So... essentially... compared to a stock 9700K in many situations you might as well grab a 2700X and OC it. Way to go Intel.

Fediuld:

LOL. With 2700X @ £282 and 2700 @ £252 makes no sense not only to buy the 9700K at it's rumoured price, but even the 8700K at it's current price..... And for what? 1fps at 1080p at best? While it consumes 33% more power!!!!! Because lets not forget the posted benchmarks if true, are the first ones having Z370 boards fully patched with the security patches, and no cheating by the reviewers using unpatched boards any more. (as they cannot run the 9xxx CPU series).

fantaskarsef:

So... essentially... compared to a stock 9700K in many situations you might as well grab a 2700X and OC it. Way to go Intel.

Well, 9700K will blow away any of the Ryzen CPUs when it comes to gaming on a high refresh rate monitor. If you're on 120Hz or 144Hz it is definitely worth your while getting a 9700K rather than any of the Ryzen offerings. The difference in fps is really quite significant at higher frame rates.

Robbo9999:

Well, 9700K will blow away any of the Ryzen CPUs when it comes to gaming on a high refresh rate monitor. If you're on 120Hz or 144Hz it is definitely worth your while getting a 9700K rather than any of the Ryzen offerings. The difference in fps is really quite significant at higher frame rates.

Do you maybe have some benchmarks in that regard? I'd like to read into it. I'm not yet sold since Hilbert's reviews for instance don't really show much of a fps difference beyond 1080p.

fantaskarsef:

Do you maybe have some benchmarks in that regard? I'd like to read into it. I'm not yet sold since Hilbert's reviews for instance don't really show much of a fps difference beyond 1080p.

9700K will do exactly as 8700K in regards of fps potential vs. Ryzen CPUs. If GPU is not bottleneck, then intel has 20~25% advantage. There one has to differentiate fps range for Ryzen baseline where it makes sense and where it does not. Games running 60~120fps on Ryzen are very likely to be GPU bottlenecked as I have not seen any game below 120fps due to my CPU. Games where ryzen does 120~200fps, one could consider intel as beneficial if one has 240Hz screen. But even with that Overwatch someone tried to push here as CPU limited, I got 290~350fps in test arena. And 250~280fps in matches. I am sure there are few showcases where game is poorly made and requires a lot of CPU cycles per frame while using just 1 or 2 threads. But, let's be honest, those are not games one need such fps, nor will notice difference on screen. Competitive fps games either work properly or die.

Fox2232:

9700K will do exactly as 8700K in regards of fps potential vs. Ryzen CPUs. If GPU is not bottleneck, then intel has 20~25% advantage. There one has to differentiate fps range for Ryzen baseline where it makes sense and where it does not. Games running 60~120fps on Ryzen are very likely to be GPU bottlenecked as I have not seen any game below 120fps due to my CPU. Games where ryzen does 120~200fps, one could consider intel as beneficial if one has 240Hz screen. But even with that Overwatch someone tried to push here as CPU limited, I got 290~350fps in test arena. And 250~280fps in matches. I am sure there are few showcases where game is poorly made and requires a lot of CPU cycles per frame while using just 1 or 2 threads. But, let's be honest, those are not games one need such fps, nor will notice difference on screen. Competitive fps games either work properly or die.

Well I too honestly think I won't see big differences between taking a Ryzen or a 9700K when playing at 1440p 144Hz. But that doesn't mean I can't learn I'm wrong, hence I was asking for benchmarks since I haven't come across one that makes me really wonder. Even in the latest benches posted (OP) it looks like the 9700K wins in every field, especially not more workload orientated fields. But I'd like to see a proper comparison of games, with resolution and settings. Maybe @Robbo9999 has some at hand

Robbo9999:

Well, 9700K will blow away any of the Ryzen CPUs when it comes to gaming on a high refresh rate monitor. If you're on 120Hz or 144Hz it is definitely worth your while getting a 9700K rather than any of the Ryzen offerings. The difference in fps is really quite significant at higher frame rates.

If you want to play CS:GO at 1080p sure you might get a little better fps from a higher clocked intel chip but once you play any modern games with decent levels of eye candy at resolutions of 1440p and higher the cpu becomes largely irrelevant, games become gpu bound and the fps difference is negligible across a wide range of cpus. I'd challenge anyone to notice the difference between 85 and 87 fps.

fantaskarsef:

Well I too honestly think I won't see big differences between taking a Ryzen or a 9700K when playing at 1440p 144Hz. But that doesn't mean I can't learn I'm wrong, hence I was asking for benchmarks since I haven't come across one that makes me really wonder. Even in the latest benches posted (OP) it looks like the 9700K wins in every field, especially not more workload orientated fields. But I'd like to see a proper comparison of games, with resolution and settings. Maybe @Robbo9999 has some at hand

1440p? No, not really, that's where even your powerful GPU has hard time to keep stable fps in bit more demanding games. I do expect you take game, play with settings to your liking and then limit fps to have frametime as stable as possible. I do same, in some cases I have to go down to 90fps limit on 1080p. (Yeah, Path of Exile new patch with all GI eye candy and stuff.)

RonanH:

If you want to play CS:GO at 1080p sure you might get a little better fps from a higher clocked intel chip but once you play any modern games with decent levels of eye candy at resolutions of 1440p and higher the cpu becomes largely irrelevant, games become gpu bound and the fps difference is negligible across a wide range of cpus. I'd challenge anyone to notice the difference between 85 and 87 fps.

I used to have crazy high fps at maximum settings with Fury X. Then Valve did something and their overlays mess things up. In spectate mode I can't get more than 72fps no matter what. A lot of people have a lot of trouble with CS:GO for some time. My quote from 2015:

Everything Maximum, 8x SSAA+FXAA (just about everything possible). 1080p: 155~280fps 1440p: 152~255fps 2160p: 123~180fps And this is in spectate mode flying around. Because in 1st person view fps is like 25% higher, and I wanted to put some load to see some worst case scenario since it did so well.

That was with Sandy i5@4,5GHz.

fantaskarsef:

Well I too honestly think I won't see big differences between taking a Ryzen or a 9700K when playing at 1440p 144Hz. But that doesn't mean I can't learn I'm wrong, hence I was asking for benchmarks since I haven't come across one that makes me really wonder. Even in the latest benches posted (OP) it looks like the 9700K wins in every field, especially not more workload orientated fields. But I'd like to see a proper comparison of games, with resolution and settings. Maybe @Robbo9999 has some at hand

Well I'm not gonna use Google to find the countless reviews where Intel consistently get higher fps in a lot of games when aiming for over 120fps. I've seen loads of such examples, it's common knowledge now in fact, ha! It doesn't matter if you go Ryzen or Intel for less than 100fps (rough guide), because both can do it, it's just for high refresh rate gaming that you'd be mad not to choose Intel. It doesn't matter the resolution, if you have enough GPU power to supply 144 fps frames to your 1440p screen, then you are gonna see a lot of limitations by choosing Ryzen over Intel. If you can't drive your 144Hz 1440p screen to 144fps because you don't have enough GPU power - well it doesn't matter, choose any CPU you want.

RonanH:

If you want to play CS:GO at 1080p sure you might get a little better fps from a higher clocked intel chip but once you play any modern games with decent levels of eye candy at resolutions of 1440p and higher the cpu becomes largely irrelevant, games become gpu bound and the fps difference is negligible across a wide range of cpus. I'd challenge anyone to notice the difference between 85 and 87 fps.

See my above response too. If you're driving a game to 144fps (regardless of resolution - you can always reduce graphics settings to remove GPU bottleneck) you're probably gonna want an Intel CPU to prevent some CPU bottlenecking - it's just a fact from countless reviews on the internet. EDIT: yes, in some games Ryzen can push 144fps, but not as many as Intel.

Robbo9999:

Well I'm not gonna use Google to find the countless reviews where Intel consistently get higher fps in a lot of games when aiming for over 120fps. I've seen loads of such examples, it's common knowledge now in fact, ha! It doesn't matter if you go Ryzen or Intel for less than 100fps (rough guide), because both can do it, it's just for high refresh rate gaming that you'd be mad not to choose Intel. It doesn't matter the resolution, if you have enough GPU power to supply 144 fps frames to your 1440p screen, then you are gonna see a lot of limitations by choosing Ryzen over Intel. If you can't drive your 144Hz 1440p screen to 144fps because you don't have enough GPU power - well it doesn't matter, choose any CPU you want.

Well, I checked some benchmarks on the fly (at work currently), and tbh the difference is negliable even with both CPUs overclocked, where Intel should even have more headroom. I haven't seen a real problem in five or so benchmark suites by different sites. I'll look into it more though, but honestly, I've yet to find a benchmark where at 1440p+ the Intel CPUs always run significantly faster than AMD, even beyond the margin of error on many benchmarks they can't even get away. But I'll do my reading, thanks for mentioning this again since it's common knowledge would mean I should find countless benchmarks and that for such a situation (which I've yet to find).

fantaskarsef:

Well, I checked some benchmarks on the fly (at work currently), and tbh the difference is negliable even with both CPUs overclocked, where Intel should even have more headroom. I haven't seen a real problem in five or so benchmark suites by different sites. I'll look into it more though, but honestly, I've yet to find a benchmark where at 1440p+ the Intel CPUs always run significantly faster than AMD, even beyond the margin of error on many benchmarks they can't even get away. But I'll do my reading, thanks for mentioning this again since it's common knowledge would mean I should find countless benchmarks and that for such a situation (which I've yet to find).

From objective look at it, intel chip running max clock at 4,7GHz or OCed to 5GHz has to perform better (when limited number of threads are used) than AMD's 4,15~4,35GHz chips since their IPC is similar. It is just question of resolution vs GPU used. On 1440p it is far from usual 720p tests done to show that difference. So, I think you are not going to find any. As I do not think there is site looking for CPU bottleneck while running SLI GTX 1080Ti configuration 😀

Fox2232:

From objective look at it, intel chip running max clock at 4,7GHz or OCed to 5GHz has to perform better (when limited number of threads are used) than AMD's 4,15~4,35GHz chips since their IPC is similar. It is just question of resolution vs GPU used. On 1440p it is far from usual 720p tests done to show that difference. So, I think you are not going to find any. As I do not think there is site looking for CPU bottleneck while running SLI GTX 1080Ti configuration 😀

Well I found a few benchmarks comparing the 8700 and 7700 to the Ryzen CPUs, and in general the difference does not seem to be too big at 1440p and not there at 4K, but I haven't really read through them. I just thought my 5930K at stock can't be that much faster than a Ryzen 2700 for instance, and I have no issues in achieving 144Hz in Overwatch or BF (I'd tone down settings in BF but I'm a whore for eyecandy so I'm fine with just 100fps there...)

fantaskarsef:

Well, I checked some benchmarks on the fly (at work currently), and tbh the difference is negliable even with both CPUs overclocked, where Intel should even have more headroom. I haven't seen a real problem in five or so benchmark suites by different sites. I'll look into it more though, but honestly, I've yet to find a benchmark where at 1440p+ the Intel CPUs always run significantly faster than AMD, even beyond the margin of error on many benchmarks they can't even get away. But I'll do my reading, thanks for mentioning this again since it's common knowledge would mean I should find countless benchmarks and that for such a situation (which I've yet to find).

Don't get hung up on resolution, doesn't matter what resolution you run at, you can always turn down graphics settings if you're so inclined to try & hit 144fps, and it's at this point that the CPU is important. What matters is the fps that the game is running at when you remove the GPU bottleneck up to the frames per second target you want to achieve. 144fps at 1080p vs 144fps at 1440p is gonna be pretty much the same stress on the CPU. All this talk that you need a certain CPU for a certain resolution is hocum & the wrong way of looking at it - the influence on the CPU is the frames per second you choose to run at (by turning down graphics settings for instance) to achieve your target fps. With a 144Hz monitor and if you're wishing to target 144 fps then a Ryzen CPU is more likely to hit CPU limits more often than a modern i7 Intel CPU - it's not about the resolution (unless a person is only ever gonna game at Ultra settings without compromise then you get into GPU bottlenecking scenarios of course). Ha, I get a bit annoyed by all the stuff I read in reviews & in forums saying that you only need certain CPUs for certain resolutions, it's just not about that.

well my 8700k stays these are not really an upgrade more of a side grade

chispy:

Same ipc as 8700K 🙁

No surprise. They are basically the same CPUs only the 9700K has more cores. The same way the 8700K has the same IPC as 7700K but again with 2 more cores... Until Intel releases their new CPU architecture we can not expect the IPC to change in a significant.

interesting it dont look much better then my 6700k even ultra hd is showing 1-2 fps difference everything else is like maybe 5 fps difference from 6700k/8700k/9700k other then cinbench and x264 bench considering what intel is gona try and sell them for, not sure what intel is thinking

tsunami231:

intresting it dont look much better then my 6700k other then cinbench and x264 bench considering what intel is gona try and sell them for, not sure what intel is thinking

Well 9900K is the one that is properly different to what we have seen before, because that has the hyperthreading to double up the threads, whereas this 9700K is really only as good as 8700K, which is of course a stunning gaming CPU (and for other uses too). The 9900K will take it up a notch, although probably not many games at the moment that would see much of a difference between 9900K/9700K/8700K. I think 9900K will be more benefit for the future games and for non-gaming productivity tasks.