9700K vs 9900K in gaming 1440P only!

mgty23

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
748
Hello. I had previously 9900K and its was fine. But now i am buying parts for new pc , for gaming 1440P too.
Is any sense to pay more for 9900K or just but 9700K? Gaming on 1440P only. Card will be 2080 Ti. Thx
 

bizzmeister

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Messages
1,975
9700k is the way to go, period. Much less money and just as good with 1440p gaming
 

Spartacus09

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 21, 2018
Messages
1,488
Depends on the games you play, what you play and how efficient the coding of the game is.
You're limited by the GPU not the CPU in almost all instances gaming related (when comparing this new of a CPU line anyway).
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,730
I basically agree with what has been stated.
And trying to buy any processor based on what the future is going to be like is impossible. No one can predict the next Sandy Bridge. You might as well get out your crystal ball, because if you can predict 4-5 years into the future you should be betting at the races or playing the lotto instead of trying to figure out how long your processor will be relevant.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,730
I have a 8700k and runs realy smooth.
I’d prefer the HT from the 8th series.
The 6 virtual cores are (marginally) slower than the two real cores. The only reason to be on 8700k over a 9700k is cost. If you can find an 8700k for way less, sure.
There is something to be said for next gen consoles both running 8 core CPUs. That may make 8 cores more relevant over the upcoming series of games. It may not though. No real way to tell.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
26,773
Doubtful with a strong chip like the 9900K. The next gen is only around the corner with the new xbox and ps5. Between the two, 9900K no doubt.

I fail to see how HT alone will propel the 9900k to a more future proofed status when they are both 8 core Coffee Lake chips that clock similarly (perhaps even giving the slight edge to the 9700k in clockspeed). The reality is they will both be obsolete around the same time.
 

thesmokingman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
6,229
I fail to see how HT alone will propel the 9900k to a more future proofed status when they are both 8 core Coffee Lake chips that clock similarly (perhaps even giving the slight edge to the 9700k in clockspeed). The reality is they will both be obsolete around the same time.

The 9700k will be painfully obvious where the 9900k should stick around at the low for a while. Obsolete to me is equated with useless. That won't be the case.
 

OFaceSIG

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
2,444
We are only talking about HT. 8 cores is PLENTY for gaming. Don't let anybody with anecdotal evidence at best tell you otherwise. HT won't change your life.

Go to youtube and look up 9700k vs 9900k if you really want to see the differences your self. They are minimal at best.
 

Guille_arg

n00b
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
30
My opinion was about the experience of gaming at 1440p.
The 9700k for sure will be great if with my 8700k I play maxout almost everything.
The 9900k its maybe an overkill, and with the new gen coming, I will not choose a flagship cpu near to be underpriced.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
I fail to see how HT alone will propel the 9900k to a more future proofed status when they are both 8 core Coffee Lake chips that clock similarly (perhaps even giving the slight edge to the 9700k in clockspeed). The reality is they will both be obsolete around the same time.
The 9700k will be painfully obvious where the 9900k should stick around at the low for a while. Obsolete to me is equated with useless. That won't be the case.
What we saw around the release of the 4000-series, with frametimes / 1% lows suffering without SMT, may or may not be repeated as sharply.

Consider that while game demands on the CPU are likely to increase significantly, OS / background demands likely aren't. Also, while game demands increase, they may or may not increase in a way that utilizes SMT, or put another way, they may or may not increase in a uniform mix of INT / FP / SIMD / etc. If the increase is more INT biased, then SMT may make more of a difference.



As for obsolescence, aside from streaming demands that can probably be hoisted almost entirely on GPUs (or IGPs, looking at you AMD), demands for increased security throughout the hardware and software stack might come into play. Stuff like using containerization concepts prolifically and scrambling or encrypting data in memory or other full-stack mitigation approaches could bring requirements that current processors are ill suited to fulfill.
 

vick1000

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
2,061
Go 9700K and spend the left over $ on better GPU, storage, or cooling.....or beer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AP514
like this

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
https://www.gpucheck.com/en-usd/com...e-i7-9700k-3-60ghz/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti
Less than a frame of difference at 1440p regardless of quality setting according to the above compare tool.
You can change it to whatever game you want to compare with I used COD:MW since its one of the more recent games.
If there's an argument for the 9900K, it would be more forward-looking. The 2600K was no faster than the 2500K upon release, but the 2600K certainly aged better, as did its HT-equipped successors.

We don't really have a representative test today that will tell us if or when HT will make a difference.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,016
If there's an argument for the 9900K, it would be more forward-looking. The 2600K was no faster than the 2500K upon release, but the 2600K certainly aged better, as did its HT-equipped successors.

We don't really have a representative test today that will tell us if or when HT will make a difference.

That's largely true. However, there are some fringe cases where the higher core / thread count CPU's do a bit better. At least, at low resolution.
 

bizzmeister

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Messages
1,975
9700K and dont look back. Absolutely the best cpu to buy for the money. Dont get anything but the 9700k. Overclock to 4.8-5.0ghz easily on air or water and call it a day. It'll run anything and everything perfectly @ 2560x1440p for years to come.
 

Spartacus09

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 21, 2018
Messages
1,488
That's largely true. However, there are some fringe cases where the higher core / thread count CPU's do a bit better. At least, at low resolution.
He stated its for gaming and at 1440p only, I was just relaying the data, 9700k seems to be the way to go if its solely for gaming.
If theres any video editing/encoding, or otherwise the 9900k might be useful.
 

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
10,424
IMO you'll want to match the next gen console's specs of 8 core 16 thread if buying for the long term. Game engines will be upgraded to take advantage of those 16 threads within the next year or two.
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
515
I have a different philosophy on this. I picked up a 9900K for the added cache. I disable the hyper threading because games are smoother without it. On a 9700K/9900K at 5.1Ghz+ the cores are not the bottleneck, I just wanted more cache for smoothness. I had a 9700K and performance is the same and not noticeable at all.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
IMO you'll want to match the next gen console's specs of 8 core 16 thread if buying for the long term. Game engines will be upgraded to take advantage of those 16 threads within the next year or two.
This isn't a bad argument, however, it's also arguable that one console thread will still provide less performance than one high-clocked PC core with lower-latency memory and a separate dGPU that doesn't need main memory bandwidth.

Granted I wouldn't argue for a 9700K/9900K at all outside of builds with very focused purposes. An R7 3700 or better makes more sense in the broad perspective of gaming usage, and also provides eight cores with sixteen threads.
 

Falkentyne

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
1,651
I have a different philosophy on this. I picked up a 9900K for the added cache. I disable the hyper threading because games are smoother without it. On a 9700K/9900K at 5.1Ghz+ the cores are not the bottleneck, I just wanted more cache for smoothness. I had a 9700K and performance is the same and not noticeable at all.

100% agree with this. If you have the money to spend, there is ZERO reason to get the 9700k, unless you are planning to upgrade instantly when the 10900k comes out. And if you were, why would you even buy a 9th gen in the first place? Save your money and get 10th.
Getting a 9900k and disabling hyperthreading turns it into a super 9700k, as long as you don't get a crappy bin. Then when you need more than 8 threads, that's when you enable the HT.

Do people have such short memories that they already forgot what happened to the 2500k? The 2600k remained viable MUCH longer than the 2500k, precisely because of hyperthreading. Just four years ago there were posts all over the place about people complaining about poor stuttery performance in the latest games on the 2500k while 2600k users in the same game were doing fine. And keep in mind that the only 6 core processors at that time were HEDT/X series chips and the older extreme versions of the 920 series, etc.

Anyway, why would anyone upgrade to 9th gen *right now*? The only reason someone would not just wait for 10th gen is because of the Virus stuff upending all schedules. No telling how long this incident will cause delays in chips and boards being released on the market. Original estimate was summer but now who knows? We're in uncharted waters.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
Do people have such short memories that they already forgot what happened to the 2500k? The 2600k remained viable MUCH longer than the 2500k, precisely because of hyperthreading. Just four years ago there were posts all over the place about people complaining about poor stuttery performance in the latest games on the 2500k while 2600k users in the same game were doing fine.
The difference wasn't felt for years, but as the 2500K when overclocked remained viable for higher-end gaming during that time, the lack of HT was eventually felt.

But that was with four cores.

Since game resource usage isn't linear, we really have no idea if a 9900K will be more or less useful than a 9700K for gaming eventually. HT might be significantly more useful, or both processors could become obsolete for high-end gaming for a different reason that they share.

We really don't know, and we can say that for gaming alone, today, a 9700K is a good buy, and that with respect to computing in general, isn't likely to become a bottleneck in the near-term.

Anyway, why would anyone upgrade to 9th gen *right now*? The only reason someone would not just wait for 10th gen is because of the Virus stuff upending all schedules. No telling how long this incident will cause delays in chips and boards being released on the market. Original estimate was summer but now who knows? We're in uncharted waters.
The 10th gen is the ninth gen. The ninth is the eighth, the eighth the seventh, and the seventh the sixth. They're all Skylake cores with very minor adjustments.

The differentiators are the platforms supported, number of cores, and highest overclocks.
 

Spartacus09

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 21, 2018
Messages
1,488
I think he was trying to say what future games are going to need more than 8 cores inferencing that the 9900k isn't needed.
 

cagoblex

n00b
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
Messages
12
I have done benchmarks for 9700K and 9900K. If gaming is the only thing you do, then definitely go with the 9700K. No games that I tested would benefit from the extra threads, at least to this point.
 

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
10,424
I have done benchmarks for 9700K and 9900K. If gaming is the only thing you do, then definitely go with the 9700K. No games that I tested would benefit from the extra threads, at least to this point.
You realize next gen consoles that will release later this year will have 8 thread 16 core?

In my opinion you’d want to at least match that.
 
Last edited:

cagoblex

n00b
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
Messages
12
Yeah that’s a good point. I didn’t think of that. However if future proof is a concern, I would say 10700K is probably a better choice as they are about the same price as 9900K.
 

E4g1e

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 21, 2002
Messages
7,225
Yeah that’s a good point. I didn’t think of that. However if future proof is a concern, I would say 10700K is probably a better choice as they are about the same price as 9900K.
Problem is that the proper motherboards for the 10th-Gen CPUs are generally more expensive than those for the 9th-Gen CPUs. One could spend less, but he would have to sacrifice either the board component quality (meaning unsuitable for anything more than a 6-core/12-thread i5) or memory performance and overclocking. After all, why buy a 10700K only to bottleneck it with an H410-quality-class or H410-chipset motherboard?
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
You realize next gen consoles that will release later this year will have 8 thread 16 core?

In my opinion you’d want to at least match that.
Eight slower cores... I mean yeah, I don't recommend less than eight cores period for new gaming builds, but I also don't think that six-core desktop CPUs running at twice the clockspeed are going to have too much of an issue either.
 

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
10,424
Eight slower cores... I mean yeah, I don't recommend less than eight cores period for new gaming builds, but I also don't think that six-core desktop CPUs running at twice the clockspeed are going to have too much of an issue either.
Twice the clock speed?

Xbox Series X runs at 3.8Ghz.
PS5 runs at 3.4Ghz.

Basically an AMD Ryzen 3700 chip. That‘s not shabby. Chances are likely hyperthreadimg and SMT will be more important in 3 years than it is now based on both consoles having it at their disposal for game engine devs.
 

singe_101

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 17, 2005
Messages
2,137
10700k and you can disable HT per core if needed. Then you can have 8 cores 12 threads or something unusual. But probably 8 and no HT for 1440p 2020.
 

jlewis02

n00b
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
44
1440P go with the 9700k that way you can save money for a better graphics card/monitor.
 
Top