• 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

Soldato
Joined
15 Jun 2005
Posts
2,750
Location
Edinburgh
PC Gamer 9700K review.
At stock, the 9700K is about one percent slower than the 9900K, and overclocked the difference is splitting hairs. The 9700K even claims a few wins, and with a margin of error of 1-2 percent in most games, there's no need to worry about gaming performance.

Relative to the Core i7-8700K, the loss of Hyper-Threading is more than offset by the additional CPU cores. Core i7-9700K is a few percent faster than the 8700K, and a bit more than 10 percent faster than the 2700X. It costs the same as the former, and about $100 more than the latter once you factor in the price of a cooler. But if you're building a primarily gaming PC, I'd still go with one of Intel's CPUs.

https://www.pcgamer.com/intel-core-i7-9700k-review/
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Jun 2005
Posts
2,750
Location
Edinburgh
Anyone know if the 9700K runs much cooler than the 9900K? If so it could be a great gaming chip.
Anandtech did a comparison which showed a really big difference but it is flawed because their 9900K was overvolting on a Z370. At stock and up to around 4.9 GHz, the 9700K runs cooler than the 8700K. At around 5GHz and above it starts to run hotter that the 8700K due to the extra cores. The 9700K will do around 5.3Ghz at the same temperature/voltage that the 9900K will do 5.0Ghz.
 
Associate
Joined
30 Jan 2003
Posts
1,514
Location
Cardiff
9600k will probably oc higher than either, and games don't care about HT. 6 cores is enough for any game out there.

But is it even necessary to oc these 5ghz chips? This is the first CPU i've ever had that I havent bothered to OC, i just run stock. +100mhz is 1.9%, not noticeable in benchmarks let alone games. my cpu is much cooler at stock than 5.3, and its only 5.6% slower.

if you game, get a 9600k or if you must, a 9700k. 9900k hell no :)
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
30 Jan 2003
Posts
1,514
Location
Cardiff
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.

I heard DDR5 is going very well and will be out sooner then people think.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,382
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System

But if you're building a primarily gaming PC, I'd still go with one of Intel's CPUs.

Blanket statements like that are incredibly idiotic and irresponsible, gaming on a 2070 or even a 2080 Intel or AMD it makes no difference to performance and the latter is far less expensive.
These people are a bunch of idiots clueless about the real world haven't bought their own hardware for a decade and throw about advice from that perspective.

We need more real reviewers, people who buy their own hardware.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Jun 2009
Posts
6,847
The 9600K is a failed 8-core with two disabled cores. I can’t see it being the best silicon.
Indeed, i5-8600K might actually be better overall than the i5-9600K, especially as it'd presumably be cheaper due to it being "older tech". i7-8700K has no equivalent in 9th generation either so will retain value.
 
Associate
Joined
30 Jan 2003
Posts
1,514
Location
Cardiff
Indeed, i5-8600K might actually be better overall than the i5-9600K, especially as it'd presumably be cheaper due to it being "older tech". i7-8700K has no equivalent in 9th generation either so will retain value.

nah. 8600k cant catch a 9600k, even my cpu is slower in benchmarks clock for clock. id wait for prices to settle first. I mean, ive seen a 9600k for £265 imported.
 
Associate
Joined
4 Oct 2017
Posts
590
Location
Australia - Sunshine Coast
nah. 8600k cant catch a 9600k, even my cpu is slower in benchmarks clock for clock. id wait for prices to settle first. I mean, ive seen a 9600k for £265 imported.
Interesting, didn't see an IPC bump of note in 9xxx to 8xxx cpu's. Which would indicate an 8600K and 9600K would be the same performance with the only difference being power consumption per MHz...
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jul 2005
Posts
9,679
Every benchmark I have seen suggests there is no IPC bump. Clock for clock the 8700k trades blows with a 9700/9900k in games and only falls behind when it runs out of cores/threads.
 
Back
Top Bottom