i5 9600k vs Ryzen 7 2700x

[SotirMarius]

Hello,

Currently I am owning a i5 4590 and I am thinking of upgrading my CPU.
The GPU that I am using is a Gigabyte G1 GTX 1070. Right now my CPU is starting slowly but surely to bottleneck my GPU.
I used a lot of Intel CPU's and they never disappointed me. However lately it seems that AMD has recovered a lot of ground on the CPU race.
My question is the following:
Strictly for gaming is it worth it to go for the 9600k instead of the 2700x?Mainly I will play games and sometimes I will record in-game videos and use it for rendering (please take in account that this will not happen that often)

The pricing difference between them is really small 5-10 USD (i5<R7)

Thank you!

 

[yeti_yeti]

Purely for gaming, the 9600k is very hard to beat but 2700x is no slouch either. 2700x will likely come out slightly cheaper, since you can put it in a lower end b450 mobo and it comes with a cooler. If you will be doing high-refresh rate gaming I'd go 9600k, otherwise 2700x seems like a better choice.

 

[feelinfroggy777]

The 9600k gets about 5% better fps in games than the 2700x. But the 2600 is about 2% slower than the 2700x. While the 2600 is half the price of the 9600k and comes with a decent stock cooler. I dont know about you, but I cant see the difference between 7% fps but my wallet can feel the difference in half the cost. If you are wanting the record and render, the 2600 will perform better with the extra threads.

For the use case you described, I would not look at the 2700x. Your use case wont be able to take advantage of the 16 threads of the 2700x. The 2600 will perform just fine and will be a lot cheaper. Intel makes great gaming chips, but the performance gap is narrow with AMD now and Intel's pricing makes it just about impossible to recommend.

 

[SotirMarius]

Purely for gaming, the 9600k is very hard to beat but 2700x is no slouch either. 2700x will likely come out slightly cheaper, since you can put it in a lower end b450 mobo and it comes with a cooler. If you will be doing high-refresh rate gaming I'd go 9600k, otherwise 2700x seems like a better choice.

Thanks for the reply!
I forgot to specify this but I am using a 144 Hz 1080p Monitor, but you are making a really good point.

 

[SotirMarius]

The 9600k gets about 5% better fps in games than the 2700x. But the 2600 is about 2% slower than the 2700x. While the 2600 is half the price of the 9600k and comes with a decent stock cooler. I dont know about you, but I cant see the difference between 7% fps but my wallet can feel the difference in half the cost. If you are wanting the record and render, the 2600 will perform better with the extra threads.

For the use case you described, I would not look at the 2700x. Your use case wont be able to take advantage of the 16 threads of the 2700x. The 2600 will perform just fine and will be a lot cheaper. Intel makes great gaming chips, but the performance gap is narrow with AMD now and Intel's pricing makes it just about impossible to recommend.

Thanks for the detailed response! You are making a really good point here!
I agree with you, my main goal is to upgrade my pc and still be reliable for the next 2-5 years (5 years is a very optimistically period). Although my GPU most probably will be outdated in 2,3 years max.
Yeti_yeti had a really good point which I did not took in consideration, I am using a gaming monitor 144hz 1080p (the resolution should not force the GPU that hard) but I am aiming for more fps.
Also related to my budget, I can say that the budget is not a problem, my wallet can handle the extra cash.

 

[yeti_yeti]

If you have the money to spend and you want a high-end system that will last you a long time, why not go all out and a get 9900k? Not going to be cheap but you are getting very strong single-core speed and a monstrous multi-core throughput.

 

[SotirMarius]

If you have the money to spend and you want a high-end system that will last you a long time, why not go all out and a get 9900k? Not going to be cheap but you are getting very strong single-core speed and a monstrous multi-core throughput.

I was thinking about it, but in my country the 9900k is overly priced as hell. However I was thinking of buying a 9700k as is it 60 USD more expensive than the 9600k or I can easily buy 8700k because it's the same price as a 9600k. But I was thinking of buying the 9700k because is the a new gen.

 

[feelinfroggy777]

If you have the money to spend and you want a high-end system that will last you a long time, why not go all out and a get 9900k? Not going to be cheap but you are getting very strong single-core speed and a monstrous multi-core throughput.

I was thinking about it, but in my country the 9900k is overly priced as hell. However I was thinking of buying a 9700k as is it 60 USD more expensive than the 9600k or I can easily buy 8700k because it's the same price as a 9600k. But I was thinking of buying the 9700k because is the a new gen.

The 9700k is not really next gen. While it is marketed as a 9th gen core i7, there is very little to no difference in the CPU architecture vs the 8700k. The 9700k has a 200mhz clock speed bump and will have slightly better thermals due to solder TIM. The 8700k is only a 6 core part, the SMT will give it the edge in multi threaded workloads. Below are 9700k benchmarks, and at stock speeds the 9700k averages less than 2% more fps over the 8700k. The only reason it has a 2% advantage is because it has higher base/turbo clocks.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_9700K/13.html

Dont get caught up in the 9th gen hype, for gaming, it really does nothing for gaming performance.