Torn between 2700X and 8700K

[Melvis]

They did nothing last year to suggest X370 wouldn't support the upcoming 9th gen.

No no I meant 7th gen to 8Th gen

 

[cucker tarlson]

8600k or 9700k, that's it. I'd choose the cheaper 8600k, try to sell that fury x and get him a lightly used 1070ti/1080, there's gonna be people selling those card bought in early 2018 to get rtx.

 

[xkm1948]

8600k or 9700k, that's it. I'd choose the cheaper 8600k, try to sell that fury x and get him a lightly used 1070ti/1080, there's gonna be people selling those card bought in early 2018 to get rtx.

Nah the FuryX will definitely be kept. I am paying out of pocket so i have no intention to spend more than I should especially on GPU

Going 8700K BTW, the future owner saw this thread and asked me for that. Apparently some streaming of MMORPG is on the plate

 

[newtekie1]

No no I meant 7th gen to 8Th gen

And again, nothing to suggest the 9th gen wouldn't be supported by X370.

 

[Melvis]

And again, nothing to suggest the 9th gen wouldn't be supported by X370.

and last yrs 7th to 8th gen suggest that it might not be supported.

 

[newtekie1]

and last yrs 7th to 8th gen suggest that it might not be supported.

No it doesn't. Each chipset has always supported 2 generations. It has been this way with Intel for like a decade now.

 

[Melvis]

No it doesn't. Each chipset has always supported 2 generations. It has been this way with Intel for like a decade now.

Yeah this is true and I got confused and forgot that it was 6th/7th gen on the same socket, just remember everyone complaining about jumping onto 1151 in 2017 7th gen and then less then 8months later 8th gen came out and if you wanted 6cores you had to buy a new mobo, even though it was clearly possible to run 8th gen if they released a bios update.

Anyway my point still stands as this artical here states > https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...rough-geekbench-on-a-z370-motherboard.247308/ that intel would prefer you to use any 8core 9th gen CPU on the z390 chipset if your going to do any sort of OC and I bet you it still be very limited on Z370 boards that will support the 8core CPU's

 

[xkm1948]

Purchased the 8700K today with a $25 discount code after chatting with a friendly newegg agent today. Not too bad. So I guess the debate is over. Went with Intel for the gaming build. I mean for REAL work I have my 6950X and access to a Threadripper 2.

 

[dirtyferret]

Core i7-7700K launched 17 months after its predecessor, i7-6700K, which in turn launched 26 months after its predecessor, i7-4770K, which in turn launched 15 months after i7-3770K, which in turn launched 14 months after i7-2600K, which launched 14 months after i7-870. 9 years of 4-core/8-thread at $300-ish.

AMD effed i7-7700K raw with Ryzen "Summit Ridge," and i7-8700K was born 9 months after its predecessor (even forcing a motherboard upgrade). I expect it will be 11~barely~12 months old before i7-9700K succeeds it.

So in a span of 18 months, Intel decided 4 cores isn't future-proof enough, and 6 cores isn't future-proof enough, and that people need 8 cores at $300-ish. Can't deny AMD reshaped Intel's lineup.

It's a rush.

By late-2018, AMD will be ready with a Zen 2 die, and if that ends up competitive (very likely), then hang tight, Intel will suddenly realize 8 cores aren't enough.

The extra cores are nice but I think what both camps want to see are significant IPC gains.

 

[RejZoR]

Intel is compensating that with very high clocks. But they are at 5GHz now and they can't just go with clocks to infinity. They'll need to pull another Core architecture magic again, otherwise they'll be stuck. AMD has some room on Ryzens, but they are hitting the same obstacle in general... Then the question is, can there even be anything done to dramatically increase IPC and whether x86/x64 is the limiting factor.

 

[AlwaysHope]

Intel is compensating that with very high clocks. But they are at 5GHz now and they can't just go with clocks to infinity. They'll need to pull another Core architecture magic again, otherwise they'll be stuck. AMD has some room on Ryzens, but they are hitting the same obstacle in general... Then the question is, can there even be anything done to dramatically increase IPC and whether x86/x64 is the limiting factor.

Dramatically increasing IPC won't happen anymore with current silicon technology. I mean not much more room from 12nm to 1nm, considering how past generations have gone like from 45 >32 >22 >14>12 etc, Intel or AMD. We will have to wait for Quantum computing tech to be commercialized first imo before we see "dramatically increased IPC".

 

[jboydgolfer]

If it's just gaming id go with a 8600K , that & 8Gb's Ram tears through games/multitasking

 

[RealNeil]

When I see most RGB builds I am half expecting to look thru the case window and see a Barbie sized stripper pole dancing.

LOL!

Purchased the 8700K today with a $25 discount code

Good, I really like both of mine.

 

[AlwaysHope]

Congrats to OP for supporting the most corrupt, anti competitive, ant consumer & anti technology company in the entire semiconductor industry.

 

[RealNeil]

Congrats to OP for supporting the most corrupt, anti competitive, ant consumer & anti technology company in the entire semiconductor industry.

You need to congratulate the hell out of me then. I have five Intel CPUs to only one FX CPU.

EDIT: I just remembered that My wife's office PC has a Ryzen-5 1600X in it, so I have two AMD CPUs.

 

[hat]

Intel is compensating that with very high clocks. But they are at 5GHz now and they can't just go with clocks to infinity. They'll need to pull another Core architecture magic again, otherwise they'll be stuck. AMD has some room on Ryzens, but they are hitting the same obstacle in general... Then the question is, can there even be anything done to dramatically increase IPC and whether x86/x64 is the limiting factor.

Dramatically increasing IPC won't happen anymore with current silicon technology. I mean not much more room from 12nm to 1nm, considering how past generations have gone like from 45 >32 >22 >14>12 etc, Intel or AMD. We will have to wait for Quantum computing tech to be commercialized first imo before we see "dramatically increased IPC".

Only time can tell. Though I would like to point out that even 14nm to 10nm equates to (roughly) 30% smaller (given that these process nodes are mostly marketing numbers, and the specific details are far more in depth than what "nm" it is).

As for the speed of the architecture itself, I don't see why Intel or AMD can't develop one that's faster with currently existing technology. C2D was a radical change from Netburst, and significantly faster, yet early C2D chips and late Netburst chips were both 65nm. Smaller processes are good, but it's not the only thing that makes chips faster.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Building a mITX PC for a family member to be used almost exclusively for MMORPG and RPG. I will be passing the FuryX to the build so the GPU part is settled. The monitor I have in mind is a 32'' 1440p Samsung one. Now it seems the most difficult part is deciding between 2700X and 8700K. So here are the specs I have in mind:

CPU: 2700X or 8700K
MoBo: Z370-ITX or B450-ITX
Cooler: Corsair X115i Pro
RAM: Corsair Vegence RGB PRO DDR4-3200 16GB
Storage: 970Evo 1TB
GPU: FuryX
PSU: EVGA 750Watt
Chassis: NZXT Manta
Monitor: Samsung C32H711

The ONLY productivity done on this computer will be some studio recording/processing and word processing. So what do you guys think?

My 2 cents; for gaming, the 8700k is the right choice for the best performance. However, the 2700x is a bad ass CPU for just about anything else and is within a few percent of the 8700k in gaming until you overclock. If you want the best performance in gaming and you are willing to overclock then the 8700k is the clear choice.

 

[AlwaysHope]

Only time can tell. Though I would like to point out that even 14nm to 10nm equates to (roughly) 30% smaller (given that these process nodes are mostly marketing numbers, and the specific details are far more in depth than what "nm" it is).

As for the speed of the architecture itself, I don't see why Intel or AMD can't develop one that's faster with currently existing technology. C2D was a radical change from Netburst, and significantly faster, yet early C2D chips and late Netburst chips were both 65nm. Smaller processes are good, but it's not the only thing that makes chips faster.

There's a difference between "significantly faster" & "faster". But yeah, I hope AMD can do it. If rumors circulating around net are true, then 7nm for AMD gives 15% increase in IPC. BUT only rumors...

 

[hat]

As do I. As far as these rumors, a 15% increase in IPC would probably put AMD a little bit ahead of Intel, if they could reach the same clockspeeds... as of now though it's a wash and we can only hope.

 

[cucker tarlson]

lol what's with the recent flood of fools retorting people's purchase choices with this adoretv person's propaganda vieos ? he did the best thing possible for his family member. I just wonder if people like this always hold themselves to such a standard. Do you research every product you buy not according to what you get for the price, but review the history of the company too ?
He purchased 2990wx system for himself, I can't imagine the ego of a person that's making him feel bad about buying someone 8700k for gaming sytem.Go troll for AMDored TV somewhere else.

Dramatically increasing IPC won't happen anymore with current silicon technology. I mean not much more room from 12nm to 1nm, considering how past generations have gone like from 45 >32 >22 >14>12 etc, Intel or AMD. We will have to wait for Quantum computing tech to be commercialized first imo before we see "dramatically increased IPC".

Dude,you don't unedrstand die shrinks.28nm to 16nm is not the same as 12nm to 1nm.

 

[Vlada011]

Now arrive Intel's Ryzen killer.
If I saw good default Cinebench i9-9900K is 2166.
2700X is arround 1800 score....

That mean i9-9900K default is faster and after overclocking both processors probably faster than i7-6950X 10 cores on 4.4GHz.
i7-6950X can't be find below 700$ used... And his price will drop on below 500$ instantly when i9-9900K show up.

I'm not sure that even new AMD with 8 core can beat i9-9900K.

 

[eidairaman1]

Now arrive Intel's Ryzen killer.
If I saw good default Cinebench i9-9900K is 2166.
2700X is arround 1800 score....

That mean i9-9900K default is faster and after overclocking both processors probably faster than i7-6950X 10 cores on 4.4GHz.
i7-6950X can't be find below 700$ used... And his price will drop on below 500$ instantly when i9-9900K show up.

I'm not sure that even new AMD with 8 core can beat i9-9900K.

Zzzzzzzzzzz

/thread

 

[Vlada011]

No it doesn't. Each chipset has always supported 2 generations. It has been this way with Intel for like a decade now.

i9-9900K will work on Z370.
And anyone who ask about 2700X and i7-8700K should wait and buy faster not slower CPU than 2700X.
Price difference between i7-8700K and i9-9900K should be arround 130-140 euro.

For 130-140 euro less you get CPU weaker than 2700X or CPU faster than i7-6950X and after mid OC.

 

[Deleted member 178884]

Now arrive Intel's Ryzen killer.

How much again? Oh that's right as much a used 7900x, What a joke.

i7-6950X can't be find below 700$ used

Bull, here in the UK it's £440 at cex, the 6950x is outdated by x299, hence the lower price.

 

[Mighty-Lu-Bu]

The 2700X is superior to the 8700k- some will tell you other wise, but it isn't true. Currently the 8700k is more expensive (only slightly), it has a faster clock and slightly faster single core performance. The Ryzen 2700x decimates it in multi-core performance and since that's the way the industry is going, you can future proof your system so to speak. The 2800X is rumored to drop soon, but it most likely will be released after the i7-9700k.