Question I7 9700K or I9 9900k

Samduhman

Reputable
Nov 21, 2016
17
0
4,510
0
I'm going to Microcenter today to get a new processor for my Z370 MB.

Is the I9 9900k worth it for gaming purposes?

9700k is 249.99 (I can use the same coolermaster 212 evo heat sink I'm currently using with my 8400 cpu

9900k is 369.99 plus the price of a new heat sink (I don't know which one but I guess around $50?)

thanks
 
Sep 23, 2020
442
109
370
4
I'd say the 9900k will last you a bit longer than the 9700k performance wise regarding future software and games.
Combined with a 360MM AIO (corsair h150i?) if your case has the support for one, as 9900k runs hot
 
That’s tough. If buying with the aim of not upgrading again for several years the going from a 6 core/thread cpu to an 8 core/thread cpu doesn’t seem worth it although it will be better for gaming assuming your gpu has the power to utilise the extra cpu performance. The 9900k is only slightly better for gaming than the 9700k but for long term going to a 8 core 16 thread cpu seems a much more worthwhile upgrade over your 6 core 6 threads you have now.

I am assuming your Z370 motherboard has good enough vrm’s to run the 9900k properly.
 

Samduhman

Reputable
Nov 21, 2016
17
0
4,510
0
Ya I know its a tough one and I don't really want to invest in a full upgrade.. That would be what around $700+ and then I wouldn't know what to upgrade to?

My MSI Motherboard

If someone wants to cobble something together that would be a full CPU/MB/RAM/heatsink I'd definately consider it. Im currently running an i5 8400
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
The 9900k is the better option as far as longetivity goes, it'll be more useful for more things for longer.

Assuming that Z370 can handle it, of which not many realistically have either the VRM's or power delivery system. If it's not the top shelf motherboard, you are stuck with the 9700k.
 

Phaaze88

Champion
Ambassador
I looked around for like 10 mins, and all I could find were userbenchmark results with that board + 9900K...
That doesn't mean jack though, because UBM is too short and doesn't represent everyday use.
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Hexa to octa core is a decent step up, the IPC increases and clock speeds are a minor bonus.

For any quad thread game, gains will be minimal, so CSGO you'll get a few more possible fps. Where you'll see major gains is in games that use more than 4 threads, such as GTA V. Fps goes up, cpu usage goes down and possibly goes down from a choking 100% to something a lot more manageable.

Games like Skyrim or Fallout that can be modded will handle far more mods, more easily, including the more complicated stuff such as enb's which soak up a thread by themselves. Online multi-player games will also benefit, Ai can be brutal to a quad/hexa core cpu with enough players or npc's.
 
The 9700K was surprisingly competitive with the 9900K in pretty much all gaming-only benchmarks when the two CPUs hit the market and widespread comparisons ensued......
No surprise to me after seeing the passmark results for both. It's like how the i5-2500k was almost as fast as the i7-2600k. History just repeats if you've seen enough of it...I understand now why vampires get bored with immortality...lol...
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
I understand now why vampires get bored with immortality...lol...
LOL. Yeah. Same skylake cpu, over and over..

No surprise the 2 cpus ran pretty close. When those were reviewed most all of the standard series of games were used in the benches. Some of which are getting long in the tooth to say the least. But they all use 8 threads or less, so the cpu results would have been close.

They are also single player. So you really don't get to see the advantages of the thread counts.

Even the youtube videos of fortnite, pubg, etc are still only 8 threads and not all that dependent on single thread strength like CSGO (definite win for the 9900k)

If you really want to see the difference it makes, you need to get into something like Starwars The Old Republic, and get into a 24man World Boss fight. My old 3770k at 4.6GHz locked was getting 5-10fps, simply due to the overwhelming amounts of player Ai, spell physX affects etc. My 3700x pulls 90+ fps. Took the unplayable and made it very playable.
 
Reactions: SamirD
If you really want to see the difference it makes, you need to get into something like Starwars The Old Republic, and get into a 24man World Boss fight. My old 3770k at 4.6GHz locked was getting 5-10fps, simply due to the overwhelming amounts of player Ai, spell physX affects etc. My 3700x pulls 90+ fps. Took the unplayable and made it very playable.
Very interesting. I have no interest in games on the pc as I was gaming on my atari 2600 and c64 when gaming wasn't common and was done with gaming by the time I had my first 286 that was lame compared to the c64. But I am intrigued by the fact that you actually need more cores when there's simply more players--do these games collectively use all the cores of everyone's system for computing power? I would think that each player's setup would basically just relay what to draw to the game server and other players?
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Imagine all your information. What your character looks like, what they are doing, where they are looking, what they are wearing, everything that makes your character, your character. Take all that info and ship it to the other pc, but simultaneously get returned data on positioning, field of view, point of view, interactions, and do all that for 7 other players.

In the more complex graphical, more complex choice (not the same 3 terrorist models in csgo), more item type games, the amount of data passed back and forth can be staggering. And then start a fire-fight and all the bullets have to be accounted for, visible to all 8 players simultaneously at differing vectors, angles of view etc.

All that extra info, plus whatever you are doing with the mouse, cursor, keyboard etc means you'll need more threads/cores to split up the workload so that lag doesn't create a monster. If you want things to happen simultaneously, like your buddy shooting the guy about to stab you in the back, and he dies, then that's going to need to be processed over multiple threads. Waiting on single threads means dude actually got to stab you in your screen, but died first on your buddy's, due to event timer differences, lag.
 
Imagine all your information. What your character looks like, what they are doing, where they are looking, what they are wearing, everything that makes your character, your character. Take all that info and ship it to the other pc, but simultaneously get returned data on positioning, field of view, point of view, interactions, and do all that for 7 other players.

In the more complex graphical, more complex choice (not the same 3 terrorist models in csgo), more item type games, the amount of data passed back and forth can be staggering. And then start a fire-fight and all the bullets have to be accounted for, visible to all 8 players simultaneously at differing vectors, angles of view etc.

All that extra info, plus whatever you are doing with the mouse, cursor, keyboard etc means you'll need more threads/cores to split up the workload so that lag doesn't create a monster. If you want things to happen simultaneously, like your buddy shooting the guy about to stab you in the back, and he dies, then that's going to need to be processed over multiple threads. Waiting on single threads means dude actually got to stab you in your screen, but died first on your buddy's, due to event timer differences, lag.
I get what you're saying, but from a computing standpoint it doesn't make sense because computers are very powerful at dealing with data like this.

I mean, this is analogous to saying you need to have a 16 core computer to transfer 16 files to the internet because otherwise each file will transfer slower. Now, in real life we know that it really does get slower, but that's because all the upload bandwidth is getting used. But gaming sync doesn't seem to be dependent on bandwidth because then only the fastest Internet would work to be a winner, which is not the case.

I always thought the game servers played a big part in managing all the data and simply sent to each individual client only what was needed for each individual client and not the whole thing, as that's the role of the game server. Has the line between client and server blurred? I mean it would make financial sense for the gaming publishers to make the clients do more of the work so they don't have to upgrade servers, but I would think people would have caught onto that trick.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY