying.

 

Did I need an i9 9900K? Probably not the locked i7 8700 previously was enough being honest but I have a good paying job and no hobbies so w/e

[Neftex]

im wondering if it would be possible to rent a server to encode all that for cheaper

[Jurrunio]

4 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

w/e

actually what does this mean?

[Princess Luna]

4 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

actually what does this mean?

Whatever

[Alex Atkin UK]

10 minutes ago, Neftex said:

im wondering if it would be possible to rent a server to encode all that for cheaper

Transferring a ripped Bluray to a server?  Unless you have Gigabit Internet that would take WAY longer to upload to the server than it takes to encode it locally with a half-decent CPU.  Plus a server with that sort of storage would be expensive.

[knightslugger]

you want a high power gaming computer AND a high power transcoding CPU.

 

you are squarely in i9 territory. a 2700x, while a great rendering CPU, is not in the same gaming performance as a 9700k, and a 9700k is not as great in render as a 2700x.

 

pay to play, or accept what you have.

[Gerr]

At 1440p on a 1080 Ti, a 2700X@4.2Ghz would likely trade blows with my current 7700K@5.0Ghz in games.  So upgrading to that CPU would keep my gaming around the same level, but increase my transcoding ability by quite a bit.  However, spending another $150ish would upgrade me to a 9700K, which would give me around the same transcoding upgrade the 2700X gives, but also an increase to gaming.  If I sell my current CPU & mobo for around $300, that means I would have to spend another $150ish to go to a 2700X or around $300 to a 9700K.  Just getting opinions on the different options.

 

*these are only ballpark estimates on pricing, transcoding & gaming performance between the different CPU's.

[knightslugger]

24 minutes ago, Gerr said:

a 9700K, which would give me around the same transcoding upgrade the 2700X gives

uhhh... the 9700k is not a Hyper Threaded 8-core CPU. between the two, the 9700k would get demolished by the 2700x in transcoding.

 

If you want to game like a baller, and render like a baller, you will pay 9900k money like a baller.

[jones177]

Hi

 

The i7 9700k does not have multithreading. The 2700x will beat it in tests like Cinebench multi core. The i7 9700k has closer performance to a i7 8700k than a 2700x when it comes to multi core.

 

In single core apps like most games the i7 9700k wins.

 

To me the i7 9700k is pointless.  It can't outperform my i7 8086k in single core performance & it can't outperform a 2700x in multi core performance. Why did Intel leave out multithreading?

 

To get the best of both worlds you need i9 9900k.

I only game so I don't need one.

 

 

 

[Gerr]

23 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

the 9700k is not a Hyper Threaded 8-core CPU. between the two, the 9700k would get demolished by the 2700x in transcoding.

Not according to recent benchmarks.  Yes, the 2700X does beat it in Handbrake transcoding, but only by a minor amount.

 

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i7_9700k_processor_review,14.html

[jones177]

1 minute ago, Gerr said:

Not according to recent benchmarks.  Yes, the 2700X does beat it in Handbrake transcoding, but only by a minor amount.

https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-cinebench_r15_multi_core-8

[xg32]

1 hour ago, Gerr said:

.

if you need it now and have no budget, get the 9900k, it's faster.

if money is even slightly an issue, 2700x

if you can wait, wait 9 months for zen 2, that 13% ipc improvement's gonna be king for awhile.

 

9700k was never in consideration, for me anyway.

[Gerr]

I am not talking about general multi-core performance, but specific Handbrake transcoding performance, in which the 9700K trails the 2700X by a hair in the benchmarks I could find...

 

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i7_9700k_processor_review,14.html

 

https://www.techspot.com/review/1730-intel-core-i9-9900k-core-i7-9700k/page2.html

 

http://www.comptoir-hardware.com/articles/cpu-mobo-ram/37408-test-intel-z390-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-post_710346.html?start=8

[knightslugger]

Well I guess to answer you initial question..."worth it" is really YOUR decision to make, isn't it? $140 isn't anything to sneeze at, but what's more important to you? gaming performance you'll never notice, encoding performance you'll barely notice, or the $140 you'll save by not going intel?