Question 9700k vs 8700k: Video, QuickSync, Spectre/Meltdown, No Gaming

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
R

rob1

Junior Member
Dec 19, 2011
9
1
71
I need a new PC and after a lot of research I thought I am going to chose the 9700k over the 8700k. They seem mostly equal with the 9700k edging out the 8700k a little bit. I was fine spending $30 more on the CPU and $30 more on the MB. Also, the 9700k supposedly addressed the issue of Spectre/Meltdown. But now my son put doubts into my thoughts. I won't go with an AMD processor because the video recording software I am using (BlueIris) depends heavily on Intel's QuickSync and that is a major CPU consumer. I do no gaming but I am going to use my son's old GTX970 (he got a 2070). My main tasks are really research on the internet (I often have 10+ tabs open and that seems to consume a lot of processing), do some programming (Visual Studio), etc. So a lot of multi-tasking. So maybe the 8700k is indeed a better choice despite having 2 fewer cores?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
B

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
5,210
1,580
136
I would say for what you do even a quad would mostly be good enough for now so it doesn't really matter which one you choose. The security aspects main problem is that if it's not fixed in hardware, it's fixed in software and can make some things slower (albeit you will not really notice that). Me personally I would go with the newer one with the fixes IF the $60 more doesn't have any other implications.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

rob1

Junior Member
Dec 19, 2011
9
1
71
beginner99, thanks for the response. I have a 2600k which is absolutely killing me (every mouse click takes like 2-4 seconds and that's after a new reinstall of Win10). It's mostly the CPU time that is slowing things down (disk, RAM, networks seems fine). So it seems you are also pointing toward the 9 series despite me having many background tasks (mostly video recording but also home automation, etc)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TheELF

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
3,973
730
126
rob1 said:
beginner99, thanks for the response. I have a 2600k which is absolutely killing me (every mouse click takes like 2-4 seconds and that's after a new reinstall of Win10). It's mostly the CPU time that is slowing things down (disk, RAM, networks seems fine). So it seems you are also pointing toward the 9 series despite me having many background tasks (mostly video recording but also home automation, etc)
Click to expand...

10+ tabs should not consume a lot of processing and 2-4 sec for each click seems out there,in your place I would start with checking if the 2600k actually runs at it's correct clocks because it sounds like it's downclocked to 7-800Mhz or something.

In general for a multithreading environment but one that won't be running distributed computing type of workloads the 12 threads will be better then the 8 real cores,because hyperthreading can and does add 100% computing to low-degree-of-IPC tasks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CuriousMike
Upvote 0 Downvote
B

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
5,210
1,580
136
rob1 said:
beginner99, thanks for the response. I have a 2600k which is absolutely killing me (every mouse click takes like 2-4 seconds and that's after a new reinstall of Win10). It's mostly the CPU time that is slowing things down (disk, RAM, networks seems fine). So it seems you are also pointing toward the 9 series despite me having many background tasks (mostly video recording but also home automation, etc)
Click to expand...

As TheELF said, that doesn't sound right. Either you missed to mention something completely or there is somethign wrong with your system. I mean at work I have an old crappy laptop with windows 7 32-bit, eg only 3 gb of usable RAM + dual-core and browsing even with 10 tabs is a non-issue.

I suspect you either have a known (or unknown = malware) background process running at 100% CPU (check task manager) or your CPU is running very slow (power settings issue or broken cooling solution). However even with near 100% cpu the system shoulnd't get that slow. I suspect it's a combination of not enough RAM and a hdd. So Windows pages to the hdd. That will really cripple performance. if that is the case adding more RAM or an ssd would probably solve your issue.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DrMrLordX

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,610
10,804
136
@rob1 are you planning to buy anything besides CPU, motherboard, and RAM? What kind of storage do you have on your 2600k right now? Also, how long have you had this problem where your system lags after clicking on something?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
LTC8K6

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
DrMrLordX said:
@rob1 are you planning to buy anything besides CPU, motherboard, and RAM? What kind of storage do you have on your 2600k right now? Also, how long have you had this problem where your system lags after clicking on something?
Click to expand...
Good thought. Maybe something is not right, with it lagging like that. A 2600K is no slouch.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
GrumpyMan

GrumpyMan

Diamond Member
May 14, 2001
5,778
262
136
I upgraded from a 2600K, 2 to 4 seconds for a click response cannot be. Had that rig for many years, now my daughter has it and clicks are instantaneous, always have been. It is on an SSD however and have it overclocked to a mild 4.3 ghz for her use, but even at default clock speeds it has never been a slouch in that department.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

mrpiggy

Member
Apr 19, 2012
196
12
81
The only thing I can think that should or could be slowing down your current system to 3-4sec per mouse click is the Blue Iris surveillance software, especially if coupled to a slow HDD. Do you have several of cameras running 24x7? the continual I/O plus a slow HDD can easily make the system feel like a slug. Either way, I'd suggest that if/when you get your new PC, whatever it is, you keep the Blue Iris off it and keep it on the current PC as a dedicated video surveillance machine. Any software constantly crunching video 24x7 though monitoring with lots of I/O is going to make even a newer machine more sluggish feeling.

As to the CPU's you are deciding between, nothing you listed as normally doing (outside of the surveillance camera software), should slow either down. Even your 2600K, should have no problems with 50+ tabs and a bit of VS programming so i just assume it's the Blue Iris setup.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
frozentundra123456

frozentundra123456

Lifer
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
TheGiant said:
with your budget
  1. get AMD 2700X
  2. get AMD 2600X
  3. wait for ryzen 3rd gen half year if your upgrade cycle is
if you don't value high fps gaming/single(low) thread performance there is no reason to get Intel CPUs right now unless you are fan of them
Click to expand...
Did you even read the OP's post, or just reflexively recommend AMD. He stated why he is going to use intel and clearly said AMD is not an option.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
postmortemIA

postmortemIA

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2006
7,721
40
91
I've read few 8700K vs 9700k vs 9900k benchmarks, looks like only time it makes sense to get 8700k over 9700k is if you do lots of video encoding, and not much gaming or general computing. The $30-$60 cost difference is insignificant if you plan to keep that CPU as long as you did your 2600k. I went for 9700k, it was no brainer in my case.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom