i7 8086k or i7 9700k for futureproof gaming

[FilipReff]

Hi, so the title is pretty straightforward. I will be getting new CPU and cant decide between the mentioned CPUs since there is only 10 euro difference. ( The reason why i dont consider 8700k is because its only 20 euro cheaper than 8086k, also not considering i9 9900k since thats over 140 euro more expensive than 9700k. The pc will be used mainly for gaming, and in benchmarks i see mostly no difference between them.

I am litlle bit more in favor of 8086k since it has higher OC potentional, good temperatures, hyper threading(HT), and since it is limited edition = better resellability.

But since the 9700k is 9th gen it makes me wonder if its not better futureproof, bacause thats what i am after, dont want to buy new CPU for at least 4-5 years again. The biggest issue i have with 9700k is that it doesnt have HT. But i did some reasearch and found out that most games run with higher fps when HT is disabled so this puzzeles me.

Is it better to have 6 cores and 12 threads or 8 cores and 8 threads? Sure, it depends on the games, and right know most games dont even use 6 cores, but as i said i want to futureproof my self.

So let me guys know what you think. Thanks

 

[Vayra86]

Both CPUs will do you fine, so yes I think your idea about this is solid. The 8086k is likely to have more resale value. That and 6c is pretty much the sweetspot also for clocking, plus these CPUs are certainly binned whereas the 9700K is not.

I think in terms of overclocking the 8086k is the 'more fun' CPU to play with. Chances are the 9700K will just allow you to all core 5.0 Ghz and that's it.

About what is better for gaming, I think neither CPU will be obsolete in 5 years. My measly 4c/4t 3570K lasted six and it was mid range. This is the top end, and core counts are not going to keep scaling, there is simply no point for mainstream builds.

 

[FilipReff]

Both CPUs will do you fine, so yes I think your idea about this is solid. The 8086k is likely to have more resale value. That and 6c is pretty much the sweetspot also for clocking, plus these CPUs are certainly binned whereas the 9700K is not.

I think in terms of overclocking the 8086k is the 'more fun' CPU to play with. Chances are the 9700K will just allow you to all core 5.0 Ghz and that's it.

About what is better for gaming, I think neither CPU will be obsolete in 5 years. My measly 4c/4t 3570K lasted six and it was mid range. This is the top end, and core counts are not going to keep scaling, there is simply no point for mainstream builds.

I am upgrading from my 4 year old i7 4790k, i was hoping this cpu would last 2 more years at least, but right now it bottlenecking the hell out of my rtx 2080, in AC odyssey the CPU runs 100% on all cores and gpu sits on 60% while not getting over 48 fps in "cities" with lot of npcs. Same goes for kingdome come deliverance where i drop even to 30 fps in cities with same usage scenario. My resolution is 2560x1080 so rtx 2080 is much more than enough for that.

 

[Vayra86]

I am upgrading from my 4 year old i7 4790k, i was hoping this cpu would last 2 more years at least, but right now it bottlenecking the hell out of my rtx 2080, in AC odyssey the CPU runs 100% on all cores and gpu sits on 60% while not getting over 48 fps in "cities" with lot of npcs. Same goes for kingdome come deliverance where i drop even to 30 fps in cities with same usage scenario. My resolution is 2560x1080 so rtx 2080 is much more than enough for that.

Yes, you have more than enough GPU grunt for that and CPU is holding you back. But also keep in mind that low FPS in cities and 'population hubs' (both on- and offline) is just simply an API problem or other bottleneck in the pipeline. DirectX draw call limitations, for example, or just poor (Net)code.

So even if you see 100% utilization, the actual performance you gain from an upgrade may not be as great as you'd expect.

 

[FilipReff]

Yes, you have more than enough GPU grunt for that and CPU is holding you back. But also keep in mind that low FPS in cities and 'population hubs' (both on- and offline) is just simply an API problem or other bottleneck in the pipeline. DirectX draw call limitations, for example, or just poor (Net)code.

So even if you see 100% utilization, the actual performance you gain from an upgrade may not be as great as you'd expect.

8
Well thats why there are benchmarks and those show they should push me above desired 60 fps at least with 8086/9700. I am just trying to figure out what is more futureproof, 6c/12t or 8c/8t?

 

[Vayra86]

8
Well thats why there are benchmarks and those show they should push me above desired 60 fps at least with 8086/9700. I am just trying to figure out what is more futureproof, 6c/12t or 8c/8t?

Benchmarks are almost never run within those 'hubs'

Which is more future proof? I'd say they are equal, but 6c/12t has more versatility. Its impossible to say but also not something to worry about. They'll both do fine for many years.

 

[27MaD]

They will perform almost the same , but i'll go with the 9700K and OC it.

 

[dgianstefani]

9700k if you want future proof - 2 more cores
8086k if you want 100mhz higher single core clock - better binned.

 

[FilipReff]

Benchmarks are almost never run within those 'hubs'

Which is more future proof? I'd say they are equal, but 6c/12t has more versatility. Its impossible to say but also not something to worry about. They'll both do fine for many years.

Well AC Odyssey has build in benchmark that takes you to the middle of biggest city (population hub) so. I made my homework to make sure those CPUs are worth to be upgrading for.

9700k if you want future proof - 2 more cores
8086k if you want 100mhz higher single core clock - better binned.

So you think 8c/8t is more futureproofing than 6c/12t?

 

[dgianstefani]

threads add 20%-30% to performance compared to a real core.
6 cores = 600 perf, 6 extra "hyper threads" = 6x20 = 120 perf or 6x30 = 180 perf = 720-780 perf
8 cores = 800 perf, no extra hyper threads = 800 perf

8c/8t is 800 multi perf
6c/12t is 720/780 multi perf.

Decide whether you want minimal gains in SC perf, over larger gains in multi perf, which will become more relevant.

Also decide if the resale value of your new cpu several years from now (maybe you get 10% more) is really what you should be considering when picking a part.

 

[FilipReff]

threads add 20%-30% to performance compared to a real core.
6 cores = 600 perf, 6 extra "hyper threads" = 6x20 = 120 perf or 6x30 = 180 perf = 720-780 perf
8 cores = 800 perf, no extra hyper threads = 800 perf

8c/8t is 800 multi perf
6c/12t is 720/780 multi perf.

Decide whether you want minimal gains in SC perf, over larger gains in multi perf, which will become more relevant.

Also decide if the resale value of your new cpu several years from now (maybe you get 10% more) is really what you should be considering when picking a part.

well the 9700k will probably have bigger resell value since is newer gen, but 8086k is limited edition, this is really headspinning decision...

 

[coonbro]

'' futureproof'' lol......

like the most of us in 2 to 5 years you will be back asking on a new upgrade . futureproof , lol.... that's all ways a good one . ya , may last you several years and never fail to fire up , but in a few yearsa will it run that latest stuff or hardware compatible or flat stop any support as needed . you see how they take that away now to make you upgrade faster then add win-10 on top telling you how and what to do as they see fit ..lol...

 

[eidairaman1]

Future proof you say?
Intel is moving platforms after the 9700.

Ryzen have more upgrade options over the platform life cycle.

 

[dgianstefani]

Ryzen has 3 generations on one mobo, I.e. first gen, node refresh + second gen. 4xxx series Ryzen will have a new mobo.

 

[coonbro]

heck with AMD you could still pound a 990 fx [bulldozer ] platform and still run down to win-xp if needed for legacy stuff or latest hardware and win -10 as well . intel cant say or do that sadly amd now jumped on that proprietary kick like all the rest and dropping su[pport [ you build as they want not as you need anymore ]

 

[dirtyferret]

I recently built a PC with an Intel i9-10700 to future proof myself

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Man that is a tough one. I actually considered both for a while and then just said F it and got the 9900k. I would only grab the 8086K if you where going to Delid it if not I would lean more towards the 9700k. http://www.3dmark.com/spy/4995094 my score and at least on a 144hz monitor is was a pretty big jump in smoothness from my 5820k @4.5ghz.

 

[Vayra86]

threads add 20%-30% to performance compared to a real core.
6 cores = 600 perf, 6 extra "hyper threads" = 6x20 = 120 perf or 6x30 = 180 perf = 720-780 perf
8 cores = 800 perf, no extra hyper threads = 800 perf

8c/8t is 800 multi perf
6c/12t is 720/780 multi perf.

Decide whether you want minimal gains in SC perf, over larger gains in multi perf, which will become more relevant.

Also decide if the resale value of your new cpu several years from now (maybe you get 10% more) is really what you should be considering when picking a part.

This is just pulling random numbers out of your ass, sorry mate. There are dozens of factors in play when it comes to CPU performance in gaming or for any other workload.

 

[FilipReff]

Ok all jokes aside. I am not some tech guru, thats why i came to ask what is better for future gaming, since some of you may have som knowledge what games seem to utilize more nad more. And thats why I am aksing if its better to have 8 real cores but only 8 threads or just 6 real cores but 12 threads. Since both 9700k and 8086k can be OCed to higher clock speeds. The only differance those two cpus have is in cores and threads and I want to know which option seems to be realisticlly better for future game titles.

 

[Vayra86]

Ok all jokes aside. I am not some tech guru, that why i came to ask what is better for future gaming, since some of you may have som knowledge what games seem to utilize more nad more. And thats why I am aksing if its better to have 8 real cores but only 8 threads or just 6 real cores but 12 threads. Since both 9700k and 8086k can be OCed to higher clock speeds. The only differance those two cpus have is in cores and threads and I want to know with option seems to be realisticlly better for future game titles.

You have my two cents... I am quite positive the 8086k is the better choice here, but even so, its hard to go wrong with either CPU. Neither will be struggling now, in two years, or in five years time, even if you push for high refresh rate gaming.

I recently built a PC with an Intel i9-10700 to future proof myself

LOL

 

[trog100]

ether one will do.. but if future proofing bothers you there is always the 9900..

trog

 

[John Naylor]

Futureproofing doesn't exist. And with GPus advancing about 5 times the rate as anything else, it really doesn't matter. Sandy bridge is still a viable option for gaming. I (4770k) have yet to encounter a situation where more cores was a factor. You can tesyt this yaself by using Task manager and assigning all 8 cores to your game. Gauge the results and then change affinity to 7, then 6 and so on.

With regard to HT, I looked into this heavily w/ the 2600k way back when. The CPU runs about 7C cooler with HT turned off, so for gaming, for which more than 4 cores were useless, I was able to get a higher OC die to the lower temps with HT Odd. I set up several BIOS profiles on my sons box.... The "Extreme Gaming Profile" IIRC was 4.9 Ghz and No HT. The "Normal Boot" was 4.8 GHz w/ HT enabled. You get marginally better numbers on the 4.9 Ghz but not that you can notice while playing. All monitors here are 144 or 165 Hz 1080p and 1440p .... my son has 1 of each.

Once we get into the later steppings, (2109) we will start building again, hopefully with pressure on taxing PC parts now "on", the tariffs will have dropped by then, later steppings of the nvidia 2xxx series will be bug free and the last gen cards excess inventory will be done and card proces will return to reality. Our gaming builds will likely be equipped with 9700k or 9600k, if video editing or other workstation apps are in play, then the 9900k, but for gaming boxes, the latter can't be justified.

 

[lexluthermiester]

The pc will be used mainly for gaming

Is it better to have 6 cores and 12 threads

If you plan on OCing at all, which would be a senseless waste if you didn't, you'll want to go with the 9700k as in most cases you'll get a better OC turning off HT. The 8086k OC's much better with it off and with the 9700k not having HT, you'll end up with two extra cores on a chip that OC's to levels very similar to the 8086k. 5GHZ should not be a big challenge.

 

[phanbuey]

9700 all the way... it performs better, has 2 more cores. It's a faster chip.

 

[ArbitraryAffection]

In games, (and I believe for the foreseeable future) 8 physical cores and 8 threads is better than 6 and 12, respectively. In synthetic performance and other multi-threaded workloads the two processors are very similar in performance and trade blows from what I have seen. So I would go with the 9700k UNLESS the 8086K is a lot cheaper: it could be a more cost effective option. Honestly both CPUs are gonna be fine for a while with gaming in mind.