Upgrading 6600k to 8700k or 9700k

[morbidman]

As title states, I intend to pick up a replacement processor and motherboard for my gaming PC. I mainly play newer titles such as Destiny 2 and Star Citizen at the moment. I've seen 8700k sell for ~$340 and 9700k for ~$410. Correct me if I am wrong, but the benchmarks for the two are roughly equivalent in game benchmarks. Moreover, the two are both compatible with z370 motherboards, so would the 8700k represent a better value? Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks for your time.

 

[UsandThem]

I agree with you on the value aspect of the 8700k, but the only real difference is the 9 series of CPUs have the security flaws (meltdown, etc) fixed at the hardware level, whereas the 8 series have it fixed via software (which lowers performance in some things).

But in the end, they will match up pretty evenly performance wise. The 8700k gives you 6 cores / 12 threads, the 9700k gives you 8 cores.

If I was upgrading, I'd grab the 8700k as well based on $/performance, $330 vs. $410.

 

[morbidman]

Thanks UsandThem. Would I be better served by upgrading my memory as well? I currently only have 16gb ddr4 2666 and a 1080ti.

 

[UsandThem]

Thanks UsandThem. Would I be better served by upgrading my memory as well? I currently only have 16gb ddr4 2666 and a 1080ti.

It would be a small boost, but I don't think you would get your money's worth out of doing it. If you had say DDR4 2133, I'd say go for it. However, DDR4 2666 isn't that "slow", and I would just stay with it.

However, if you're able to sell your current kit for a fair amount, and get a good deal on say DDR4 3200, you could always consider that. The gains that Intel CPUs get from faster RAM aren't as dramatic as the Ryzen CPUs.

 

[morbidman]

I see. Thanks again for your help!

 

[morbidman]

One last question; Between an Asus Prime z370-A and Gigabyte Aorus Gaming 5 which is more suited for moderate overclocking and heavy daily use? Thank you.

 

[UsandThem]

Both are fine for that, but I think Asus offers a better UEFI for settings / tweaks. I'd personally go with the Asus if I were choosing one for a build.

 

[vailr]

the only real difference is the 9 series of CPUs have the security flaws (meltdown, etc) fixed at the hardware level, whereas the 8 series have it fixed via software (which lowers performance in some things).

An interview by Mr. Cutress with an Intel representative on this question was published on Anandtech several weeks ago.
AFAIK, the Intel 9 series CPU's are NOT hardware modified in any way, to counteract any of the Spectre/Meltdown security issues. The motherboard bios/UEFI firmwares do have ongoing CPU microcode fixes, but those firmware fixes would apply equally between both Intel 8 & 9 series CPUs. Therefore, the series 9 CPU's would have no particular advantage in that respect. Newer Spectre/Meltdown security flaws are continuing to be discovered on practically a weekly basis, unfortunately.
Even yet-unreleased CPU's that are scheduled to follow the Intel series 9 are still going to be only partially immunized against Spectre/Meltdown security issues.
That information was stated in the Intel/Cutress interview.
CPU microcode updates will still be needed for current & future products, but performance differences won't be affected as much, percentage-wise, as is the case with, say: Haswell and older systems.

 

[UsandThem]

An interview by Mr. Cutress with an Intel representative on this question was published on Anandtech several weeks ago.
AFAIK, the Intel 9 series CPU's are NOT hardware modified in any way, to counteract any of the Spectre/Meltdown security issues. The motherboard bios/UEFI firmwares do have ongoing CPU microcode fixes, but those firmware fixes would apply equally between both Intel 8 & 9 series CPUs. Therefore, the series 9 CPU's would have no particular advantage in that respect. Newer Spectre/Meltdown security flaws are continuing to be discovered on practically a weekly basis, unfortunately.
Even yet-unreleased CPU's that are scheduled to follow the Intel series 9 are still going to be only partially immunized against Spectre/Meltdown security issues.
That information was stated in the Intel/Cutress interview.
CPU microcode updates will still be needed for current & future products, but performance differences won't be affected as much, percentage-wise, as is the case with, say: Haswell and older systems.

Unless something has changed, I sent an email to Ryan Smith to clarify if there were hardware fixes for the security issues (on the launch day one article said yes, and another said no). He responded and said they did have the known security issues taken care of at the hardware level, and they were updating the other article to reflect that.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13401/intel-9th-gen-cpus-9900k-9700k-9600k

Now I understand that any newer issues (or variations) will need to be fixed at the software level.

 

[VirtualLarry]

My understanding is that the "hardware fixes" for Series 9 CPUs, are basically baked-in firmware fixes, not needed to be patched by the end-user. At least, not until the NEXT variant is discovered.

Not that they changed the layout / mask design to implement "real" circuit fixes for them.

Part of my reason for believing in this hypothesis, is the speed at which the Series 9 CPUs were released, and that they would have to do a lot more testing / debugging if they implemented physical circuit changes, lest they introduce another sort of "Pentium bug" into the mix, in their attempts to mitigate Meltdown / Spectre vulnerabilities in their CPUs.

Edit: In short, to really fix the issue, required architectural-level design changes in the physical layout, which could cause a sort of "butterfly effect", in terms of hardware and timing bugs, that would require much more testing time to verify.

It's my opinion, that those architectural-level changes, are best rolled into whatever the next architectural improvement version of their "Core" line of CPU is.

 

[vailr]

I sent an email to Ryan Smith to clarify if there were hardware fixes for the security issues (on the launch day one article said yes, and another said no). He responded and said they did have the known security issues taken care of at the hardware level, and they were updating the other article to reflect that.

There may to be a slight misunderstanding about what exactly is meant by the term "hardware fix" (CPU chip circuitry changes that attempt to prevent Spectre/Meltdown security issues) vs. "firmware fix" (motherboard bios/UEFI CPU microcode firmware). So: try and clarify which "fix" is really being talked about.

 

[UsandThem]

There may to be a slight misunderstanding about what exactly is meant by the term "hardware fix" (CPU chip circuitry changes that attempt to prevent Spectre/Meltdown security issues) vs. "firmware fix" (motherboard bios/UEFI CPU microcode firmware). So: try and clarify which "fix" is really being talked about.

All I can say is what they wrote in the article I linked to (and then to the article they link to in that).

As it currently stands, because the new Coffee Lake Refresh processors, the i9-9900K, the i7-9700K, and the i5-9600K, are built from new silicon designs, Intel was able to implement hardware fixes for variant 3 (rogue data cache load) and L1 terminal fault.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1345...-xeon-w-processors-fixes-for-spectre-meltdown

 

[vailr]

@ UsandThem: as your chart clearly shows: most of those vulnerabilities are not what I would call "hardware fixes", but instead rely on motherboard flashable bios/UEFI firmware and/or operating system fixes. Therefore, the Mr. Smith quote of "they did have the known security issues taken care of at the hardware level" doesn't actually 100% agree with what your chart shows.
Even Cascade Lake CPU's (not yet released) include only 3 out of 5 listed as "hardware fixes". And that chart itself is (more than likely) outdated by newer, more recently discovered Spectre/Meltdown vulnerabilities.

 

[UsandThem]

Ok.

The 9 series has two flaws fixed at the hardware level, while the 8 series have none. Alles ist gut?