I7-8700K, I7-9700K or I9-9900K?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Apr 8, 2001
32,488
29
106
#26
I went with the 9900k as I got it for under $500 shipped, and it's replacing a 2700k, so I don't mind paying a little more upfront as I tend to get decent longevity out of the last couple rounds of CPUs (maintaining 3 desktops at home).

Still window shopping for the case, cooling, and memory before putting it together.
 
Feb 23, 2017
501
401
106
#27
I think you'll get longevity with any of the 6+ core processors currently available, though waiting for next gen Ryzen probably makes your build bulletproof for a long long time.
 

ehume

Golden Member
Nov 6, 2009
1,339
11
91
#28
One thing to recall: the i7 9900k and i7 9700k have solder between their CPUs and IHSs. The i7 8x00s all have Intel TIM, which is an inferior TIM.
 

mopardude87

Senior member
Oct 22, 2018
228
35
61
#29
If money isn't a issue absolutely no reason not to get the 9900k given you do work on it as well. Me myself for gaming i picked up a i5 8400 then eventually upgraded to a 8700 non k+ Hyper 212 and so far it seems dang bored even when i was playing BF1/BF5 and cooling is good enough.

Could perhaps grab a cheaper motherboard,a i7 8700 non k since you don't overclock and if next generation Ryzen stomps it sell the set up and perhaps move to that? I7 8700 non k and the k model both can hit 4.3Ghz on all cores with a few clicks of a mouse in the bios.The k pretty much will require a more expensive motherboard and a beefier heatsink and for what maybe a 700-900mhz oc?
 

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
5,895
75
106
#30
Currently games seem to stop scaling in performance past 6 cores/6 threads. For the future it's hard to tell, but since core count doesn't really look like it's going up in next gen consoles, threading might not really improve much. The slight advantage of 8700K is you can easily delid with liquid metal, which reduces temps significantly, if you don't intend to tinker at that level then go 9700K.

One thing to note, hyperthreading consistently decreases performance in over 90% of games when core count is 6 or higher, so the 9900K isn't really worth it for gaming alone. Clockspeed isn't really that important when gaming at 4k60 fps either. I find very little difference between running at 5ghz vs downclocking to 3.6ghz on a 8700K. In fact turning off hyperthreading affects performance more.
 

Zucker2k

Senior member
Feb 15, 2006
751
59
136
#31
I went with the 9900k as I got it for under $500 shipped, and it's replacing a 2700k, so I don't mind paying a little more upfront as I tend to get decent longevity out of the last couple rounds of CPUs (maintaining 3 desktops at home).

Still window shopping for the case, cooling, and memory before putting it together.
Excellent choice. Also, note that a 9900k with HT disabled is even faster in gaming because of more L3 cache compared to the 9700k.
 

ehume

Golden Member
Nov 6, 2009
1,339
11
91
#32
I went with the 9900k as I got it for under $500 shipped, and it's replacing a 2700k, so I don't mind paying a little more upfront as I tend to get decent longevity out of the last couple rounds of CPUs (maintaining 3 desktops at home).

Still window shopping for the case, cooling, and memory before putting it together.
Just remember a few things:

1. Cases are cheap. You can get one that suits your needs easily. But buy a case AFTER you have picked RAM and cooling. Cases with 120mm exhaust fans can usually fit a 160+mm heatsink, but not a heatsink that combines a 140mm front fan with DDR4 RAM.. Cases with 140mm exhaust fans can usually fit any heatsink, but you don't have to use any exhaust fan at all. Air will flow out the back in an aluminum case (no "grill"). Air will flow out the back in a steel case where you have cut out the back "grill" (it is usually just a steel wall with holes punched in it). For an old example, check out this: https://www.overclock.net/forum/246-air-cooling/1594120-negative-pressure-rig-no-case-fans.html

2. Heatsink vs AIO: if you go with a heatsink, go with 6 heatpipes. A 212 won't do (only 4 heatpipes). If you go with an AIO, go with a twin-fan rad, preferably a 280mm.

3. Pick your RAM and heatsink together. Use low profile RAM if you are going with a front fan. The Corsair LPX is lowish. If you use a 140mm front fan and LPX, you will need a wide case, preferably one with a 140mm exhaust. Take your time. Unfortunately, in DDR4 RAM, LPX is as low as it gets right now. I have some Crucial Ballistix that swoops below the end levers, but that is DDR3 RAM, labeled as "very low profile." Maybe you can find something like that.
 
Apr 8, 2001
32,488
29
106
#33
Just remember a few things:

1. Cases are cheap. You can get one that suits your needs easily. But buy a case AFTER you have picked RAM and cooling. Cases with 120mm exhaust fans can usually fit a 160+mm heatsink, but not a heatsink that combines a 140mm front fan with DDR4 RAM.. Cases with 140mm exhaust fans can usually fit any heatsink, but you don't have to use any exhaust fan at all. Air will flow out the back in an aluminum case (no "grill"). Air will flow out the back in a steel case where you have cut out the back "grill" (it is usually just a steel wall with holes punched in it). For an old example, check out this: https://www.overclock.net/forum/246-air-cooling/1594120-negative-pressure-rig-no-case-fans.html

2. Heatsink vs AIO: if you go with a heatsink, go with 6 heatpipes. A 212 won't do (only 4 heatpipes). If you go with an AIO, go with a twin-fan rad, preferably a 280mm.

3. Pick your RAM and heatsink together. Use low profile RAM if you are going with a front fan. The Corsair LPX is lowish. If you use a 140mm front fan and LPX, you will need a wide case, preferably one with a 140mm exhaust. Take your time. Unfortunately, in DDR4 RAM, LPX is as low as it gets right now. I have some Crucial Ballistix that swoops below the end levers, but that is DDR3 RAM, labeled as "very low profile." Maybe you can find something like that.
Leaning towards a H115i cooler at the moment. Seems several around here use that same config and don't see any temperature complaints.
 

mopardude87

Senior member
Oct 22, 2018
228
35
61
#34
Currently games seem to stop scaling in performance past 6 cores/6 threads.
When i had my i5 8400 and was playing BF1,i certainly would see 85-100% cpu usage at times and while frame rate was over 60 combined with a 1070ti at 1080p the high cpu usage seemed to gave gameplay impressions as if something was choked.Sometimes it would feel like i am not getting 60fps and i would get hesitations or hitching i guess is a better word.Having the i7 8700 in here now,i see 7 threads easily push 40% usage if not more depending on map while a few others not so much.All the weird hesitations i would feel completely disappeared.

BF1/BF5 may be rare exceptions right now but those certainly give older i7 chips a run for the money too.Complete 8 thread utilization.All the benchmarks in reviews for BF1/BF5 are seriously misleading cause they are singleplayer.
 

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
5,895
75
106
#35
When i had my i5 8400 and was playing BF1,i certainly would see 85-100% cpu usage at times and while frame rate was over 60 combined with a 1070ti at 1080p the high cpu usage seemed to gave gameplay impressions as if something was choked.Sometimes it would feel like i am not getting 60fps and i would get hesitations or hitching i guess is a better word.Having the i7 8700 in here now,i see 7 threads easily push 40% usage if not more depending on map while a few others not so much.All the weird hesitations i would feel completely disappeared.

BF1/BF5 may be rare exceptions right now but those certainly give older i7 chips a run for the money too.Complete 8 thread utilization.All the benchmarks in reviews for BF1/BF5 are seriously misleading cause they are singleplayer.
Yeah, I should amend my statement, scaling does not increase past 6 cores/6 threads in single player games. The improvement beyond 6 threads does exist occasionally in multiplayer games (it's been true for Battlefield games for a long time, even in PS3 era) but the reason isn't actually because of game threading but overhead from Windows managing network connections.
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,744
129
136
#36
When i had my i5 8400 and was playing BF1,i certainly would see 85-100% cpu usage at times and while frame rate was over 60 combined with a 1070ti at 1080p the high cpu usage seemed to gave gameplay impressions as if something was choked.Sometimes it would feel like i am not getting 60fps and i would get hesitations or hitching i guess is a better word.Having the i7 8700 in here now,i see 7 threads easily push 40% usage if not more depending on map while a few others not so much.All the weird hesitations i would feel completely disappeared.

BF1/BF5 may be rare exceptions right now but those certainly give older i7 chips a run for the money too.Complete 8 thread utilization.All the benchmarks in reviews for BF1/BF5 are seriously misleading cause they are singleplayer.
This. Bf1 issues 10 threads. And in mp64 infights they are used. An 4c8t 7700k chokes and goes down to 30-40 fps when its most brutal.
 
Apr 8, 2001
32,488
29
106
#37
Probably make my final purchases in a couple days, till then decided to install this to play around with.

 
Feb 26, 2006
51,563
341
126
#38
Probably make my final purchases in a couple days, till then decided to install this to play around with.

Nah, you'll hate that...better just send it to me for...proper disposal. aab.gif
 
Apr 8, 2001
32,488
29
106
#39
My case arrives Wednesday and just got an email alert from partpicker that the AIO I was looking at is on sake again. Looks like I'm going with the 16gbx2 memory kit that is also hovering around $10 from it's cheapest ever so I'll probably buy these two today which will finish up all component purchasing.

Next stop will be spending time in the software forum trying to figure out how to transfer my Win10 to a new computer when you don't have a product key anymore before deciding on which weekend to go a building.
 
Mar 23, 2019
31
6
16
www.hisevilness.com
#40
With 4K your GPU bottlenecked, in terms of IPC you could consider a Ryzen or Threadripper if you want to edit/encoding. But if you insist you want Z390 well I went for an 8086k since the prices were much better and it is just a binned 8700k running @ 5.3ghz. I use a Ryzen 1600X for editing/NAS/Capture. The 9900k is better if you can keep it cool but then your looking at a 360 rad push/pull if not custom water cooling. Again I say get Threadripper chip more cores for the same price of a 9900k and far less hear to coop with.
 
Apr 27, 2000
11,495
821
126
#41
@HisEvilness

I think the OP already ordered a 9900k. It doesn't take custom water to cool one, either. That Corsair AiO he's getting should do the trick unless he's overclocking it heavily.
 
Mar 23, 2019
31
6
16
www.hisevilness.com
#42
@HisEvilness

I think the OP already ordered a 9900k. It doesn't take custom water to cool one, either. That Corsair AiO he's getting should do the trick unless he's overclocking it heavily.
I've seen the reviews based on those I decided to go 8086k over 9900k that and I didn't need the more cores I needed higher clock speeds for gaming, his end goal however is editing that is avx instructions he might run into throttling what is was trying to point out + an alternative for his editing.
 
Apr 27, 2000
11,495
821
126
#43
I've seen the reviews based on those I decided to go 8086k over 9900k that and I didn't need the more cores I needed higher clock speeds for gaming, his end goal however is editing that is avx instructions he might run into throttling what is was trying to point out + an alternative for his editing.
Unlikely. A stock 9900k running AVX-aware software like Blender is going to stay within a 160W envelope on most "normal" motherboards. A few will push it into the 210W territory. A Corsair AiO will handle either case.

He already has the 9900k, so I do not think he is looking for an alternative at this point.
 
Mar 23, 2019
31
6
16
www.hisevilness.com
#44
Unlikely. A stock 9900k running AVX-aware software like Blender is going to stay within a 160W envelope on most "normal" motherboards. A few will push it into the 210W territory. A Corsair AiO will handle either case.

He already has the 9900k, so I do not think he is looking for an alternative at this point.
Yes my point exactly but has the 9900k now so he will need a beefy cooling solution but as you point out the actual TDP is rather high and I was referring to 360 rads as well mine does a great job but that is on an 8086k. Cheers though.!
 

The Sauce

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 1999
4,718
5
81
#45
Looks like you are planning to build exactly what I did - 9700k, Hero Maximus XI, Corsair AIO. If you have any questions feel free to hit me up. I also wrote an extensive review of the Hero Maximus XI on Amazon which is in the #1 spot right now which may have some useful information for you on building. My Amazon name is "Don't Panic"
 

B-Riz

Senior member
Feb 15, 2011
956
50
91
#46
What happened to OP???

Check out the GamersNexus review of the 9700K https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3421-intel-i7-9700k-review-benchmark-vs-8700k-and-more

If you get it, you are essential taking a step back from the 9700K in thread count, which is important in video work.

So really your only options should be the 8700K or 9900K, but the 9900K needs serious cooling to get the most out of it.

Gigabyte made some good boards on the higher end for Z390, Asus kinda dropped the ball on their Z390 items.
 

Similar threads



ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS