So will a 9600K suffice for 1440p @144Hz or do I really need a 9700K ?

[Davv]

So I currently got a new GPU the GTX 1080 but I'm still on my old 2500K. I've noticed some newer games still not hitting that 144 fps. Would a 9600K ($260) suffice or do I really need to get the 9700K ($400) ? That's a lot of money just for a CPU.

 

[theonerm2]

It depends on how intense the games you play are on the CPU. You may well be hitting limits of your GTX 1080 as well though. Really for 1440p 144hz ultra settings you want a GTX 1080 ti or RTX 2080. For some games not even the RTX 2080 ti is enough to get you there to 144hz on ultra. A better CPU would help get you higher fps and higher minimums but if you don't have enough GPU power it won't matter how much CPU you have you still won't hit that magic 144.

 

[atomicWAR]

the 9600K will suffice but if it were me I'd likely get the 9700K just for the sake of longevity. Like you I am on a sandy bridge-e CPU with GTX 1080s. AS a whole the FPS are nearly the same though you may get more life out of a 8c CPU for gaming with the core counts dropping in price. We are already seeing 6C CPUs being the recommended spec on new game so....

 

[captaincharisma]

i too would try for the 8700K or 9700K for future proofing. there is not much of a performance difference between the 8th and 9th gen CPU's

 

[QwerkyPengwen]

on top of what theonerm2 said I will help clarify some things.

Ultra settings is purely a benchmark thing and not a real world thing, since there a some settings that when turned to ultra do absolutely nothing to the visuals that you can perceive without taking high rez screen shots and looking at them side by side.

These settings I speak of tend to not look any better than when on High preset, but they WILL drop your fps dramatically.

Also, saying what you said about the 9600K "sufficing" is WAY out there. It's MORE than enough CPU to handle the latest titles.

You would do just fine with an overclocked 6700K (I should know, cuz that's what I currently have) and then for the resolution at higher FPS you want a 1080ti or 2080 like the above poster said.

If you go with the used market, then a 1080ti is best since it'll save you money.
But if buying new, I would still get the 1080ti since there's been some serious issues with the 20 series being bad and dying really fast and needing to be RMA'd.
I would wait until Nvidia and the AIB's get their stuff in check and fix the issues before buying. But it's up to you.

Honestly, the extra two cores doesn't justify the extra $140 for the 9700K.
Since neither is hyperthreaded, you are literally paying another $140 for only 2 more cores. Not worth it.
So if you're dead set on 9th gen and one of those two CPU's then get the 9600K.

So to sum it up:
9600K + GTX 1080ti/2080

Play games at high to very high preset with average 100fps at 1440p.
again like stated above, depends on the games.
Some of the newest AAA titles are extremely hard to run at really high graphic settings and 1440p with high FPS.

Other AAA titles are well optimized and can have settings nearly maxed and will run near or even above 144fps at 1440p.

In my experience, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, AC: Origins/Oddyssey, The Division, and GRW are really hard to maintain over 100fps at high/very high presets.

Fiddling with graphic settings to turn down unimportant graphical features in order to keep others higher in order to get best quality with high fps is what you will obviously need to do and if you've been a PC gamer for a while, chances are you already do this just like the rest of us.

But getting an average 100fps in some of these titles is already awesome and with a G-Sync monitor is the smoothest experience ever.

If you have some more detailed questions about some minute things feel free to ask and I will do my best to provide you with answers based on either my own experiences, or with knowledge shared by the community.

 

[Davv]

It depends on how intense the games you play are on the CPU. You may well be hitting limits of your GTX 1080 as well though. Really for 1440p 144hz ultra settings you want a GTX 1080 ti or RTX 2080. For some games not even the RTX 2080 ti is enough to get you there to 144hz on ultra. A better CPU would help get you higher fps and higher minimums but if you don't have enough GPU power it won't matter how much CPU you have you still won't hit that magic 144.

I don't agree, I've read stuff coming from PC elitist saying that a GTX 1080 is a top candidate for 1440p @144. I'm sure there will be games that it won't be enough because their not optimized very good. But $500 for a GPU is enough. Plus I don't mind playing my games at High settings only, most of the time you can't tell the diff anyway.

 

[Davv]

on top of what theonerm2 said I will help clarify some things.

Ultra settings is purely a benchmark thing and not a real world thing, since there a some settings that when turned to ultra do absolutely nothing to the visuals that you can perceive without taking high rez screen shots and looking at them side by side.

These settings I speak of tend to not look any better than when on High preset, but they WILL drop your fps dramatically.

Also, saying what you said about the 9600K "sufficing" is WAY out there. It's MORE than enough CPU to handle the latest titles.

You would do just fine with an overclocked 6700K (I should know, cuz that's what I currently have) and then for the resolution at higher FPS you want a 1080ti or 2080 like the above poster said.

If you go with the used market, then a 1080ti is best since it'll save you money.
But if buying new, I would still get the 1080ti since there's been some serious issues with the 20 series being bad and dying really fast and needing to be RMA'd.
I would wait until Nvidia and the AIB's get their stuff in check and fix the issues before buying. But it's up to you.

Honestly, the extra two cores doesn't justify the extra $140 for the 9700K.
Since neither is hyperthreaded, you are literally paying another $140 for only 2 more cores. Not worth it.
So if you're dead set on 9th gen and one of those two CPU's then get the 9600K.

So to sum it up:
9600K + GTX 1080ti/2080

Play games at high to very high preset with average 100fps at 1440p.
again like stated above, depends on the games.
Some of the newest AAA titles are extremely hard to run at really high graphic settings and 1440p with high FPS.

Other AAA titles are well optimized and can have settings nearly maxed and will run near or even above 144fps at 1440p.

In my experience, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, AC: Origins/Oddyssey, The Division, and GRW are really hard to maintain over 100fps at high/very high presets.

Fiddling with graphic settings to turn down unimportant graphical features in order to keep others higher in order to get best quality with high fps is what you will obviously need to do and if you've been a PC gamer for a while, chances are you already do this just like the rest of us.

But getting an average 100fps in some of these titles is already awesome and with a G-Sync monitor is the smoothest experience ever.

If you have some more detailed questions about some minute things feel free to ask and I will do my best to provide you with answers based on either my own experiences, or with knowledge shared by the community.

I appreciate you guys telling me about a GPU upgrades but I did not ask about GPU upgrades, especially when I said in my original post I just bought a GTX 1080.
I've watched some video's and comparing the 9600k vs 9700k and the difference in fps is very minimal for gaming only. I don't use the PC for anything else. The only thing is though I don't upgrade often and the 9700K would last me longer.

 

[theonerm2]

You may need to lower the settings further than that in some games. But yeah. If you mess with the settings enough you can do decent with a GTX 1080. I know that. I've tested a GTX 1080. In fact I had a GTX 1080 for a long time. Newer titles are needing more GPU power though. The GTX 1080 was kind of an in-between card. It was too much for 1440p 60hz but not quite enough for 4K 60hz. I still think it's overkill for 1440p 60hz but not by as much as it used to be.

 

[QwerkyPengwen]

sorry. I must've misread something.

But as it stands, those extra 2 cores aren't going to give you the longevity you think they are.

What will give you longevity is to go with an 8700K so that you have hyper threading.

But for my personal pick of the two you are looking at, my opinion still stands that it's not worth the extra cost for those 2 cores.
Because like I said, my 6700K is 4 cores with 8 threads and is holding up just fine with today's latest titles.

And as time goes on, more and more games are being developed to take advantage of hyper threading.

So no matter which way you slice it, anything but the 9900K is just not worth it for "longevity"
Which is why my self and others are recommending the 8700K instead. Because even though it costs almost the same as the 9700K and has two less cores, it has hyper threading and that is much better to have than 2 more cores with single threaded performance.

You can of course wait a little bit to see what others here might have to say about this and I would encourage that in order to get other people's opinions.

 

[Davv]

Thanks