# I7-8700K, I7-9700K or I9-9900K?



## ktn21 (Nov 10, 2018)

Hello,


I'm searching for a CPU for my first Z390 chipset build. I'm not planning to overclock anything. The main use for this CPU would be 4K gaming (I have RTX 2080 TI) and video editing.

I work at the national television so I like to bring home some work from time to time. Mainly to import/export movies and also encoding (converting) them for work.

I'm stuck between three options: I7-8700K (519€), I7-9700K (523€) and I9 9900K (827€).

I would go with the 9900K, but I am too worried about the heat. With the 8700K and the 9700K you could probably get away with a good aircooler (Noctua NH-D15) or AIO cooler (Corsair H115i Pro). But with the 9900K, I have heard from many reviewers that it's almost recommended to use a custom watercooling solution, to keep the temps low, because otherwise it hits ~100°C on full load. Example:





When it comes to 4K gaming, they all seem to perform pretty much the same (maybe 1-2 FPS difference in some games) (examples: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_9700K/15.html )




So I guess my question to you is:

1) Should I be worried about the 9900K running hot?

2) Which CPU should I buy? From the price point 8700K and 9700K cost basically the same, while 9900K being obviously the more expensive one.
As we saw from the 4K gaming benchmarks. The performance seems to be identical between these cards. So I guess it all comes down to productivity (video- and image editing, encoding, compression etc.), where 9900K takes the lead...?!


Thank you in advance,
Chris


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 10, 2018)

ktn21 said:


> I'm searching for a CPU for my first Z390 chipset build. I'm not planning to overclock anything.


Buy a locked chipset board with a locked cpu - there's zero point in paying extra for overclocking features without the intent to overclock.


----------



## FireFox (Nov 10, 2018)

ktn21 said:


> Which CPU should I buy? From the price point 8700K and 9700K cost basically the same, while 9900K being obviously the more expensive one.



None of those.

@Xx Tek Tip xX was clear enough, *No Overclock no K Series CPU
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


*


----------



## ktn21 (Nov 10, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> 2700x, unless you've got the board already. If so get the 8700k and just use multi core enhancement to run 6x 4.7GHz


Yes I have the board already. 8700K and 9700K are priced the same in my country. You think it would be a wise move to choose an older CPU over the new one?


----------



## king of swag187 (Nov 10, 2018)

2700X, if you specifaclly want Z390, then whatever is cheaper out of those CPU's
If the same price, get the one that performs better


----------



## cucker tarlson (Nov 10, 2018)

ktn21 said:


> Yes I have the board already. 8700K and 9700K are priced the same in my country. You think it would be a wise move to choose an older CPU over the new one?


if the price is the same go for the 9700k. and use multi core enhancement, otherwise it's wasting money on the K SKU.


----------



## Gorstak (Nov 10, 2018)

buy a 9900k and this

some earplugs would be advisable aswell


----------



## trog100 (Nov 10, 2018)

my 8700k runs fine on high end air at 4.8 g.. by fine i mean 80-ish C max.. at 5 g it runs 90-ish C a tad too warm for me.. 

at stock they will all run a lot cooler.. if money matters i would buy the 8700K or the 8086 (better bin less volts needed) ) just dont clock it too high.. 

trog


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Nov 10, 2018)

ktn21 said:


> Hello,
> 
> 
> I'm searching for a CPU for my first Z390 chipset build. I'm not planning to overclock anything. The main use for this CPU would be 4K gaming (I have RTX 2080 TI) and video editing.
> ...


Get the 9700k, its better than the 8700k for the same price, plus those 8 cores will be mainstream anyways in 2 to 3 years


----------



## John Naylor (Nov 10, 2018)

You have stated that the primary interest is gaming, and while I can say that AMD has a horse in the race here, in none of those cases do they finish on top.  The 9900k is a waste for a strict gaming standpoint , I'd limit my choices to a 9600k or 9700k and drop the 9900k from consideration, because no, cores really aren't going to matter as your image shows very well.  So .... from the gaming perspective, Intel is the obvious way to go.  From the video editing perspective however  Intel and AMD both have viable choices.

From the video editing standpoint, it's going to depend on just how much you do .... the more you do, the more money it's worthwhile spending,  Both AMD and Intel have viable options.  But it's also going to depends on what app you are using.  Puget sound has the best set of performance comparision data that I have found using Premiere Pro.






Again, I'd stay with the 9700k but with the interest in nk editing, the more frequentlyyou do it, the more that the 9900k becomes the obvious choice being significantly faster than the 9700k and 2700k.   I'd pair it with an MSI MEG 390 ACE

32 GB would be my minimum ... 2 x 16 GB wild be cheaper than 4 x 8GB, allowing room for upgrade if ya see yaself getting bigger into it but unsure.     But as this relates to what yu do for a living, it should be a write-off which in my case, Id spring for 4 x 16GB from the getgo.

As for the cooler, the Scythe Fuma will outpefrom the Noctua / Cryorig flagship air coolers....

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Scythe/Fuma/images/temp_oc_aida64.png

If ya want more cooling and the ease of an all-in-one but without the weak pump, galvanic corrosion problems of CLCs, grab a Swiftech H360X which is basically a set of open loop cooling components preassembled at the factory

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Swiftech/Swiftech_H360X3_Drive_X3_AIO/images/temp_oc_aida64.png
http://www.swiftech.com/drivex3aio.aspx

I'd put it in a  Phantex Luxe Tempered Glass Case.   A Seasonic Focus Gold Plus PSU, a pair of SSDs (one for OS and programs, 2nd for scratch drive ) I use SSHds for archival storage but use what you are comfortable with


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 10, 2018)

I'd go with the 9700K, the 8-Cores should actually perform just a little better in multi-threaded performance than the 6c/12t of the 8700K.  The HT of the 9900K isn't really worth the price premium, IMO.



Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Buy a locked chipset board with a locked cpu - there's zero point in paying extra for overclocking features without the intent to overclock.





Knoxx29 said:


> None of those.
> 
> @Xx Tek Tip xX was clear enough, *No Overclock no K Series CPU
> 
> ...



Are there 8-Core locked CPUs with the same clock speeds as the 9700K/9900K?

I see suggestions like this all the time, do people not realize that there are more advantages to a K CPU than just the unlocked multiplier?  The 8700K is faster than the 8700 even without overclocking.



Knoxx29 said:


> And what's the point buying a K series CPU when it's not going to be Overclocked?
> 
> I am just curious.



They are clocked higher than the locked versions.  So they are faster, even if you aren't overclocking.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Nov 10, 2018)

Knoxx29 said:


> And what's the point buying a K series CPU when it's not going to be Overclocked?
> 
> I am just curious.


Because those are his 3 options he gave us, i dont care about cpus he didnt mention, out of the 3 9700k is best


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Nov 10, 2018)

Knoxx29 said:


> Yeap, because maybe he doesn't even know what is is doing.


Thats not my concern though, if everyone else wants to recommend stuff thats fine by me, im just telling him out of the 3 he told us.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 10, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> Are there 8-Core locked CPUs with the same clock speeds as the 9700K/9900K? I see suggestions like this all the time, do people not realize that there are more advantages to a K CPU than just the unlocked multiplier? The 8700K is faster than the 8700 even without overclocking.





newtekie1 said:


> They are clocked higher than the locked versions. So they are faster, even if you aren't overclocking.


Well the OP has now stated he already owns a z board, He could've made the drop and saved at least a hundred ish or less and that's more money in his pocket, why pay for features you never use and yes they are clocked higher but so what? The 8700k is 6% ish faster stock - nothing much at all unless you overclock.

I recommend the 8700k if I had to choose one of the three options, the 9700k isn't worth it unless your overclocking where multi core comes close to a stock 8700k - you'll find the 8700k will do better for rendering than a 9700k.
EDIT: I recommend the 9700k - in you were in the UK I'd be a 8700k.


----------



## Outback Bronze (Nov 10, 2018)

I was just playing around with a 9700K its it gets extremely warm and the VRM's were probably the hottest I've ever touched.

I went to take the water cooling  CPU block off and I almost burnt myself on the VRM heatsinks. Couldn't believe it!

Was overclocking to 5.1Ghz and temps were around the 80°C mark on the CPU with a 1x 280 rad custom loop..

Id say the 8700K will run much cooler with little performance differences if your worried about temperatures.

Board was a Gigabyte Z390 Gaming SLI


----------



## R0H1T (Nov 10, 2018)

Locked CPU, Z390 for 4k gaming & video editing? The list sounds a bit odd. It's not mentioned why you don't want to OC, is it work related (video editing?) or just a disaffinity towards OCing in general? Also how important is 4k gaming, video editing respectively? If the latter is more important/work related then 9900k is the best choice IMO, otherwise a tossup between 8700k & 9700k mainly depending on whether you prefer more threads or more (real) cores. Also as others have mentioned ~ if you have absolutely zero need/intention of OCing just return the Z390 & get a cheaper non Z board.


----------



## Vario (Nov 10, 2018)

The Z series motherboards are usually better than the H and others, nothing wrong with using it with a locked CPU.  For various reasons I built a machine for a relative a few months ago with a i5 8400 and a AsRock Z370 Extreme-4.  Some of those reasons had to do with the Z being on sale, the H series lacking a number of features such as PS2-Simulator which I use to easily put Win 7 on it, and having good ram speed options.  The locked i5 because it was $130.

I imagine these newer processors draw enough wattage even at stock settings you want to run a good VRM design, and the Z series definitely will have the most robust VRMs.

To answer OP question I would do the i7 9700K of the three options at the prices you listed.  If you can get the i5 9600K or i5 8600K or i5 8400/8500 than you should consider doing that instead and save a lot of cash.  If AMD is an option do the R7 2700X with some good ram.

If you aren't overclocking the processor and you are doing 9700K or lower do not worry about the temperatures, just put a big air cooler on it like a NHD15.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 10, 2018)

4.9 is the sweet spot as regards heat on my 8700k.. it will go higher but the temps go up a little too much.. 






trog


----------



## Vario (Nov 10, 2018)

trog100 said:


> 4.9 is the sweet spot as regards heat on my 8700k.. it will go higher but the temps go up a little too much..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Funny going to a soldered lid and the temps scale the same as the thermal paste lid, imagining 2 more cores 4 more threads.

My 8600K runs cooler than my old Ivy Bridge 3770K both not delidded.  I don't think the Coffee Lake TIM was as bad as people claimed.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 10, 2018)

Vario said:


> Funny going to a soldered lid and the temps scale the same as the thermal paste lid, imagining 2 more cores 4 more threads.
> 
> My 8600K runs cooler than my old Ivy Bridge 3770K both not delidded.  I don't think the Coffee Lake TIM was as bad as people claimed.



i think you are right.. 

trog


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 10, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Well the OP has now stated he already owns a z board, He could've made the drop and saved at least a hundred ish or less and that's more money in his pocket, why pay for features you never use and yes they are clocked higher but so what? The 8700k is 6% ish faster stock - nothing much at all unless you overclock.



6% makes quite the difference when doing an encode that takes several hours.



Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> I recommend the 8700k if I had to choose one of the three options, the 9700k isn't worth it unless your overclocking where multi core comes close to a stock 8700k - you'll find the 8700k will do better for rendering than a 9700k.



Nope, the 8700K is about 10% slower than the 9700K at video rendering.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 11, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> Nope, the 8700K is about 10% slower than the 9700K at video rendering.


Never mind I didn't see he wrote that the 8700k costed the same as the 9700k. If your unaware I'm from the UK - the 9700k costs £430+ new and the 8700k can cost around £300~ so my recommendation has changed since the OP can get them at the same price.


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 11, 2018)

Vario said:


> Funny going to a soldered lid and the temps scale the same as the thermal paste lid, imagining 2 more cores 4 more threads.
> 
> My 8600K runs cooler than my old Ivy Bridge 3770K both not delidded.  I don't think the Coffee Lake TIM was as bad as people claimed.



Yup, another one of those typical cases of 'told you so'... topics full of pigeon poop rage suddenly look quite funny don't they 

As for the choice: 9700K. 8 full fat cores with maximum temp headroom due to no HT. Its clear the 9900K can't comfortably do 5.1 all core.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 11, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Never mind I didn't see he wrote that the 8700k costed the same as the 9700k. If your unaware I'm from the UK - the 9700k costs £430+ new and the 8700k can cost around £300~ so my recommendation has changed since the OP can get them at the same price.





Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Never mind I didn't see he wrote that the 8700k costed the same as the 9700k. If your unaware I'm from the UK - the 9700k costs £430+ new and the 8700k can cost around £300~ so my recommendation has changed since the OP can get them at the same price.



you are a mile out on UK prices.. Scan UK £420 8700K and £480 for the 9700K..

to be honest the binned 8086K sits in the middle at £455.. its probably the best buy at current prices.. 

trog


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 11, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Buy a locked chipset board with a locked cpu - there's zero point in paying extra for overclocking features without the intent to overclock.


Even if running stock, K-CPUs are still far better. Why?

a) Much higher boost clocks
b) Much higher resell value
c) Opinion about overclocking may change in the future


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 11, 2018)

Chloe Price said:


> Even if running stock, K-CPUs are still far better. Why?
> 
> a) Much higher boost clocks
> b) Much higher resell value
> c) Opinion about overclocking may change in the future


a) Not massively different
b) Resale value will fall regardless
c) The OP may have no intention of doing so in the future
Not worth the difference IMO


----------



## Bones (Nov 11, 2018)

king of swag187 said:


> 2700X, if you specifaclly want Z390, then whatever is cheaper out of those CPU's
> If the same price, get the one that performs better



2700X is an AMD Ryzen CPU, the Z390 chipset is for Intel chips - Obviously that's not gonna work at all plus the OP already has the board inhand.

For the $$ a 9900K is expensive yet still a good option, esp if using the machine for other tasks aside from gaming like rendering video which you'd said would be one use of it. I know the other chips are cheaper and would get the job done just fine, the difference according to what you showed in the chart not being much at all.

If the extra expense is justifyable to you, go with the 9900K, if not the 8700K is the one you'd want is all I can say. If wanting to save a little more, the 8700 non-K version is it based on the # of cores/threads you'd need. Note that the 8700K is a 95W chip, the 8700 non-K is a 65 watt chip so the non-K should run cooler.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 11, 2018)

trog100 said:


> you are a mile out on UK prices.. Scan UK £420 8700K and £480 for the 9700K..


Scan? Really? Congratulations on looking at an overpriced website during the price rise as intel makes a rather convenient "shortage" of the 8th gen, I can find 8700ks new and sealed for £300-350 here on gumtree and some cases ebay.
Either way £60 more on scan? The OP should get the 9700k if they are the same price.


----------



## romeozulu (Nov 11, 2018)

@ktn21

Heat on the i9-9900k is no Problem when using an appropriate Tower-cooler.

I think for gaming currently the i7-8700k is the best bang for the buck.

Mindfactory-Germany Nov, 11th 2018 :  i7-8700k 399 Euro


----------



## trog100 (Nov 11, 2018)

i never put much faith in the "cheapest you can find" prices from obscure sources..

Scan has to buy in to keep stock levels up.. whilst not being the "cheapest you can find" they are a reputable seller and have to offer good value to stay in business.. 

having said that intel cpu prices have reached silly levels though.. it cant be doing their sales any good.. amd must be on a big gainer here..

i think at whatever price levels or wherever people look.. the 8700K is gonna come in cheaper than the 9700k.. 

i still like the good for 5 g easily 8086K though.. he he..

the 8086K will hit 5g on all cores at 10 C less than the 8700K.. at 5g that 10 C makes all the difference between 5g being practical or not.. 5g being a special magical number of course.. he he

trog


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 11, 2018)

trog100 said:


> it cant be doing their sales any good.. amd must be on a big gainer here..


Wrong. People are still buying intel and their revenue has actually improved.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 11, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> a) Not massively different



Yeah, but the price difference isn't massive either.  It's what, $50 difference for a locked 8700 vs the unlocked 8700k?

And rated boost clocks are only part of the story.  Intel almost artificially cripples the non-k parts by putting ridiculous 65w power limits on them.  And now that the motherboard have to respect that power limit, unless you go into the BIOS and tweak overclocking settings, the K parts sustain their boost clocks constantly whole the non-k parts drop back pretty quickly under load.  I've tested this myself, on long video encodes, the 8700K stays at 4.3GHz, it will sit there for hours.  The 8700 on the other hand boosts to 4.3GHz and will stay there for about 5 minutes before dropping down to its base clock of 3.2GHz.  Which really makes a difference when your doing video encodes that takes hours like what the OP suggests he is doing.  The problem, and the reason I wanted to test this myself, is that reviews don't tend to show this issue because their encoding tests don't typically run long enough for the 8700 to drop down in speed.  Their tests are typically less than 5 minute encodes.

But all of that is really completely besides the point since an 8-Core processor is better suited to what the OP is doing, and there are no locked 8-Core processors.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 11, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Wrong. People are still buying intel and their revenue has actually improved.



not from what i read.. they are losing sales for two obvious reasons .. firstly a shortage of parts means people cant buy even if they wanted to.. secondly directly connected to the first reason.. a lack of supply has jacked the intel prices up to silly levels.. 

the lack of supply is genuine even though you might think its just something cooked up by the likes of Scan to jack up prices..

amd must be gaining sales.. intel must be losing sales.. simple logic.. 

trog


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 11, 2018)

trog100 said:


> not from what i read.. they are losing sales for two obvious reasons .. firstly a shortage of parts means people cant buy even if they wanted to.. secondly directly connected to the first reason.. a lack of supply has jacked the intel prices up to silly levels..
> 
> the lack of supply is genuine even though you might think its just something cooked up by the likes of Scan to jack up prices..
> 
> amd must be gaining sales.. intel must be losing sales.. simple logic..


Wrong again, the lack of supply is in the 8th gen processors, and people will buy the 9th gen processors because they are in stock, this isn't the thread for this discussion.


----------



## Vario (Nov 11, 2018)

Bones said:


> 2700X is an AMD Ryzen CPU, the Z390 chipset is for Intel chips - Obviously that's not gonna work at all plus the OP already has the board inhand.
> 
> For the $$ a 9900K is expensive yet still a good option, esp if using the machine for other tasks aside from gaming like rendering video which you'd said would be one use of it. I know the other chips are cheaper and would get the job done just fine, the difference according to what you showed in the chart not being much at all.
> 
> If the extra expense is justifyable to you, go with the 9900K, if not the 8700K is the one you'd want is all I can say. If wanting to save a little more, the 8700 non-K version is it based on the # of cores/threads you'd need. Note that the 8700K is a 95W chip, the 8700 non-K is a 65 watt chip so the non-K should run cooler.





king of swag187 said:


> 2700X, if you specifaclly want Z390, then whatever is cheaper out of those CPU's
> If the same price, get the one that performs better



To parse it to minutae, king of swag187 is clearly stating his opinion that the 2700X is what he would suggest for the OP, followed by a *comma* to signify that because the OP wants Z390 compatible intel CPU, king of swag187 then suggests the cheapest of the three CPUs in the title: 8700K, 9700K, or 9900K.  He clearly isn't saying put the 2700X into the Z390 board.

Frankly it is good advice, and might be worth returning the Z390 board if possible because the Intels are currently overpriced due to 14nm production shortage.

Otherwise 9700K.


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 11, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> a) Not massively different
> b) Resale value will fall regardless
> c) The OP may have no intention of doing so in the future
> Not worth the difference IMO


a) Still worth mentioning a difference
b) Yes they both will, but people who would upgrade from 8350K (for example), will pay more from a 8700K than from a 8700. Especially if someone would like to upgrade from 8600K, because there is need for HT. I know MANY people who upgraded from overclocked (4.5GHz+) 2500K to used 2600K, and a locked chip was a no-go.
c) May, or may not. What's so bad being future proof?

Yeah, save that ~40 eur* now with your arguments. I'd not do that.

*boxed i7-8700 vs i7-8700K CPUs compared in cheapest Finnish prices, since i7-8700 is the fastest non-K CPU for now.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 11, 2018)

Chloe Price said:


> Yeah, save that ~40 eur* now with your arguments. I'd not do that.


Yeah, your clearly the type of person to stick a K SKU on a locked chipset, you want a medal?
As far as I'm concerned a locked multiplier motherboard, so any "H" boards will do and a locked CPU will save FAR more than just that. In this case he has a "Z" board already so it's worth getting a K processor.


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 11, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Yeah, your clearly the type of person to stick a K SKU on a locked chipset, you want a medal?
> As far as I'm concerned a locked multiplier motherboard, so any "H" boards will do and a locked CPU will save FAR more than just that. In this case he has a "Z" board already so it's worth getting a K processor.


Tell me where I said that "get a K-CPU for a toy-chipset motherboard"?

As he goes with Z390, of course I recommend a K-CPU.


----------



## 27MaD (Nov 11, 2018)

Knoxx29 said:


> None of those.
> 
> @Xx Tek Tip xX was clear enough, *No Overclock no K Series CPU
> 
> ...


*NO OVERCLOCK NO Z BOARD.*


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 11, 2018)

Chloe Price said:


> Tell me where I said that "get a K-CPU for a toy-chipset motherboard"?


You didn't it's called an interpretation (the reason is the price you said), you stated:


Chloe Price said:


> Yeah, save that ~40 eur* now with your arguments. I'd not do that.


I've *Clearly* stated I would choose a "K" processor in this scenario before that message and I would recommend the 8700 *IF *he didn't have the Z390 board already, which in this case he does, Your not going to save "40 eur~" over a non K processor since your buying a *H chipset* board which is typically 50% less than a unlocked chipset board - a much larger difference.


----------



## Vario (Nov 11, 2018)

As mentioned above, the K parts have a 30 watt higher power limit so *even if you don't intend to change their multiplier, the K performance is better. *

https://digiworthy.com/2017/12/07/core-i7-8700-vs-8700k-fast-platform/




> The CPU is expected to hit a max turbo clock of 4.3 GHz on all 6 cores, but after about eight seconds, it drops slightly to 4.1 to 4.2 GHz. This is when the “65W TDP limit” comes into effect.



Additionally most Z series boards have other features and advantages that H lack, and the Z also retain their value better for future resale.  This is kind of a dead horse.





I have a Z series motherboard and a 8600K and other than running benchmarks for novelty purposes the first week I got it, I have been leaving the 8600K at the stock turbo because I cannot tell any difference between the 4.3 stock and 5.0.


----------



## John Naylor (Nov 11, 2018)

Came back to see is OP has posted any more information on usage, not seeing any ... while the discussions about CPU architecture are interesting they don't really matter when it comes to getting things done in the most efficient manner.    I'd suggest:

A) you can see what the gaming situation from the graphs in the original post .... if gaming is all that's on the table it's a very simple questions.... id the extra cost worth the minute increase in fps.  If money is no object, get the 9900k, if ya get the 9700k or even 9600k, you won't notice.

B)  But then for the editing .... 1) how often will tya do it ?  2)  what are budget limitations .... in the Video Editing benchmark






Your base CPU 8700k is $359 and it gets you a score of 590.6.  Assuming the entire system costs $2,000 that's $3.39 per point

Move up to the 9700k with 621.5 points for $419 (+$60) and that's a system cost of $2,060 or $3,31 per point

Move up to the 9900k with 716 points for $529 (+$170) and that's a system cost of $2,170 or $3.03 per point


If "getting the task done" is the criteria that's most important, among the options offered, obviously the ROI is there for the 9900k, if your time has any value.  If budget is critical, and the need is still both gaming and editing, we always recommend focusing more on the results it brings to the tabl rather  than what logo, what die size, what generation, how many cores, whatever ... it's just a "black box" that you are buying to do a job.  And yes, the above is only 1 metric.... using one program.     Your workload will involve numumerous operations within the program and the ones which excel contributing to the scores above may not be the ones you use requently.  And, of course, the premiere results won't necessarily be mirrored by other programs.


As for the Z versus H thing, I find this a an easy decision in mo/st generations as, by the time ya find a H series board with decent gaming sound (ALC 1220) and LAN subsystems, the cost of the equivalent H and Z series boards vary little if at all in price.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 11, 2018)

Vario said:


> As mentioned above, the K parts have a 30 watt higher power limit so *even if you don't intend to change their multiplier, the K performance is better. *
> 
> https://digiworthy.com/2017/12/07/core-i7-8700-vs-8700k-fast-platform/
> 
> ...



apart from running benchmarks i cant tell any difference between the 7700K i used to have and the 8700K i now have and i am sure i would say the same about the 9900K i probably wont have.. he he he

trog


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 11, 2018)

I had a 7700K @ 5GHz, now I have a 5820K @ 4.5GHz and this feels little slower in games, but I just love the X99 platform, so I don't regret exchanging 7700K + Z170 Pro Gaming -> 5820K + Rampage V Extreme.


----------



## Bones (Nov 12, 2018)

Vario said:


> To parse it to minutae, king of swag187 is clearly stating his opinion that the 2700X is what he would suggest for the OP, followed by a *comma* to signify that because the OP wants Z390 compatible intel CPU, king of swag187 then suggests the cheapest of the three CPUs in the title: 8700K, 9700K, or 9900K.  He clearly isn't saying put the 2700X into the Z390 board.
> 
> Frankly it is good advice, and might be worth returning the Z390 board if possible because the Intels are currently overpriced due to 14nm production shortage.
> 
> Otherwise 9700K.


I figured he wasn't saying pop a 2700X into a Z390 board but again, this was to clarify rather than cause confusion.
I was simply clarifying it for those that woudn't have known and it's no suprise to me how many would not know the difference in the first place. 

Yes, a 2700X IS good for what the OP is wanting, I was going along with the fact he already had the board and from his posting looked like he really wasn't thinking about an AMD setup so went with what he said he had.


----------



## Vario (Nov 12, 2018)

Bones said:


> I figured he wasn't saying pop a 2700X into a Z390 board but again, this was to clarify rather than cause confusion.
> I was simply clarifying it for those that woudn't have known and it's no suprise to me how many would not know the difference in the first place.
> 
> Yes, a 2700X IS good for what the OP is wanting, I was going along with the fact he already had the board and from his posting looked like he really wasn't thinking about an AMD setup so went with what he said he had.


Right you are, sorry to sound antagonistic, the AMD chipset number is confusingly similar to the Intel one.  Good point.


----------



## Bones (Nov 12, 2018)

It's all good  - Main thing for me was to give good info and be sure it wasn't confusing to those that woudn't know any better.


----------



## Solid State Soul ( SSS ) (Nov 19, 2018)

For the love of god listen to me please. *DONT BUY HYPER THREADED PROCESSORS FOR GAMES*. Buy the* i7 9700k* cause it has *8 real, super fast cores *instead of virtual fake cores ( threads from hyper threading ) and games run *BETTER* and more *STABLE* on none hyper threaded processors.


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 19, 2018)

Solid State Soul ( SSS ) said:


> games run *BETTER* and more *STABLE* on none hyper threaded processors.



Got some data to back that up? Until then, I'll call BS OK?


----------



## Solid State Soul ( SSS ) (Nov 19, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Got some data to back that up? Until then, I'll call BS OK?












Watch this video. An* i7 8700k* tested on games with hyper threading *ON *vs *OFF.  *

As you will see, some games run with *better frames* with more consistent frame times when hyper threading turned *OFF*

*8 REAL, SUPER FAST CORES IS BETTER FOR GAMES. REAL CORES . NO VIRTUAL FAKE THREADS. GO INTO THE QnA section of the i7 9700k newegg store page and see peoples response on THE QUESTION OF why they bought it.*


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 19, 2018)

Solid State Soul ( SSS ) said:


> Watch this video. An* i7 8700k* tested on games with hyper threading *ON *vs *OFF.  *
> 
> As you will see, some games run with *better frames* with more consistent frame times when hyper threading turned *OFF*
> 
> *8 REAL, SUPER FAST CORES IS BETTER FOR GAMES. REAL CORES . NO VIRTUAL FAKE THREADS. GO INTO THE QnA section of the i7 9700k newegg store page and see peoples response on THE QUESTION OF why they bought it.*



I haven't seen a single situation where you can get that conclusion about frame times being more consistent, to be honest with you, and given the framerates you see here, this is margin of error territory. Not all bench runs are in perfect sync either. There is not a single instance of the HT enabled CPU causing a frame time spike where the HT-OFF CPU doesn't in the whole video. If I missed it, point me to it...

All I do see is a consistent, slight performance advantage for HT off, but it is so minor you only notice it when you're looking at the counter. And then there is BF1 which shows consistent 200 FPS locked with HT ON versus ducking under it with HT Off. Which is probably due to thread count limited to 6 while the engine can deal with 8.

In other words, non issue. Because the 8086k will almost certainly clock 100-300 mhz higher than the 9700k, which eliminates the perf advantage it would have due to being an 8 core.

Another point is that HT On benefits scenarios where you are thread limited, such as normal usage with background processes. We have a legacy of Intel CPUs that prove this, pick any 4c/8t CPU of the past six-seven years versus an i5 at same clocks and you can see it works quite alright.

As for people's responses on why they bought it... yeah, that only shows they go off some video that has very little relevance. It really isn't a big issue, rather one of preference. If you're a guy that has 907601 browser tabs and fifteen other apps open while gaming, the HT enabled CPU is your best option. If you like to run light, its a toss up. But then I'd still grab the fastest single thread you could get, for gaming.


----------

