I9 7900x even worth it?

[Dennis_4]

Im in a FB group about building PC’s. And they said that the i9 7900x isnt as good in gaming as the upcoming 8700k. Is that true, and Why is that?

I was thinking to get that CPU for hardcore gaming and streaming.

 

[R_1]

10 cores 20 threads, gaming will max 6 cores right now, streaming another couple. for the price no way
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-Intel-Core--i9-7900X/3647vs3936
is that worth 600 bucks to you? and that is the 7700k.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-vs-Intel-Core-i9-7900X/3937vs3936

 

[Maarsch]

From what little benchmarks I've seen the 8700k has faster, better single core performance.

When combining all the cores available the i9 (with 10 cores) outperforms the i7 (with 6 cores)

Thing is, what is going to use 10 cores at the same time? Now, modern games are getting better at using more cores, 4 isn't that unusual anymore where a few years ago 2 sufficed. I am not aware of a great deal of titles using more though. (tbh I don't know of any)
On top of that you stream, which means there's an encoding process running which very neatly takes a core to itself.
Which puts you at 5.
You have an entire cpu core to handle the OS and any browsing you do at the side, maybe decode your own stream to check quality.

For a price difference of €600 getting the extra 4 cores is . . . . a bit of a stretch for me.

Now, if you want to encode video on the side of streaming . . . . Or you are an amateur CFD enthusiast. Then the extra cores are worth it.

 

[Dennis_4]

But they also said that i9 is worse at gaming. In terms of What? Fps? Performance?

 

[Isokolon]

The i9 wasn't made for gaming.

For gaming you need a good single core performance as there are many calculations that depend on each other and can't be done simultaneously. So the most important factor is what each core can deliver.
For workstations that is usually different. They have a lot of stuff going on that can be done parallel hence the need for additional cores.

Think of it like cargo. There are two factors: how much cargo can be moved at once and how fast can it be moved. If you're in need of an organ transplant you won't care about how big the ship is and how many containers it can carry if it takes 20 days to reach your hospital. You need air cargo so you don't die.
It's similar with gaming. Since f.e. 20 calculations can't be done simultaneously but after another speed is more important than core count.
In workstation purposes where 20 calculations can be done simultaneously core count is more important than speed, because even when every single calculation takes longer, you can do 20 at once.

If you look at benchmarks the 7700k is barely slower than the 8700k, because it's clocked faster and next to no games can put the main load on more than 3 cores (they can use more of course, but it's the main threads that are determing how many FPS you will achieve)

In conclusion, get the i9 if you're doing a lot of video and productivity works that's heavy on the CPU. For gaming this makes actually little sense. It's like buying a truck because it got more horsepower than a convertible - you got the bragging rights to claim the raw power of you engine but will be outpaced on the streets anyway.
So yeah, less fps, more heat, more cost, no gains.

 

[Dennis_4]

Ok Thanks wont go for i9 then ?