Discussion in 'Intel x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by kot0005, Jun 28, 2018.
I could get ice down at the railway station, I can't get a 9900k there.
Didn't think there was a gene z370 to compare to?
I was comparing the price to the Apex, as it looks like a mini apex and was thinking of downsizing...but +$200 just seems a little extreme.
Anyways, I'm off to the railway station....
In his latest video, der8auer says for serious overclocking you want the gene for it's 2 RAM slots and power phases. Seems like this board is a mini Apex. I'd be all over it if I didn't need 4 RAM slots.
I rang up PLE and the guy said "Early next year" for the 9900k
So I had a look at my bank balance and some gaming benchmarks and reviews, the 9700k overclocks just as well, seems to have slightly better thermals for whatever reason I don't know, and costs $300 less for the same performance in gaming. Lack of hyperthreading and 4MB extra cache missing won't kill me. So I found a place that had one(1) 9700k and bought it on the spot. When they confirm it shipped I will cancel my pre/back-order with PLE.
No it won't kill, you, I bet you will be able to report back months from now and state the 9700K has not bottle-necked your needs in any way..do correct if I am proven to be wrong, but I would say for what most people use it for here, it will do the job extremely well, some will even agree overkill..
$300 for hyperthreading and 4MB of additional cache... the HT won't make a difference in gaming (the CPU has 8 physical cores anyway so HT is not going to come into play much at all I think). The system cache will make it a bit slower, but OTOH I have a feeling I will make that back by a cooler overclock than I could probably get on a 9900k.
On a slightly related tangent, has anyone tried using graphite thermal pads instead of thermal paste? I've seen a few reviews on the internet and they tend to be favorable.
If your main use case is for gaming, then I hazard a guess having (quoted above) will make a bees-dick of an FPS difference for all modern gaming titles.
Maybe a few frames?? who cares??
Errr you've answered your own question.
My 9900k is now with the courier.
Delivery ETA Wednesday.
Scorptec emailed me as i left work saying its ready to be picked up, so picked it up on the way through.
Just got home, just a shame i don't have time to assemble tonight
Agreed All reviews say these 6 cores are all you need for gaming. 8 core is no extra benefit yet ... so that's coding for it.
My latest testing ... 8086K on x3 cores can easily benchmark a 780ti, perhaps x2 cores is enough. Meh I'm an overkill type of guy
I considered it but went with regular Grizzy Kryonaut because the thermal pads because they are apparently thermally conductive (so if something goes wrong it might short out a CPU/Mobo). Similar reason to why I didn't go liquid metal. It also didn't seem easy to get hold of in Australia, although it's supposedly just cut/rebadged Panasonic Soft-PGS, that still isn't simple to pick up instead of just buying Kryonaut or Arctic Silver or Mastergel or whatever other paste that is simple to get.
For me if I end up for whatever reason Scorptec don't get the stock and I can't get the 9900k elsewhere until next year I'd "settle" for a 9700k in the next few weeks and either pocket the difference or use it on a R6 USB-C case.
Does hyperthreading really generate that much additional heat, though? If that's true, surely gamers would be disabling it on 6-8 core CPUs just to get better overclocks which should result in better overall gaming performance, right?
I had both 8700K and 8600K and ran them with 1.3V, 8700K generated more heat than 8600K under stress tests. For gamer there is no doubt the new 9600K and 9700K from Intel will get job done nicely while AMD Ryzen 2600 series provide great value.
Hyperthreading does generate more heat and very few games atm use more than 6 cores. So if just for gaming I'd go 9600k. But if you are steaming, rendering or other really CPU intensive stuff and have the cash. 9900k all the way. If you don't have the money and want bang for buck AMD 2700.
Well I already bought and installed the motherboard, RAM etc so a bit late to change streams now! I do have the money, but the reality is, I don't think that the 9900k is doing anything for me for that extra $300 price tag. I've been looking at a few benchmarks and OC benchmarks and for most games the 9700k and the 9900k are neck-and-neck at 4K gaming anyway.
4K gaming the GPU is more important. 9600k would do just fine for now. If you want to future proof a bit. 9700k would do you fine. Most games do a little worse with hyperthreading.
Sup, if i got a 9700k and wanted a (mild?) OC of 5ghz 24/7 on all cores what mobo would be a good choice without burning cash?
I was thinking the ROG z390 strix or would it be better to get the gene? Would rather the cheaper one but if it makes a lot of difference with ocing then thats sumin i gotta weigh up.
Only plan on runnin 16gb ram
Can't wait to inject my 9900k and install my ice.