I7 8700k vs 9700k
I7 8700k vs 9700k
I was considering upgrading but my RAM is only 3000mhz, so I’m selling a Z370 EVGA that I’ll pass on. I also have a board from Amazon, hoping it will work. The Gigabyte Z390 AORUS PRO was "like new" and I wasn’t interested in overclocking either RAM or CPU. I already own four Corsair Vengeance 3000 sticks and Ryzen needs 3600, which I figured out. I’m trying to match prices at Best Buy with Microcenter. If the CPU lets me, I might boost it to 5GHz. I’m not sure if my 360 Thick will handle it or a 1080 Ti. I mainly play BF5 and other games at 144hz/1440p, often in low-medium settings to hit 144hz. My main question is whether an i7 8700K or i7 9700K is better—6 cores vs 8 cores? Won’t it be worth the $20 difference? I plan not to change my CPU or GPU for at least two years.
The performance hinges on hyperthreading dynamics. Each additional thread contributes roughly 45-50% of the power of a single core, allowing us to estimate total output under full load (assuming other variables stay constant). Starting at 9700k gives us an approximate figure of 8.7 million, while the 8700k scenario with adjustments for IPC, clock speed, and latency edges out in scenarios needing many instances but lower speed demands.
They don’t require you, they perform better when used more often. You won’t drop more than five percent in performance at best, and it’s rarely noticeable unless you push certain tasks. The Ryzen 3rd generation offers very little overclocking potential on the core, which means less hassle overall.
This setup aligns with expectations. Benchmarks show the 9700K outperformed the 8700K by 1-5 FPS, especially during high usage. The 9700K ran at 90-100% capacity while the 8700K was at around 80%. Both CPUs were clocked at 5 GHz.
But honestly, I'm just a gamer, so I only care about performance. The main difference would be more threads, but it might drop some frames due to core speed and RAM. Still, I'll go with Intel for now—probably around 3200, maybe a bit slower to 3000.
The 3000MHz RAM should function properly with Ryzen processors, which means the significant difference isn’t apparent.
The case for AMD centers on purchasing a more affordable processor like the R5 3600 while upgrading to faster memory. What would you choose?
I plan to use a 1080 Ti. With the z370/z390 from Amazon, I’m sure I can swap it out if needed. Since I need stable 144fps at 1440p, every fps counts. Having an Intel waterblock makes sense because it’s an Intel XSPC block, so I’d likely also need an AMD equivalent. It’s a lot of work. Overall, unless I’m chasing the highest possible FPS and already own most Intel components, switching to AMD would mean handling more changes I don’t want to manage.
They perform similarly across the board, usually showing comparable performance. Most comparisons you encounter involve matching stocks, like a 4.3ghz versus 4.6ghz all-core setup. However, no one typically runs these at full stock speed, and aiming for around 5ghz per core keeps them within acceptable limits. When they match in timing, the variation in frames per second is so minimal it might not be noticeable. HT offers roughly a 25-30% improvement, though determining its precise impact on each program can be challenging, especially if the software isn't optimized for it. In certain scenarios, the absence of HT could lead to issues with poorly written code. Generally, I’d avoid anything without HT/SMT. I’d also prefer the 8700k since the STIM in the 9th gen isn’t particularly strong, and it’s simpler to debug and apply LM. Additionally, I have concerns about the 9700k, seeing it as a way for Intel to push defective 9900ks into the mainstream i9 lineup.
I had to pick the same model last year—i7-9700K versus i7-8700K. I went with the latter, and I’m glad I did! It feels stronger, handles heat better, and performs much more smoothly in games.