RTX 2080 Ti Gaming Benches - 2700X vs 8700K

[Marine-RX179]

I play at 4k so zero ***** given

Intel also deliberately let the misinformation of their 9900K being 50% faster than 2700X on gaming with Principled Technologies flawed test results spread like wildfire despite knowing fully that something is off about the results and 2700X performance looks much worse than they should, while reviewers are being kept silence under NDA. Even after Principled Technologies retested and published new results, Intel was still acting all smug making statement of "they are proud to have the fastest processor for gaming".

 

[Gerard]

Intel also deliberately let the misinformation of their 9900K being 50% faster than 2700X on gaming with Principled Technologies flawed test results spread like wildfire despite knowing fully that something is off about the results and 2700X performance looks much worse than they should, while reviewers are being kept silence under NDA. Even after Principled Technologies retested and published new results, Intel was still acting all smug making statement of "they are proud to have the fastest processor for gaming".

Intel have been the farce of the industry as of late, from their supercooled cpu which they embarrassingly withdrew from partners the following morning, to their cheaping out on solder to use TIM over the last lot of years, now suddenly their top end gaming cpu's have solder despite their rhetoric about cracks in it being an issue. Seems its only an issue when sales aren't going to another cpu vendor.

As for those PT results, it makes me question just how clued in the PR people intel are. You would think that they would have known the tech community would have torn those results apart before they published them. But they publish them anyway. Intel might have the fastest cpu (and you pay out the ass for it) but the gap is narrowing, and depending on the res you play at it may not even be an issue, certainly not at 4k anyway. It's not a one horse race anymore thankfully.

 

[Legend]

As for those PT results, it makes me question just how clued in the PR people intel are. You would think that they would have known the tech community would have torn those results apart before they published them. But they publish them anyway. Intel might have the fastest cpu (and you pay out the ass for it) but the gap is narrowing, and depending on the res you play at it may not even be an issue, certainly not at 4k anyway. It's not a one horse race anymore thankfully.

Indeed. If at 4K you're an absolute raving loony going for the 9700K/9900K over the 2700X given they are going to be within a few FPS of each other. The value is just simply dreadful beyond all measure. Even at lower resolutions, while Intel do take the clear lead there, the value proposition is still appalling. I get the sense these CPU's are only really for people who absolutely demand the best at any cost and like to go online and boast about this fact with benchmarks. They aren't normal people who enjoy games and appreciate value.

 

[TNA]

I reckon 3700X will match 9900K in games or at least I am hoping. And I just cannot see the 10700K (or whatever they will end up calling it) will be a huge boost over 9900K.

I may not rush and wait for Intel to release their 10th gen before going zen 2. It may mean getting a better deal if Intel do release something very good due to finally getting to 10nm.

 

[aoaaron]

Indeed. If at 4K you're an absolute raving loony going for the 9700K/9900K over the 2700X given they are going to be within a few FPS of each other. The value is just simply dreadful beyond all measure. Even at lower resolutions, while Intel do take the clear lead there, the value proposition is still appalling. I get the sense these CPU's are only really for people who absolutely demand the best at any cost and like to go online and boast about this fact with benchmarks. They aren't normal people who enjoy games and appreciate value.

I agree.

Isn’t the 8086k and 8700k better propositions if they can be bought for around 390?

 

[Legend]

I agree.

Isn’t the 8086k and 8700k better propositions if they can be bought for around 390?

Better value than the 9xxx series that's for sure! But obviously run at higher temps (unless delidded), less cores and value still isn't great vs 2700X. Again though, at 4K, they're pretty much even in terms of gaming performance. In other apps which may utilise those extra cores however, the 2700X would take a clear lead.

At 4K certainly, there really is no downside to the 2700X.

 

[bru]

So that video confirms what most of us already knew, Intel is the best for gaming but you do have to pay for it, AMD is a very good alternative considering the price difference and the higher the resolution the less difference it makes anyway.

If I could afford it I'd go Intel, but the replacement for my Xenon [email protected] will probably be a Ryzen system, especially after seeing the performance of my sons new Ryzen 5 2600 bundle.

 

[TNA]

So that video confirms what most of us already knew, Intel is the best for gaming but you do have to pay for it, AMD is a very good alternative considering the price difference and the higher the resolution the less difference it makes anyway.

If I could afford it I'd go Intel, but the replacement for my Xenon [email protected] will probably be a Ryzen system, especially after seeing the performance of my sons new Ryzen 5 2600 bundle.

So basically if you are on a potato resolution you need to spend more on a Intel cpu

Might as well go Ryzen and spend the money saved on a better monitor

 

[Legend]

So that video confirms what most of us already knew, Intel is the best for gaming but you do have to pay for it, AMD is a very good alternative considering the price difference and the higher the resolution the less difference it makes anyway.

If I could afford it I'd go Intel, but the replacement for my Xenon [email protected] will probably be a Ryzen system, especially after seeing the performance of my sons new Ryzen 5 2600 bundle.

What's "best" though? Best FPS... yes, at lower resolutions. At 4K, it's marginal, if not bang level. Best value? HA! Not in a million years. Approx 12% improvement for over 60% more money... absolutely attrocious. Anyone buying these needs their head examined.

 

[~>Dg<~]

most play at 1080. want best performance. mainly in fps titles.4k is literally no one. so you want the fastest intel cpu. for the best experience. this is why intel sell this to you. amd cant so they sell the more cores is better sales pitch.

 

[TNA]

most play at 1080. want best performance. mainly in fps titles.4k is literally no one. so you want the fastest intel cpu. for the best experience. this is why intel sell this to you. amd cant so they sell the more cores is better sales pitch.

Spend crazy money on cpu to game at 1080p? Lol.

I am thinking those who game at that resolution are either highly competitive players. The rest likely cannot afford to upgrade to at least 1440p or don’t care to do so therefore won’t be buying a 9900K.

Plus the IPC gap will mostly closed next year by AMD with zen 2 is my understanding.

 

[Legend]

most play at 1080. want best performance. mainly in fps titles.4k is literally no one. so you want the fastest intel cpu. for the best experience. this is why intel sell this to you. amd cant so they sell the more cores is better sales pitch.

Yes, there's that word "want", and what Intel prey on. Where's the value consideration? That's the point. There's no debate about it being faster. And it's wrong to say no-one is playing at 4K, and 1440p is gaining a very strong foothold, now generally considered to be the gaming sweetspot. Besides, a £600 CPU to game at 1080p??!! HA! What planet are you on?? Who's gaming at 1080p and really NEEDS a 9900K? I mean really NEEDS it? If you think the "experience" on a 9900K is going to be noticeably better to justify spending that kind of money, then I have some magic beans to sell you.

 

[~>Dg<~]

people want the fps. simple for the res on a highend modern monitor. 144hz plus no drops. amd cant do it for most games like intel can. thats why people choose the highest clock intel chip for 1080 in modern fps games.

its not dear anymore to have a 1440,4k monitor. the thing is in fps games racing whatever many will take the high hz over the resolution also good luck with keeping such high fps on high res panels with no drops.

 

[bru]

What's "best" though? Best FPS... yes, at lower resolutions. At 4K, it's marginal, if not bang level. Best value? HA! Not in a million years. Approx 12% improvement for over 60% more money... absolutely attrocious. Anyone buying these needs their head examined.

Totally agree that at 4k it makes no real difference, slightly more relevant at 1440p though. Thing to remember though is that that video was at stock settings and we know that the Intel chip can clock higher than the AMD chip.

 

[Legend]

people want the fps. simple for the res on a highend modern monitor. 144hz plus no drops. amd cant do it for most games like intel can. thats why people choose the highest clock intel chip for 1080 in modern fps games.

its not dear anymore to have a 1440,4k monitor. the thing is in fps games racing whatever many will take the high hz over the resolution also good luck with keeping such high fps on high res panels with no drops.

Seriously, what kind of games are we talking about here... the ones that people are playing at 1080p and need a 9900K for? Competitive FPS? Granted, high FPS is essential there if you're really serious about the game. So look at the benchmarks... the Principled Technologies ones anyway which is all we have... a 2700X gets 298FPS in Counterstrike... you need more than that lol? Fortnite gets 147FPS, PUBG gets 204. Yes, 9900K hits higher FPS, but really, those numbers aren't high enough, so much so that you want to double down with an extra £300 on the CPU? Right.

I don't know what someone is smoking if they genuinely think they need a 9900K at twice the price of a 2700X at 1080p. It's beyond daft. "Want" is something else entirely and the only driver here, but that is without logic and completely dismisses the value component, nevermind the "need" aspect.

For those chasing FPS just for the sake of it, a 6700K/7700K would make far more sense if they care about value, and if they are truly adament that the 2700X isn't enough for them.

 

[nomadd]

Intel have been the farce of the industry as of late..

Now that's just plain unfair. To Nvidia.

 

[~>Dg<~]

Seriously, what kind of games are we talking about here... the ones that people are playing at 1080p and need a 9900K for? Competitive FPS? Granted, high FPS is essential there if you're really serious about the game. So look at the benchmarks... the Principled Technologies ones anyway which is all we have... a 2700X gets 298FPS in Counterstrike... you need more than that lol? Fortnite gets 147FPS, PUBG gets 204. Yes, 9900K hits higher FPS, but really, those numbers aren't high enough, so much so that you want to double down with an extra £300 on the CPU? Right.

I don't know what someone is smoking if they genuinely think they need a 9900K at twice the price of a 2700X at 1080p. It's beyond daft. "Want" is something else entirely and the only driver here, but that is without logic and completely dismisses the value component, nevermind the "need" aspect.

you have to remember you dont have to buy it but many will. for the very reasons you talking about. people with modern monitors and high fps games at high hz need high clocked intels to keep the fps.without drops. on games like pubg,fortnite and the like . remember also when you buying a pc/cpu its not just for now. so for some games not needed its excess but what about 1/2 years from now ? then you will still be good and happy with the performance. the amd route still struggling and even less by then.

 

[Journey]

then you will still be good and happy with the performance. the amd route still struggling and even less by then.

Still banging on about this drivel? You could literally buy a 2700X, keep it for a year and then throw in the bin and buy a CPU that is more than likely faster than the 9900K and still have change from the original £600. You logic makes sense to you, you, and you, oh and anyone who likes to throw money down the toilet.

 

[Legend]

you have to remember you dont have to buy it but many will. for the very reasons you talking about. people with modern monitors and high fps games at high hz need high clocked intels to keep the fps.without drops. on games like pubg,fortnite and the like . remember also when you buying a pc/cpu its not just for now. so for some games not needed its excess but what about 1/2 years from now ? then you will still be good and happy with the performance. the amd route still struggling and even less by then.

I'm not talking about me... it's the value consideration and how this appears to be totally ignored! Would you say it was OK if it were £5000? If it's faster, so what? It's like the 2080Ti argument... fastest GPU money can buy, but appalling value. Doesn't seem to matter. We're heading down a dark path here, one where consumers are going to get constantly screwed over and yet apparently have a smile on their face, thankful for the privilege.

And again, you're not answering the questions as to NEED and why someone actually would NEED a 9900K over a 2700X. There is no evidence that 2700X isn't MORE than up to the task for 99% of gamers... and as mentioned, a 6700K/7700K would be the more obvious choice if they really felt they WANTED those extra FPS, even if they aren't actually getting any noticeable benefit from it. Throwing money away on the 9900K is just dumb beyond dumb for anyone buying one at 1080p. If you choose to believe otherwise that is of course your perogative, but it doesn't change anything.

 

[Legend]

Still banging on about this drivel? You could literally buy a 2700X, keep it for a year and then throw in the bin and buy a CPU that is more than likely faster than the 9900K and still have change from the original £600. You logic makes sense to you, you, and you, oh and anyone who likes to throw money down the toilet.

This exactly!

There's no logic to what he's saying. It's delusional.