8700k or 9700k for VR?

Hello, I'm new to computer building but I've been debating with friends and researching this topic for the past few days nonstop and can't seem to get an answer. My debate is wether to buy the multithreaded i7-8700k with 6 cores and 12 threads or the i7-9700k with 8 cores but only 8 threads.

On one hand, it seems logical that HTC Vive will run a large amount of processes at once so I am leaning towards the 8700k but on the other hand, it seems that the VR wireless adapter (which I plan on getting later down the line) will require additional cores so maybe the 9700k is the way to go. What is everyone else's opinion on this topic?
 
What's your total budget?

Prioritize gpu over CPU
I know it’s all about gpu in this situation but I still got to choose a CPU when building. I’m just stuck between these two options and (although it will barely have any effect in comparison to the GPU) I’m trying to understand when 8 cores with 8 threads would outperform 6 multithreaded cores.
 

beers

Moderator
Staff member
They're probably about equal but it depends on the workload. Most games only use a couple primary threads so you wouldn't see much of a difference outside of frequency/IPC.

I'd probably save the $ and put the difference into the GPU if you aren't already going full 2080Ti or something. It's usually a budgetary decision against your full build budget though.
 
They're probably about equal but it depends on the workload. Most games only use a couple primary threads so you wouldn't see much of a difference outside of frequency/IPC.

I'd probably save the $ and put the difference into the GPU if you aren't already going full 2080Ti or something. It's usually a budgetary decision against your full build budget though.
Budget isn't much of an issue considering the two are only around $30 or so apart. I plan on using an RTX 2700 GPU and will spend money on a decent cooler if overclocking will increase performance. The rest of my build is set up and comes in around $1,500 but I'm just debating on this last decision between CPU's. Considering the price difference is negligible, would you personally go for the multithreaded 6 core or single threaded 8 core when building specifically for VR?
 

gillmanjr

Member
I'm in the midst of an upgrade too and I've watched a bunch of benchmarks of these two CPUs (comparison benchmarks). In my case its for ultrawide 1440p gaming (and recording), so I can't really speak to VR specifically. But I've come to the conclusion that the 9700k is the better choice for gaming and is going to give you better performance pretty much across the board. There are a few exceptions (and I mean VERY few) where a game is optimized to utilize hyper threading, but even then the difference is negligible. The benchmarks all show that more of the CPU is utilized with the 9700k vs the 8700k but the frames are higher almost all the time (in some cases a lot higher), and that is all that matters at the end of the day. I think the 9700k is the better choice for future proofing as well because of the extra physical cores.

For heavy graphics/3D rendering you might be better of with an 8700k but I'm not even sure about that.

Also, I agree with beers that you should get at least an RTX 2080 if you are getting either of these CPUs. With a 2070 you probably won't utilize an i7 to its fullest anyway.
 
Last edited:

OmniDyne

Active Member
There are a few exceptions (and I mean VERY few) where a game is optimized to utilize hyper threading, but even then the difference is negligible
It's definitely not negligible. This is because of frametimes.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3407-intel-i5-9600k-cpu-review-vs-2700-2600-8700k

6 core/ 6 thread processors should probably be avoided by anyone purchasing on the high end and even the mid-range tier. Although the 6C/ 6T processors can produce high framerates, they will also cause stuttering in certain titles.

but the frames are higher almost all the time (in some cases a lot higher), and that is all that matters at the end of the day.
Frametime consistency and 1% lows are just as important.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3421-intel-i7-9700k-review-benchmark-vs-8700k-and-more

The stock 9700K can sometimes produce 12 percent more frames over the stock 8700K, however, the stock 8700K can produce over 20 more 1% low frames.

In Far Cry 5, the overclocked 8700K produces higher 1% lows compared to the overclocked 9700K and is only beaten by 3 frames on the average high. The stock 8700K also has higher 1% lows vs. the overclocked 9700K.

Assassin's Creed mimics Far Cry 5 in this behavior.

GamersNexus states that the 9700K is not worth the $400 price tag. Unless the OP can find a great deal for the 9700K, I think the 8700K is the better buy.
 
Last edited:

gillmanjr

Member
The first review you linked is for the i5 9600k, not the i7 9700k. Nobody here has mentioned the i5.

The second review you linked to pretty much states what I summed up in my post about the 9700k. In fact the first sentence of the second paragraph in the conclusion section LITERALLY does exactly that. Read it for yourself. Whether or not its worth an extra $30 is subjective, it certainly is for me. The extra 2 physical cores will make it the better future proofed CPU vs the 8700k.
 

OmniDyne

Active Member
The first review you linked is for the i5 9600k, not the i7 9700k. Nobody here has mentioned the i5.
There are a few exceptions (and I mean VERY few) where a game is optimized to utilize hyper threading, but even then the difference is negligible
This is false. That's why I brought up the 9600K, and it absolutely applies to the 9700K. The loss of Hyper-Threading (less threads) has a negative impact on framerates and frametimes in games that utilize the extra threads; both reviews reflect this very clearly.

The extra 2 physical cores will make it the better future proofed CPU vs the 8700k.
The trend is that newer games are taking advantage of more threads. As evidenced by the review, the 8700K will provide more consistent framerates. This is further evidenced by the 6 core/6 thread i5 processors being unable to provide consistent framerates and frametimes. Future proofing is a farcical concept.

In fact the first sentence of the second paragraph in the conclusion section LITERALLY does exactly that.
No it doesn't:

GamersNexus said:
Now that we’ve tested it, we can see that benchmarking positions the 9700K oft superior in gaming tasks, largely a result of frequency, to the preceding 8700K. This doesn’t remain true in every case, like in Blender workloads where the additional threads of the 8700K prove advantageous. The price increase of the 9700K over the 8700K also feels off-putting, and so the gains the 9700K makes in gaming are lost when considering the price increase. At the same price, it’d be more tenable, but an increase to $400 to $430 is unpalatable in the face of Intel’s similarly performing i7-8700K at cheaper prices.
GamersNexus said:
We need to see price come down to around where the 8700K is – around $350 – to really feel comfortable with the 9700K
GamersNexus said:
Even then, it feels like an odd, lateral move from the 8700K before it.
The trend is that newer games need more threads. 6 threads is not sufficient for some newer titles. As evidenced by the reviews, the 8700K provides a more consistent experience over the 9700K because of its higher thread count, and this trend will continue. Any advantage the 9700K has over the 8700K can mostly be made up by overclocking (higher frequency, as stated by GN).

In addition, paying $30 more for a few percentage points higher average FPS to lose consistency (losing 20+ frames on the 1% lows) is counterproductive.

Stating that the 9700K is "more future proofed" is something you can't prove; evidence points in the opposite direction.

Since the reviews and evidence are on the side of the 8700K, I'd say it's the better decision, especially considering the money saved can go elsewhere in the build, as was mentioned earlier. Gamers Nexus appears to concur.
 
Last edited:

gillmanjr

Member
I'm sorry dude but I think your interpretation of that article is flawed. Watch the video review by gamernexus, the same people you are quoting, and listen to his conclusion at the end. Also look at the charts, the 9700k is clearly the faster CPU and the most consistent at delivering frames. Whether or not you think its worth the extra $30 is still subjective and there are even a lot of people who think that Intel is just gouging customers with this chip. Is that true?...possibly. I agree that the 9700k should probably be what the 9900k is. I'm not really sure why Intel turned off HT for the i7. Regardless, the 9700k IS the better option for gaming now and, in my opinion, still will be 5 years from now.

 
Last edited:

OmniDyne

Active Member
listen to his conclusion at the end
The entire conclusion:

GamersNexus said:
The Intel i7-9700K received ample criticism at unveil for being the first “gaming,” S-class i7 in recent history to drop hyperthreading. The move was accompanied by an increase in physical core count to 8C, but followed the previous move from 4C/8T to 6C/12T, and thus felt like an odd middle-step that had forgotten the lessons learned by the 8700K. The decision left enthusiasts feeling ripped-off; rather than a clear improvement in the product category, Intel had made a sort of lateral step.

Now that we’ve tested it, we can see that benchmarking positions the 9700K oft superior in gaming tasks, largely a result of frequency, to the preceding 8700K. This doesn’t remain true in every case, like in Blender workloads where the additional threads of the 8700K prove advantageous. The price increase of the 9700K over the 8700K also feels off-putting, and so the gains the 9700K makes in gaming are lost when considering the price increase. At the same price, it’d be more tenable, but an increase to $400 to $430 is unpalatable in the face of Intel’s similarly performing i7-8700K at cheaper prices.

The move did not feel productive for Intel. The 9700K is fine. It’s not a bad product, it does well in testing (overall), and it both wins and loses some tests, as any product would do. The oddity is just that it’s losing tests against its predecessor, even when those are simple tests of value, not necessarily performance. This was true for the likes of the RTX 2080 as well, for instance, where performance was fine, but value was a clear regression from the previous generation. We feel similarly about the 9700K. We need to see price come down to around where the 8700K is – around $350 – to really feel comfortable with the 9700K. Even then, it feels like an odd, lateral move from the 8700K before it.
I'm not sure how the point can be any more obvious.

the 9700k is clearly the faster CPU
I never said it wasn't. I said the 8700K is more consistent.

Intel is just gouging customers
?

the 9700k IS the better option for gaming now
still will be 5 years from now.
Gamers Nexus clearly states it's a lateral movement. They never used the word "better".

If a processor (9700K) provides less frames on the low end and provides marginally (slightly) more frames on the high end, then the processor is not "better"; it's a trade-off.

Hence "Even then, it feels like an odd, lateral move from the 8700K before it".

We need to see price come down to around where the 8700K is – around $350 – to really feel comfortable with the 9700K. Even then, it feels like an odd, lateral move from the 8700K before it.

This means even if the 9700K were priced evenly with the 8700K, it still would not be a superior product, or "better".

There is absolutely no way to make this more clear.
 

gillmanjr

Member
Dude, please just go to 18:10 in the youtube video and LISTEN. Then come back here and quote exactly what he says, word for word. Seriously, 18:10 to 18:35.
 

OmniDyne

Active Member
Dude, please just go to 18:10 in the youtube video and LISTEN. Then come back here and quote exactly what he says, word for word. Seriously, 18:10 to 18:35.

Okay:

Steve Burke said:
"...It's just that for $30 cheaper, you feel kind of bad. Like, should I just spend the extra $30 and get the new one? But if the performance is roughly the same, it's not like a GPU where drive support is really a concern over time, it's just, I mean, the performance is what it is, it's not really going to change all that much; things like Spectre and Meltdown notwithstanding."

"So should you buy the 9700K? Well, the 9900K is kind of out of the conversation, it's just so much more expensive. The 8700K is a bit advantaged in Blender, that's about it. So, for an extra couple of bucks, if you really care about that reduction in frametime...
(he's referencing how the 9700K "beat" the 8700K by .2ms in F1 2018 and .4ms in Far Cry 5:
Steve Burke said:
The 8700K stock CPU ends up at 141FPS AVG, which plants it below the 9700K, but not by a meaningful amount. No one can reasonably detect the average frametime difference of 0.4ms between these two and consistency is the same for each.

Continued from above:
...then yes, the 9700K is better.

"But, overall the 9700K is hard to come to a firm conclusion on because it's such a weird part. It doesn't really feel great to buy something where you know they just turned off Hyper-Threading, and previously it was on, but also there are more phyiscal cores, so, kind of at a net-zero for thread-count increase, which is boring, and the frequency goes up a couple hundred megahertz, which is boring. So, hard to say, but not exciting enought to run out and buy, if you're building a computer anyway, don't feel bad about it, it's just that yeah, the price creeps up a bit so, you've got alternatives if you don't like that.



To the OP, if you can find the 8700K for a decent price, you'll be losing nothing by going that route. You'd even gain some higher 1% lows in framerates.

If for some reason the 9700K is priced the same as the 8700K in your area, go with the 9700K.
 
Last edited:

Intel_man

VIP Member
Apart from potential hyperthreading security flaws, I can't say I'd ever want to recommend the 9700k unless you're adamant about having the soldered thermal interface instead of the pigeon poop on the 8700k.

You can't go wrong with either products, but between the two... I'd buy the cheaper one.
 

gillmanjr

Member
I'm sure it'll be awesome. Make sure to post your CPU-Z benchmark on here!

https://www.computerforum.com/threads/sticky-official-cpu-z-benchmark-thread.240218/
I've never done that before but I will. Its going to take me a little while to get everything up and running though, part of this upgrade is the move to Windows 10 and I'm doing a fresh install on a new NVMe drive. So I have some work to do. I'm also not planning to push this CPU as far as it can go, I just don't need to. My ultrawide will only do 120 FPS so as long as I can get that I'll be happy. I'm sure 4.5 or 4.6 GHz will be plenty.
 

mtb211

Active Member
Well I decided I was going to get a 6 core i5 then I read this thread and I am more confused then before I started researching lol
 
Top