Soldato
I'm pretty sure the new i7 won't get anywhere near 5.3 on air at that voltage on average. 5.0 on top end air or good aio yes.
-
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
Soldato
So absolute balls to the wall over clocking. Which will be better in games, 9700k or 9900k? I keep reading no HT leads to higher clocks and better gaming perf.
Soldato
Eh? it's 5.0ghz STOCK. Let alone on "top end air or good AIO" lol
Associate
Youre right, 4% is not nothing (thats if it doesnt end up more) and the 9900k isnt just a single core cpu either, that 4% applies to all 8 cores (a further 2 cores over the 8700k/8086k), that is impressive and a bit of a leap in multicore performance as well.
Sure the screenshots do only show an intel chip has booted and registered at that speed, but that is far and beyond what i imagine Amd would even boot at.
Im sure many enthusiasts will want one and many will also buy one, but whether they generally need one or not is questionable as you say, heck, i probably dont NEED one, but i most certainly want one and will happily pay a bit over the top for one just so i can have my hands on the latest and greatest cutting edge tech to play about with and to also be one of the earlier owners in doing so. It is psycologically nice to know that you've got what you cant really improve on in terms of your personal use cases. I'm also not going to lie, but as an enthusiast, the performance bragging rights also play a part and i think intel for that reason have also been very clever in naming their top mainstream chip an 'i9'.
Intel know enthusiasts are going to love announcing their pc specs starting with brandishing the 'i9' name about, im sure the name will also add a bit of tax to it as well though unfortunately.
given modern boards dont allow you to disable HTT, which chip do I buy if I dont want HTT? Or do some boards still allow you to disable it.
HTT adds heat and only has situational performance gains so I purposely avoid it.
my board will support the 8 core chips, as asrock have already released a bios for it and its in the changelog, add support for upcoming 8C chips.
Kinda agree, you will notice my chip is only at 4.8ghz, to hit 5ghz stable I would have needed an extra 0.6-0.8v vcore which for 200mhz is way excessive, and the watt consumption goes through the roof with that kind of bump.
Can i be a little bit cheeky?
It pretty good for gaming too, i'm looking at your signature, you could have had a GTX 1070 or a GTX 1080 with the same money you spent on your GTX 1060 with the 8700K, its the undisputed gaming king but as a recent review showed at 5Ghz its only about 15% faster overall at 1080P with a GTX 1080TI than a 2700X @ 4.2Ghz, the 12 thread 1600/2600 is just as good at gaming because no games make a difference 16 vs 12 threads.
I agree again, 8700k for gaming unless you also stream at the same time on the same hardware, is a waste of money, he could have got an 8600k instead, saved £80, used that on better GPU or other components and had just as good performance. An amd chip like the 2600X also would be viable alternative providing you dont play cpu bottlenecked games that thrive on per core performance (2700x not really any better than 2600x for gaming).
9900K also seems to have 16MB L3 Cache compared to 9700K's 12MB L3 Cache, a lot of games seem to prefer larger L3s, but HT might be a small hit performance wise in some, so remains to be seen in benchmarks.
If these chips are hit or miss will wholly depend on pricing.
@SiDeards73 They're also releasing a new HEDT line this Autumn based on Cascade Lake dies. It's going to be similar to how the 8700K made the 7800X obsolete.
haha are journalists this stupid?
https://www.pcgamesn.com/intels-wei...cker-than-the-8700k-but-with-66-fewer-threads
This guy doesnt get why real cores are beating fake cores. He doesnt get how 8 real cores beats 6 real cores and 6 fake cores.
I am laughing my ass off here.
Soldato
It's 4.9/5.0 on only one core with all core no doubt around 4.5/4.6. There's a noticeable difference in temps and volts for those extra 400-500mhz or so on another 7 cores. Top end air or aio like I say if you want to remain on the conservative side in summer temps, I'd bet (as an average). Of course people with high end w/c will happily get more.
The i7 will be better overclocked in virtually all games currently I'd think with high end cooling with the i9 probably drawing level on only exotic top end cooling.
If the above isn't correct and 5 is really that easy to achieve on mid range air with good paste, then I can't see why anyone would bother at all with AMD for gaming unless they are fairly budget constrained or run very CPU intensive games and stream.
Last edited:
Associate
This is one very big and important question i have, and one that i would really love a concrete answer of certainty to.
I am debating on buying a Z370 maximus formula x cheap, but i dont dare pull the trigger unless it is guaranteed to Support the i9 9900k.
I know Intel have religiously had 2 chips per socket type on a tick tock basis for a very, very long time, but there is some very conflicting information online this time around. Some sources suggest they will, other sources suggest they may only be able to support the 6 core or lower 9000 series variants, i have also even read that they will be supported but only on the very latest updated releases of Z370 boards that came out long after release.
In honesty, i will be quite disappointed if the Z370 chipset boards dont support them.
As far as i am aware, the Z370 and Z390 chipsets are almost like for like and offer very little if anything in terms of improvements/added featureset.
After the complaints and the fiasco around Z270 to Z370 with intel stupidly not renaming the socket 1151 'v2' and also not allowing new cpus on their Z370 chipset boards (even though Intel technically stuck by their tick tock strategy and supported upgrades from the Z170 to the Z270) people went mad with regards to compatibility on what appeared to be the same identical socket (even though some of pins on the array were 'reserved' on Z270 that were in use on Z370), i would doubt they want to repeat that same bad press.
I really, really wish i had a definitive answer to this as im prevented from buying a cheap board and dont want to pay OTT for a z390 that offers absolutely nothing more.
Last edited:
You should look for a Z370 board with a good VRM if you are considering an 8 core part. Issue is that a lot of Z370 boards just have "okay-ish" VRMs, but they will all most likely be able to support 8 core parts.
The cheapest Z370 board with a pretty beefy VRM is the ASRock Z370 Extreme4, 5x2+2 phase config with Fairchild/Sinopower mosfets.
The cheapest Z370 board with a pretty beefy VRM is the ASRock Z370 Extreme4, 5x2+2 phase config with Fairchild/Sinopower mosfets.
Associate
Yeah, i did notice that asrocks boards have pretty solid vrms for the z370 line up, so did the aurous gaming 7, the ultra gamings vrms however far exceeded 100 degrees under load in testing (suprised they didnt blow up), so a complete contrast there for gigabyte.
I am just able to get hold of a maximus formula x reasonably cheaply and thats why i am contemplating a z370 board over waiting for a z390.
As far as i can tell, the formula has 8x 50a infineon optimos. I'm going to presume this is pretty good as it is one of the most expensive boards you can buy for the z370 chipset.
Im not massively up on VRMs or power delivery, the same applies with the workings of a PSU, i just simply go for what sounds like it has high quality japanese caps throughout and read reviews on what is recommended or what is suggested as being pretty high quality with over average/impressive test results. I always buy EVGA/Superflower Leadex designed PSUs, they are solid, reliable and come with a 10 year+ warranty and i thank jonnyguru for all the tests and info he provides in that area, but there is very little info or testing on a motherboards VRMs to go by. Having said this, the schematics, mosfets, capacitors, power delivery and the naming schemes/serial numbers of the components i know very little about, I personally cannot comment as i am simply not educated enough to know what is good and what is sub par without reverting to google for some further research.
Either way, this still doesnt really give me any answer as to whether they will indeed support the i9-9900k. I cant buy any board until i know for certainty, so for now im pretty stuck in limbo waiting to lose a very cheap z370 board to another potential buyer.
When I was looking at the coffelake thread it seemed like the 8700k were actually clocking higher than the 8600k.
I don't think it's ever been the case that the i5's have clocked higher than the i7's.
@Jamie Archer Just wait it out at this point, maybe some of the new Z390 boards will be a better value proposition. But until then the price sweet spot is the ASRock Z370 Extreme4, it's close to the high end boards VRM quality wise.
PS: ASRock already pushed a BIOS version with support for 8 core CPUs on their Z370 boards, including the Extreme4: https://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z370 Extreme4/index.asp#BIOS
PS: ASRock already pushed a BIOS version with support for 8 core CPUs on their Z370 boards, including the Extreme4: https://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z370 Extreme4/index.asp#BIOS
2008 called, they want their opinions on HyperThreading back.
This is a general problem with all motherboards these days. Since everything became marketed towards gamers they prioritise looks over decent components, and often ridiculously mismatch components such that they are pointless (e.g. one component is overkill whilst another has been cheaped out on). Pretty pleased with the more workstation oriented board in my server (Asus PRIME X370-PRO); it doesn't even have debug codes (not used to having that anyway) but it was great value and has solid VRMs.
Last edited:
There have been a few in this forum who seem to think there are magically threaded tasks which will be faster on the 8700K.
There might be some niche workload where the 8700K might be faster, but in general the 9700K should always be faster than the 8700K if all threads are used. HT is just 2 threads contending for the same pipeline since it's likely that some stages will be idle, it's efficient, but it's still only 1 core.