B-RealIf we speak of high refresh gaming, it's only a little portion of the PC gaming community. Just check Steam surveys. Most PCs have GTX 1050-1060 like GPUs. And I speak of same level CPUs like 2600-8400, 2600x-8600k, 2700x-8700k. You can't really get more difference than 10% on average. And when you get a balanced setup, the CPU will be the weakest bottleneck. I mean, most people get a 1070 or 1080 for 1440P, not FHD, and a 1080Ti for 4K-1440P-21:9. In these circumstances the CPU is of the lower priority out of hardwares.


No. Check latest reports.


Because of idiot fetishes, yes. But that could change if Intel keeps up last year's "good work".




Pretty sure it's less than 10%. More like <5%.

OK. Source time

10%? High refresh rate gaming? Nope... - And this is a fixed benchmark, not an ingame situation where you can have FAR more happening on screen.
www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,18

10%? High refresh rate gaming? Nope...
www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,12

10%? High refresh rate gaming? Nope... DX12? Check!
www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,16

This also mirrors my own experience with even the 8700K - there are in-game situations where you still drop comfortably below 60 FPS and it is directly related to CPU. I play a lot of different games, both old and new, AAA and obscure, and that gives me an even broader view than the benches you find in the above review.

Its easy to echo reddit posts and performance *summaries* of the top ten Google hits, but if you have first hand experience, you will know this is the truth to CPU performance. That last few % of performance matters if you're chasing a high, stable framerate. And due to the fact that GPU performance keeps pushing boundaries while CPU performance has stalled over the past decade, this becomes more and more relevant.

The excuses of 'but if you go higher res, it doesn't matter' or 'but that only applies to old crappy games' or 'but that only applies to some weird indie stuff'... that's all fine but I do buy a CPU to be a jack of all trades, and preferably a master of all of them, too. Not one that is inconsistent or laggy in a small selection of use cases. And even though all those excuses are true, they still don't eliminate the differences that do exist. It would be wise to acknowledge those and, along with that, acknowledge that the people who chase top end performance won't settle for a CPU that does not deliver that.

Altogether, when you have half a dozen niche's you cannot cover well, the net result is that the product simply isn't all that great when gaming is a primary use case. Its good - and great value for money. But not great at performance.

Most people i know use 144hz + displays for gaming so i do not believe its <5%, because the fps games market is big and the cost to get a setup to run these games + a monitor is reduced.

I only tested overwatch with a 1060 on both ryzen 1600 and 8700k (i know, big difference in price) but for high fps the difference was huge, from 120-140fps minimum to 180-200. For any fast paced game you want as many fps as you can get so that the display picks the most recent one to refresh onto so intel wins on all of these games(if the gpu is sufficient enough to push above 80 or so fps where the intel just pulls ahead after).

Remember how expensive the 5960X was at launch. All hail AMD.

lasHigh fps means CPU/Memory bottleneck regardless of resolution.

are resolution like 360x240 (or less) also ok to measure bottleneck ? - because it would show the bottleneck even more, but that information would not translate to real life at all (not even for 0.1% of gamers). so any decision on such a information would be misleading.

lasFor gaming I think the 9700K will be superior.

8700K performs better in 9 out of 10 games with HT disabled. In the last game it's a draw.

Yes, definitely.
HT mostly benefits synthetic benchmarks and certain server workloads. For gaming it usually hurts performance, especially in terms of latency and stutter. Paying ~$100 extra over 9700K just for HT is pretty wasteful, even for applications where HT is beneficial, since those workloads scale even better with even more cores.

But what about that spagetti leak - review of 9700K, with 440 euro price tag?

Robcostylereview of 9700K, with 440 euro price tag?

Who would buy a 9700k at this point? The 8700k wins, you can delid and get it up to around 4.8ghz with ease there's no point in paying a massive amount more and at it's current pricing the 9900k is a waste, 500 for a 8c16t? If your doing stuff other than gaming to need a 9900k you may as well grab a 7900x and x299 mobo, Since it'll be superior for productivity.

@las & @dwade

1440p gaming.... with some CPU's...

3 games at random (there were others). But the point is valid. Where is the 10% difference? This is for a 2700X of course, as it is the competitor for what's coming. But using the very similar core 8700k, you can get the picture.

Now, if you still want to argue about fps and how bad AMD is as a gaming chip, feel free. But you'll need to specify at max 1080p or 720p resolutions.







Here's BF1 at 720p



Really bad performance there.

But yes, overall, Intel is better but there's no credible way to say AMD is crap at gaming... That's some serious bullshit you're rubbing in your eyes.

DDR4 Memory Scaling Performance with Ryzen 7 2700X on the AMD X470 Platform

www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-memory-scaling-performance-with-ryzen-7-2700x-on-the-amd-x470-platform_205154

lasFor gaming I think the 9700K will be superior.
8700K performs better in 9 out of 10 games with HT disabled. In the last game it's a draw.
HT off means higher OC / lower temp.

HT does nothing for gaming unless core count is too low and 8 cores at 5 GHz or more is going to rip thru games for years to come.

If you don't believe this, go search YouTube, plenty of proof. Performs drops with HT enabled.
Same things happends with Ryzen when SMT is enabled.

Also, HT has Foreshadow bug. So for mainly gaming, I don't see the reason to get the i9.

Lastly, why would you get 2080 Ti? 12nm ripoff with full RTX focus (yet too weak to run games with RTX anyway).
Nvidia could easily have used 7nm but went the milking route. Yeah I'll keep my 1080 Ti till 7nm hits.

About the cpu, so true, about nvidia, they could not wait any longer, 7nm is next year but i think they should have waited for 7nm even if gtx 2xxx was delayed, yeah they decided not to delay and milk this 12nm crap.

dwadeUnder $500 is a steal. 1800x came out at $500 and that was the worst deal of all deals.

The 1800X also was 1.5 years ago lol, and it still will be more efficient than the chip Intel took forever to respond with.

Xx Tek Tip xXWho would buy a 9700k at this point? The 8700k wins, you can delid and get it up to around 4.8ghz with ease there's no point in paying a massive amount more and at it's current pricing the 9900k is a waste, 500 for a 8c16t? If your doing stuff other than gaming to need a 9900k you may as well grab a 7900x and x299 mobo, Since it'll be superior for productivity.

LMAO, why u telling me that? I dunno, nobody I guess?
2080Ti costs 1400-1500 IRL (because no one's going to sell ya fair non-ref card for 1200$, and no one is going to sell TU102 for 1000$ ever!), so why Intel can't go dumbest way and tag the 9900K with 500-600 euro? Just because they're so "exclusive".

Robcostyleso why Intel can't go dumbest way and tag the 9900K with 500-600 euro? Just because they're so "exclusive".

In case you haven't noticed this is a thread on processors nvidia has no competition in the high end department so they can do what they want. Intel has competition and the 8700k is a far better deal than a 9900k if you absolutely must chose intel.

Xx Tek Tip xXIn case you haven't noticed this is a thread on processors nvidia has no competition in the high end department so they can do what they want. Intel has competition and the 8700k is a far better deal than a 9900k if you absolutely must chose intel.

You know, I don't think that words "Intel" and "comeptition makes prices low" have something in common.

P.S. 500$ recommended => 500 euro recommended + 20% taxes....we get 600 euro CPU

RobcostyleI don't think that words "Intel" and "comeptition makes prices low" have something in common

Wrong. Since Ryzen take a look in the core count trend on the mainstream, then compare it from sandy bridge to kaby lake.

Good job intel, now you can milk those intel fanboys :P

kastriotGood job intel, now you can milk those intel fanboys :p

All companies "milk" their users if the company was designed to make minimal profit then it wouldn't survive long.

Robcostyle20% taxes....we get 600 euro CPU

Taxes aren't intel's fault, it's your country who set them. To be honest I can't wait to see the 2800x I wonder how It'll perform.

the54thvoid@las & @dwade

1440p gaming.... with some CPU's...

3 games at random (there were others). But the point is valid. Where is the 10% difference? This is for a 2700X of course, as it is the competitor for what's coming. But using the very similar core 8700k, you can get the picture.

Now, if you still want to argue about fps and how bad AMD is as a gaming chip, feel free. But you'll need to specify at max 1080p or 720p resolutions.







Here's BF1 at 720p



Really bad performance there.

But yes, overall, Intel is better but there's no credible way to say AMD is crap at gaming... That's some serious bullshit you're rubbing in your eyes.

Anyone can cherry pick. And GPU bottleneck btw. 2080 ti will crawl on the 2700x.
Let's take a look with an overclocked Titan V:


Zen2 has some serious catching up to do.

dwadeZen2 has some serious catching up to do.

It doesn't, as far as I'm concerned zen 1 was a success and started to 50-50 the market share, That's success. And besides intel may be reaching the limits of single threaded performance it hasn't made drastic performance boosts, whilst amd has started to pull closer to this limit.

dwadeAnyone can cherry pick. And GPU bottleneck btw. 2080 ti will crawl on the 2700x.
Let's take a look with an overclocked Titan V:


Zen2 has some serious catching up to do.

Can you source that for the masses, please? I don't read Japanese? Plus, it's handy you don't quote what resolution that is. It's so very common for people obfuscating facts to deliver as little useful information as possible. But please, feel free to continue being a misinformative little troll.

Guessing that a 5GHz 9900K won't game much better than a delidded 5GHz 8700K / 8086K. Though, 16MB cache vs 12MB cache.

the54thvoidPlus, it's handy you don't quote what resolution that is.

Maybe 144p in 2018?

the54thvoidCan you source that for the masses, please? I don't read Japanese? Plus, it's handy you don't quote what resolution that is. It's so very common for people obfuscating facts to deliver as little useful information as possible. But please, feel free to continue being a misinformative little troll.

Potato mode on 1 or 2 threaded games? No one will be using potato settings with a 1,200 smackaroo gpu unless they're dumb enough to turn RT on.

Ok, you got me, if they're dumb enough to buy turding, then they probably will turn on RT lol

FouquinDo you often play these games at resolutions lower than 1080p, the same such resolution that all three pages of games in that review were tested at? I must be missing something here, are people buying $500 CPUs and $700 GPUs just to run games such as CS:GO at 720p?

I strongly recommend you to download CS:GO first, or whatever esport game. I haven't seen such absurd comment in years.

Fouquin$500 CPUs and $700 GPUs just to run games such as CS:GO at 720p

efikkanYes, definitely.
HT mostly benefits synthetic benchmarks and certain server workloads. For gaming it usually hurts performance, especially in terms of latency and stutter. Paying ~$100 extra over 9700K just for HT is pretty wasteful, even for applications where HT is beneficial, since those workloads scale even better with even more cores.

Most of these trolls dont want for gaming, they just want to show off, so for them i9 9900 is better than the i7 9700 which is false regarding games or anything that requires a pure single threaded application.