[SOLVED] 9700k vs 8700k vs 8086k purely for 1440p 144hz gaming

[iKrloz]

HI, lemme start first with my specs:
i7 6700k 4.2 Oc'd
Asus STRIX z270e
16 GB Ram 3200Mhz Cas Latency 14
RTX 2080 Ti
Corsair AX860i PSU
Dell 1440p 144hz G-Sync
Use: Purely Gaming at 1440p 144hz

As the title says, I'd like to know which is the best Intel CPU to game at 1440 144hz since in recent review videos i've seen, the 8700k bottlenecks the rest of the system on newer games such as Assassins Creed Origins and Oddisey and Battelfield V when bechmarked at 1440p, meaning that they do really benefit from the extra physical cores from newer CPUs. I don't have really a budget limit, I am updrading from a 6700k and I want to add those 2/4 physical extra cores to take advantage of 2019 games, which most likey will use those physical cores, which is why Im wondering if the lack hyper threading on the 9700k would really make a difference at all in games, or if the 4 extra threads on a 8700k is better.

So in the end i guess I just want to know which would be better JUST for gaming, is worth mentoning that the 9900k is out of the question for me,

thanks in advace for your reply

 

[ladoming]

Honestly, if you don't have a budget, I'd just spring for the i9 9900k and future proof yourself for a long time coming. Not a huge price difference on newegg for $545 for the i9 9900k and $370 for the i7 8700k. Regardless though, all of those CPUs you listed and the i9 are 300+ series and you're on a 200 series mobo so you'd need to upgrade that.


EDIT: sorry, missed the part about the 9900k being out of the question, but all the cpus still pose a mobo problem*

 

[iKrloz]

Yes that is my only concern, with that said, I already have to buy a new mobo, that's why I dont want to go all the way to the 9900k because late 2019 Intel will release 10nm. Thats why I said that honestly I dont really see the 9900k as an option. What I really meant with "no budget" is basiclly that I would like to know if the extra threads on the 8700k really make a difference to the lack of hyperthreading on the 9700k while the latter has 2 more physical cores

Honestly, if you don't have a budget, I'd just spring for the i9 9900k and future proof yourself for a long time coming. Not a huge price difference on newegg for $545 for the i9 9900k and $370 for the i7 8700k. Regardless though, all of those CPUs you listed and the i9 are 300+ series and you're on a 200 series mobo so you'd need to upgrade that.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Every benchmark I've seen has shown the 8700k and 9700k within a few FPS of each other regardless of other considerations. Realistically, if the game is really well optimized for multithreading, then the 8700k should technically do better with it's twelve threads, but as you mentioned the actual physical cores tend to use memory resources better AND have slightly better IPC, very slightly.

In all honesty, I have a 6700k@4.6Ghz and have no problems with any game at any resolution. I do not however have a 2080 TI, so there could be some variables in that equation that don't correlate to my own system.

In reality, the single core performance of a 3rd Gen 3770k i7 is not far off from that of a brand new 9900k, so the main advantage of a newer CPU IS going to be the additional threads.

As you see here, between your 6700k, at the STOCK configuration, and the 9700k at the stock configuration, there is only a small difference in single core performance. Almost all of the performance advantage comes from multithreading and the 8 physical cores are obviously going to be better than four physical cores with four hyperthreads. That also means that the 8700k, which is generally substantially less expensive right now, with it's two additional physical cores and two additional hyperthreads, is also going to be substantially better in anything that is well optimized for threaded performance.

Anything that is not, isn't going to see much if any improvement.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-6700K-vs-Intel-i7-9700K-vs-Intel-i7-8700K/2565vs3335vs3098

Overall, there are few games where you are going to be CPU limited especially at 1440p with very high or ultra settings, on your 6700k. If you're playing at lower settings then you might run into problems feeding the graphics card enough frames or if you just have to squeeze out the most you can, then just go with the 9700k.

Personally, I think I'd wait, and AM in fact waiting, to see what the upcoming Zen2 based Ryzen processors (Or the next Intel platform, although that's a lot further out, but maybe worth waiting for) being in terms of IPC, because obviously there is little comparision in terms of multithreaded performance between them and Intel, it's just that the IPC per core is so much better on Intel that Ryzen is still a poor choice except where price is a factor or where an upgrade path is desired.

 

[Darkbreeze]

future proof yourself for a long time coming.

No such thing. Ever.

 

[The Sheriff]

Gamers Nexus did a pretty good review of the 8700K vs the 9700K: https://youtu.be/QuUwLuQGPj4
In gaming, it appeared that the 9700K was often a bit faster than the 8700K, but not by much.

 

[ladoming]

Yes that is my only concern, with that said, I already have to buy a new mobo, that's why I dont want to go all the way to the 9900k because late 2019 Intel will release 10nm. Thats why I said that honestly I dont really see the 9900k as an option. What I really meant with "no budget" is basiclly that I would like to know if the extra threads on the 8700k really make a difference to the lack of hyperthreading on the 9700k while the latter has 2 more physical cores

Honestly, if you don't have a budget, I'd just spring for the i9 9900k and future proof yourself for a long time coming. Not a huge price difference on newegg for $545 for the i9 9900k and $370 for the i7 8700k. Regardless though, all of those CPUs you listed and the i9 are 300+ series and you're on a 200 series mobo so you'd need to upgrade that.

ah yes, sorry I edited my response because I initially missed the no 9900k part, but from the benchmarks I've seen the 9700k seems to do better in some scenarios that benefit from actual cores, but if you're concerned about the new 10nm, I'd personally just go with the 8700k. I run an 8700k OC'ed to 4.7ghz all cores and a stock MSI Duke 1080ti and it runs everything great, Granted I play on 1080p but even super sampling games like AC Odyssey and Destiny 2 to 4k I can still average 50-60fps, sometimes more.

 

[ladoming]

future proof yourself for a long time coming.

No such thing. Ever.

LOL fair. though up until this year I was using an amd phenom 2 black quad core and a gtx 260 haha

 

[Darkbreeze]

Still, had you bought an FX-8350 instead, it STILL would not have been "future proof". In fact, two years from now we may look back at the 9900k and say what a weak CPU. Or it might still perform just about as good as whatever is out then. There is no future proof EXCEPT, to a limited degree, in the way that an upgrade path is provided by a specific platform much as AMD has and will support the AM4 socket through 2020. In THAT way, to a limited degree, you can future proof against not being able to easily install upgrades, but as far as "THIS CPU will future proof you through X number of years", not going to happen.

The demands of new graphics cards, games or applications could easily leapfrog existing hardware in as little as one year. It's happened before, although not for quite some time, but I can see it happening again under the right circumstances.

 

[boju]

If interested playing AC Ody, BF1 and BF5, ask the forums there what the cpu usage is like with a 2080/2080Ti at 1440p 144Hz on a 8700k. Search 9700k high cpu usage, there's a few posts reporting 100%. Curious to know if 8700k with HT aiding the primary core is preventing 100% or not. Or what's the experience like if/when 9700k does reach 100%.