i9-9900k only $534/£500

Troezar · 2 Sep 2018 at 06:23

I see a lot of comments conflating max overclocked suicide run data with 24/7 practical performance. I understand the sport of trying to get the most possible out of a CPU but that applies to one run of one chip. To get any real idea of practical everyday gaming use we need lots of results. Does anyone collate that kind of 24/7 stable data?

For my use I don't pay much attention unless I know I could also get the same speeds and they're usable. I wouldn't even count the 8700K as guaranteed 5.0GHz out of the box, despite the 5.3GHz figures that are frequently mentioned.

Smffy · 2 Sep 2018 at 07:54

Troezar said:
I see a lot of comments conflating max overclocked suicide run data with 24/7 practical performance. I understand the sport of trying to get the most possible out of a CPU but that applies to one run of one chip. To get any real idea of practical everyday gaming use we need lots of results. Does anyone collate that kind of 24/7 stable data?

For my use I don't pay much attention unless I know I could also get the same speeds and they're usable. I wouldn't even count the 8700K as guaranteed 5.0GHz out of the box, despite the 5.3GHz figures that are frequently mentioned.

Original batch 8700k you would, then for some strange reason the clocks got lower... and the 8086 was released many months later with the best bin silicon. Strange

BTVA · 2 Sep 2018 at 12:07

Troezar said:
I see a lot of comments conflating max overclocked suicide run data with 24/7 practical performance. I understand the sport of trying to get the most possible out of a CPU but that applies to one run of one chip. To get any real idea of practical everyday gaming use we need lots of results. Does anyone collate that kind of 24/7 stable data?

For my use I don't pay much attention unless I know I could also get the same speeds and they're usable. I wouldn't even count the 8700K as guaranteed 5.0GHz out of the box, despite the 5.3GHz figures that are frequently mentioned.

yes, there is a place that displays their data regarding Intel overclocking capability.
you can google these phrases:
"As of 6/08/18, the top 50% of tested 8700Ks were able to hit 5.1GHz or greater."
"As of 6/17/18, the top 60% of tested 8086Ks were able to hit 5.2GHz or greater."

other forums will also have unprocessed data on overclocking like overclock.net, hardwareluxx,...

mmj_uk · 2 Sep 2018 at 12:16

IT Troll said:
Hard to justify given the current pricing of the 12/24 TR 1920X.

8 cores at 5ghz would be far better than 12 core at 4ghz imo, I would only buy 9900K if they have fixed their temperatures which includes not using toothpaste though.

Troezar · 2 Sep 2018 at 12:33

BTVA said:
yes, there is a place that displays their data regarding Intel overclocking capability.
you can google these phrases:
"As of 6/08/18, the top 50% of tested 8700Ks were able to hit 5.1GHz or greater."
"As of 6/17/18, the top 60% of tested 8086Ks were able to hit 5.2GHz or greater."

other forums will also have unprocessed data on overclocking like overclock.net, hardwareluxx,...

I presume those are all max overclocks though rather than 24/7 stable under any workload overclocks? I don't count delidded or under custom water either.

BTVA · 2 Sep 2018 at 12:41

Troezar said:
I presume those are all max overclocks though rather than 24/7 stable under any workload overclocks? I don't count delidded or under custom water either.

those are Asus realbench stress test tested for 1 hour and non-AVX Prime95, AVX Prime95, and Intel Linpack tested. It is delided with AIO 240 cooler. Non delided chips usually go around 200-300mhz lower due to not be able to raise the voltage and temp constraint. So you should be, on average, looking at 4.7-4.8Ghz for 8700K and 4.8-5Ghz for 8086K daily without deliding depending on how lucky you are with the lottery.

Troezar · 2 Sep 2018 at 17:18

BTVA said:
those are Asus realbench stress test tested for 1 hour and non-AVX Prime95, AVX Prime95, and Intel Linpack tested. It is delided with AIO 240 cooler. Non delided chips usually go around 200-300mhz lower due to not be able to raise the voltage and temp constraint. So you should be, on average, looking at 4.7-4.8Ghz for 8700K and 4.8-5Ghz for 8086K daily without deliding depending on how lucky you are with the lottery.

Pretry much what I thought then, for the average user the 8700k won't be doing 5GHz+. Makes the comparison with Ryzen even more interesting as lots of buyers won't bother with the extra effort to delid and buy more expensive cooling.

gavinh87 · 2 Sep 2018 at 17:37

Troezar said:
Pretry much what I thought then, for the average user the 8700k won't be doing 5GHz+. Makes the comparison with Ryzen even more interesting as lots of buyers won't bother with the extra effort to delid and buy more expensive cooling.

Not really, even stock the 8700k is ahead. (Gaming)
If not gaming then just buy ryzen.

humbug · 2 Sep 2018 at 17:52

gavinh87 said:
Not really, even stock the 8700k is ahead. (Gaming)
If not gaming then just buy ryzen.

Come on Gavin stop this nonsense of 8700K and 8700K only, if you're not running a GTX 1080TI a Ryzen 2600 will get you exactly the same gaming performance for £200 less.

You're not a swivel eyed fanatical Intel lunatic. Stop man

gavinh87 · 2 Sep 2018 at 17:56

humbug said:
Come on Gavin stop this nonsense of 8700K and 8700K only, if you're not running a GTX 1080TI a Ryzen 2600 will get you exactly the same gaming performance for £200 less.

You're not a swivel eyed fanatical Intel lunatic. Stop man

I've already posted benches of a 8700k vs 1700 with a 1070.
What I said above is not BS :/

BTVA · 2 Sep 2018 at 17:58

"exactly the same gaming performance" this is a strong statement.

humbug · 2 Sep 2018 at 18:08

gavinh87 said:
I've already posted benches of a 8700k vs 1700 with a 1070.
What I said above is not BS :/

I haven't seen it but i'm willing to bet its a few cherry picked games.

35 Games 1080TI the 8700K is 13% faster than the 2700X at 720P.

The 2600/X is very similar in gaming performance to the 2700X, its 6 core vs 8, only one or two games with make use of the 2 extra cores on the 2700X.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/

The 1080TI is more than 13% faster than a GTX 1080 at any res, including 720P

gavinh87 · 2 Sep 2018 at 18:11

humbug said:
I haven't seen it but i'm willing to bet its a few cherry picked games, or Tech Power Up.

35 Games 1080TI the 8700K is 13% faster than the 2700X at 720P.

The 2600/X is very similar in gaming performance to the 2700X, its 6 core vs 8, only one or two games with make use of the 2 extra cores on the 2700X.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/

The 1080TI is more than 13% faster than a GTX 1080 at any res, including 720P

My own firestrike scores. I posted a while ago.

Those games you list are single player GPU bound. Try an early access game or similar and ryzen falls over. We've been over this already. But there are many games that prove the performance is far from the same in games.

humbug · 2 Sep 2018 at 18:20

gavinh87 said:
My own firestrike scores. I posted a while ago.

Those games you list are single player GPU bound. Try an early access game or similar and ryzen falls over. We've been over this already. But there are many games that prove the performance is far from the same in games.

Firestrike? what PhysX? other than that its a GPU benchmark, a 4 year old synthetic benchmark.

I'm talking about actual games. have a look at the review i posted, all sorts of games in that from the latest to very old single player and Multiplayer.

The 8700K is running at 5Ghz, the 2700X at 4.2Ghz, 1080TI at 720P, the 8700K is running 20% higher clocks than the 2700X and with that manages to be 13% faster.

so yes it is faster, yes the 8700K is the very best gaming CPU, but that's very very different from telling people the only CPU they should consider is the 8700K, seriously that is bonkers.

gavinh87 · 2 Sep 2018 at 18:30

humbug said:
Firestrike? what PhysX? other than that its a GPU benchmark, a 4 year old synthetic benchmark.

I'm talking about actual games. have a look at the review i posted, all sorts of games in that from the latest to very old single player and Multiplayer.

The 8700K is running at 5Ghz, the 2700X at 4.2Ghz, 1080TI at 720P, the 8700K is running 20% higher clocks than the 2700X and with that manages to be 13% faster.

so yes it is faster, yes the 8700K is the very best gaming CPU, but that's very very different from telling people the only CPU they should consider is the 8700K, seriously that is bonkers.

That is not what I said, what I said was "Not really, even stock the 8700k is ahead. (Gaming) "

B1gbeard · 2 Sep 2018 at 18:33

humbug said:
Firestrike? a 4 year old synthetic benchmark?

I'm talking about actual games. have a look at the review i posted, all sorts of games in that from the latest to very old single player and Multiplayer.

The 8700K is running at 5Ghz, the 2700X at 4.2Ghz, 1080TI at 720P, the 8700K is running 20% higher clocks than the 2700X and with that manages to be 13% faster.

so yes it is faster, yes the 8700K is the very best gaming CPU, but that's very very different from telling people the only CPU they should consider is the 8700K, seriously that is bonkers.

You must have read something else as he said gaming is better on 8700k but if not gaming buy Ryzen. Not sure how you go from that to him saying the 8700k is the only cpu to consider.

But yeah, for gaming get 8700k or wait for the 9*00k. Plenty of numbers out there using a 1080 and even 1070’s showing higher FPS on 8700k. Also at 1440p. All this you need a 1080ti or there is no difference at 1440p is misinformation.

humbug · 2 Sep 2018 at 18:38

gavinh87 said:
That is not what I said, what I said was "Not really, even stock the 8700k is ahead. (Gaming) "

Great, so because there is no context to what you said, other than "buy the 8700K" i'll make the point again.

gavinh87 said:
Not really, even stock the 8700k is ahead. (Gaming)
If not gaming then just buy ryzen.

Its only ahead if you're running a 1080TI at 1080P.

If not you have the choice of buying anything, within reason actually other than the 8700K, even if you are running a GTX 1080TI you're not going to see much, if any difference at all if you play your games at 1440P Ryzen 2600 vs 8700K, so if you're on a limited budget and its 8700K + GTX 1080 vs 2600 + GTX 1080TI get the 2600 and the 1080TI.

Is that fair @gavinh87 ?

gavinh87 · 2 Sep 2018 at 18:42

https://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/13418487/fs/13805973#

Look at the details, this is 1700 overclocked to the max with 3466 RAM vs a stock 8700k with 2666 RAM, same 1070. So even with a mid range 1070, the gaming experience is better on a 8700K.
Depends on what games you play @humbug if you like early access and unoptimized games such as scum, the hunt: showdown, ARK , planetside 2 or MMO's then the 8700K everytime. If you play mainstream AAA games then yes the 2600+1080ti would be a better choice than a 8700K.

How have we even got to this AGAIN?

humbug · 2 Sep 2018 at 18:49

gavinh87 said:
https://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/13418487/fs/13805973#

Look at the details, this is 1700 overclocked to the max with 3466 RAM vs a stock 8700k with 2666 RAM, same 1070. So even with a mid range 1070, the gaming experience is better on a 8700K.
Depends on what games you play @humbug if you like early access and unoptimized games such as scum, the hunt: showdown, ARK , planetside 2 or MMO's then the 8700K everytime. If you play mainstream AAA games then yes the 2600+1080ti would be a better choice than a 8700K.

How have we even got to this AGAIN?

From that list I have Scum, Hunt Showdown and Planetside 2.
Planetside 2 is an old game so i can compare it with my 4690K and the performance on the 1600 is infinitely better.

The other two i can't compare different CPU's but the performance from my eperience is very good.

I'll add another to it in form of Insurgency Sandstorm which is still in BETA, it has very serious optimisation problems right now, google it, and yet i'm not seeing people with 8700K's having a much better experience than i do.

An 8700K will not get me a much better experience, in the games you listed not even if i had a GTX 1080TI.

gavinh87 · 2 Sep 2018 at 18:57

humbug said:
From that list I have Scum, Hunt Showdown and Planetside 2.
Planetside 2 is an old game so i can compare it with my 4690K and the performance on the 1600 is infinitely better.

The other two the performance is very good.

I'll add another to it in form of Insurgency Sandstorm which is still in BETA, it has very serious optimisation problems right now, google it, and yet i'm not seeing people with 8700K's having a much better experience than i do.

An 8700K will not get me a much better experience, in the games you listed not even if i had a GTX 1080TI.

I can tell you it will, let me explain.
I have owned both a 1700 and 8700k.
I still own a 1070 and 1080ti.

Now am I lying to get my belly tickled, or have I actually experienced the above?
Sandstorm runs on the unreal 4 engine which will undoubtedly run better on intel.