i7 9700K is really a 2018 i5 (Intel 2011 vs Intel 2018)

[B-Riz]

From the Sandy Bridge review "The Core i7-2600K is tempting at $317 but the Core i5-2500K is absolutely a steal at $216. "

https://www.anandtech.com/show/4083...el-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested

So a lot of people bought a 2500k, but the writing was on the wall.

I ran it for a year and bought a 2700K / Z77 after Ivy Bridge turned out to be meh.

Bought the 4790K because that was the last hurrah of Intel and mainstream DDR3 (had 16GB then, still do, still good)

But everyone that bought a 2600K was way better off in the long run vs the no HT i5.

And they kept selling the same thing, just faster, until Ryzen came out.

Then we get 14++ Coffee Lake Refresh (but the 8700K is still being made and sold)

9900K MSRP $488 and 9700K MSRP $374.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review

Intel prices are proportional (2011 vs 2018) though, which is funny.



I feel like the 9700K is a bad buy and is just going to turn out to be like the 2500K.

 

[ondma]

Pretty much agree.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Never thought of it like that. Makes sense. Having said that I would opt for more cores for less money and buy an Amd 2700x. Get the best of both worlds for less.

 

[ehume]

Cross-posted: another poster got in before me. See below.

 

[ondma]

Never thought of it like that. Makes sense. Having said that I would opt for more cores for less money and buy an Amd 2700x. Get the best of both worlds for less.

Not the best, maybe good enough but cheaper, if that is your thing.

 

[ehume]

From the Sandy Bridge review "The Core i7-2600K is tempting at $317 but the Core i5-2500K is absolutely a steal at $216. "

https://www.anandtech.com/show/4083...el-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested

So a lot of people bought a 2500k, but the writing was on the wall.

I ran it for a year and bought a 2700K / Z77 after Ivy Bridge turned out to be meh.

Bought the 4790K because that was the last hurrah of Intel and mainstream DDR3 (had 16GB then, still do, still good)

But everyone that bought a 2600K was way better off in the long run vs the no HT i5.

And they kept selling the same thing, just faster, until Ryzen came out.

Then we get 14++ Coffee Lake Refresh (but the 8700K is still being made and sold)

9900K MSRP $488 and 9700K MSRP $374.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review

Intel prices are proportional (2011 vs 2018) though, which is funny.

View attachment 6441

I feel like the 9700K is a bad buy and is just going to turn out to be like the 2500K.

Agree: somewhere I recall a review that disabled the HT in the 9900k. It still outperformed the 9700k.

 

[wilds]

The 9900k still has the larger L3 iirc.

 

[krumme]

Agree. I got a 3570 ib back then. Oc to 4.2 it went into the 15fps range when its was most dirty in bf5 mp64 2 years ago. Useless. At that time a oc 7700k 8t was still tanking to 40fps the same places but surely the 4c4t machine was long dead - heck for a starter i thought it was the fault of the gfx !. The 2600k and later 8t machines was in a select few games much better.
Changed to ryzen 1700 and later 8700k.
So yes. Not getting the 8t back then was stupid. Gota love monopoly segmentation. /s

Looking forward to zen 2, 3 and 4. And Intels next arch and 7nm mode in 2021. The next round of consoles will set this development on fire. 8c zen 2 / 2.5 wroom. New type of games hopefully.

 

[DrMrLordX]

And Intels next arch and 7nm mode in 2021.

Sadly, we may not see 7nm anything except enterprise Xe in 2021. Wish it weren't the case.

 

[B-Riz]

The 9900k still has the larger L3 iirc.

It does, funny you mention it. 12MB on 9700K, 16MB on 9900K.

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...9700k-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-90-ghz.html

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...9900k-processor-16m-cache-up-to-5-00-ghz.html

lol, right in the url.

This also mirrors my 2011 comparison; the 2600k had more cache too, which is good for a bin to two bins of performance for "free".

2500k 6MB, 2600k 8MB.

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...-2500k-processor-6m-cache-up-to-3-70-ghz.html

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...-2600k-processor-8m-cache-up-to-3-80-ghz.html

I would alternate between HT on or off with the 2700k, depending on the game. Eventually I left it on as games started to use it more.

 

[sxr7171]

From the Sandy Bridge review "The Core i7-2600K is tempting at $317 but the Core i5-2500K is absolutely a steal at $216. "

https://www.anandtech.com/show/4083...el-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested

So a lot of people bought a 2500k, but the writing was on the wall.

I ran it for a year and bought a 2700K / Z77 after Ivy Bridge turned out to be meh.

Bought the 4790K because that was the last hurrah of Intel and mainstream DDR3 (had 16GB then, still do, still good)

But everyone that bought a 2600K was way better off in the long run vs the no HT i5.

And they kept selling the same thing, just faster, until Ryzen came out.

Then we get 14++ Coffee Lake Refresh (but the 8700K is still being made and sold)

9900K MSRP $488 and 9700K MSRP $374.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review

Intel prices are proportional (2011 vs 2018) though, which is funny.

View attachment 6441

I feel like the 9700K is a bad buy and is just going to turn out to be like the 2500K.

I made that mistake getting the 6600k over the 6700k. Corrected it with an 8700k years later. But saving that $100 was not worth it.

 

[alcoholbob]

If you are a gamer, in 2019 hyperthreading is still irrelevant, in fact in 99% of games hyperthreading still gives you a 1-5% performance hit at the same clocks, limits overclocking, and consumes more power and requires a higher voltage to be stable. The reason you buy the hier tier K is for more cache. I always turn off HT and get much better gaming performance.

 

[Shmee]

Hard to see, the future is. I think the 9700k is the better buy at this time, especially given the heat issues with 9900k, but you have a point that in a few years or so, having the 16 threads may pay off.

 

[ehume]

If you are a gamer, in 2019 hyperthreading is still irrelevant, in fact in 99% of games hyperthreading still gives you a 1-5% performance hit at the same clocks, limits overclocking, and consumes more power and requires a higher voltage to be stable. The reason you buy the hier tier K is for more cache. I always turn off HT and get much better gaming performance.

The more expensive chip (the 2600k vs the 2500k; the 9900k vs the 9700k) is also binned better, so it can take that higher voltage and do something useful with it.

 

[Flayed]

I think the 9700k is the better buy. Hyperthreading is not as useful when you have 8 real cores, and Intels hyperthreading is a security risk that should be disabled anyway.

 

[B-Riz]

If you are a gamer, in 2019 hyperthreading is still irrelevant, in fact in 99% of games hyperthreading still gives you a 1-5% performance hit at the same clocks, limits overclocking, and consumes more power and requires a higher voltage to be stable. The reason you buy the hier tier K is for more cache. I always turn off HT and get much better gaming performance.

I remember back in the day there were a lot of benchmarks comparing HT on and off, but anymore, no one really does it except when new stuff comes out, like the Zen launch.

Though, the results of the 9700k reviews are HT off, but they still have less cache, and Intel CPU's love more cache.

I would think it depends on the game, BF1 / BF5 love threads. Other things, I don't even know anymore.

What do you play where you get better numbers with HT off?

Does turning it off impact the 2080 Ti?


I need play the vid card switch-aroo later and try the 1080 Ti with the 8700k.

 

[sxr7171]

If you are a gamer, in 2019 hyperthreading is still irrelevant, in fact in 99% of games hyperthreading still gives you a 1-5% performance hit at the same clocks, limits overclocking, and consumes more power and requires a higher voltage to be stable. The reason you buy the hier tier K is for more cache. I always turn off HT and get much better gaming performance.

I didn’t know. Around the 6700k time started posting benches that showed that HT was useful at least on certain games.

It might be the cache, however they could have ruled that out by testing the same i7 cpu with HT enabled/disabled. I’m not sure if that’s how they did it.

 

[wilds]

I do know Hyperthreading adds about 50-70 more fps in Rainbow 6 Siege.
I5 4c4t users cannot maintain an easy 144hz in Terrorist Hunt but a 4c8t can.

Not all games use it, but when they do it is awesome to have. My old 4c i7 is feeling its age in many newer games now.

Will be interesting to see when the gap between the 9700k vs the 9900k widens. I certainly felt like HT was a waste back in 2011-2014.