# Is it worth getting the i7-8700?



## Baba Yetu VI (Oct 30, 2019)

The i7-8700 is neither a "K" version nor is it the latest generation of Intel Core i7 CPU.  It's still pricey around $300.  Is it worth getting ?  I spotted a 9th gen i3-9350KF which has the same boost frequency 4.6GHz as the i7-8700 does, the i3 can also be overclocked to 5.0GHz, which one is much preferred?


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 30, 2019)

Ehh, you are comparing a 4c/4t part (i3-9350KF) to a 6c/12t part. For gaming and long term use, hands down the i7-8700 is the choice. 4c/4t already chokes some titles due to a lack of cores/threads.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 30, 2019)

Go online and compare the cpu specs, also look at cpu/gpu bottlenecks.









						Bottleneck Calculator | PC Builds
					

We bring you a unique calculator for bottleneck and chokepoint problems in your computer. We will help you to choose most appropriate processor and graphic card for your PC. Our calculator offers you best solutions for reducing or removing bottleneck problems.




					pc-builds.com


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 30, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> Go online and compare the cpu specs, also look at cpu/gpu bottlenecks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought we mentioned that link was garbage... a bottleneck calculator that nobody knows how it works... lol.


----------



## Baba Yetu VI (Oct 30, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> Go online and compare the cpu specs, also look at cpu/gpu bottlenecks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've already done that. I've found that i3-9350KF is +3% over i7-8700, that's why I come here for some opinions.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 30, 2019)

Ok and what core count difference is there and does 1 not have hyper threading?

What is the price difference between the 2, also a K series can oc where a non k can't. 4.6 is max boost for both, it doesnt mean the cpu will remain there constantly.


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 30, 2019)

8700 non k is a very good CPU and will game better then the Ryzen 3600 although you would need to run a benchmark to see the difference in most games.  That said the Ryzen 3600 can be bought for $200 so the price - performance may not add up for the 8700 unless it's an upgrade to a mobo that already supports it

Tom's CPU Hierarchy list


----------



## Baba Yetu VI (Oct 30, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> 8700 non k is a very good CPU and will game better then the Ryzen 3600 although you would need to run a benchmark to see the difference in most games.  That said the Ryzen 3600 can be bought for $200 so the price - performance may not add up for the 8700 unless it's an upgrade to a mobo that already supports it


It seems like so. I've checked even 9600K doesn't support HT, moreover, 8700 has double the number of threads than 9600K.  Despite 9600K is cheaper than 8700, but I think it performs better.


----------



## king of swag187 (Oct 30, 2019)

Good CPU, 3600 will be faster and around the same price if not cheaper.


----------



## Baba Yetu VI (Oct 30, 2019)

king of swag187 said:


> Good CPU, 3600 will be faster and around the same price if not cheaper.


But just consider the price and the price only, i3-9350KF is a better choice. It has the same boosts speed 4.6GHz. Only less cache and memory transfer speed slightly less.


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 30, 2019)

Baba Yetu VI said:


> The i7-8700 is neither a "K" version nor is it the latest generation of Intel Core i7 CPU.  It's still pricey around $300.  *Is it worth getting* ?  I spotted a 9th gen i3-9350KF which has the same boost frequency 4.6GHz as the i7-8700 does, the i3 can also be overclocked to 5.0GHz, which one is much preferred?


Not really unless you have a board that supports it, and replace a CPU that is like the half power. If you must buy a CPU/Board/DRAM combo a Ryzen 5 3600 6C/12T (200$) will do the same in games and much better in everything else. Plus you have the ability to upgrade in 2~3 years to a 12C/24T or 16C/32T part if you choose the right AM4 board. There are quite enough boards from X470/B450 and X570 to the 100~200$ price point.


----------



## phanbuey (Oct 30, 2019)

Baba Yetu VI said:


> The i7-8700 is neither a "K" version nor is it the latest generation of Intel Core i7 CPU.  It's still pricey around $300.  Is it worth getting ?  I spotted a 9th gen i3-9350KF which has the same boost frequency 4.6GHz as the i7-8700 does, the i3 can also be overclocked to 5.0GHz, which one is much preferred?



You can get a used 8700k for less - I got mine for about $288 off ebay.  Second hand 8700ks are aplenty at the moment.


----------



## Space Lynx (Oct 30, 2019)

king of swag187 said:


> Good CPU, 3600 will be faster and around the same price if not cheaper.



I think main argument for ryzen 3000 over intel, especially 8th gen intel, would be security.  intel had about 10+ security breaches on its chips from 6th gen to 8th gen, major stuff that software alone could not fix


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 30, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I think main argument for ryzen 3000 over intel, especially 8th gen intel, would be security.  intel had about 10+ security breaches on its chips from 6th gen to 8th gen, major stuff that software alone could not fix


Oh stop it already... do you even understand how difficult it for most of these to happen? And they are all patched? Stop spreading FUD... security isnt close to be a "main" argument to go AMD.


----------



## Space Lynx (Oct 30, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Oh stop it already... do you even understand how difficult it for most of these to happen? And they are all patched? Stop spreading FUD... security isnt close to be a "main" argument to go AMD.



that's your opinion, and I was sharing mine


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 30, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> that's your opinion, and I was sharing mine


What I stated is fact. Please take the time to do some research. Even though you framed it as opinion, it is wrong... proven so by facts. They are patched. There is little more risk in using Intel CPUs than AMD. Certainly not the "main" thing to be concerned with... unless you wear tinfoil hats and aren't 'in the know'.


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 30, 2019)

Baba Yetu VI said:


> It seems like so. I've checked even 9600K doesn't support HT, moreover, 8700 has double the number of threads than 9600K.  Despite 9600K is cheaper than 8700, but I think it performs better.



It really depends on what you are using the CPU for as an OC 9600k can run through any game out there and obviously the non-k 8700 can't be OC. 

For gaming your GPU will have a larger impact on performance once you have a modern CPU with six cores
For basic MS office, web browsing, email, and other light work you won't see a real world difference between the i3-9350k, i5-9600k, 8700
For video editing and some other intensive software you can see the extra cores of the 9600k help out over the i3-9350k and then the extra threads of the 8700 help out over the 9600k.


----------



## king of swag187 (Oct 30, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I think main argument for ryzen 3000 over intel, especially 8th gen intel, would be security.  intel had about 10+ security breaches on its chips from 6th gen to 8th gen, major stuff that software alone could not fix


Not really, majority won't ever notice or be affected by it. Main argument is the massive price difference in favor of Ryzen.



Baba Yetu VI said:


> But just consider the price and the price only, i3-9350KF is a better choice. It has the same boosts speed 4.6GHz. Only less cache and memory transfer speed slightly less.


9600K > 3600> 8700 > 9350KF for gaming.


----------



## Solid State Soul ( SSS ) (Oct 30, 2019)

The i7 8700 is still a very capable gaming processor so would say go for it


----------



## The Egg (Oct 30, 2019)

Where do you live?  Microcenter has the 9700k for $300.


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 30, 2019)

Solid State Soul ( SSS ) said:


> The i7 8700 is still a very capable gaming processor so would say go for it


Of course it is... but unless you get it for under 200$ is not worth it. As I said you can buy a new and not used 3600 for about 200$ that is equal to gaming and a bit or much faster in everything else... plus the upgrade path.


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 30, 2019)

king of swag187 said:


> 3600> 8700



Tomshardware tested both CPUs (probably the only web site to test the 8700 non-K) and basically has the two CPUs identical in performance.  In fact the the 8700 was something like .07% percent better in gaming....and yes Lynx the 8700 was tested with all Spectre and Meltdown mitigations.


----------



## Baba Yetu VI (Oct 30, 2019)

I will use it for gaming only, a Christmas present.

I've found 9350KF has a boost speed of 4.6GHz but it's 4 core and 4 threads only. But 9600K also has a boost speed of 4.6GHz, so are they equally fast?


----------



## phanbuey (Oct 30, 2019)

9600 is faster


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 30, 2019)

Baba Yetu VI said:


> I've already done that. I've found that i3-9350KF is +3% over i7-8700, that's why I come here for some opinions.



If you're gaming the high turbo and core/thread count of this CPU puts it in a performance sweet spot. Still does. 4c/8t is sub optimal already, we've seen anomalies with 6c/6t CPUs and any 8 core with similar clocks is going to cost more. 4c/4t is basically screaming 'run away' at you these days for gaming. Versus the Ryzen setup, you may find the 8700 to do better situationally and equally good in most other instances. It remains a question whether that stays the same in the future though. At similar price (!) I'd get the 8700 over the Ryzen 3600 - and its definitely preferable over a 6c/6t 9600.

But $300 is a lot nowadays for this CPU. I don't know what local pricing is for Ryzen for you.

If you're not gaming, money is better spent elsewhere.


----------



## John Naylor (Oct 30, 2019)

It's about more than the relative performance ... it's about chipset support and how long the platform remains relevant.  And there's two answers here:

a)  If you have a 8700, CPU wise, there's no reason to replace it
b)  If you're thinking of buying it, I see no ROI in 2 year old technology .  Id wait till the full 10th gen release and grab a 9700


----------



## Space Lynx (Oct 30, 2019)

king of swag187 said:


> Not really, majority won't ever notice or be affected by it. Main argument is the massive price difference in favor of Ryzen.
> 
> 
> 9600K > 3600> 8700 > 9350KF for gaming.



I guess so, and the price thing is 100%... my 3600 cpu was on sale for $177... lol so cheap... not to mentioned I saved another $50 cause z390 mobo's are pricier. I got a nice b450 gaming plus max for $95, and QVL b-die memory to match the mobo.

I shouldn't have issues anyway thanks to the QVL matching.


----------



## king of swag187 (Oct 30, 2019)

You can get a Z390 board that'll handle a 9900K for ~$120 or less.



dirtyferret said:


> Tomshardware tested both CPUs (probably the only web site to test the 8700 non-K) and basically has the two CPUs identical in performance.  In fact the the 8700 was something like .07% percent better in gaming....and yes Lynx the 8700 was tested with all Spectre and Meltdown mitigations.


You can OC a 3600, can only use BCLK and maybe MCE on a 8700


----------



## Space Lynx (Oct 31, 2019)

actually my my 3600 cpu was on sale for 177 minus 15, because i am going to have the 5 dollar a month game pass regardless of what system i have cause i think its a great deal.  so the fact it came with 3 free months of pass makes it close to 150 shipped... and its only 10 fps slower on avg at 1440p then a 9900k which costs 500...   yeah im ok with that 

if i was a 1080p gamer i might recommend intel... but if your gaming at 1080p you prob shouldn't be buying 300-500 dollar cpu's... so? lol


----------



## freeagent (Oct 31, 2019)

I would spend 500 on a cpu and game at 1080p. Do you think CPUs just started to cost 500 last year? Lol.


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 31, 2019)

freeagent said:


> I would spend 500 on a cpu and game at 1080p. Do you think CPUs just started to cost 500 last year? Lol.


And how much on a GPU?


----------



## Space Lynx (Oct 31, 2019)

freeagent said:


> I would spend 500 on a cpu and game at 1080p. Do you think CPUs just started to cost 500 last year? Lol.




all fine with me, my plan is to do the $150 ryzen 3600 deal I go for now, then next year sell it for around 80-90 when 4700x or 4800x launches, and I will just pop in that new chip, then retire for a few years when DDR5 becomes more fleshed out and priced right.

all depends what your plans are yeah.


----------



## Hyderz (Oct 31, 2019)

ryzen 3600 +1, out of the box the base frequency of the ryzen is higher than the i7.


----------



## freeagent (Oct 31, 2019)

Here in Canada, we pay a lot of tax. And a levy on pretty much everything electronic, whether you see it or not it is there.. I guess I could have worded my post a little differently.. but in the past I have spent 500 or more on just a cpu. Americans are pretty lucky when it comes to cheap prices


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 31, 2019)

The 9900K or KS make sense for gaming only if you already have a 2080Ti and you want a little more... just because you can, no need for excuse...

But... if someone has a budget like... let’s say 700$ for a CPU+GPU combo should not buy a 500$ CPU and a 200$ GPU.
He should not even buy a 350+350 combo.
He would do a much better job with a 200$ CPU + a 500$ GPU.

This “rule” is making sense to me. Always a better GPU will give you better results as long as the CPU can drive it.
And a 200$ CPU like the 3600 won’t create a bottleneck paired with a 500$ GPU.

Can’t find an example at the budget of the 700$ but the video below is on the same rule


----------



## Baba Yetu VI (Oct 31, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> If you're gaming the high turbo and core/thread count of this CPU puts it in a performance sweet spot. Still does. 4c/8t is sub optimal already, we've seen anomalies with 6c/6t CPUs and any 8 core with similar clocks is going to cost more. 4c/4t is basically screaming 'run away' at you these days for gaming. Versus the Ryzen setup, you may find the 8700 to do better situationally and equally good in most other instances. It remains a question whether that stays the same in the future though. At similar price (!) I'd get the 8700 over the Ryzen 3600 - and its definitely preferable over a 6c/6t 9600.
> 
> But $300 is a lot nowadays for this CPU. I don't know what local pricing is for Ryzen for you.
> 
> If you're not gaming, money is better spent elsewhere.


Your opinions are VERY useful to me, they can help me to decide later.  While I was waiting, I chanced on watching this video here.

The 10th gen CPUs prices suddenly kills my thoughts. Look at them:






Let's say I want to have the 4.6GHz boost speed (I have to fix one of my expectations otherwise, I am unable to figure out which one I want), it is the i5-10500 and it is $200 only. It also has 6/12 cores/threads which is the same as i7-8700. They are both locked and one is $100 less than the other which is i7-8700. So I'd better choose i5-10500. BUT, this i5-10500 does not have K.  So I search for a "K" within the i5 class. The K is called i5-10600K. It costs $269.  So that $100 saved from the i7-8700 can be spent on th i5-10600K which is a even better option than the i5-10500. It is 300MHz faster.

The troubles I can think of are a) how much is the motherboard for 10 series? It may also cost $250 for some very nice ones. But that's ok, I am willing to buy one of those. b) How long do I wait?  I want to play some really nice games which are coming in Xmas. Have you heard of the game "The Outer World"?  It has very good looking graphics, possibly with ray tracing also.  I like to play that game.  But its requirements for hardware is not low. My PC has a CPU called i3-3225, have you heard of it?  It is very slow with  a XFX HD 4870 which my daddy gave me.

If I install a new PC now, maybe I go for the cheapest CPU and the cheapest motherboard.  Because after the release of the 10th gen CPUs, I can give this system to my cousin, he plays adventure games and minecraft, those game are easy for CPU.  So now I am thinking maybe i3-9350KF despite it is 4c/4t.  It is about $120 and its boost speed is attractive. Maybe I will use 2444 MHz ram which I hope is cheaper than others. It is because Intel ark tells 2444 MHz RAM is supported.  If I use $300 to buy the i7-8700 and when I buy the i5-10600K, I will have spent $570 totally on just CPUs.  If I purchase the i3-3950K now, even I give it to my cousin and buy the i5-10600K later, I will have spent less because that's only $390.  That will be a savings of $180. That sum of money can be used to buy other things like keyboard and mouse.

I also think that 9600K is not a good buy because it is slower than i7-8700 and it is only $28 cheaper than the future 10600K.
But I don't know if this is a better choice...


----------



## potato580+ (Oct 31, 2019)

no..you can get new tech for the same price(start with 8c on 9th kf perharps), or switch using ryzen


----------



## ShurikN (Oct 31, 2019)

1.
Is the 8700 worth getting? YES! 
At $300? Absolutely NOT. $220 most. 
2.
That i3 is a 4 core, 4 thread cpu, and should be avoided like the plague in 2019 (for gaming that is)


----------



## Baba Yetu VI (Oct 31, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


>


How do they compare the two PCs?  I mean they have 2 games running at the same time?  That costs 2 times the game?



potato580+ said:


> no..you can get new tech for the same price(start with 8c on 9th kf perharps), or switch using ryzen


I have compared 3 CPUs, i7-8700, i5-9350KF and i5-9600K. They all have these the same "Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 "


----------



## potato580+ (Oct 31, 2019)

Baba Yetu VI said:


> How do they compare the two PCs?  I mean they have 2 games running at the same time?  That costs 2 times the game?
> 
> 
> I have compared 3 CPUs, i7-8700, i5-9350KF and i5-9600K. They all have these the same "Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 "


iwas refering to 9700kf tho, its around $300 here, but yes i5 is nice option too


----------



## Baba Yetu VI (Oct 31, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> then retire for a few years when DDR5 becomes more fleshed out and priced right.
> 
> all depends what your plans are yeah.


you mean DDR5 will appear in next year?



potato580+ said:


> iwas refering to 9700kf tho, its around $300 here, but yes i5 is nice option too


9700kf is about $340 in the country I live in.


----------



## potato580+ (Oct 31, 2019)

Baba Yetu VI said:


> you mean DDR5 will appear in next year?
> 
> 
> 9700kf is about $340 in the country I live in.


any chance pay for F only? i think it will cut around $30 extra, but its your choice tho, if you like higher clock potential, ignore it


----------



## Baba Yetu VI (Oct 31, 2019)

I want to play this game with a new CPU. Some people are funny, and the world is so fantastic,  I like Parvati also.


----------



## phanbuey (Oct 31, 2019)

im playing the crap out of that game right now.  it's pretty light on the cpu actually.


----------



## Baba Yetu VI (Oct 31, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> im playing the crap out of that game right now.  it's pretty light on the cpu actually.


What is the FPS you've got? Could you share a video with us?


----------



## biffzinker (Oct 31, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> im playing the crap out of that game right now.  it's pretty light on the cpu actually.


Out of the six cores, and twelve threads for my 3600 only 4 cores show maybe 15% usage, and the other 2 cores are getting maybe 5%. No usage on the SMT cores. Wondering if the updated scheduler in 1909 is responsible?
It was behaving as such before.

Runs smooth at 2560x1440 with a refresh rate of 75 on my RTX 2060.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 31, 2019)

Baba Yetu VI said:


> Your opinions are VERY useful to me, they can help me to decide later.  While I was waiting, I chanced on watching this video here.
> 
> The 10th gen CPUs prices suddenly kills my thoughts. Look at them:
> 
> ...



I'm playing the Outer Worlds right now actually  It will easily run on any of the CPUs you are considering, but a 4c/4t CPU will give you stutter. I can almost guarantee it. Games on newer engines and/or DX12 are much better at threading. Look at this for a peek into game performance on UE4

This is why you want 6+ cores and/or 8+ threads.





Note in-game CPU load totals at around 40-50% in game. Half the thread count on the same CPU will likely cost FPS. (I do play at 120hz/fps limit) If your target for this game is 60 FPS, you can make do with a 6 core 6 thread CPU. But it won't have that much headroom in the future / in CPU heavier games.





Now, there are many, many CPUs that will serve you well these days. If you are not chasing high refresh rates at 1080p, don't spend too much on CPU/board. 300 is a lot for a CPU and a board shouldn't cost you more than 160-180 (and it can be done cheaper) especially if you're not getting an overclockable system. A gaming rig should put around 50% of budget towards GPU, or, as much as possible without crippling the rest.

Is it worth waiting? I'd say no. There are great options today and you can always wait for the next best thing. Id seriously just put a Ryzen setup vs an Intel setup within your budget with 6c/12t or 8c/8t as minimum CPU core count and see what you can squeeze in. That 9350KF I would seriously avoid. And as for Intel making some Ryzen killer anytime soon? *Forget it.*

If you're buying new, I'd filter your choices down to:

- Intel 8th/9th/10th gen offerings, preferably K CPUs OR with high turbo (4.6 or better).
- Ryzen 2000/3000 offerings
- No lower than 6c12t or 8c/8t

Check some performance summaries/reviews of the two CPUs in gaming and you will find the differences to be minimal at best.

Can't go wrong. Beyond price, its mostly personal preference nowadays with what's available.


----------



## biffzinker (Oct 31, 2019)

This is what my CPU/GPU usage looks like in TOW.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Oct 31, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I thought we mentioned that link was garbage... a bottleneck calculator that nobody knows how it works... lol.


This guy and his stupid calculators lol.
How do you even measure bottlenecks in percentage.
Btw this particular one is heavily AMD biased,shows 2700x bottlenecking cards much less than 6700k.


9350k is nothing more than a novelty CPU these days.4 cores without HT are gonna struggle a lot.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 31, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> This is what my CPU/GPU usage looks like in TOW.
> View attachment 135284



You're clearly running into an FPS cap. This is NOT peak usage. 72% GPU load. 

Its a nice little comparison though, our two pics show the CPU impact for high refresh well versus a cap at 75. We also have similar GPUs.


----------



## john_ (Oct 31, 2019)

Intel hi end CPUs today, are for those already owing the platform and needing to upgrade just the CPU. People who like to see high frequency numbers, even when they are in most cases meaningless, have a 2080 Super or better card and don't want to miss one frame, or just prefer to buy Intel CPUs, those can also have the top Intel CPUs as primary choices in their minds.

Everybody else should consider a Ryzen first. The 3600 or the 3700X are great value choices when thinking about a new platform, where you have to pay for everything. CPU, mobo, RAM. Even when talking about gaming. They are modern CPUs with as many cores as needed for today's games and future games and with good enough IPC to offer almost the same performance as Intel top CPUs. Especially when we are talking about GPUs like the 2080, or slower.

As it was already mentioned, a quad core CPU is the worst idea in 2019. Even a theoretical 4 cores/4 threads Intel CPU at 6GHz would be bad in many games today and more games in a year from now.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 31, 2019)

Not sure if it was mentioned but the next gen $200 10,000 series I5-K is likely just the 8700k rehashed.


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 31, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> And as for Intel making some Ryzen killer anytime soon? *Forget it.*


This is true unfortunately... For now is just recycling the same SKUs and architecture with the latest 14+++nm node and call it a day.
Intel needs a new architecture and node, and the signs show that this won't be ready before 2021, at least 1.5 years from now. That is, a new desktop line up that probably would be better to ZEN-3 (4000series) but it will come after it.
In the meantime Intel will focus on mobile market with the low power CPUs at 10nm, among other things.
2020 will be a hard year for Intel because has nothing really to show in the mainstream desktop, HEDT, and server market.

And then AMD is coming with ZEN-4... and so on...
Competion is on for good the next 3+ years and this only good can be for us all...



jmcslob said:


> Not sure if it was mentioned but the next gen $200 10,000 series I5-K is likely just the 8700k rehashed.


Look at the speeds (MHz) closely... The 8700k is between the 230 and 270$ 10th series i5, and not like the 200$ part. Still too expensive against competition.


----------



## droopyRO (Oct 31, 2019)

__





						PC Performance Analyses Archives - DSOGaming
					






					www.dsogaming.com
				



They test games on the CPU side with HT on/off and from 2 cores to 8 cores/16 threads.
4c/4t is the lower end limit for 2019 AAA games, by that i mean a 1080p 30-60 fps experience. For 60+ fps you need at least a 4c/8t CPU.


----------



## ppn (Oct 31, 2019)

is 9350 @ 5.1 that much better than 9400F at 3.9. 4/4 is stutter.


----------



## phanbuey (Oct 31, 2019)

jmcslob said:


> Not sure if it was mentioned but the next gen $200 10,000 series I5-K is likely just the 8700k rehashed.



Yeah that was one of the reasons I bought a used 8700K now just because that i-5 w 6 core will be enough for just about everything for a while to come (until the next big architecture jump).

Same with a 3600 - if you get one now you're set for gaming for a while, it's mostly going to be GPU bottleneck for the next few years.


----------



## ppn (Oct 31, 2019)

I78700К is rebranded as I510600K for a reason. 2080Ti is dropping to 3070 level soon, so bottlenecking can expected on the CPU side..


----------



## phanbuey (Oct 31, 2019)

ppn said:


> I78700К is rebranded as I510600K for a reason. 2080Ti is dropping to 3070 level soon, so bottlenecking can expected on the CPU side..



On older titles at low rez / 200fps maybe.  At that point you will bottleneck with just about any cpu. 

Games aren't properly threaded (and won't be for a while) so even 3900x will bottleneck a 3080ti most likely even worse than an i5 10600K.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 31, 2019)

Too bad its not really thread count that is the issue in most titles but clocks and IPC. Sure there are games that can utilize more threads than the cpu has it will bottleneck too, though.


----------



## Baba Yetu VI (Nov 1, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> I'm playing the Outer Worlds right now actually  It will easily run on any of the CPUs you are considering, but a 4c/4t CPU will give you stutter. I can almost guarantee it. Games on newer engines and/or DX12 are much better at threading. Look at this for a peek into game performance on UE4
> 
> This is why you want 6+ cores and/or 8+ threads.
> 
> ...


Because it's about $110 in the region I am living in, and it has a boost speed of 4.6GHz, that's why I just get attracted to it. Maybe it is not good.

I wish there were lists of games which shows how many cores they use.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 1, 2019)

You do not want to start out with a 4c/4t part my man....


----------

