8700k or 9700k for VR?

Discussion in 'CPUs and Overclocking' started by Anotherguynamedmike810, Jan 3, 2019.

  1. Anotherguynamedmike810

    Anotherguynamedmike810 New Member

    Messages:
    11
    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?
     
  2. beers

    beers Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,289
    What's your total budget?

    Prioritize gpu over CPU
     
  3. Laquer Head

    Laquer Head Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,226
    I agree with @beers but also, I have tried a bunch of VR stuff on my 8700K/1080Ti rig and it works great,.
     
    beers likes this.
  4. Anotherguynamedmike810

    Anotherguynamedmike810 New Member

    Messages:
    11
    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.
     
  5. beers

    beers Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,289
    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.
     
  6. Anotherguynamedmike810

    Anotherguynamedmike810 New Member

    Messages:
    11
    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?
     
  7. gillmanjr

    gillmanjr Member

    Messages:
    142
    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: Jan 17, 2019
  8. OmniDyne

    OmniDyne Active Member

    Messages:
    478
    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.

    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: Jan 18, 2019
  9. gillmanjr

    gillmanjr Member

    Messages:
    142
    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.
     
  10. OmniDyne

    OmniDyne Active Member

    Messages:
    478
    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 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.

    No it doesn't:

    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: Jan 18, 2019
  11. gillmanjr

    gillmanjr Member

    Messages:
    142
    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: Jan 19, 2019
  12. OmniDyne

    OmniDyne Active Member

    Messages:
    478
    The entire conclusion:

    I'm not sure how the point can be any more obvious.

    I never said it wasn't. I said the 8700K is more consistent.

    ?

    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.
     
  13. gillmanjr

    gillmanjr Member

    Messages:
    142
    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.
     
  14. OmniDyne

    OmniDyne Active Member

    Messages:
    478

    Okay:

    (he's referencing how the 9700K "beat" the 8700K by .2ms in F1 2018 and .4ms in Far Cry 5:

    Continued from above:



    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: Jan 20, 2019
  15. Intel_man

    Intel_man VIP Member

    Messages:
    5,695
    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.
     
  16. gillmanjr

    gillmanjr Member

    Messages:
    142
    Well I just ordered it along with an ASRock Phantom Gaming 6. I'll let you guys know how awesome it is. :p
     
    OmniDyne likes this.
  17. OmniDyne

    OmniDyne Active Member

    Messages:
    478
  18. gillmanjr

    gillmanjr Member

    Messages:
    142
    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.
     
  19. gillmanjr

    gillmanjr Member

    Messages:
    142
  20. mtb211

    mtb211 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,819
    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
     

Share This Page