• 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.

i5 8600k > i7 9700k for VR gaming

GMac11

GMac11

GMac11

Soldato
Joined
3 Dec 2012
Posts
2,836
Location
Northern Ireland
As above, I currently have a 8600k OC'd comfortably to 4.8ghz. I have just acquired a 3070 to replace my 1080 and while I've seen a small improvement in fps my CpU usage is maxed out - particularly in Project Cars. In fact, pCars takes the CPU well into the 90's even when gaming on a monitor so it's clearly a very CPU intensive game.
I've mentioned over on another couple of threads that my sole aim is to have a rig for the upcoming F1 22 game. Since F1 2021 isn't VR compatible I have no way of seeing how it performs.
The only other title I have is Dirt Rally which is a little less CPU intensive but in VR the 8600k is still a clear bottleneck as usage is well into the 90's whereas the 3070 is pootling along at 40% give or take.

Would an upgrade to the i7 9700k make much of an improvement? The only reason I ask this is because it's the easiest (and cheapest) upgrade to make right now - it's just a straight swap into my existing Coffee Lake system.
 
The only gains your really see jumping to a 9700k is at 1080p and then only 10% depending on game.

You may also see an improvement in the 1% and .1% lows in fps but you would have to research that.
 
So going by UserBenchmark (in pure numbers) it seems I would be better investing in a newer i5 than the 9700k? I just pulled a 12400 out of the hat and it appears to be significantly better.
I'm not concerned about overclocking any more plus I don't want to narrow my options by having to find a 'K' CPU and compatible mobo - those days are long behind me!
 
Best solution is buy a 5800X3D, and a cheap motherboard (£50-100) if doing VR/Sim stuff, nothing can touch it and it will probably be that way for a good while. Wring out the value in your system now by selling it. Look on any serious VR/Sim forum/boards and you'll see proper figures from actual users. If you invested good money in VR kit you should get the most from it.
 
Journey said:
Best solution is buy a 5800X3D, and a cheap motherboard (£50-100) if doing VR/Sim stuff, nothing can touch it and it will probably be that way for a good while. Wring out the value in your system now by selling it. Look on any serious VR/Sim forum/boards and you'll see proper figures from actual users. If you invested good money in VR kit you should get the most from it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the pointer. I’ve never used AMD before, through no sense of loyalty to Intel or anything it’s just I started building with Intel so I just stuck to what I knew when it came round to upgrade time.
So I’ll definitely have a proper look at team red.
 
GMac11 said:
Thanks for the pointer. I’ve never used AMD before, through no sense of loyalty to Intel or anything it’s just I started building with Intel so I just stuck to what I knew when it came round to upgrade time.
So I’ll definitely have a proper look at team red.
Click to expand...

100% look at the data, ignore the branding of everything its irrelevant.
 
I thought getting a 9900K would be a good solution but it's waaaaaaaay to expensive even second hand.

5800X3D or 10900K or 12700K would be an excellent upgrade path. You can do AM4 for really cheap as the others have said, an old B450 board will work fine and will cost peanuts.
 
A 6-core Skylake at nearly 5 Ghz is unlikely to be a strong bottleneck in the vast majority of games. If it is, then you probably need something a lot more powerful per core, as HangTime suggested. The 9900K would have given you 2 more cores and 10 more threads, which might have helped, but the used price is too ridiculous to bother.
 
GMac11 said:
...Would an upgrade to the i7 9700k make much of an improvement? The only reason I ask this is because it's the easiest (and cheapest) upgrade to make right now - it's just a straight swap into my existing Coffee Lake system.
Click to expand...

I would definitely agree with @Journey that a 5800X3D is what you might have your sights on though that is quite an extra outlay and you know how much money you have to spare. A very experienced Sim VR racer in the form of @Robert896r1 has also gone the X3D route though for his old tuned 9900K he ran his games without HT, so effectively making it a 9700K. He might be better placed to advise you of the improvements.

As to your central question, I think it might be more of an improvement than most people that have replied might realise; so as far as very cheap upgrades (almost no cost) or a stop gap until you save for a X3D, which after all is what you are looking for, it is probably a very decent idea.

I'd guess that you'd see at least a 30% improvement in most scenarios.

I've done the upgrade from an 8600K to a 9700K and for many games/programs it was a good improvement.
Here are the results from a little test in DXO Photolab we did a couple years ago and you will see the scores. You will notice that a 8700K was also at 4.8Ghz the same as yours, though that had HT and which your 8600K doesn't but still look at how much better the 9700K was.

Intel [email protected] 15secs Robert896r1
Intel [email protected] 15secs MartinPrince
ThreadRipper 3960X 18secs amigafan2003
Ryzen 3900X 18secs MartinPrince
Threadripper 2920X 22secs sandys
Ryzen 3600 24secs humbug
Intel [email protected] 24secs MartinPrince
Ryzen 2700@4Ghz 25secs CAT-THE-FIFTH(mate)
Ryzen 2600 27secs CAT-THE-FIFTH
Intel 4790s 38secs MartinPrince
Intel [email protected] 44secs MartinPrince


As to the improvement in Project Cars as I also have a RTX3070 I can probably give you a better idea and some actual data as to how a 9700K will perform compared to your 8700K and run some tests for you. As I haven't played it for a few years which version of Project Cars are you using?
 
Last edited:
Sims don't scale across multiple cores due to how physics are calculated so you end up with a thread/core for physics, rendering, AI, OS and background tasks. Beyond that, adding cores isn't of much use.

However, they need to crunch a lot of numbers to give you the simulation! That's where IPC, cache and mem help out a lot while additional cores do nothing.

Where the X3D helps all that is scratchpad needed to do the math can happen on the L3 cache rather than mem, which is slower.

If you see the 12900k vs x3d here, you can see that it takes a ton of IPC and mem performance to make up for the huge pool of L3 cache https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/5800x3d-vs-12900k-tuned-gaming-benchmarks.18953032/
 
MartinPrince said:
I would definitely agree with @Journey that a 5800X3D is what you might have your sights on though that is quite an extra outlay and you know how much money you have to spare. A very experienced Sim VR racer in the form of @Robert896r1 has also gone the X3D route though for his old tuned 9900K he ran his games without HT, so effectively making it a 9700K. He might be better placed to advise you of the improvements.

As to your central question, I think it might be more of an improvement than most people that have replied might realise; so as far as very cheap upgrades (almost no cost) or a stop gap until you save for a X3D, which after all is what you are looking for, it is probably a very decent idea.

I'd guess that you'd see at least a 30% improvement in most scenarios.

I've done the upgrade from an 8600K to a 9700K and for many games/programs it was a good improvement.
Here are the results from a little test in DXO Photolab we did a couple years ago and you will see the scores. You will notice that a 8700K was also at 4.8Ghz the same as yours, though that had HT and which your 8600K doesn't but still look at how much better the 9700K was.

Intel [email protected] 15secs Robert896r1
Intel [email protected] 15secs MartinPrince
ThreadRipper 3960X 18secs amigafan2003
Ryzen 3900X 18secs MartinPrince
Threadripper 2920X 22secs sandys
Ryzen 3600 24secs humbug
Intel [email protected] 24secs MartinPrince
Ryzen 2700@4Ghz 25secs CAT-THE-FIFTH(mate)
Ryzen 2600 27secs CAT-THE-FIFTH
Intel 4790s 38secs MartinPrince
Intel [email protected] 44secs MartinPrince


As to the improvement in Project Cars as I also have a RTX3070 I can probably give you a better idea and some actual data as to how a 9700K will perform compared to your 8700K and run some tests for you. As I haven't played it for a few years which version of Project Cars are you using?
Click to expand...
Thank you for such a comprehensive reply!
It's the original Project Cars that I'm running. However, as I've mentioned it's really just a stop gap until F1 22 is released which I'm hoping isn't quite as CPU intensive.

I always used i7 CPU's prior to this 8600k but since I started using a MacBook for everything (except my games) I decided at the last upgrade to just go with the i5 8600k.
I'm wary this isn't a VR thread (I have one over there too but for slightly different matters) but it still seems odd that people are (or at least they claim to be) running the Quest 2 at very good settings with CPU's that are 3 or 4 generations older than mine.
From what I gather the only real advantage of going 8600 to 9700 is the Hyperthreading which I was always under the assumption didn't really matter when it came to gaming, however, VR may be a different beast in that regard.
 
GMac11 said:
From what I gather the only real advantage of going 8600 to 9700 is the Hyperthreading which I was always under the assumption didn't really matter when it came to gaming, however, VR may be a different beast in that regard.
Click to expand...
No, as the 9700k doesn't have HT the advantages of going from 8600k to the 9700k are the 33% extra cores (2 extra cores) and the increased performance across all those cores as all the 9700k I've overclocked, and I've done more than a dozen, have done at least 5Ghz, most did 5.2/5.1Ghz and a few 5.3Ghz.

Just the extra cores will help to off-load OS tasks during gaming.

If you do get a 9700k, just make sure to get the latter R0 stepping and not the older P0 as these overclock much better with less voltage needed. My R0 does 5.3 at 1.305v.

As I learnt from @Robert896r1, also tuning your memory can give you a nice free boost and make games much smoother.

I've got F1 2018 so will give that a try as well to see how it compares but have no idea if the game runs similar to the 21 or 22 version.
 
Last edited:
MartinPrince said:
No, as the 9700k doesn't have HT the advantages of going from 8600k to the 9700k are the 33% extra cores (2 extra cores) and the increased performance across all those cores as all the 9700k I've overclocked, and I've done more than a dozen, have done at least 5Ghz, most did 5.2/5.1Ghz and a few 5.3Ghz.
Click to expand...
Apologies, quite right. I see the 9700k is the first i7 without hyperthreading, I assumed it had it.
It’s still looking less likely this is the way to go. Given it’s only a couple of weeks away I’ll wait until F1 22 comes out and see how it fares with my system.
I have F1 2021 but it’s not VR supported so there’s no way of assessing what sort horsepower I’d require.
 
GMac11 said:
Apologies, quite right. I see the 9700k is the first i7 without hyperthreading, I assumed it had it.
It’s still looking less likely this is the way to go. Given it’s only a couple of weeks away I’ll wait until F1 22 comes out and see how it fares with my system.
I have F1 2021 but it’s not VR supported so there’s no way of assessing what sort horsepower I’d require.
Click to expand...
If you can wait then definitely do that so you can get actual data as to how different CPU's fare. Remind me when it's out as I might give it a go to see how my old 9700k runs it! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom