I mean, you are getting 15% less performance compared to the 9700K. The 9600K is closer to the performance bracket of the 2700, which is $260.A nice B450/x470 and 16 GB of ram can be had for around $250. This means after you sell the game, you are looking at CPU, ram, and MB for nearly the 9700k.
It's really not as cut and dry as that. The 2700 slightly edges the 9700k in multi-threaded benchmarks, and pushed a bit more when overclocked. The 9700k absolutely annihilates the 2700 in gaming and any application that can't use all 16 threads of the 2700. The 9600k wins out in gaming, but gets absolutely wrecked at multi-threaded computing. Both have their use cases, however if you are only using the chip for gaming and have to buy right now, the 9600k is probably the better option at this price point. and even still, thats a 6 core 6 thread chip. I feel like once zen2 comes out, that chip will be left in the dust. Only time will tell.
I mean, it's a pretty big difference, like 30-40% according to here:I mean annihilate is a strong word. it's not like it is double the performance. It definitely wins in the bang-for-the-buck category though. I played plenty of games on Zen chips and haven't had any issues. Last year I played Assassin's Creed origins on my 1600x and this year I played Assassin's Creed Odyssey on my 2700x. I fired it back up on my 8086k and it doesn't really feel that much different if different at all.
I mean, it's a pretty big difference, like 30-40% according to here:
Realworld results mean that 1080p and to some extend 1440p gaming is going to see a much higher FPS on the Intel chip compared to AMD. And I never said AMD would cause issues. The fact of the matter is that Intel produces a faster, better gaming chip. AMD can still game, but depending on the title and resolution and other factors, in general Intel will give you better FPS given the much higher clock speeds.
This really isn't the place to debate this as it's a Hot Deal thread. However, NO ONE is debating that the Intel chip is giving you better FPS. It's the value proposition that Intel sucks at (e.g. cost per frame, etc.). Unless you are a competitive gamer or trying to push 240Hz panels, you probably won't notice a big difference except in the wallet. I've used both. I don't play competitive games. I notice a VRR monitor more than I notice the difference between 120 and 160 FPS.
That user benchmark site is only sort of useful. And in this case it's not. I have never seen a review that has the 9700k at 30-40% faster than the 2700 overall.
These deals are killing me. I use laptops or tiny systems like nucs for my home work flow so I have a pile of ddr4 sodimm ram but it seems there is a lack of am4 boards that take sodimm. I would love to have a mini itx or smaller board that takes sodimms and can accept a 2700 cpu with a single pcie slot or thunderbolt 3. That is my unicorn system at this point. This is a very good deal for workstation or gaming.