[SOLVED] I7 9700k or ryzen 3700x

kostask5

Reputable
Dec 10, 2014
180
7
4,585
0
So guys should i buy a ryzen 3700x with the x570 gigabyte elite or i7 9700k with a z390 mobo while keeping amds stock cooler. I will be soon upgrading to an rtx 2070 super i will mostly use the pc for gaming at 1080p 144hz and rarely 4k as well as game art and animation stuff.i want the pc to last me as many years as possible without at least changing mobo and cpu.price is similar for both combos.so what would be the better choice in the long run?
 

VADemon

Honorable
Jul 6, 2014
29
6
10,545
4
For future-proofing/longevity: the 3700x. I'd recommend to save on the mainboard and get a cheaper X470 (due to chipset and PCIe4), but it's still an open question with the compatibility of the 16-core Ryzen. The current plan is to upgrade the CPU much later, without the need to buy a new mainboard. This will save $$$ in future.

If the games get more demanding in the following years will the 3700x be alright fpr them or will it fall behind a lot from the i7?
Now let's go back to early 2017. Ryzens are considered trash across the board for the low clock speeds and only to some extent respected for their multithreading performance. "i7 7700K is the only choice for gamers!" Yes, it did clearly outperform the Ryzen counterparts in games. With top-end GPUs. Two years later, where is it now? The gaming king suddenly starts losing to it's older brother, the i7 9700K (the numbers I checked right now) by up to 10% in games.
These 10 percent loss are recorded on a system with no background activity. No browser, no Twitch streams. Give it any more load and it will lose more to the i7 9700K.
The latter however will stay relevant for much longer. Still, the 3700X has extra threads, upgradability on its side and fewer security patches to deal with (those little annoyances will become important much, much later).

Upgradability and its multithreading power will become relevant near end of its time. The small FPS deficit now will serve you better in the long run.

I'm still pessimistic about raytracing becoming something worthwhile for this or next generation of GPUs. But hey, that's part of your enthusiasm :) How could we be enthusiasts without it?
---
PS: Good side-by-side comparison by PCGN: https://www.pcgamesn.com/control/nvidia-rtx-dlss-ray-tracing-performance-benchmarks
Developers are good at "faking" raytracing. They ought to, it's an optimisation. And despite the insane amount of marketing, the reception of RTX has been luke warm - it reminds me of PhysX that was acquired by nVidia and went under because half the market at the time didn't have access to the proprietary technology. Nonetheless, raytracing is coming it's just me doubting whether the time has already come. VR's yet another attempt has yet again lost momentum.
 
Reactions: kostask5

Sipan9000

Reputable
Aug 10, 2015
96
15
4,565
5
Well you're looking at a difference of around 5% in gaming performance with the 9700k being better at that but you'll be doing animation which the ryzen 7 3700x is going to blow the 9700k away with. 3700x all the way, it's just too good of a deal for what it offers compared to a 9700k.

Also if I were you I'd check out some benchmarks for games you'll be playing that compare the rx 5700xt & 2070 super because the 5700xt is $100 less & offers almost the same performance minus rtx which you cant expect any reasonably good fps at 4k & still about halves your fps @ 1080p.
 

kostask5

Reputable
Dec 10, 2014
180
7
4,585
0
Well you're looking at a difference of around 5% in gaming performance with the 9700k being better at that but you'll be doing animation which the ryzen 7 3700x is going to blow the 9700k away with. 3700x all the way, it's just too good of a deal for what it offers compared to a 9700k.

Also if I were you I'd check out some benchmarks for games you'll be playing that compare the rx 5700xt & 2070 super because the 5700xt is $100 less & offers almost the same performance minus rtx which you cant expect any reasonably good fps at 4k & still about halves your fps @ 1080p.
If the games get more demanding in the following years will the 3700x be alright fpr them or will it fall behind a lot from the i7?i know i loose some value but i will go with the 2070 super as i want to check this new rtx feature maybe it will be more optimized in future games
 
Given the goal of 144 Hz refresh/1080P gaming, the 9700K will have an edge...for now. (You will have to review benchmark comparisons using your GPU in your games at your chosen res to see how big a gap, if any , will exist. (Naturally , at 4k, there is no gap at all...)

Will it be 'overtaken' by the 3700X's extra SMT threads in 1,2 or even 4 years time? Perhaps. Nobody can answer that for certain this years ahead of time, although the FX9350 fan's common answer was yes, 6-7 years ago when the same questions were asked...
 

kostask5

Reputable
Dec 10, 2014
180
7
4,585
0
I see thnx for your help guys.i will still propably go for ryzen 3700x as its better for multitasking and propably for animation apps that i need just hoping its temps will be ok cause i have seen some pretty high ones
 

VADemon

Honorable
Jul 6, 2014
29
6
10,545
4
For future-proofing/longevity: the 3700x. I'd recommend to save on the mainboard and get a cheaper X470 (due to chipset and PCIe4), but it's still an open question with the compatibility of the 16-core Ryzen. The current plan is to upgrade the CPU much later, without the need to buy a new mainboard. This will save $$$ in future.

If the games get more demanding in the following years will the 3700x be alright fpr them or will it fall behind a lot from the i7?
Now let's go back to early 2017. Ryzens are considered trash across the board for the low clock speeds and only to some extent respected for their multithreading performance. "i7 7700K is the only choice for gamers!" Yes, it did clearly outperform the Ryzen counterparts in games. With top-end GPUs. Two years later, where is it now? The gaming king suddenly starts losing to it's older brother, the i7 9700K (the numbers I checked right now) by up to 10% in games.
These 10 percent loss are recorded on a system with no background activity. No browser, no Twitch streams. Give it any more load and it will lose more to the i7 9700K.
The latter however will stay relevant for much longer. Still, the 3700X has extra threads, upgradability on its side and fewer security patches to deal with (those little annoyances will become important much, much later).

Upgradability and its multithreading power will become relevant near end of its time. The small FPS deficit now will serve you better in the long run.

I'm still pessimistic about raytracing becoming something worthwhile for this or next generation of GPUs. But hey, that's part of your enthusiasm :) How could we be enthusiasts without it?
---
PS: Good side-by-side comparison by PCGN: https://www.pcgamesn.com/control/nvidia-rtx-dlss-ray-tracing-performance-benchmarks
Developers are good at "faking" raytracing. They ought to, it's an optimisation. And despite the insane amount of marketing, the reception of RTX has been luke warm - it reminds me of PhysX that was acquired by nVidia and went under because half the market at the time didn't have access to the proprietary technology. Nonetheless, raytracing is coming it's just me doubting whether the time has already come. VR's yet another attempt has yet again lost momentum.
 
Reactions: kostask5

kostask5

Reputable
Dec 10, 2014
180
7
4,585
0
Thanks for all the information that was really helpful.So i decided ill give the extra money and get the x 570 and 3700x so that i can upgrade after 5-6 years and i will go for the rtx 2070 super even tho i will propably lose a lot of value compared to 5700xt hoping that rtx will be better optimized in the future.Oh and one last thing im kinda scared of the temps i see online for the 3700x should i get an aftermarket aircooler immediately or see how it performs with stock one first?
 
If you want to save a bit of money, Ryzen 3600/3600x will do also just fine for pure gaming rig. If you can afford 3700/3700x, then go for this.

As for Intel procs, there is not a single good enough reason to buy Intel processors. Not that the processors are bad, but they all are simply the worse deals
 

kostask5

Reputable
Dec 10, 2014
180
7
4,585
0
Just to make it clear: The Ryzen 3000-series will be the last compatible CPUs. You can only upgrade to the 12/16-core parts later, not the next generation.
Oh i see i thought that they would suppport another gen anyway my other option was msi tomahawk max but i decided to go for the gigabyte elite for the better vrm and futures like pcie 4 and in case i want to upgrade to a stronger cpu like a 3950x after some years.Will this system last me at least 5 years?With 3700x and 2070 super?
 

VADemon

Honorable
Jul 6, 2014
29
6
10,545
4
@kostask5 5 Years? Definitely. The platform you build on (motherboard) will last you longer. But you'll need to upgrade the GPU along the way.

Here's my story: Prebuilt i5-2400, 4GB RAM, GTX570 in 2011. By 2015 the GPU was noticably weak, 2016-2017 it was only good for older games or all minimum 1080p (PUBG at 25-50FPS). The CPU was still doing fine for games-only, but Battlefield 1 (2016) was the last straw: 100% on CPU load.
The 8-cores will last you nearly a decade. And you still have the CPU upgrade option. There're still people who have once built a 4-core beast (Core2Quad, first and second series of the Core i7-line) and still use their systems - but have since descended from games to browsing and office). This is your build too. You are building for the future.
 
Reactions: kostask5

kostask5

Reputable
Dec 10, 2014
180
7
4,585
0
@kostask5 5 Years? Definitely. The platform you build on (motherboard) will last you longer. But you'll need to upgrade the GPU along the way.

Here's my story: Prebuilt i5-2400, 4GB RAM, GTX570 in 2011. By 2015 the GPU was noticably weak, 2016-2017 it was only good for older games or all minimum 1080p (PUBG at 25-50FPS). The CPU was still doing fine for games-only, but Battlefield 1 (2016) was the last straw: 100% on CPU load.
The 8-cores will last you nearly a decade. And you still have the CPU upgrade option. There're still people who have once built a 4-core beast (Core2Quad, first and second series of the Core i7-line) and still use their systems - but have since descended from games to browsing and office). This is your build too. You are building for the future.
Thats very good news to me thanks for all the help man.My only concerns now are if rtx 2070 super will hold enough to justify its price or i should get an rtx 2060 super and upgrade sooner and if the stock cooler will be enough for the 3700x
 

VADemon

Honorable
Jul 6, 2014
29
6
10,545
4
The stock cooler will be "okay" to start with. I had been sitting on stock cooler with 1700 for a while (now I have 2700X's stock cooler from my friend :D) Huge recommendation: undervolt. It is as simple as to lower the CPU offset voltage by some value and then do stability testing. Cooler CPU, even less power consumption, potentially higher boost clocks as a result. (-50mV or -0.050V should work

No idea on 2060Super vs 2070Super. Someone needs to do research on recent generations and developments to find out whether the sweet spot is to upgrade slightly more often or less often. I'd say: you pick one - either RTX or low price (2070S <-> 2060S)
 
Reactions: kostask5

kostask5

Reputable
Dec 10, 2014
180
7
4,585
0
The stock cooler will be "okay" to start with. I had been sitting on stock cooler with 1700 for a while (now I have 2700X's stock cooler from my friend :D) Huge recommendation: undervolt. It is as simple as to lower the CPU offset voltage by some value and then do stability testing. Cooler CPU, even less power consumption, potentially higher boost clocks as a result. (-50mV or -0.050V should work

No idea on 2060Super vs 2070Super. Someone needs to do research on recent generations and developments to find out whether the sweet spot is to upgrade slightly more often or less often. I'd say: you pick one - either RTX or low price (2070S <-> 2060S)
Is undervolting safe? Ive never changed cpu settings before as i always had locked intel cpus.i guess it will not be that hard tho and if it gives better performane i will certainly do it.U have to change it from bios cpu settings right? Also do i have to change anything else to get the best performance from this cpu or just the volts?Also should i enable that pbo option? For the gpu i guess i will go for 2070 super cause i would like to play games like cyberpunk at 4k
 
Last edited:

VADemon

Honorable
Jul 6, 2014
29
6
10,545
4
@kostask5 Undervolting is safe, the worst that can happen it will be unstable or not boot. But you aren't required to do it, it's a free extra - the low hanging fruit to get. Generally, changing settings in BIOS is preferred.
PBO is the extra boost on top of boost. If your CPU is not constrained by certain factors (power and temperature being one of them) then it will boost higher.
Undervolting can of course be applied to the GPU too - until you decide to overclock. Cooler and quieter, again better turbo possible.
You can undervolt regardless of CPU, you can only be limited by your BIOS not exposing this setting.

Again, going back to my i5 2400 with stock cooler: it would hit 3100MHz (base) and 70°C+ under heavy load and get really loud. I ran like this for years because I didn't know any better myself. Then I read about undervolting and experimented with it. -180mV offset on CPU = constant +100MHz as turbo (running at 3200MHz all time now), lower temperatures and SILENT stock cooler. Not even under load was the fan spinning up like it did before and became indistinguishable from rest of the system (GPU remained the loudest component).
 
Reactions: kostask5

kostask5

Reputable
Dec 10, 2014
180
7
4,585
0
@kostask5 Undervolting is safe, the worst that can happen it will be unstable or not boot. But you aren't required to do it, it's a free extra - the low hanging fruit to get. Generally, changing settings in BIOS is preferred.
PBO is the extra boost on top of boost. If your CPU is not constrained by certain factors (power and temperature being one of them) then it will boost higher.
Undervolting can of course be applied to the GPU too - until you decide to overclock. Cooler and quieter, again better turbo possible.
You can undervolt regardless of CPU, you can only be limited by your BIOS not exposing this setting.

Again, going back to my i5 2400 with stock cooler: it would hit 3100MHz (base) and 70°C+ under heavy load and get really loud. I ran like this for years because I didn't know any better myself. Then I read about undervolting and experimented with it. -180mV offset on CPU = constant +100MHz as turbo (running at 3200MHz all time now), lower temperatures and SILENT stock cooler. Not even under load was the fan spinning up like it did before and became indistinguishable from rest of the system (GPU remained the loudest component).
Thanks for telling me i had never heard about undervolting before.But why dont they ship the cpus with lower volts from the beginning and we have to do it manually? Its kinda wierd.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts