Question Best Gaming CPU on Intel Side to Date

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
With what conditions? Intels best cpu is the 9900k, easily handles any threaded loads under any usage, pushing any gpu. So it's great for 4k gaming on AAA titles that came out yesterday and will come out tomorrow. If just looking for 1080p and some esports or fortnite or cs:go then that's a total waste of cash as there's no real world difference with an i5 8400.

Best is far too subjective, even money being not a concern.
 
Reactions: J_E_D_70

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
Depends. If all you are interested in is a benchmark score, the 9900k is the cpu to beat (at this point) but with Zen2 3rd gen AMD right around the corner, that might be short-lived.

In real world, cpu isn't that important as long as it can get min fps above the monitor refresh in the games you play. There's exactly no difference between a R5 1600 pulling 100fps and a 9900k pulling 200fps on a standard 60Hz monitor.
 

TerryLaze

Reputable
Basically anything from the i7-7700k and upwards runs games at the same speed at same clocks,so the 9900k is not the best it shares this title with other CPUs,the 9900k is the best though if you want other things as well,and I guess it is maybe easier to get higher overclocks on it but 4.5 to 5ghz is just 5% so is 5% difference enough for someone to call one CPU better then the other?
https://www.hardware.fr/articles/965-3/performances-jeux-3d.html
 

TerryLaze

Reputable
Depends. If all you are interested in is a benchmark score, the 9900k is the cpu to beat (at this point) but with Zen2 3rd gen AMD right around the corner, that might be short-lived.
How do you figure?The only thing we know is that AMD improved the cinebench r15 results to match an 9900k ,zen 1 already was within 10% of cinebench scores but a lot of games run 40-50% faster on intel.
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
No. They do not run 40-50% faster. Not unless you are doing something stupid like comparing FX to i9. And again, that's a benchmark. A paper number that should only be used to compare performance not gospel as to what's better or worse. And those benchmarks are not real world figures. They are used on clean OS that's not running all the other junk ppl use, like AV or other fps robbing processes and services. And they are run at stock values, not taking OC into consideration. It's far easier and cheaper to OC any Ryzen than OC a 9900k, a cpu requiring the best boards, larger than normal psu, multiple EPS, and an off the charts cpu cooler. I'd settle for missing that last 10% a benchmark claims.

I run CSGO at a solid 300fps. On an i7-3770K. Does it matter if I could get 400fps with a 9700k? That's a benchmark speed that has Zero bearing on the fact that I'm already far over any refresh of any monitor, so I will see Zero difference. If I had a 144Hz monitor and with a i9 it gets minimum fps of 150 and a comparable Ryzen gets 140 minimums, the Intel would be a better choice, but maximum fps is a useless number if both get over monitor refresh. Only minimum counts. Maximum fps, for all intents and purposes, doesn't mean squat in anything other than a benchmark.

In real world values, there's not a single person on the planet who could look at 2 games simultaneously and tell the difference between 140fps and 150fps. Most ppl can't tell the difference of any fps over @ 100. Only a benchmark will.
 
Last edited:

nobspls

Notable
Mar 14, 2018
876
6
1,165
82
.. There's exactly no difference between a R5 1600 pulling 100fps and a 9900k pulling 200fps on a standard 60Hz monitor.
What a bogus arbitrary standard? People don't get 9900Ks to run on a 60hz monitor. They are doing this for the high fps and every one counts. The sweet spot everyone knows and wants is the 144hz 1440p, and AMD always comes up short for that.
 

TerryLaze

Reputable
No. They do not run 40-50% faster.
CS:go is 50% faster and a lot of other games are 20-30% faster.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/page8.html

They are used on clean OS that's not running all the other junk ppl use, like AV or other fps robbing processes and services. And they are run at stock values, not taking OC into consideration.
There are plenty of posts in this very forum where people with even high core count systems close every program before playing a game...
Also this doesn't even matter,if you need to do other stuff while gaming at the same speed you get more cores,this doesn't impact the difference of performance at all.
The difference is still there either you run other stuff in the background or not.
I run CSGO at a solid 300fps. On an i7-3770K. Does it matter if I could get 400fps with a 9700k? That's a benchmark speed that has Zero bearing
...
...
...
In real world values, there's not a single person on the planet who could look at 2 games simultaneously and tell the difference between 140fps and 150fps. Most ppl can't tell the difference of any fps over @ 100. Only a benchmark will.
Yes it matters if you can run code 30-40-50% faster because GPUs become faster over time and the number of games with this kinds of differences increases.
Going forward with more powerful GPUs the difference will be much more then just 10FPS on average,it will come closer to the 50% for csgo and then it will be noticeable.
 
Reactions: nobspls

ASK THE COMMUNITY