Consider your goals and circumstances before deciding.
Consider your goals and circumstances before deciding.
I believe I saw something about the latest chips possibly improving game performance to match Intel's standards.
it operates using standard clock speeds. intel maintains low base boost frequencies on their i5 models to differentiate their product lineup, yet a 4.9–5.0 ghz 8600k should perform adequately in most games. typical frame rates should match benchmark results, though you might notice slightly more drops compared to hyperthreaded processors because of less optimized game code.
I strongly dislike the notion of the 9700k, yet it still edges out the 8700k slightly and is currently available on Newegg for $299. You can simply install it for $300 and move on. Moving up to higher-end models like the 10600k, 10700k or 10900k will likely double the price but won’t offer any significant gaming advantages. Although it doesn’t have hyperthreading, it performs better than the 8700k in games. It should beat any Ryzen processor when overclocked and matches the performance of a 10900k. If you value hyperthreading, you can opt for the i9-9900k for $399, which is comparable to the 10700k in cost and performance (though not in cooling efficiency) and fits easily on your existing board. However, it’s much more challenging to keep it cool, requiring a top-tier motherboard. In the end, you need to weigh whether these short-term savings justify the chance that your $300–$400 investment might be surpassed by an AMD alternative in the future. It’s a gamble.
The problems with the 9600k make me avoid the 9700k. Some titles already launched poorly on it because developers haven’t done enough work, and their software struggles with non-SMT chips. Far Cry 5 stands out as a possibility, though others exist. I’d opt for the 8700k instead—it offers slightly lower framerates but fewer frame drops down the line. It’s still decent now, but it might get less satisfying over time compared to a hyperthreaded processor, especially if you don’t upgrade soon when games start lagging. With console developers gaining more threads, even worse optimization could happen than before.
And then some titles run smoother with SMT off—it's never a flawless situation. As someone who owns an 8700k, I strongly dislike Intel's practice of stripping H-tran from a chip and repackaging it as an i7, yet I still think the 9700k is generally superior for gaming compared to the 8700k at the moment.
The 9700K offers higher brightness and better color accuracy compared to the 8700K at the same 5GHz with all cores.
no games stand out for better performance when using smt off. beyond the faster clock speeds on non-smt cpus, which can boost average frame rates, the 9700k tends to overclock more reliably to 5.1ghz compared to the 9900k, which caps around 5.0ghz. frame consistency usually favors the 9900k due to its hyperthreading capabilities.
This assessment highlights 10600k as a more favorable outcome compared to 8700k because of its security features and cooling capabilities. Keep in mind some benchmarks suggest the 5.1ghz model still trails behind a standard 9700k (which runs at 4.6ghz across all cores), especially when frequencies are matched. The variations are small, but we're evaluating two CPUs priced similarly.