- Joined
- Nov 26, 2012
- Messages
- 22 (0.01/day)
I'm considering getting a new CPU to upgrade my current setup, and that's an Intel 9700K (8C, no HT) paired with an RTX4080.
My 9700K is rock-solid stable and feels fast enough, even with singleplayer games, but perhaps it's time.
I will use the machine 24/7, mostly for office tools, light editing (videos, photos), and 4K multiplayer FPS gaming (BF, Isonzo) and single-player RPGs.
Priorities are low temps, low noise, increasing the current FPS lows when gaming, and having a very responsive machine overall.
After reading up on 9800XD, suddenly 265K looks great for my use case - despite the consensus.
According to TPU (for all data I'll mention here), 265K has a low idle power consumption of just 57W. My PC will be doing this most of the time - nothing. To compare, 9800X3D is at 78W at idle.
In gaming, 265K remains amazingly cool at just 49C, compared to 9800X3D that's somewhat higher at 60C. During full load, 265K is at 72C compared to 9800X3D at 86.
Intel seems to be decent in apps:
As for performance at 4K gaming, 9800x3 will get me 101 average FPS, while 265K will get me 98 FPS. The minimum frames on 9800X3D is 77 FPS, while on 265 I'll get 76 FPS, on average. That's 1 to 3 frames of difference.
I plan to use a faster RAM than TPU used to test, which will probably improve the performance a bit more compared to 9800X3D.
In summary, 265K is cheaper, runs cooler, sips power when idle, and should have enough oomph for 4K games.
I'm not thrilled about the potential lack of an upgrade path on Intel's platform, but other than that, what am I missing?
I'm not expecting much of a difference, but hoping for a pleasant surprise and I'm sure both CPUs have a chance of delivering. I'll likely wait a bit to see if there's a deal, but other than that I'm set on 265K.
My 9700K is rock-solid stable and feels fast enough, even with singleplayer games, but perhaps it's time.
I will use the machine 24/7, mostly for office tools, light editing (videos, photos), and 4K multiplayer FPS gaming (BF, Isonzo) and single-player RPGs.
Priorities are low temps, low noise, increasing the current FPS lows when gaming, and having a very responsive machine overall.
After reading up on 9800XD, suddenly 265K looks great for my use case - despite the consensus.
According to TPU (for all data I'll mention here), 265K has a low idle power consumption of just 57W. My PC will be doing this most of the time - nothing. To compare, 9800X3D is at 78W at idle.
In gaming, 265K remains amazingly cool at just 49C, compared to 9800X3D that's somewhat higher at 60C. During full load, 265K is at 72C compared to 9800X3D at 86.
Intel seems to be decent in apps:
As for performance at 4K gaming, 9800x3 will get me 101 average FPS, while 265K will get me 98 FPS. The minimum frames on 9800X3D is 77 FPS, while on 265 I'll get 76 FPS, on average. That's 1 to 3 frames of difference.
I plan to use a faster RAM than TPU used to test, which will probably improve the performance a bit more compared to 9800X3D.
In summary, 265K is cheaper, runs cooler, sips power when idle, and should have enough oomph for 4K games.
I'm not thrilled about the potential lack of an upgrade path on Intel's platform, but other than that, what am I missing?
I'm not expecting much of a difference, but hoping for a pleasant surprise and I'm sure both CPUs have a chance of delivering. I'll likely wait a bit to see if there's a deal, but other than that I'm set on 265K.
