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.
But what in future when games take more threads than 8?(9900k)
I have a 8700k and runs realy smooth.
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.I’d prefer the HT from the 8th series.
By the time you get there, either CPU will be obsolete.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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 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.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.
But what in future when games take more threads than 8?(9900k)
You realize next gen consoles that will release later this year will have 8 thread 16 core?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.
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?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.
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.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.
Twice the clock speed?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.