• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

9700k vs 9900k Gaming

Legend said:
My god you're infuriating! No one has ever disputed or argued that they are fastest at 1080p. That is NOT the point. The point is that hardly anyone at 1080p is going to buy them. You are referencing surveys where 1080p is indicated to be the most common resolution... that is correct. Yet you seem to be ignoring the fact that those same surveys indicate that the same majority are using Nvidia 1060 GPUs and at CPU frequencies of 3.3-3.7GHz!! Those people are NOT going to be buying 9700K/9900K CPUs!!! If you can't recognise and understand that then it is quite clearly YOU who has no idea.
Click to expand...
Add to that a vast majority of those at 1080p resolution will be running at 60Hz as well, people hardly ever upgrade their monitors. I bet the majority of those CPU's on the Steam survey are Sandybridge/Ivybridge and prior.
 
Nelly said:
Add to that a vast majority of those at 1080p resolution will be running at 60Hz as well, people hardly ever upgrade their monitors. I bet the majority of those CPU's on the Steam survey are Sandybridge/Ivybridge and prior.
Click to expand...

Exactly! There is just zero point to what he's saying. It's beyond absurd. Of course the 9700K/9900K are fastest at 1080p... that isn't being disputed by anyone, anywhere. But the value is atrocious and it's abundantly clear based on the survey results he's quoting that 1080p gamers aren't going to be buying them in any great number. Of course SOME will, but that's besides the point. The enthiusiasts who will buy them are getting even worse value/performance however, given that the gap between the 9700K/9900K and the 8700K/2700X diminishes as you increase resolution.
 
ianh said:
Some reviews


Running at 98'c at STOCK clocks is just not a good idea (although others videos show lower temps!) and the prices still make the 2700X the best "price vs performance" CPU.
Click to expand...

Ouch look like Hardware Unboxed got bad soldered 9900K saw highest temp 100C at 5GHz on 1.33V. Good enough to boil the chip. :D

Reviews from OC3D and others got better result with 9900K OC at 5GHz temp 79C, not bad much better than 8700K 5GHz OC at 92C. Stock 9900K temp is only just 65C on Corsair Hydro H110iGT. Impressive!

AYqrY5V.jpg
 
Legend said:
Exactly! There is just zero point to what he's saying. It's beyond absurd. Of course the 9700K/9900K are fastest at 1080p... that isn't being disputed by anyone, anywhere. But the value is atrocious and it's abundantly clear based on the survey results he's quoting that 1080p gamers aren't going to be buying them in any great number. Of course SOME will, but that's besides the point. The enthiusiasts who will buy them are getting even worse value/performance however, given that the gap between the 9700K/9900K and the 8700K/2700X diminishes as you increase resolution.
Click to expand...

Most of the games which really run well on Intel don't scale well to more cores,so you might as well get a Core i5 8600K or Core i5 9600K.
 
AthlonXP1800 said:
Ouch look like Hardware Unboxed got bad soldered 9900K saw highest temp 100C at 5GHz on 1.33V. Good enough to boil the chip. :D

Reviews from OC3D and others got better result with 9900K OC at 5GHz temp 79C, not bad much better than 8700K 5GHz OC at 92C. Stock 9900K temp is only just 65C on Corsair Hydro H110iGT. Impressive!
Click to expand...

His power draw numbers are just junk, a 7w difference between a 8700K and 9900K underload using stock settings. Might as well just disregard the whole reviews if he can't get that bit right.

EDIT: Even worse than that his 9900K 'undervolt' is pulling more power than the stock 9900K, Jebus, what a mess.
 
Well these results from across the board have surprised me. Intel forgot how to solder and overdid the silicon on the Die. So stupid temps and terrible OC potential abound. For CPU's that are more expensive and now ultimately not quite as good Overclockers compared to the older 8xxx range.

Who's handing the shotguns out to Nvidia and Intel so they can shoot themselves in the foot at the moment :o

Journey said:
His power draw numbers are just junk, a 7w difference between a 8700K and 9900K underload using stock settings. Might as well just disregard the whole reviews if he can't get that bit right.
Click to expand...
Seems to be an issue with the Die height and excess solder. Der8aur got a vid out on it. No heat needed to remove the IHS highlights the bad idea of 0.5mm of solder...
 
Journey said:
His power draw numbers are just junk, a 7w difference between a 8700K and 9900K underload using stock settings. Might as well just disregard the whole reviews if he can't get that bit right.

EDIT: Even worse than that his 9900K 'undervolt' is pulling more power than the stock 9900K, Jebus, what a mess.
Click to expand...

I am still working out how a 2700 can run at 35 degrees under what I presume is full load. That would only be a few degrees above idle / ambient.
 
I have a custom loop with two heavy duty triple rad radiators only cooling my cpu. The reason is laziness to be honest after having issues with a gpu causing me to strip down 3 times I gave up and went with an asus strix 980ti and mobo is an asus hero v11 z97 and cpu is a 4th gen i7 4970k. I managed to get an asus strix 1080ti for £370 after selling the 980ti which was my upgrade rather than the unknown future of the rtx 2080ti for silly money. I can get 4.7 ghtz out of my cpu just under 1.3v and its still obviously cool idle about 29 degrees prime 95 runs it hits 80degrees but prime is well over the top I ran games for 2 hours and cpu was under 65degrees. So I was all set to upgrade motherboard and cpu after cancelling my order for a i7 8700k as it would probably need delidding. I have been waiting for these i9 9900k cpu's and WTF they are soldered and hit 97degrees watercooled what a joke and overclockers are already sexing up delidding these and lapping..i have been there done that for £600 I want to just slip it in my mobo and forget about it and get the upgrade worthy of the premium price. Na.. I am out thank you very much I might be thick as mince with the upgrade bug but even to me it does not make sense :)
 
Last edited:
~>Dg<~ said:
not being silly the resolution the majority of gamers use is 1080. the cpus that are new are the fastest 1080 resolution gaming cpus. what is the problem ? they are designed to be the fastest they are the fastest at what they supposed to do. the masses will buy them intel are the main gaming cpu people use. its not hard to understand.intel know their market.they design the cpus to do exactly what they market them for. yet people just dont understand this.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this to be honest. I game at 1080p and want to get a new chip, board and RAM for 1080p gaming. Most of my mates I play PUBG with have fast CPU's so they can drive massive high FPS to keep up with their 144/165hz displays. I only have a 1080p screen, they have 1440p screens, 8700k/8086k's and game at 1080p for the faster refresh and high FPS. I personally don't think it's a waste having a massive spec CPU for gaming at 1080p, because I'm not too interested in max FPS, that's not an issue, it's my minimum frames I care more about when my Xeon is slowing to 80fps while their systems with similar GPU's are getting 100-120+ in some cases.
 
Perfect_Chaos said:
DDR5 next year but isn't it for servers first? We don't know if it'll be of any use to us next year, could be a bit later.
Wonder if Ice Lake will be on DDR5 then? It's gotta be close if not.

At this point i think I'm gonna stick with my 5820k til then. Makes the most sense i guess.
Click to expand...
Considering AMD is supporting AM4 until 2020 I imagine that's when they plan to switch to DDR5 and PCIe 4.0. Intel switching to it next year would be a nice coup for them, especially since it'd go alongside a probable complete naming change (they've run out of numbers). Like you say though, it might not be ready for consumer platforms by Q4 2019.
 
DragonQ said:
Considering AMD is supporting AM4 until 2020 I imagine that's when they plan to switch to DDR5 and PCIe 4.0. Intel switching to it next year would be a nice coup for them, especially since it'd go alongside a probable complete naming change (they've run out of numbers). Like you say though, it might not be ready for consumer platforms by Q4 2019.
Click to expand...
Yep and then waiting depends on if the difference of DDR5 would be worth it, it could be, but at first? Hard to say.

It's difficult to judge the best time to upgrade. Intel's Ice Lake is supposed to be a new architecture, and then Ocean Cove is supposedly going to be revolutionary. So i wonder when the big jumps come.
 
I don't think my question needs a new thread so I'll ask here - is there much benefit in i7 8 core 8 thread over i7 4 core 8 threads? I'm not planning on upgrading from Haswell but I am a bit sad that the i7 no longer has hyperthreading.
 
almoststew1990 said:
I don't think my question needs a new thread so I'll ask here - is there much benefit in i7 8 core 8 thread over i7 4 core 8 threads? I'm not planning on upgrading from Haswell but I am a bit sad that the i7 no longer has hyperthreading.
Click to expand...
Yes, assuming your software is using 5+ threads. How much depends on how CPU limited you are now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom