Intel is on the ropes and AMD has a chance to do some real damage with 7nm Zen 2...I think the 8700K is the better upgrade for most right now...
isnt 9700k at similar price but actually offers a bit more performance? why not just get that instead.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Intel is on the ropes and AMD has a chance to do some real damage with 7nm Zen 2...I think the 8700K is the better upgrade for most right now...
I am such a dork. 2x performance of an 8350k running at 4.5Ghz vs an 8700k running at 4.3Ghz (NOT 3.7Ghz as shown)
Prime 1024:
9700?: 120s; correct!
8700k: 118s; 119s
H.264:
9700?: 34s; 36s
8700k: 42s; 42s
H.265:
9700?: 79s; 91s
8700k: 99s; 101s
z-zip c:
9700?: 43000 mips; correct!
8700k: 41000 mips; 41000mips
z-zip d:
9700?: 38000 mips; correct!
8700k: 38000 mips; 39000 mips
Java:
9700?: 567; 470
8700k: 431; 433
MySQL:
9700?: 217k TPS; 160k
8700k: 183k TPS; 157k
Blender:
9700?: 292s; 322s
8700k: 302s; 311s
Cinebench:
9700?: 1528; 1572
8700k: 1438; 1432
Euler 3D
9700?: 37s; 54s
8700k: 56s; 56s
So it looks like the 9700k would edge out on most apps and pull away on some like JAVA. Things to consider are Cache size and latency of the 8-core.
https://w.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i3_8350K/
The first line of the conclusion is that Intel proves that 8/8 is faster than 6/12. That is definately debatable.
Yeah, it should be, for nearly every workload- and shouldn't be appreciably slower when it's not, but could definitely be faster with eight FPUs versus six on the 8700K in FPU-intensive applications that are well-threaded. That would include some games and content creation workloads I'd think, so the 9700K is perhaps more desirable clock-for-clock for most consumer uses.
Stuff that's heavily multi-threaded that's not FPU-intensive, perhaps compiling (SWAG), might be faster on the 8700K clock-for-clock, but no idea how much.
And generally speaking, the 9700K has a larger die and better solder, so it should be a better out-of-box overclocker too.
The 9700k does seem to clock better, but the 8700k is very close if you delid. Even better if you have an 8086k.
Again, many of the apps did much worse than expected, especially Java and Euler. It is very hard to see where the 9700k is more desirable.
Again, many of the apps did much worse than expected, especially Java and Euler. It is very hard to see where the 9700k is more desirable.
some other synthetic benchmark shows a bit more difference, like around 15-20%
But are we talking about actual consumer loads?
I get that synthetics can be representative of actual workloads, but this isn't always the case.
most consumer load would be within 1% because of clock speed, in that case its IPC theres no improvement. a lot of consumer stuff still only use 1 core btw so this issue always existed, from 6700k to 7700k then 8700k etc
Gaming is thread-limited; rarely would the extra threads from HT with eight cores make a difference, unlike how it does at four cores and to some extent six. But other stuff like photography and videography, which with gaming is what I mean when speaking to 'consumer' loads, also probably benefit very little from a benchmark perspective.
if a game uses 8 threads. then 8700k would be 4c/8t at most and it'll loes to 8c/8t big time.
but quite honestly i dont care much about games, like 3-5 fps out of 100 is nothing really. but if i were to do say 7zip, winrar, video encoding, browser loading, vmware and i need those to be noticeably faster, which seems 9700k does come out ontop vs 8700k by about 10-15%, thats good enough.
gaming would also be dependent on thread and clock. if a game uses 8 threads. then 8700k would be 4c/8t at most and it'll loes to 8c/8t big time. if game design to use full cpu resources then 9700k wouldnt be that much better than 8700k. then if a game uses 12 threads, we got full 8700k being used vs 6/8 cores of 9700k.
but quite honestly i dont care much about games, like 3-5 fps out of 100 is nothing really. but if i were to do say 7zip, winrar, video encoding, browser loading, vmware and i need those to be noticeably faster, which seems 9700k does come out ontop vs 8700k by about 10-15%, thats good enough.
So do you think the infinite turbo should be considered a motherboard overclock and if not, should TDP still be 95w?
I don't like the term "overclock", as basically all computational chips have variable/dynamic clocking now. If you're asking if running with infinite turbo exceeds the specced TDP - yes, absolutely. The TDP spec has limits on time spent at boost frequencies. Blowing past that will mean you're using more power in the steady state, and thus have a new TDP.
But I have to admit I don't understand why people are upset about the motherboard makers making generally very safe ways of getting higher performance from high end chips. MCE is incredibly safe, as is infinite turbo with even a moderate cooling system.
It just seems that Intel is getting their cake and eating it too with this scenario ie, high performance while advertising low tdp.
What would you consider moderate cooling and do you know anyone or any reviewer that used moderate cooling during this type of MCE?
There was alot of critisism for the 8th gen that some used MCE settings. Board makers were being shady for having MCE on by default in some cases and Intel had no control of this.
The time around, MB makers seem to be a bit more sneaky. They are giving turbo boost for an infinite time which negates the 95w tdp:
I guess you could say that this is the new MCE. Do you guys think that this is completely the board makers fault, or does Intel share some blame here? They seem to be encouraging this while still looking good with a lower TDP.
who really cares though the people getting 9900k to run it at stock and stock turbo? honestly i think thats just stupid.
if we getting 9900k it'll obviously all core OC at 4.8-5ghz when we can, for those who want to run it at stock might as well wait for other SKU thats locked no point paying for unlocked chips.
and when we OC, TDP goes out the window, not a problem.
Yeah I get that, it just seems that there needs to be some guidance by Intel for the MB manufactures. If Intel advertises TDP at 95w, which is around 4.3 ghz, that should be the stock settings.
Most importantly, not everyone is buying $100+ cooling solution for these. Most likely those using a standard fan rated a TDP will throttle down.
New 9600k review:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_9600K/
Looks like they bracketed in the performance pretty nicely!
Couldn't help myself, so I bit on the 9900K. Was going to go for the 9700K, but I had a $500 gift card that the sale created opportunity for and it now has $0.01 left on it .
I had to go up to 1.34V to get 5 GHz all core stable on my system. It hit 100C in Prime95 after an hour, but during my gaming tests it didn't go above 70C. I'm going to do some additional tuning to see if I can get the voltage down. Would the memory I'm running cause the CPU to need more juice? All 4 sticks are running well with the XMP at 4000 MT/s.
Why not? I'm not trying to hit 6 GHz or anything. The thing was hitting 1.43V under load with the default settings on this motherboard, anyway.Why do you need a 6% clock speed boost? Do you really feel anything different?
That's an awful lot of trouble to go through for a chip that is already pre-overclocked for you. Unless you're adding phase change or LN2, then touching the stock clocks is really kind of pointless.
Why not? I'm not trying to hit 6 GHz or anything. The thing was hitting 1.43V under load with the default settings on this motherboard, anyway.
so what is the consensus on the lack of hyperthreading on the 9700K?...big deal?...little deal?...will Intel continue doing this for their upcoming 10nm Ice Lake series?