Soldato
The 9700K is 8C 8T yes. Should be faster than the 8700K though. Prices are just dumb however.
-
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.
Core 9000 series
- Thread starter orbitalwalsh
- Start date
The 9700K is 8C 8T yes. Should be faster than the 8700K though. Prices are just dumb however.
The IMC on the chips can't be that bad if you can run a fully populated board at 3200+. Also the same chip in different boards does vary, a few weeks ago I made a post explaining that I cant hit the same memory frequencies on a Asus x399-a prime that I can on the x399 taichi (I own both boards), doesn't matter what I do I can set everything identical in the bios, run literally every component apart from the board the same and the taichi will hit 2933 stable on tight timings without a voltage bump to the soc while running 8 dimms but the asus board struggles as soon as I bump above around 2400 with tight timings. It's not the ram as that's g.skill b-die 3466 stuff and every other component including the windows / esxi install is identical and run from the same drive. Put simply the board does matter.
I didn't look back at what ram you had I just went off of the gazillion years old line
but depending on the speed etc and what has been put in this thread and subsequent videos etc that have been posted there is probably around 10 to somewhere around 25/30% ish or more difference between a properly set up system with fast ram and one set up with slow. I guess that wouldn't show quite as much on the intel system as they don't seem to scale the same on ram.I dunno what I would do in your situation tbh a lot of the time personal preference and what you really want out of it is of course much more important than what anybody in here has to say and if your willing to pay the money then who am I or anyone else to argue? I went from a q6600 to an x6 1090t to a 1950x so the difference for me was massive over what I had, I do a lot of work in vmware where core count is king and more cores mean I can spin up a bigger estate which to me and up until a point is more important than whatever I lose in gaming. I have to be honest though even in gaming loads I have never felt let down by what I have either.
I'm actually quite looking forward to what these things can do
Last edited:
Is HTT that good you would rather have a 4 core 8 threaded chip instead? Just so you have magical HTT.
He's rather have 8C/16T. I'm not sure what point you are making.
If he wanted a 4C/8T he'd buy a 7700K.
Soldato
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 2,483
That article confirms partial hardware fixes for the vulnerabilities.
"According to documentation released by Intel, only the Coffee Lake-S parts - known to consumers as Ninth Generation Intel Core Desktop Processors - come with in-silicon protection against Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabilities, and at that only partial: Each chip in the range includes protection against the Meltdown Variant 3 and the more recently-discovered L1 Terminal Fault, or Variant 5, flaws. For other variants, including Spectre Variant 2 and Meltdown Variant 3a, the chips rely entirely on the same software and microcode patches as previous generations."
So some flaws are covered by the hardware while the rest rely on what fixes are already out as software and microcode.
Soldato
True.
I didn't say different = not credible, I was talking about outliers.
So in that case we should never test overclocked parts because Intel's chips have more headroom and therefore gain an unfair advantage from that kind of setup.
Yes but did they incorrectly label it as overclocked? Surely stock is what you expect to be tested unless explicitly stated??
I agree in general but fiddling with timings is not the same as setting an XMP profile. So in the case of PT, they ballsed it up. I dunno what you mean about "enabling bios to enhance performance on ryzen"; the only BIOS setting I can think of aside from standard CPU/RAM overclocking that'd affect performance significantly is MCE on Intel boards.
But neither system had its RAM "tweaked". Both were set to their highest officially supported speed (IIRC) and then Intel had XMP applied, whereas AMD didn't.
If you're talking generally then yes, I would expect both systems to be tweaked rather than just one, but it depends what you mean by tweaking. I'm not sure XMP would count.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 2,483
I know.
I was quoting the rest of it because that small part Panos quoted made it sound as if, to me at least, the article was saying there weren't any hardware fixes.
Sounded that way to me too. I was about to do the same but you beat me to it.
Thanks, that is sound advice. I am also a VMware user (hence the 32GB RAM) and a gamer. For me going for the new Intel means I can significantly increase my core count, not sacrifice gaming performance and not have to buy some special Ryzen/B450 friendly RAM. It is not always as simple as, "just buy Ryzen instead".
Up to 33% faster assuming same clocks, after all it has 33% more cores.
Threads are situational when they provide meaningful benefit, despite the single game improvement showed earlier in the thread I remain sceptical of HTT, and also now it has 8 native threads the argument for extra threads to match console optimisations is far weaker.
I think its a no brainer to get a 8600k over a 7700k for example, the numbers of a 9700k over a 8700k are not as strong in terms of percentages, but this is what would sway me if I was choosing between the two.
Rendering and virtual machine workloads, 8700k.
Almost anything else 9700k, unless money is no object then the 9900k, but if money was no object I wouldnt be buying a mainstream cpu.
Also with intel current prices I probably would buy ryzen2 instead. The current prices are a complete joke, even the american prices, its not too far off the 2xxx gpu debacle.
Soldato
It sounded great until you said, "some special Ryzen/B450 friendly RAM" - please take no offence as none is meant, but a lot of people one here have never even built a Ryzen system, be it a Ryzen 1XXX or 2XXX system, and just spout rubbish. With Ryzen 2XXX CPU's you don't need any sort of special RAM, just so long as you are buying faster RAM (3000MHz is fine), with a view to trying to get the timings as low as you can if you want the most from the system. The compatibility between newer boards/CPU's and the various Micron/Hynix/Samsung RAM IC's bears no relation to what it was when Ryzen 1XXX released.
At the end of they day, spend you money on whatever you want - the i9-9900K is going to be very, very fast, but for a CPU that is presently 107% more expensive then the AMD 2700X you'd bloody well hope so. If you use your CPU/System for earning your crust, then the extra cash maybe money well spent but in reality if you don't, and it's just for fun, then that 107% would go a long, long way to getting a better experience elsewhere, be it NVMe SSD's or more RAM, or some fancy software that you might not have though you could not afford.
I mirror what Vince said, no matter what myself or anyone else in here says ultimately it is your choice, but if you end up doubting your purchase you won't enjoy it.
HT would have to consistently offer a performance increase of over 33% to make the 8700k a better choice than the 9700k. This does not happen in real world usage. In a synthetic benchmark like Cinebench, HT gives a 30% performance boost. So the 9700k is a safer buy for performance increases across the board.
Well that's my point, I don't want to buy new RAM, I want to use my existing 4 sticks of DDR4-3000. But I've already been told that these will not work on a B450 board. Yes the 9900k will cost me 65% more than a 2700X (I'm avoiding the UK gouging), but I don't then have to spend ~£300 on different RAM.
Soldato
You've been told your RAM just won't work? Who has your exact RAM and the B450 board and CPU you will be using they can confirm it just won't work. What are the model numbers of you RAM?
Two sets of CMK16GX4M2B3000C15. The consensus still seems to be that B450 boards, especially mATX, do not like 4 sticks of Hynix. Anyway I've posted in the Zen thread as this is veering further off topic for this thread.
Last edited:
I bet they would work and probably at xmp as well. So long as you get a board that has the settings to change VDDCR SOC voltage. Set that at like around 1v or something and away you go. 1.1v as told by the guys on here lets my 1950x populated with 8 dimms run at 3200 so i see no reason why the stronger imc on he 2xxx series couldnt, even with "non ryzen friendly" ram.