Worth to wait for 10-nm CPUs?

[miha2]

Hi people. Just as the title says, is it really worth to wait for the next-gen (10-nm) CPU?

I'm upgrading my rig towards BFV, but originally wanted to wait until the 10-nm CPU. Not much news have been so far about it, such as how powerful it will be or how many cores it'll have or what speed it'll run at (the best value for the buck; 8700K in my opinion is the example nowadays). Or how much it'll cost. Will it be twice (or... 1.4x? I don't think so) times as powerful as the 9900K? My 4690K can barely give me 40 fps in BF1, and it's not GPU: I have AMD R9 290, so in theory, I should have no less than 84 fps on average, with a good CPU. But I have 40-ish. Well, 40-45-50ish, to be more precise. FPS jumps in these limits most of the time. If I turn the camera really fast, it may drop to 25, but... Not less than that. So far, at least. And that is with the CPU (i5 4690K) being overclocked to 4.3GHz. With stock settings, I had... a lot less, like, it would drop to 18, or even 10 fps, when I see the enemy. So, I understand that alongside the GPU, which I'm getting soon, I need a good CPU as well.

I mean, I can play on High for now, for about a year, or even medium settings (less preferable, but will survive), but... is it worth to wait for the 10-nm CPU? I understand it won't double my fps, but I don't really need it to be doubled. I just want to have a smooth gameplay. Preferably on 1440p, but I can still enjoy it on Full HD.

Anyways, if I will be able to play BFV on High, I will. But I have doubts I will have a decent fps, even with RTX 2080, even on FHD. The CPU will be the bottleneck in my config.

If buy the CPU now, the next question is which CPU to take? 9900K is too expensive (Wikipedia says the price is $488, but for 8086K it says $425, but on Newegg or else, it costs $440, so I would expect the price for the 9900K to be $500-ish. It costs, however, $580). 8086K? If it was for $400, I'd buy that. 8700K and overclock it?

So, this is my dilemma. I want the best parts possible, for not too much money. If I found the 9900K for $500 (and if it was worth of it) I'd buy it for $500. Other than that - do you guys think I should wait for the 10-nm CPU or go with the one available today? Which one then? (I DO need the Hyper-Threading. My current 4690K has shown me what it can('t) do.)

 

[ps2guides]

If you simply want more performance, then there's no reason to wait for 10nm. Existing CPUs by both Intel and AMD offer really good performance. However, right now might not be the best time for an upgrade in the economical sense. 8th and 9th gen Intel CPUs are currently overpriced. The 9900k in particular doesn't really seem like a good buy, despite using a soldered thermal interface, it's VERY hot, and would require expensive cooling just to work at stock frequencies. It also seems a good deal overkill for gaming.

If you simply want great gaming performance, then just get a non-k i7 8700 and game away. It's cool and still provides a ton of performance out of the box alongside your desired Hyper Threading. Nowadays the CPUs are so powerful there's really no need to go for the absolutely top of the line.

 

[Hellfire13]

Just get a used 4790k and OC it to 4.5 and above. Also get a 1070... https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-1070-vs-AMD-R9-290/3609vs2171
You will immediately feel the difference.

 

[miha2]

Well, Hellfire13, I buy 4790K now, OC it, but then there is a new game releases in a couple of years, that requires a minimum of, say, 6600K (doesn't matter which; just newer), and... I will need to spend another $400+ for a new CPU? This way, I'd waste the 4790K.

I mean, I can handle the 8086K, and I'd buy that even for $440, but... is it worth of its every penny? 6 cores are good, 12 threads are even better, and I'm sure it'll be enough for me for the next... 3 years, 5 years? 7 years? 10 years?! (Well, I'm sure by that time I'll upgrade, maybe, twice. In 10 years, I mean, not in 5)

Or just get the 8700K and be happy? (Overclock it? I have a good cooler. Do I really need to, though? To enjoy games.)

Also, get 1070? Nope. Thank you, but no. Ever heard of RayTracing? Fancy, but I want it.

Really, if the 10-nm CPUs will be cheaper and more powerful... This is what I want to know.

P.S. BTW, for this RayTracing, I will need the 8700, so... I'll get the K version, for the extra 500 MHz. More expensive, but overclockable, so it's better.

P.P.S. Back in the days, Devil's Canyon were the best CPUs. (I mean, right?) That was a dream of enthusiasts, and I was one of them. I bought it because I couldn't afford the 4790K; otherwise, I'd buy that. That's the deal. It's not like I'm trying to show off my CPU, it's that I want the best value for the buck, it's that I want not just ANY CPU, but a good one. If 9900K is not the best, (that CPU is overpriced; like, what, $92 more? Are they serious? I'm not that crazy to go and buy that. And if it's bad at cooling - one more reason not to buy it.) this leaves me 3 options for now: 8700K, 8086K, or wait for the 10-nm CPUs.

 

[DSzymborski]

Honestly, it's hard to pin down what it is exactly you want; it's difficult to make a recommendation when you're mostly just waxing philosophical about value on an abstract level.

 

[miha2]

DSzymborski, I updated my last reply. I want, pretty much, the best CPU, but not i9 79xx, but the one that is worth of its every penny. Do I need the 79xx? No. I don't model super heavy 3d objects/cities/else, I don't use super heavy tasks to have the need for the 79xx CPU, I need one to game. Well, and maybe, MAYBE, to model a few 3d models, small enough not to have the desperate need for the 79xx.

Do I need 8700K? That CPU makes more sense for me, and I'd consider that one. So is this the best CPU for me, for buck, and overall? Or 8086K? Or 10-nm one? This is what I'm asking for. Should I wait or get the 8xxxK/9900K? (Hyperthreading does the magic, so it's better to have it.)

 

[cryoburner]

Don't expect Intel's 10nm CPUs for at least another year. They are just releasing the 9000-series Coffee Lake refresh processors now, and it might even be early 2020 before 10nm options are out. There's no guarantee that they will be significantly faster at gaming either, though I would expect at least some improvement.

As for the 8086K, I wouldn't bother, since it's barely any faster than an 8700K, and that's pretty much what it is, an 8700K that's been binned for slightly faster overclocks and given a slightly faster single-core stock boost clock. The two CPUs boost clocks are otherwise identical for any workloads utilizing more than one thread, which applies to practically all modern games. For that matter, the 8700 (non-K) boosts to within 100 MHz of these others, provided you have adequate cooling to maintain its boost clocks, so for anyone with no intention of overclocking, even that would be a good high-end value option.

If you were willing to spend over $400, an i7-9700K would likely be a better gaming CPU than an 8086K, since it boosts higher on multithreaded workloads. That is, provided you can find any in stock. You probably wouldn't be able to notice any perceptible performance difference between any of these i7's though, and in practice they should all perform within about 2% of each other on average in today's games, even when paired with a high-end graphics card at low resolutions...

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_9700K/19.html

 

[Hellfire13]

The 8700k or 8086k will remain one of the best gaming CPUs for a long time to come, except for a few odd games where the 9900k will fare better.
As for the 10nm thingy, Intel is still a long way from actually implementing it.

 

[miha2]

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i5-4690K-vs-Intel-i7-4790/2284vs2226
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-9700K-vs-Intel-i9-9900K/3335vs3334

9900K is "better".

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-8700K-vs-Intel-i7-8086K/3098vs3279

8086K is leading, and it's almost as powerful as 9700K. So I would assume that 8700K OC'd to, say, 4.3 GHz, which is... acceptable (.6 GHz; not that much, right? My 4690K is OC'd from 3.5 to 4.3; 0.8 GHz) will be as good (in benchmarks and/or in games) as 9700K. (I mean, if it'll work smoothly, I won't OC it; why, right? It works, so no (good) reason to overclock it.)

Or still, will it be better off to buy the 9700K? I mean, the hyperthreading does the magic, and the links above kind of prove it. (I mean, I understand these are just raw benchmarks, but still, if the 8086K indeed is almost as good as 9700K, then OC'd 8700K kind of is 8086K. Right?)

I'm trying to say, (I understand I might have confused you by this part, so to clear everything up Is the 8700K the best CPU for me now? I know 10-nm will come in a year (hopefully. But Intel said it will, so unless any very serious problem arises, such as TSMC or whoever makes the chips for them goes bankrupt or otherwise close their factories, they should release it the next year) and I can wait. It'll be a long journey, but I will continue torturing my 4690K until then.

 

[smorizio]

one thing to watch out for with intel. is they like screwing users over when they go from one new cpu to another they change the pins or chipsets so you have to buy a new mb to get the newest cpu. they did this with coffee lake. people that upgraded from x77 to the x200 cpu had to go buy new mb to get coffee lake cpu. also amd new 7mm ryzen will be out soon. there doing final testing now on the cpu and may be going to retail soon.

 

[miha2]

I prefer Intel.

I read that DDR5 is releasing fairly soon. So, if it'll be released the next year, along with the 10-nm CPU, that would be terrific, and... once again, is it worth waiting for both?

 

[Hellfire13]

Nobody can tell you with certainty whether it is worth waiting for, as there is no way to gauge the potential performance of a future product. Right now, all we have are speculations which are merely tentative. If you go by Intel promotion culture, then their every generation is worth waiting for. But we all know what the reality is. So, going by historical generation jumps, it can be speculated as the same as always, max 10% increase.
And since your query is gaming related, RAM has never proven to be a major performance factor with Intel chips, but there could be some leeway with an entire gen. jump. So along with the RAM, I will give it max 12% approx. over current gen.
Now is that worth waiting for? Thats entirely your call buddy. If you keep waiting, you will eventually end up waiting forever.

 

[miha2]

N I will give it max 12% approx. over current gen.

Imagine that, this is exactly what I was looking for!

Even though I prefer Intel, even having my CPU overclocked, I still can't say I'm that much of a furious fan of Intel. So I wasn't aware of this, and so if it's in reality 10%, then I guess, I can survive it.

I mean, I was expecting Intel would release the 8-core 16-thread 4.0 GHz CPU that would cost $350-ish ($400 is OK, but not more) on 10nm, but just one last question: will it happen? How high are the chances it'll happen? (That sounds like 2 questions, but in reality, it's the same question repeated.)

 

[Hellfire13]

Thats the last we heard about it... https://www.pcgamer.com/intel-says-10nm-cannon-lake-shipments-still-on-track-as-it-deals-with-14nm-cpu-shortage/

 

[miha2]

So nothing new then. OK. Seems like I'm sticking to 8700K (or 8086K? That's still the question) and hoping it'll be enough for BFV, Cyberpunk 2077, and other immersive titles in the next 5-ish years.

 

[cryoburner]

The specifications of Intel's 10nm chips might also depend on how AMD's 7nm chips perform next year. If AMD were to completely close the gap with Intel's current high-end chips, and perhaps provide similar or better performance at a lower price, then Intel might need to provide more value per dollar with their 10nm chips as well to stay competitive.

Without much known about either company's next-generation chips, it's difficult to say for sure though. Perhaps we will know a bit more within the coming months. AMD has a "Next Horizon" press event in a couple days, though that might be focused more on server hardware and/or graphics cards. And they're supposed to have an event at CES in January talking about their 7nm CPUs and GPUs. I suspect we'll likely see new consumer CPUs from them sometime in the first half of next year.

Considering your CPU still holds up reasonably well by today's standards, it might be worth holding out for next year's CPUs. A few games like Battlefield can benefit from having access to more threads though.

My 4690K can barely give me 40 fps in BF1, and it's not GPU: I have AMD R9 290, so in theory, I should have no less than 84 fps on average, with a good CPU.

If you are looking at frame rates listed in graphics card reviews, keep in mind that they are usually testing single-player, which tends to be less demanding, simply due to it being difficult to create repeatable results in multiplayer. If you are using the DX12 renderer, you might also try switching to DX11 mode, since I believe that should be a bit less demanding on the CPU.

 

[miha2]

cryoburner, thanks for a hint:

https://www.techspot.com/review/1267-battlefield-1-benchmarks/page2.html
"To play Battlefield 1 without dipping below 30fps at 1080p using the ultra-quality settings gamers will only require a Radeon RX 460 2GB or GeForce GTX 750 Ti graphics card. "

So maybe, but just "maybe", not all is lost. Still, https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i5-4690K-vs-Intel-i7-8700/2284vs3099 so in benchmarks, 8700 (without "K") is twice as powerful as 4690K (stock). So for a year, I will need to forget about the raytracing, if I were to hold the CPU upgrade.

I mean, I will need to try to play with my 4690K for quite some time, and if all goes well, like, if the CPU can hold on for a year, I may hold on to it for about a year.

Upd: Other benchmarks show different numbers, like, more realistic: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/57r44i/latest_early_access_battlefield_1_benchmark/

So still, maybe I blame on the CPU for no good reason...

 

[chemmajorp53]

You should be more respectful to these people who are offering you free, quality advice. Maybe English isn't your first language or something, but you're coming off as arrogant and unreasonable by the way you type. Being sarcastic and spewing all these hypothetical situations that have no relevance to your current situation just make people not want to help you. Next time structure your question into what you currently have, what you want to do with upgraded hardware, and what your budget is. Simple as that. The more concise and complete your original question is, the more likely you are to get the information you want. No one wants to spend the time to read and reason through all of the unnecessary "feelings" in your responses, they have better things to do with their time.

 

[cryoburner]

Still, https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i5-4690K-vs-Intel-i7-8700/2284vs3099 so in benchmarks, 8700 (without "K") is twice as powerful as 4690K (stock).

That benchmark is showing multithreaded performance when fully utilizing all 12 of the 8700K's threads. Today's games don't come anywhere close to doing that, and the vast majority are still designed to run well on a quad-core CPU without hyperthreading. The same goes for the vast majority of desktop applications. You would only see a performance difference like that if you were doing something like encoding video using a CPU-based encoder that can fully utilize that many threads.

See the "Single Thread Rating" chart below it to get an idea of what the performance difference will be like in more lightly threaded applications, such as most current games. They're showing the 8700 as being only around 17% faster there. And that almost entirely comes from the higher clock rates, since an 8700's boost clocks are about 17% higher than a stock 4690K. If you have your 4690K overclocked to 4.3GHz, that actually matches the 8700's boost clocks when 4 or more cores are in use, so you probably wouldn't see much benefit at all in most games. And at stock clocks, the 8700K/8086K only boost to 4.4GHz with a 4-thread load, which is only an increase of a little over 2%. With a high-end cooler, you might be able to push those CPUs to around 5GHz, but that's only about a 16% increase in clocks over what you have now.

And again, if we look at that 9700K review I linked to earlier, your 4690K isn't listed but should be roughly similar to the quad-core i3-8300 at stock clocks, and probably a little faster than that stock i3-8350K when overclocked...

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_9700K/19.html

At 1080p, when running a 1080 Ti, that would put your average frame rates in the games tested within about 10% of a 9700K, 9900K, 8700K or 8086K. Of course, an R9 290 isn't anywhere close to pushing similar frame rates as a 1080 Ti, so I would expect your average performance with that card at 1080p to not be much higher than what the 1080 Ti manages at 4K. So, on average, you probably wouldn't see much more than 5% higher average frame rates with one of those recent i7s compared to your overclocked 4690K with your current card. For the most part, unless you are going with a high-end graphics card and have a high refresh rate monitor at a relatively low resolution, the performance of most of today's games tends to be more limited by your graphics hardware than anything.

With more threads available, you would likely see more stable frame rates in something like Battlefield that can make better use of them, and games will undoubtedly more fully utilize those extra threads in the years to come, but the performance benefits today would be fairly minor in most titles.