whether or not its a side,up, or down grade depends on what you are doing. mostly its the same. for vm's its a downgrade but this aint the cpu for that. for gaming its a slight upgrade mostly. but in general its a slightly improved 8700k, slightly. i have the 8700k and i wouldnt even upgrade if you offered me to trade and i only had to pay 50 bux extra. but that new 9900KF with no igpu looks good if its cheaper. if its the same price then ill just take the 9900k or whatever comes next thank you. soemthing that often isnt taken into account is that with smt, 2 threads can communicate basically instantanously without having to go through a bus or fabric. which can helps sometimes (maybe far cry 5)
I could see the writing in the specs, 8700k to 9900k with no place for the 9700k. I do hope all the others that wanted confirmation of how pointless the 9700k is are happy now, lol. That dip in the 1% and 0.1% lows is very interesting, to say the least, however, I doubt it's that much of a concern given the 7740x like pointlessness of the 9700k's existence. Compared to the 8700k, you are being charged more for a gimped 9900k, the 9700k should not exist, lol. Great vid Steve and crew. B)
@@Zarcondeegrissom 9700k had better 1% lows in all tests except one. If 9700k and 8700k are close in price, then there's no place for the 8700k anymore, even if the 9700k feels like a limited 9900k
Why are you using 2x 8GB 3200MHz Corsair Vengeance LPX 16-18-18-36 DDR4 RAM with the AMD systems? Its a known fact, and has been for the past 2 years. that AMD benefits from fater ram/tighter timings. This is a useless comparison. (EDIT: Im not saying intel wouldnt benefit aswell, but you are comparing a 250 usd vs 400 usd cpu with 120 usd ram. )
So in short it is a great CPU like 9900k is too and is good upgrade choice for gamers. It still does not change the fact that to my eyes both i7-9700k and i9-9900k are just new i5 and new i7 in more expensive clothing. Great CPUs but also something every sensible consumer should be voting with valet and say definitive no to. As long time Intel user and one that needs new upgrade i am waiting zen2 chips and see if those finally fully close the gap and hopefully in dream scenario even goes further past Intels expensive offerings. And if you consumer want to rather take intel offering be sensible and say no to 9000 series and get 8000 series instead.
We had to buy this one right in the middle of a bunch of other product launches, so it took us some time to get around to it. Thanks for being patient with us!
Finally, I need to find an excuse to justify my purchase :D I got the 9700K since it was actually 200 Euros cheaper and was in stock compared to the 9900K. 8700Ks are still not in stock at this time and even more expensive, on top of the extra cost for a delid. Also I was finally upgrading from Sandybridge and don't need HT (hoping for lower temps/power draw at 5 GHz) for a purely gaming rig, so it was a major upgrade /performance increase on my end. I put the 200 Euros I "saved" towards a new case instead.
@Calamity competitive in the midrange maybe. The top of the line amd chip falls short of even the i7-9700K. And it costs more. Amd needs to keep pushing forward, cause right now, they still aint much.
Can i recommend something? Looking at the charts and trying to figure out which CPU counterparts are OCd is kinda hard, wouldn't it be easier for viewers to put the OCd CPU in another color maybe? I would greatly appreciate it. Cheers
Agree good idea, but every non OC has ‘stock’ on the chart not to hard to differentiate at a glance, unless you mean you want each individual cpu coloured
As u can see by the views in a short time, we were all waiting like crazy for your review of the 9700k. You guys know how important your opinion is to the tech community. Thx for the absolutely amazing work.
I was confused AF when they released the specs, i7 8700K with HT, i7 9700K without HT...this confused me and should confuse people that don't know that much. Should have scrapped the 9700K and made the 9600k 8c/8t.
agree. the 9900k should be called an i7 and cost like $430. Then the 9700k should be a i5, and cost like $275. I know id be more temped to buy one then, but at current prices ill just wait and see what new amd chips have to offer.
@@brkbtjunkie idk why you wouldnt go for a 9900k feel like the extra threads will future proof u for a bit longer for not much extra cost considering you kept your 2600k for so long
I too have a 8700k, but I have considered selling it and getting a 9700KF if I can split the difference and end up paying under $90 out of pocket. Why not?
Lol 9700k just pummeled the 8700k, in every aspect, which itself brutally raped the 7700k... it's not even going to be fair. It's like you bring four friends to a fight and I bring 8 MMA fighters with each of them having a arm tired behind their back... Spoilers: the MMA fighters are still going to win all day.
17:42 In Sweden, if I wanted to go and buy a i7 *right now*, I'd have to pay 4879 SEK (544,6 USD) for a i7-8700k and 4590 SEK (512,3 USD) for a i7-9700k. Since the i7-9700k performs slightly better in games, runs cooler, and is 289 SEK (32,2 USD) cheaper, there's really no reason for me to pick a i7-8700k.
@@spencercarruth9706 Ryzen can't do 1440p/144Hz. My 9700K purchase was well worth the money because I intend to keep my frame rates above 100fps at that resolution. No Ryzen chip on the market can compete with the likes of the 8700K/9700K at that display output. I don't get why AMD fanboys think that buying high-end Intel CPUs are a waste of money. If you value 1440p/144Hz then Intel is the way to go. Yeah, an i7 costs more than a R7, but you're paying a premium to maintain fps over 100 at 1440p. If you think the 9700K is a waste of money then you also think 1440p/144Hz is a waste of money, too.
@@spencercarruth9706 Apples and Oranges. Compare The 9700k with any Ryzen CPU on these charts and you'll quickly see why people still buy Intel i7's. Ryzen CPU's are excellent bang for the buck, and great at multi-core workloads, but they're still outmatched by Intel when it comes to gaming, so people who want "the best" will continue to buy Intel.
Using i7 4770 with vega 56 for 1440p 144hz and 4790k with a 1080 ti for vr on a Samsung odyssey (identical screen to the vive pro) and other than wanting my game storage drives to be ssds, see no reason to upgrade.
Btw it’s not overlocked in tests. Mine one can run 4.9ghz 1.35vc and 2100ddr3, scores is between oc’ed 7700k and 8400. Still a decent cpu, next buy will be new rtx 2060 replacing 970
I don't give a crap about a tiny differential between the CPU's. Why? Because right now they are all space age compared to my current 2008 vintage core duo...... I'm going to go cry now
No worries, If you have an SSD and about 16 gig of RAM for that system, its still going to provide much service for years to come. Especially for the money it would cost to change over to newer hardware which would be around $700 or so.
So basically it's an i5 cosplaying as an i7. I still say that the only reason the 9700K and the i9 CPUs exist is because Intel didn't want to make an 8-core i5.
Naw or they had a ton fail with the ht so might as well make a new series line. Like the new cpus without the igpu....but still sell them at the same price.
If this comparison came out earlier I might have forked out extra for the 9900k. The 9700k wasn't that much more expensive than the 8700k for me. Still a massive upgrade though over my 2600k. Performance matters more than price for me, to a degree. I didn't like that most reviews pushed bang for buck, where a lot of people are more interested in just the bang, in turn not recommending high performance products.
@Keirnoth Super exaggeration about the price, it's only a $200 USD or 46% extra for the 9900k or $30 USD or 8% extra for the 9700k compared against the 8700k based on Amazon prices. The 9900k isn't much of a stretch if you want top end gaming AND production performance if you don't want to get into X399 or X299 platforms. You can cater to both crowds in reviews though, those who want good price to performance and those where price is less of a concern when compared to performance.
@@thongorshengar Sorry for not wanting the best consumer products? I don't shit cash, I save up money like most people do so I can buy what I want and what I want are performance parts. The 9900K sees a boost over the 8700K, especially for production value, and a noticeable difference over the 2700X. I buy the best so it'll last the longest. The 9900K will hold up a damn sight better in 5+ years time than previous generation CPUs, I'm upgrading from a 2600K that's lasted me over 7 years. If I was upgrading every 1-2 generations then it'd probably be a stupid buy, but I'm buying something I want to last for more than 5 years and still perform well. So you need to check your attitude at the door buddy, we all buy for different reasons so there's no need to get shitty about people with builds that differ from yours.
@Keirnoth even if 9900K costs double of AMD 2700x, it only adds 15-20% in an RTX 2080 Ti build, so is that 15-20% worth saving to get 15-40% (40% slower in Premiere) lesser CPU performance?
During Black Friday got the 8700K for 299, Asus ROG Strix Z390-E for 170, 970 evo for 100, plus a 30 combo discount, all at micro center. Couldn’t be happier!
One note: Prices have already dropped, if you keep an eye out. For me, the choice was $400 for a 9700K (really not changed), but the 9900K could be had new retail for a deal price of $460. For the original $150 price difference, I agree, outrageous. But at sixty bucks difference when I only rebuild every 5 years (was going from a 4790K), it seemed to be worth going all in.
Thanks for this video! You are one of, if not, the only tech youtubers to have done this video: 8700k vs 9700k in gaming. My current PC is a Gateway DX-4870 (iirc) and I've added a better PSU, graphics card, and 16 GB of DDR3 (oh yes I know lol). Its rocking a i5-3330 and I felt like if I was going to be building an entirely new system from the ground up I might as well go 9700k instead of 8700k. Why go with the older part? Anyways, TL;DR: I'm still going to wait for CES to see what Zen 3 looks like, if it's announced then, but I'm pretty sure I'm going with the 9700k.
@@DarkPa1adin Exactly... Its gonna be about $1800 for my entire build so what's the difference of $50? And it's going to last me 5 years or more so pretty fair investment.
I mean, that’s an upgrade from your current situation, but I feel that a Ryzen processor would give you more for your money. Or, should you really want to remain with Intel the 8700k is a much better buy than this part.
I like the idea of AM4 being supported till 2020... Albeit that's irrelevant being that its coming up, what seems, quicker and quicker for me lmfao. Also, irrelevant, if I plan on keeping the system together for 5 years or more. I'd hate to commit to either 12nm Ryzen 2XXX or 14nm++++++ Coffeelake without at least seeing what "7nm" Ryzen 3XXX looks like. I feel like it'll be good, but won't hold up to the hype and rumors it's creating. And I can only wait so long into the new year to build it cause I've been wanting to do this for awhile already lol. If CES comes around and no word about Ryzen 3XXX comes around I'm going 9700k. Same for GPUs. Navi seems to be awhile away and possibly lackluster as Radeon has been, BUT, I plan to keep my opinions unbiased and hopefull as maybe Radeon will come out swinging and be somewhat competitive. We'll see what happens...
Especially if it's clocked up. Very easy to run constantly locked at max turbo 4.3 for all cores (or 4.6 if MCE is turned on, possibly with minor voltage adjustment), and depending on the lottery, people are getting 4.9-5.2GHz with tweaking.
I'm running my 9600k at a static 4.8GHz at 1.26V and it isn't even breathing hard playing current games. Around 36C idle and 55C in heavy gaming, with air cooling. I'll probably try to push it up to 5GHz eventually, don't foresee any problems with it. Well worth the cost in my opinion!
@@MrSamadolfo Definitely! I tried to keep power demands low with this build. Using m.2 drives and a Rog Strix rtx2060oc that I've tweaked the clock settings on. At idle I'm probably using less than 3 or 4 watts I think.
This video was long overdue, but we knew you would eventually do it. I was about to ask the same question for an ask GN. Keep up the good work, guys. Absolutely love your content. Cheers from Romania 🇷🇴
Thanks for the review. I noticed that frame time graphs usually go by frame number as the x-axis, but higher FPS usually indicates a larger number of frames. Is there a reason you don't use the frame timestamp as the x-axis instead? If you did that, predictable spikes (perhaps due to I/O or other reasons) between different components would be much closer to each other in the x-axis, instead of being offset by the ratio between the different average FPS. That way, we'd be able to sort of compare "who spikes harder for that same frame".
I love how incredibly data-laden your videos like this are. I especially love the interpretations, like explaining when and why something is a limitation of frequency, thread count, or something external.
I started feeling the need to upgrade this past year. I5-760. I actually want to transition into racing games, but don't want a furnace in my room either. I think it's time to do a CPU upgrade but will wait for the new Ryzen offerings. Realistically 8400-9600k or an R5 would be what I'm looking at and we'll see how that plays with my HD 7870 XT. The budget for this grows quickly when factoring in a wheel and whatnot. It's a shame how good this rig has done over the past decade. SC2, LoL, and CS:GO aren't the most demanding titles admittedly.
Yeah 9th gen just isn't that exciting, not for the price, especially for the 9900k. Frankly I think the 9700k should be the new "i5" and the 9900k should be the new "i7", along with the pricing of the current i5/i7. THEN I think we'd all be excited, because that fits within expectations. I.e. Hyperthreading on i7, not on i5.
Would've been nice. But for now, as it's encoding, the performance, like with everything else, will be more or less the same. A 25% increase with HT, essentially making the 8700K a 7.5c/7.5t CPU. The 9700K should be better at it by ~7% at equal clocks, but 7% isn't really noticeable and the 8700K is good enough at it that it may not even be reflected in practice.
@@Najvalsa not necessarily. The 9700K may bring choppy with HUGE low fps lows when data runs out of cores. Hyperthreading adds responsiveness as tjr cores run more efficiently
@@timothygibney159 Isn't it the opposite? Assuming raw multithreaded performance is equal, a CPU without hyperthreading will usually be more consistent. You can see this in some games that don't use many threads, where performance can be improved by disabling hyperthreading.
@@Malus1531 hyperthreading means each core can do more things and multitask efficiently. In the past poor game engines confused virtual cores with real ones. Today it's not the case. You gain big with it on in almost every scenario as it is common now and game engines which thing is a real core to use and which is fake
I went from a 4770k to the 9700k and I love it. Now with the memories and Mb also new my 980ti Evga Hybrid runs so much better. I love it for gaming and for video editing. I notice such a massive performance increase. I didn't get the 9900k as I could not justify the purchase. After seeing your review I have no buyer's remorse at all. Ty so much for you honest review!
Omg yes, finally found someone on the same page as me. What is your PCU and motherboard? Also, is there a special SSD brand you recommend? Pls respond!
@@Chronically_ChiII Hello there friend, I got a intel i7 9700k overclocked to 4.9ghz all cores, and the motherboard I got is a MSI z390 gaming plus, I recommend Samsung ssd either 860 evo or any nvme that is 500gb or more. Good luck on your pc.
@@Leo9az I actually switched to i9 9900k because the 9700k was out of stock for so long and the store didn't have 9700k but yes I finished the build it was a success
It’s cool seeing in the comment section how many people that actually had a 4790k (Devil’s Canyon) and are just now upgrading. That is probably one of my favorite processors of all time.
saaaved. i came across an extra 9700kf chip, but i already i have an 8700k and am perfectly happy with it. this video just solidified my thoughts. thank you!
I wish the 9700k was an 8-core, 12-thread part. Seems like 2 more physical cores would still be an advantage in most workloads, and they could pick the 4 best performing cores to enable HT on, while maintaining some justification for the higher price of the 9900k. Is there a technical reason that you know of that Intel wouldn’t be able to enable selective HT? If this was case, the 9700k would likely be slightly better then the 8700k at every workload type, rather then lateral or a bit worse in the case of Blender, and slightly better all around would be acceptable, since that’s what we all expect between adjacent Intel CPU generations anyway.
Thanks for starting to include workloads beyond gaming. There are *a lot* of people out there who essentially build gaming pcs for things like animation and 3D modelling. It's a lot more work to include this more diverse array of tests, but it adds significant value to your content and we appreciate it.
Can you guys please cover the 2700 with very fast b die memory using tweaked memory subtimings? Using Dram Calculator you can tighten timings quite a bit, and I saw frametimes for Assassin's Creed origins go from 8 or sometimes 9ms CPU render times to a consistent 7ms. The change in the graph results were dramatic. I can post similar results for other titles like Forza in the comments. I believe this to be a really interesting avenue of exploration your channel has just not covered.
Agreed, and maybe use a real 2700X for your benchmarks too, instead of an OC'd (and possibly binned) 2700. I've never seen you imitate the performance of a top Intel chip by overclocking a slower model and calling that good enough. As a viewer, it looks like you're OK spending $5000 on dual Titan RTX cards, but have never purchased a $300 2700X for proper benchmarks.
@@tylerperry7552 to be fair, Intel chips are locked unless it's the highest tier so you can't really take a lower CPU to imitate a higher one as in the case of AMD.
For those kind of comparisons i would like to see an equal manual (over)clock setting on both systems. I think, especially in that case, this would show the real difference even better. Great and informative Video none the less! :)
Im glad im doing research for my next computer. From what Ive gathered, if I want to get a better fps for gaming, then i want a 9700k, where if I want to have an all around kind of work experience for gaming, music, rendering, etc., then the 8700k would be a better route. I dont plan on OC so maybe going with the 8700k would be the optimal solution
my top reasons for buying the 9700k: -getting it for less than 400$ -9700k pcb is thicker than the 8700k so it can be used direct die using the derbuar tool, will be delidding it and will use it direct die for the best temperatures. -all 9700ks can do 4.9ghz -8 cores is sufficiently good for me.
*UK Prices as of 27/12/2018* - 8700K: £398.98 (US$505.05) - 9700K: £399.98 (US$506.31) - 9900K: £518.97 (US$656.92) Absolutely no point in buying the 8700K at the current prices.
I REFUSE to use a non hyperthreaded or SMT CPU. This is a blatant rip off. Not everyone plays games. Virtualization is huge among IT support, web developers, and those needing specialized apps. A 6 core/12 thread CPU vs an 8 core means the difference to me between glitchy performance and stuttering even with more cores. In 2018 people run many things like tabs in Chrome where hyperthreading can add responsiveness.
@@drunksquirrel2051 LOL agreed. His comment is so out of place. It's like he really is ignorant of market segmentation and different products for different folks and usage case scenarios. Maybe he is having a really bad day and wanted to bitch, about some or other nonsense. I am also wondering if he actually watched the review...
@@BombaJead How did I infer all that from his comment...that's easy...reading comprehension and understanding context. You mention people on RU-vid looking for a reason to get offened, so I'll just refer to the original commenters clueless remarks. I will also like to point at your butthurt response and those shoe-size-IQ sheeple who liked your dumb-ass snowflake comment.
Anyone who cares about security will love this change. Hyperthreading/SMT is inherently insecure and shouldn't be on any cpu where security is important.
Just upgraded my motherboard to an Aorus Z390 pro wifi, my cpu to an i7 9700k ($489 boxing day sale in Canada) and ram to corsair vengeance lpx 3000mhz 16 gb and honestly, I went there to buy the i9 9900k but the price just killed it for me. The i9 was literally $200 more on sale at $689 so I decided, because I don't stream or do video editing, the latest generation i7 processor should be MORE than enough. Turns out I was right, I previously had an MSI Radeon RX 580 8gb and I decided to keep it for a bit longer and just overclock it for better performance and ohhhh boy, my rig shreds Gears 5, Hellblade, and Outer worlds with ease. Even gives killer scores in cinebench. Overall, I am really happy with my new PC build, considering my previous cpu was an i7 875k
I was really debating between 9th gen or 8th gen stuff for Christmas. I was wanting to get a 9900k as an upgrade from my 4790k, but I ended up getting a 8700k from Microcenter for $330. I couldn’t justify the $540 for the 9900k or the $400 for the 9700k. I did get a Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra motherboard so that in a year or two when the 9900k drops to a reasonable price, I can upgrade to that.
its been an odd few years for pc hardware , i bought a 2700x because at the time the i5 8600k was the same price . its gone lower now with intel stock coming back. I'm not sure what i think about I7's siting at £400
Holy shit same. I bought 8700k from micro center earlier today for $330. I went with 8700k over 9700k so I can delid it and use liquid medal to drop 20 celcius. I'm using an MSI z390 motherboard though. Edit: I'm using the processor for a VR racing simulator (with pedals + shifter + wheel) and I expect to be playing a few hours at a time so it'll be under a huge load. I'll also be going with a custom water loop to maximize cooling potential.
I also upgraded from 4790k to 8700k w/ z390 board around Black Friday. The 9700k was between $70-$100 more than 8700k and the fps gains are not that much more/less between the two processors.
Over the xmas holidays, the I7 9700k, here in the UK, was £50 - £75 cheaper than the 8700k (depending on where you shop, and OEM vs Retail). I got my OEM 9700k for £350. At that price, you would have to be nuts to buy the more expensive 8700k. The £75 savings went on a Z390 motherboard. This thing is a beast.
I went from i7 2600k to i7 9700k, while the game is smooth as hell, the stream on my 2nd monitor lag/Freeze when Im in game... I have no idea why. Didnt lag on my 2600k, feels bad man.
Streaming does not have a significant (if any) impact unless you're already bottlenecked by your CPU. I did stream many times under a i5-7500 and didn't have any hit. Of course that would change depending on what games you're playing. But from a 8700 to a 9700? Not even worthy testing
PCCaseGear in Australia have the 8700K for $599, 9700K for $679, 8086K for $699 and 9900K for $899. For comparison, the 2700 is $419 and the 2700K is $515.
Plot Twist: i7 9700k is the new i5 but they double their price and Re-name it as "i7" just to sell you their new i9 (which is the real i7) xD Yeah fans can claim and says: he it's have same performance as 8700k.. Me: yeah.. right.. and how an i7 doesn't have Hyper Threading? oh yeah.. it's an Enhanced i5 xD
@@Neiva71 For you and me.. they're the same (98% same performance) But with different price tags For Casuals & new-comers, They will think having Newer Release Date means it's better Intel knew that there are a lots of costumers being Casuals & Newcomers
@@tenchu_117ch Yeah.. I used to have that filthy i7 - 7700.. The new i5 - 8400 have same power as my i7 but like $120 cheaper.. I was Triggered why Intel only introduce their Hexa (6 Cores) CPUs suddenly.. because of AMD... AMD was the Spark I have 0 care for Intel & AMD.. am not a Fan, and I will never be.. but as long as AMD is the Value King, am gonna support them In fact, I sold my I7 - 7700 for $190 and bought Ryzen (Zen+) and am happy with the performance increase I got :)
aboud alaboud preach brotha, im on the value for the money guy. im now on ryzen 2200g + 1060 6gb. waiting for ces 2019 for the ryzen 3 series announcement
In Denmark the 9900k goes for around 610 USD on avg, the 9700k goes for 500 USD and the 8700k goes for 430 USD. But we also have an extra tax on everything we buy at 25% that goes to the government.
Needed this video a week ago! Thanks for the review. About to build and decided on the 9700k over the 8 series because of the soldered TIM and the promising specs. If you're in the market for a new i5/i7, get the 9th series and skip the de-lidding, spend the $30 (399 at Newegg now)
Here in Belgium the 8700K costs 470 euro the 9700K 459 euro and the 9900K 549 euro as of 22/05/2019 here in the store i always go so for me it was more then obvious to buy the 9700K I think especially if you take in account my rig will be used for gaming about 90 percent of the time.
Exact same situation here. Think I might just go for the 9700k. But the loss of hyperthreading seems something to not overlook. I think in situatuions where you are streaming gameplay it could prove better to have that, thus going with the 8700k. I'm really torn for which to go with. What are you upgrading from? I'm currently on a i7 3770k
@@reggiexp69 What? 8700k has 6 PHYSICAL cores (12 "logical" cores with hyperthreading) 9700k has 8 PHYSICAL cores! (no hyperthreading) Hyper-threading is not a substitute for additional cores. Never. A single physical CPU core with hyper-threading appears as two logical CPUs to an operating system. The CPU is still a single CPU, so it’s a little bit of a cheat. While the operating system sees two CPUs for each core, the actual CPU hardware only has a single set of execution resources for each core. The CPU pretends it has more cores than it does, and it uses its own logic to speed up program execution. In other words, the operating system is tricked into seeing two CPUs for each actual CPU core. How that translates? See for yourself. i7-8700K Passmark Average CPU Mark- 15929 i7-9700K Passmark Average CPU Mark- 17172 Got it? www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-8700K+%40+3.70GHz&id=3098 www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-9700K+%40+3.60GHz&id=3335
@@MatosTubex yes i know. but like a 4core 4T vs a 4core 8 threads. the bench doesnt mean much cause single core performance, so having 2 extra core give that extra single core performance. im still not confinced about there 8core. or 6 core 12t. like its enought both but still its kinda wierd and still feels like a downgrade
@@reggiexp69 Respectfully, I don't understand what you saying. Single core perfomance, is to put a benchmark that uses only one core to stress, and, depends only on single core clock speed. Is it important? Depends on the comparison. If you have the same number of cores, yes. If you have more cores, not that much. See the top of the line from Intel, Xeon W-3175X, 3.10GHz. Its single core performance is lower than the 8700k (3.70GHz). Both have hyperthreading. But, and that's a big but, Xeon W-3175X has 28 physical cores. So it's basicaly a beast. www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-xeon-w-3175x-cpu,5976-10.html Overall testing means putting all those cores to stress. Physical and logical. And the real question in here is: would you take a 6c12l, or a 8c8l? All the tests (google it if you want, I did), confirm that is better overall having two extra physical cores, rather than having four more "logical" cores. Even with slighly slower single core speed. 8700k 6c12l < 9700k 8c8l < 9900k 8c16l. www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-9700k-9th-gen-cpu,5876.html Cumpliments
@@MatosTubex to be honest i know. like if i do a bench multicore on my i7 2600k at 4.3ghz is a bit lower then a i5 6400 at 4.5ghz.. still my i7 just works beter overal. but less in games.
I've found Intel products value for money for nearly a decade, but I don't find the '9th generation' range that appealing and certainly not value for money for my use-case. I game at 2160p, render on home home server (headless Xeon E5), and do some encoding on my workstation. I also strongly object to the cost of motherboards for both Intel and AMD - especially with the majority not using finned heatsinks. I think Intel's '10th generation' and AMD's Zen 2 will be interesting, depending on the value.
I have i7 4790K - 2014 processor and 5 years later I don't even see a reason to upgrade lol...there is not much progress as I see. If I put some top performance graphic card into my pc then even with my old DDR3 I can play same games as everyone with late 2018 PC. Really not too many reasons to waste money. Keep your old PCs
Same here with an Oced 4770K. However, I do virtualization while it performs amazing with 4 cores it is showing it's slow age in scenarios requiring work
@@timothygibney159 Yes I have no doubt there is more progress in performance when using CPU for work related stuff but I was talking only about computer games really:)
It's still not a dead system. I have one too and use it often. Got it updated with 16 gigs of ram and an SSD drive which makes it just as fast as some of todays machines.
Pricing in Gemany (all prices from "mindfactory"): 8700k (box) 437€ vs 9700k (box) 418€ vs 9900k (tray) 499€ box price from the 9900k is 540€. Just to compare: the pricedifference between the 9700k bx vs tray is 3,15€. Well thats's interesting.
So far I played with all 3 processors, and what I can tell you is that the answer is not clear. 9700k vs 8700k produces results that vary into each direction. In some scenarios 8700k wins, in others 9700k wins. In games that is. I did notice that 8700k is less sluggish, and for gaming I would recommend 8700k, but 9700k has stronger physical cores. In overall value and actual snappiness I recommend 8700k, but 9700k is more consistent, with higher highs in FPS. and lower lows. BUT...average fps was higher for 8700k in R6 Siege (for me), at same settings. 9900k wins against both, even at lower clocks. If you are gaming...get 8700k, if you want the best, get 9900k. 9700k is very consistent cpu, if you want middle ground, get 9700k, but for gaming 8700k is best for $350. I have 9900k now, and I love it, but it needs a water cooler to maitain 5.0 ghz while rendering or at 100% cpu load
I want to upgrade from my 6600k but it's such a shitshow at the moment. Do I upgrade to more expense and heat on the Intel side, or worse single-threaded performance on the AMD side? Hopefully Zen2 answers the question for me.
Zen 2 offers a 35% IPC boost based on some month old-ish info, as well as 16C/32T CPUs (Although gamers won't make use of the many cores for a while) My main hopes from Zen 2 is that it offers great overclockability akin to the Bulldozer/Piledriver series, but with a little better performance/watt when overclocking.
The danger with waiting is that you can wait forever as there's always something new and better coming around. I finished my new PC a couple of weeks ago, I sold my i7-4790K and 2 GTX 1080s and upgraded to an i9-9900K and 2 RTX 2080s. I do major upgrades every 3 years on average with whatever is available on the market.
Unlike my 1080 ti which doesn´t overclock for crap I was very lucky with the 6700k back then. Got mine at 4,9 ghz on all cores with watercooling, it only runs a bit too hot on stress tests, in games it does well. With clock speeds being dead in the water there is no reason to upgrade from the 6700k.
awesome vid. I just built a new comp after 8 years and went with the 9700k. the 8700k with a deal on some of the z370 motherboards you can actually save around $200. but since the jump from a 2080 to a 2080 TI is way more than $200, I felt like I might as well go with the newer chipset, seeing that I'm already not worried about upgrading other areas like harddrive/memory with that $200 difference. with a bit of overclocking it seems to be about a performance push (gaming wise) with the 9900k plus saving ~$150 but still having peace of mind with the OC temps.
@@ayuchanayuko if you're playing minesweeper at 4K, older titles and retro games then sure. However, it's really the right time to upgrade from Sandybridge, especially the now under-performing 2500K 4Cores/4T really just doesn't cut it today. It's also like you're totally ignorant of NVMe support and USB3/3.1. Seriously, the platform is going on 9 years now. It's time to get with the times.
@@onTopOfYoMutha just waiting for ryzen 3000 Also 2500k OCed performs similarly to an upper ryzen 5/lower ryzen 7. While its true that I'm missing nvme, I never really felt the slowness even with 2x2TB Wd Green HDDs and USB3 is enough. I have other machines with SATA SSDs but somehow this 2500k setup doesnt feel slow. I dont load-exit programs so I dont need the loading times. Just finished Rise of the Tomb Raider and BF1 1080p60 max ultra . Gonna go after Shadow TR and BF5. KF2 does load slow at first to menu but loads fast after the first map. For video editing, it feels stuttery in live previews for 1080p60 when multiple effects are stacked in Premiere 2017. Encoding times are bearable. SSD prices have gone down but DDR4 here hasnt yet. Dont wanna waste my 32GB DDR3 yet. I also am on an ITX setup and ITX boards are hella more expensive. When the next Sandy Bridge comes, I'll upgrade fo'sure :D but I dont want the performance to be like a sidegrade yet. I'll max this setup first with a 2600k/3770k for cheap :D There's still the Nehalems after the death of Core2Quads so theres still a generation or two left to this setup -- assuming Ryzen 3000 perf price hype is true or if Intel comes with another Sandy :)
@@ayuchanayuko I also wanted to breathe a little life into my Sandybridge build with a used 2600K as well, but some peeps think it's still a God's gift to man CPU and they almost always ask the same price as a new 8600K/2600X for it. I was feeling the pain with my ole 2500K especially in BF1/GTA:V. Although I had an SSD with 40s boot times, it still doesn't compare to my 8s boot time now into Win and overall responsiveness (OS, Network, encoding, gaming). Also I am finally no longer CPU bound i.e. limited to 60 FPS in BF1 for instance. Believe me, 9th Gen is not a sidegrade, it really is worth it, especially if you can get a good price. IMO the 8600K\2600X is more of a sidegrade. But if Zen2 is gonna be a beast, then I will be super envious :)
@@onTopOfYoMutha zen2 ftw :) Odd, my HDD-based 2500k boots to Windows in around 10-20sec. Granted I do a hibernate and not a full shutdown since I hate opening my programs again. My SSD-based i5-2400 cold boots in 5-8sec though. If I do upgrade it'll probably be on the AM4 platform -- being able to upgrade is really a big plus for me which I hate about Intel platforms.
Right. So this is how Intel SHOULD have done the naming scheme. The i9-9900k should have been an “extreme” edition of the i7 9700k instead of an i9 chip.
