I7 8700k v I7 9700k

[Daethz]

Im still racking my brain on this one.
I7 9700k
Pros:
+2 physical cores
+Larger PCB?
+Soldered?
+200mhz turbo
Cons:
$60/70 more
Temps are higher than last gen?

i7 8700k
Pros:
+Hyperthreading +4 "threads" more than the 9700k
+potentially runs cooler than 9700k?
Cons:
-200mhz turbo
-2 physical cores

Userbenchmark puts the i7 8700k at like 1% faster multicore performance than the i7 9700k, but is beaten by like 4% single core by the 9700k
Single core performance is more important for most games, especially WoW
I9 9900k is outrageously expensive as all they did was enable hyperthreading, I don't see that being worth the $100-200 additional price tag, also especially now that that new hyperthreading encryption vulnerability has been discovered.

AMD's alternative is much cheaper, but the single core performance is quite bad, makes my 2012 cpu look good.

What do you guys think?
Going to put a Noctuna dh-15 on top of it.

- - - Updated - - -

I get the strong feeling intel will revert their i9 stuff and add hyperthreading back to the i7's in the tenth generation, atm that's why im hesitant.

- - - Updated - - -

Another concern I come up with is im almost sure the next console generation will be 8c/16thread and the games might end up optimized to use a larger amount of cores, thus the i7 8700k's extra threads might outperform the 9700k's lack of bonus threads.. bleh

[potis]

You are making the mistake of confusing the naming and therefor comparing different things.

i7 8700k = i9 9900k.

i7 9700k = i5 8600K

Dont compare different things

They just changed the naming and since +2 cores they upped the prices.

Either way, future or not, more physical cores, is the better choice.

Or suck it up and just get the actual improvement, the 9900K.

[Daethz]

You are making the mistake of confusing the naming and therefor comparing different things.

i7 8700k = i9 9900k.

i7 9700k = i5 8600K

They just changed the naming and since +2 cores they upped the prices.

Either way, future or not, more physical cores, is the better choice.

Or just get the actual improvement, the 9900K.

I would but its out of stock and WAY WAY above its msrp, isn't it intended to be $480?
If i could actually buy it for $480 id probably just do it.
I intend on a futureproof PC to carry me in to the mid 2020's
May just work thanks to moores law.

[Tyranastus]

It's a terrifying question for me because after wracking my brain over the decision for well over a month, I bit the bullet two nights ago and ordered the 9700k. My main concern is that when the CPU was announced, Intel made it sound as though users would be able to easily overclock to over 5Ghz without issue. But so far I've seen people overclocking to square on 5Ghz and getting a nearly 20 degree jump.
Being in Australia, we are about to enter into Summer where 40 degree (104 Fahrenheit) days are far from uncommon, so I'm contemplating leaving it at stock until after Summer buggers off.

If nothing else I keep telling myself that even if both processors will give roughly the same performance, I feel better knowing that I got the newer product (don't ask me to justify it, it's purely a placebo for buyers remorse).

[Daethz]

It's a terrifying question for me because after wracking my brain over the decision for well over a month, I bit the bullet two nights ago and ordered the 9700k. My main concern is that when the CPU was announced, Intel made it sound as though users would be able to easily overclock to over 5Ghz without issue. But so far I've seen people overclocking to square on 5Ghz and getting a nearly 20 degree jump.
Being in Australia, we are about to enter into Summer where 40 degree (104 Fahrenheit) days are far from uncommon, so I'm contemplating leaving it at stock until after Summer buggers off.

If nothing else I keep telling myself that even if both processors will give roughly the same performance, I feel better knowing that I got the newer product (don't ask me to justify it, it's purely a placebo for buyers remorse).

I hear they have practically hit the absolute limit with 14nm, even if you do "overclock" a 9700k it ends up only being 100-200mhz more from what I have seen, I hear getting to 5.1ghz is actually quite hard.

So I don't plan on overclocking it either, ill just use the ASUS utility to self-overclock using the 3200mhz ram im going to buy, atleast im guessing that utility is still in their motherboards, it bumped my old i5 3570k up to 4.08ghz from a normal 3.8ghz turbo.
Idk what people call that, the lazy mans overclock?

[TheDeeGee]

Wait for Zen 2.

I want to upgrade myself and considered a 9700K, then a 2700X untill people told me to hold out for Zen 2.

Not sure what Intel is doing these days, removing Hyperthreading and asking premium prices.

[Tyranastus]

Wait for Zen 2.

I want to upgrade myself and considered a 9700K, then a 2700X untill people told me to hold out for Zen 2.

Not sure what Intel is doing these days, removing Hyperthreading and asking premium prices.

I know this isn't my thread, and I'm honestly not trying to commandeer it, but unfortunately waiting for the Zen 2 AMD processors was simply not an option for me. I'm several years overdue for a new build to begin with and waiting for a cpu that may face it's own host of issues and dramas may not be possible for some people.

- - - Updated - - -

I hear they have practically hit the absolute limit with 14nm, even if you do "overclock" a 9700k it ends up only being 100-200mhz more from what I have seen, I hear getting to 5.1ghz is actually quite hard.

So I don't plan on overclocking it either, ill just use the ASUS utility to self-overclock using the 3200mhz ram im going to buy, atleast im guessing that utility is still in their motherboards, it bumped my old i5 3570k up to 4.08ghz from a normal 3.8ghz turbo.
Idk what people call that, the lazy mans overclock?

Honestly, if I can get it to sit comfortably on 5.0Ghz without setting my leg hair on fire, I'll be pretty happy with it. Part of the reason I opted for the 9700k over the 8700k is that I just flat out refuse to de-lid.
Still pretty bloody disappointing from Intel though; it almost renders "k" cpu's pointless.

[Denpepe]

Honestly, if I can get it to sit comfortably on 5.0Ghz without setting my leg hair on fire, I'll be pretty happy with it. Part of the reason I opted for the 9700k over the 8700k is that I just flat out refuse to de-lid.
Still pretty bloody disappointing from Intel though; it almost renders "k" cpu's pointless.

They can sell them clocked to 4.0 GHz and let those that want to overclock them to 4.9/5.0 GHz which might make you feel like overclocking is nice and free performance or they can just clock them as high as is safe and usable 24/7 so most people get max performance iso the small percentage that overclocks their machine.


There are still some albeit small gains to be made with overclocking and the silicone gods are on your side.

[Jimusmc]

hear the extra two physical cores > extra threads for gaming atleast

[Tyranastus]

Liquid cooling is the only way to go for someone in your situation.

I have absolutely no regrets about buying a 360mm rad closed loop to accompany it.

[Daethz]

hear the extra two physical cores > extra threads for gaming atleast

the bench's do show the 2 physical cores making up somewhere like 99% of the performance the 6 hyperthreads do on the 8700k
so 2 physical cores == 6 hyperthreaded cores