In what situation does a 9900k purchase make sense over an 8700k?

Neon01

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,048
Sorry for another "8700k or 9900k?" thread. I'm in the market for a new CPU to replace my 4770k, and I've decided to do it now in lieu of waiting (which is the usual advice I've gotten). My primary use is 4k gaming, and I'm using a 2080ti GPU, and I've just picked up a NVME drive and some PC3200 DDR4 ram. I don't plan on upgrading any system components - except potentially GPU - for 4-5 years.

I've ruled out AMD since the 2700x shows a slight frames disadvantage in gaming (even at 4k) to the 8700k, and I imagine it's at least as bad for the 9900k, if not worse.

My local Microcenter recently raised the price of the 8700k from $329 to $359, and they do not have the 9900k available yet, but assuming I can get one for about $570, I'm looking at a $200 difference. Motherboard price would be the same. Professionally delidding/lapping a 8700k would probably run me about $40, bringing the cost difference to about $160. Neither option is above budget, but $160 is $160.

Part of me says the 9900k is the better buy because it's more future proof, being current gen tech. The same part of me is leery of paying full retail for last gen tech (8700k). However, I'm not sure if i would notice ANY difference, and the rational part of me is asking if that money would be wasted regardless of how future proof it is.

So the question is, given my current components, my upgrade cycle of 4-5 years, and an anticipated cost difference of about $160 over the 8700k, does the 9900k make sense?
 
Already said by other people. The reason to get the 9900k is for the cores. Then you simply look at applications that need cores for better performance. It's all video editing, machine learning, ai, rendering, CAD, etc etc. If you're in any of those fields, then the 9900k is definitely an inexpensive option to look into. As getting more cores or lanes is likely going to cost 2-5x as much (the other options being Threadripper and Skylake-X, etc).
For gaming it makes next to no difference (outside of which is clocked higher). Until and or unless of course games become more thread aware. However, by the time any game can saturate 12 threads, much less 16, you'll have more than likely upgraded by then.
 
Bear in mind that the 9900K seems to be a monster heat-wise, the soldered TIM used by Intel is not as good thermally as a good relid with liquid metal TIM, and the soldered TIM makes delidding a 9900K a lot more harrowing than previous gen processors. Also being reported is that the 9900k has very little overclocking headroom (which to me isn't a big deal since they're goosing that 14nm chip for all it's worth to begin with).

These are relatively minor things if you really need the cores, but if you're a tinkerer or an overclocker, the 9900k may be less satisfying to own.
 
Purely based on your upgrade cycle, grab the 9900k and set it/forget it. You'll never wonder 'should I have gotten the 9900k!? would it have gained me that extra 5fps in this game 2 years from now'. You'll never have to ask because you'll already have the best available for that platform.
 
Yeah, especially if you don't upgrade often, why not get the latest and greatest? I mean, if you bought a 2080 Ti already, might as well go all out.

I actually just bought a 9900K to replace a 8700K. I know it's only a marginal improvement for gaming, but the swap will only cost me $200, and I wanted to replace the CPU heatsink anyhow, so I figured I could upgrade in the process.
 
Yeah, especially if you don't upgrade often, why not get the latest and greatest? I mean, if you bought a 2080 Ti already, might as well go all out.

I actually just bought a 9900K to replace a 8700K. I know it's only a marginal improvement for gaming, but the swap will only cost me $200, and I wanted to replace the CPU heatsink anyhow, so I figured I could upgrade in the process.

A 9900k is far from all out. You could easily buy Xeons that cost 4x as much. What many fail to realize is there is always more powerful. Even if you buy the single most powerful CPU. If that isn't enough, buy multicore. And if you want to spend more then you could argue you should buy a datacenter. So different people just have different cut offs and budget limitations.

The 2080ti isn't really the top either. You could spend much more on graphics hardware if you really wanted to.
 
Last edited:
on a similar note...how does the 9700K vs 8700K compare in terms of gaming?

In all the reviews i've seen, the 9700K is either equivalent or a tad bit quicker (5-8%). A sidegrade, i feel.

Would love to see a more qualified review specifically focusing on the two because 6/12 vs 8/8 is of interest to me and i'd imagine others as well.

As an 8700K owner, i had considered the 9700K for a brief moment but it does not provide enough value for me (even to flip).
 
Absolutely none.

You can an 8700k fr far less or a 2700x which is maybe 10 or so % slower in gaming for 70+% less in price.

9900k is a retarded and stupid halo price for a non halo product.
 
In all the reviews i've seen, the 9700K is either equivalent or a tad bit quicker (5-8%). A sidegrade, i feel.

Would love to see a more qualified review specifically focusing on the two because 6/12 vs 8/8 is of interest to me and i'd imagine others as well.

As an 8700K owner, i had considered the 9700K for a brief moment but it does not provide enough value for me (even to flip).
I'd like to see a solid write-up on the 7700k vs the 9700k, personally. That's an interesting matchup to me.
 
So the question is, given my current components, my upgrade cycle of 4-5 years, and an anticipated cost difference of about $160 over the 8700k, does the 9900k make sense?

If you blew money on a 2080TI, you may as well blow the extra money for the 9900k, and the all the other associated costs of running a higher wattage part. And get it before spring, because you want to take advantage of the "free" heating it'll provide.
 
I'd say either chip you'll want it water cooled and I dont know if a standard aio will handle the massive extra heat coming from a 9900k.

I'd say if your fine waiting weeks or more for the 9900k and are willing to go all out with a custom water setup.. then go for it.

I'd say keep the extra cash and use it towards a custom water cooling setup and go with the 8700k for a whole -2-3fps in your gaming.. if 4k prob 0 frame rate differenrce.

No wait to grab a 8700k and real easy to clock it to 5ghz on all cores.
 
I'd say either chip you'll want it water cooled and I dont know if a standard aio will handle the massive extra heat coming from a 9900k.

I'd say if your fine waiting weeks or more for the 9900k and are willing to go all out with a custom water setup.. then go for it.

I'd say keep the extra cash and use it towards a custom water cooling setup and go with the 8700k for a whole -2-3fps in your gaming.. if 4k prob 0 frame rate differenrce.

No wait to grab a 8700k and real easy to clock it to 5ghz on all cores.

It's a 95w chip ... ok 125 overclocked. The problem is die size in mm^2 is small compared to the number of cores. Heat might not wick away as fast.
 
I'd say either chip you'll want it water cooled and I dont know if a standard aio will handle the massive extra heat coming from a 9900k.

I'd say if your fine waiting weeks or more for the 9900k and are willing to go all out with a custom water setup.. then go for it.

I'd say keep the extra cash and use it towards a custom water cooling setup and go with the 8700k for a whole -2-3fps in your gaming.. if 4k prob 0 frame rate differenrce.

No wait to grab a 8700k and real easy to clock it to 5ghz on all cores.

I have a custom loop already (details in sig). I'm leaning more toward the 8700k now, but prices seem very high. Seen some slickdeals from months ago where they were available for $300 or less, and I can't get one for less than $360 now ($560 with Gigabyte Aorus ultra motherboard). I had hoped the 9900k releasing would have driven prices down, not up, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

I think I read somewhere that prices even on the 8th gen Intels are high because of supply shortage. Is this likely to change in the next month or so? I can probably wait until Black Friday if there's a decent chance I'll save $50 or more. Otherwise I'll probably just pull the trigger now.

edit: just noticed Microcenter just got a few more 8086k cpus in stock. They're only $20 more than the 8700k ($380 vs $360). I know they're not much better than the 8700k, but assume it's worth the $20 to get what is basically a binned 8700k, right?
 
Last edited:
8086Ks rock. I’ve got 2. Both better than the 2 8700Ks they replaced.
 
8086Ks rock. I’ve got 2. Both better than the 2 8700Ks they replaced.

Yeah, ended up pulling the trigger on the 8086. It was the only thing even resembling a deal I could find on a modern intel. Picked up an alphacool eisblock xpx to pair it with as my raystorm is pretty long in the tooth at this point. Plan to have it delidded and lapped by a professional.

If the 9900k were widely available, I probably would have gone with that mostly due to the epeen factor (in all honesty) and a modicum of future proofing in the unlikely even that games start using more cores/threads, but I think I'll be satisfied with the 8086.
 
I would think it would make sense if you'r Powerball numbers were 3, 21, 45, 53, 56 and 22 :p

It's just not worth the cost IMO
 
In all the reviews i've seen, the 9700K is either equivalent or a tad bit quicker (5-8%). A sidegrade, i feel.

Would love to see a more qualified review specifically focusing on the two because 6/12 vs 8/8 is of interest to me and i'd imagine others as well.

As an 8700K owner, i had considered the 9700K for a brief moment but it does not provide enough value for me (even to flip).

I'm in the same boat regarding the 9900k...but after watching videos of people saying the STIM used is apparently inferior to liquid metal and how it looks to be a pain in the ass to remove the STIM, not worth the effort for $200 more and only a slight upgrade. Maybe if the liquid metal on my chip goes bad in a couple of years I'd get one.
 
Things off the top of my head:

  1. It's how much pay, not what you get.
  2. New, shiny.
  3. You want to tell everyone what you got and the 8 key isn't working on your keyboard.
 
.but after watching videos of people saying the STIM used is apparently inferior to liquid metal

To note, it isn't so much inferior that it's actually worth delidding for anything less than sub-ambient cooling. Kind of a silly point to screech about 'not as good as liquid metal' when it's shown to be fairly close, but without the downsides.
 
Back
Top