• 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

easyrider said:
I tested an i5 2500k and i7 2700k in my nephews pc and the 2700k got a higher minimum FPS in games...
Click to expand...

That's not the same thing. The 8700k nor the upcoming 9700k are close to being maxed in games. The i5 is at just 4c. HT is only really useful if you'd otherwise be maxing out the cores on a lower end chip, if you want the headroom for the future or if you multitask. It normally gives anything from 0-40% gain so pretty big margins. The 6 extra threads of the 8700k are probably close to equal the 9700k extra two cores at the same clocks.

Stock the 9700k is running 7% faster all core boost, so an 11% gain isn't bad if true.
 
chrcoluk said:
HTT in real world performance doesnt give anything like the performance you think it does, its probably the biggest scam on consumer cpus for a long time.
Click to expand...
That's an almost spectacularly-dumb statement. Hyperthreading's impact depends entirely on the workload relative to your number of cores, and makes a huge difference when your workload demands more threads than you have physical cores, no matter what that workload is. To the difference of the workload being a stuttering, spluttering mess, versus it running perfectly smoothly. To call it a "scam" is just displaying your own ignorance.

2600k-revisit-mllykdv8.png


Always a benchmark that I enjoy showing to the "hurr Hyperthreading does nothing for gaming!!!" crowd. You'll note of course the ghastly 0.1% low numbers posted by every i5 on the list, with particular note given to the overclocked 2500K languishing down there below a stock 2600K, despite a 1GHz clock speed advantage (relative to the 2600K's stock all-core boost). Sprinkle some Hyperthreading on top of the same chip and suddenly you've completely eliminated that stutter and see the overclocked 2600K shooting up past even the Ryzen chips, posting 0.1% lows seven times higher. Now, there's the argument that these are mere quad cores (someone's already said it above actually), but that's completely irrelevant. The same principle applies no matter how many physical cores you have - once a program wants more threads than any given arbitrary number, your goose is cooked. And if you want to boil "real world performance" entirely down to "gaming performance" as so many people do, game engines are becoming more and more heavily-threaded all the time. There are games today that can use more than eight threads, let alone two, three, four, five years from now. People who bought a 2600K in 2011 can still enjoy a lovely gaming experience with their chip, whereas the 2500K is reduced to a stuttering mess in a whole host of newer titles (as are all quad core i5s for that matter).

My bet is that the 8700K will go on to age far better than the 9700K will, when people go back and benchmark them both five years from now. Those four extra threads will make a difference, and at the rate CPUs are progressing these days, these chips may be relevant for a long, long time. Especially in terms of single-core performance, since we've moved from clock speed wars to core wars (only emphasising my point that workloads are inevitably going to become more and more heavily-threaded). Of course, many here will probably say it doesn't matter and "who cares?" and that they'll have upgraded another three times by then anyway, but not everybody is so blessed as to be able to throw money at every new platform that arrives. A lot of people keep the same system for many years. There are still plenty using Sandy Bridge today, closing in on eight years down the road. I imagine the ones who paid the extra £75 or so for a 2600K over a 2500K seven years ago probably don't feel like they got scammed.
 
Robert896r1 said:
same. my 2080ti is getting choked out by my 2600k :( And Ryzen isn't an option for gaming only.
Click to expand...

Lol wtf why have you waited this long on a 2600k? they were struggling with 1080ti which should have been the red light for you when buying the 2080ti... i cant fathom how someone spends £1000+ plus on a GPU while neglecting the CPU side of things, but thats a personal opinion.

If i was personally buying a 2080ti for pure gaming i would at minimum be running the 8600K with it.
 
LePhuronn said:
And if I had that sort of money to burn I'd buy a 2700X system just to put the "Ryzen can't game" stance to bed either way.
Click to expand...

In all honesty if your running a 2080ti and not running at a minimum of 1440p, probably even 4K you need to give up PC gaming and do something else, at which point your heading towards being GPU limited anyhow so CPU is not as relevant and a 2700X is going to be arguably no worse than a 8700K at that point.
 
SiDeards73 said:
Lol wtf why have you waited this long on a 2600k? they were struggling with 1080ti which should have been the red light for you when buying the 2080ti... i cant fathom how someone spends £1000+ plus on a GPU while neglecting the CPU side of things, but thats a personal opinion.

If i was personally buying a 2080ti for pure gaming i would at minimum be running the 8600K with it.
Click to expand...

I had a 980ti which balanced the 2600k @ 4.6 just fine. I knew the 2080ti would be held back by the 2600k but I wanted it first while Intel gets the 9900k out the door.

Since I mainly play sim racers in VR only, the CPU does get taxed heavily and multiplayer gaming often prefers IPC and high core speeds over a number of cores. This makes the Ryzen a poor partner for this use case.

Thus I either get a 8700k now or wait a few weeks and jump right into a 9900k as soon as it's available for pre-order.

edit: saw the river company price for a 9900k. I think it's fine if it lasts as long as my sandy bridge did.
 
Last edited:
Interesting graph that metro last night, I have the game so will try it out on my rig and measure rates (min frame times).

Although that graph is looking odd on my display making me concerned about my GPU O_o, I am seeing flickering coloured pixels between each graph at the base area. The flickering goes away when I click to see full size image.

Now lets say I accept your argument on threads been important for games.

The question is why in your eyes is the 9700k a poor chip and the 8700k a good chip when they both have 8 threads?
 
Last edited:
Sorry got confused with the 7700k.

Ok same question with 7700k vs a 9700k then.

When I test the metro game I will disable 2 cores so i have 4 threads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom