Hi All,
we've a new deal today!
i7 9700K normally $709, special weekend offer $629 + shipping or pick up is free from our Lidcombe showroom.
Number of Cores / Threads
8 / 8
Processor Base Frequency
3.60 GHz
Max Turbo Frequency
4.90 GHz
Cache
12 MB SmartCache
Bus Speed
8 GT/s DMI3
TDP
95 W
HI Frank,
PM me with your desired model, I will try and help out.
Let us know how you go!
Friendly reminder that the original MSRP of the i7-9700k is $580ish, and that there is a worldwide shortage because Intel goofed on their initial 10nm process. While 9th gen Intel is the king of performance in cores 1-4, the overclocked multicore performance of the i7-9700k is equal to that of a Ryzen 1700, which is available for under $250.
Check your use cases and buying windows, but IMO this is a silly buy with or without Zen 2 in the offing. At this rate, Intel will have a lot of work to do in 2020.
Thanks for the clarification was about to pull the trigger
Same here - really looking to upgrade but worth the wait for the price to settle down (eventually)
Performance per core is well over 30% faster than the Ryzen 7. Synthetic benchmarks will highlight the advantage of 8c/16t on the Ryzen, however in real world usage 99% of the time for 99% of people it's that 30%+ difference that will be noticed, not the ~10% faster multi-core performance in benchmarks.
In terms of modern computing, you're almost entirely describing gaming workloads in terms of perceptible impact, and poorly optimised ones and that. Yes that's a lot of games, but if you're not aiming to drive a 240Hz monitor, that's not a dramatic issue, assuming you have the GPU to push for high frame rates.
There's no strong argument for you to make for people to spend 2.5x more on the CPU and likely $30+ more on the motherboard just to get that sometimes 30%. Better off sitting on their hands for a couple of months and getting Zen 2 for the same performance and cheaper.
If they can't wait, just make a forward-thinking Ryzen 1700 build on a B450 and sell the CPU to recoup most of the cost. Worst case scenario, you're probably still ahead.
Jass. I love you
What is all this talk of games? You assume that I am describing 'poorly optimised 'gaming workloads, majority of day-to-day usage will not take any advantage of 16 threads, let alone 8 cores present on both of these CPU's. Outside of specialist software, it's going to come down to core performance, and the i7-9700k again, absolutely pulls away (30-40% is not a small amount..). In other words, being 30-40% better in majority of use cases means a more potent CPU in most cases for majority of users for more time.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-9700K-vs…
https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks
Mixed core results:
i7 9700k - 28862
Ryzen 7 1700 - 20526
The Ryzen 7 is absolutely great on the value front, but you are misrepresenting the actual performance of the i7-9700k and the Ryzen 7, picking one synthetic performance stat that highlights the Ryzen CPU's one advantage is misrepresenting both products. Synthetic and real world tests outside of what I've already cited will reflect that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the i7-9700k will pull ahead of the entire Ryzen lineup. AMD users generally do this cherry picking all the time.
Since you ask for a strong argument: Value is from the buyers POV, if somebody wants the most future-proof CPU of the two, the i7-9700k is going to be it for the majority of people, it's indisputably better in the majority of use-cases for the majority of people, and for some people that's enough for them to spend the extra money. I personally would not buy an i7-9700k at all, it's for people with more money than sense, but on paper it is the better CPU for the majority of people.
I agree with you, at this rate, Intel will have a lot of work to do in 2020, especially with the next die shrink, as the gap between the two is closing, and that's only a good thing for us consumers.
@Chewiebacca: Aren't you cherry picking yourself whilst accusing those who used AMD of the same. Geekbench isn't viewed as the most accurate benchmark. For example it shows an Apple A12 SOC competing with an Intel I7.
https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/279988-apples-ipad-pro-a1…
The world knows that this is not the case.
I also don't know how you can use the term future proof for CPUs. It's such a subjective term based on the workload. Wouldn't future proofing also include the motherboard. How many motherboard upgrades have you done with each Intel CPU revision. It's an unneeded cost.
AMD AM4 platform has supported Ryzen, Ryzen+ and is planned to support Ryzen 2 & 3.
Also with the money saved you could spend it on better hardware such as a GPU for negligible performance loss at QHD and 4k resolution when gaming.
@shellshocked: Lol.. how am I cherry picking, you expect me to get every single benchmark out there? Do it yourself, look at extensive and objective testing, it's pervasive knowledge that the Ryzen CPU's predominantly offer more threads at a low MSRP, which for some niche users who actually/potentially use the absurd amount that is 16 threads, make it an objectively better CPU, however besides this it's worse in pretty much every way for the 99% of people who don't do anything related to heavy rendering, heavily multi-thread processing, etc. The fact remains, the i7-9700k is objectively the better CPU for the majority of people, despite its value proposition to you.
Thus my point again, you are mispreresenting the performance due to your own subjective POV, when I believe the true value in giving good advice is letting others form their own subjective views and providing them with the real facts, which you have not.
Wouldn't future proofing also include the motherboard. How many motherboard upgrades have you done with each Intel CPU revision. It's an unneeded cost.
AMD AM4 platform has supported Ryzen, Ryzen+ and is planned to support Ryzen 2 & 3.
Also with the money saved you could spend it on better hardware such as a GPU for negligible performance loss at QHD and 4k resolution when gaming.
I personally agree with everything here, I also think the i7-9700k is a rubbish value purchase. However, this is not what you initially stated, you rubbished the i7 with your "the i7-9700k is equal when overclocked to Ryzen 7 1700 in this one spec, therefore this is a silly buy" statement, which again, is a misrepresentation of actual facts, it is the better performing processor objectively in every case besides niche heavily-multithreaded applications. Value, again is subjective.
I also don't know how you can use the term future proof for CPUs. It's such a subjective term based on the workload.
So let me help you understand this with a very plausible scenario: There are people out there that buy a CPU, and don't upgrade it. Future proof means getting that which will last them the longest, until it has hit its proverbial 'use-by-date'. This is a pretty common scenario, and their value proposition is that they will prefer the i7-9700k because it is because today for them at gaming (significantly), everyday tasks etc, and with that extra 30-40% will help provide a more viable machine for few years down the road (again, outside of niche heavy multi-threaded applications), and therefore, they may buy the i7-9700k and spend the extra amount.
To quote what I replied to another user:
Today you wont notice a difference, it makes no difference to the reality that there will be a point in the future where a user will sit there and CPU performance is just not good enough anymore, whereas all conditions withstanding the extra 30-40% from the i7-9700k would delay that point.
If you still can't see what is wrong with your "the i7-9700k is equal when overclocked to Ryzen 7 1700 in this one spec, therefore this is a silly buy" statement, then I don't think we'll ever reach a consensus.
@Chewiebacca: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9…
Of course I'm talking about future-proofing using the board.
@Chewiebacca: I think his/her actual point is most people won't notice you're running a Ryzen, unless you're gaming. Browsing the web, watching youtube.. who cares.. at these tasks there is an imperceptible difference between them.
Naturally those people shouldn't be buying an i7-9700k anyway.
@justtoreply: Sure, today you wont notice a difference, it makes no difference to the reality that there will be a point in the future where a user will sit there and CPU performance is just not good enough anymore, whereas all conditions withstanding the extra 30-40% from the i7-9700k would delay that point.
In that case buy a 2700x, and you still have money left over to put into other hardware. Better still if wanting a machine for many years, it is worth waiting for Zen2.
Zen 2 is my preferred call, but I recognise that some people may need a new system today.
If that's the case, I say grab a 1700 and B450 board, buy Zen 2 when there's a price drop a couple of months in, then sell your 1700 for a decent price. You'll almost certainly wind up with a saving compared to buying this.
This processor makes absolute no sense to me.
It has basically the same gaming performance as i7 8700k which is about $100 less (Computer Alliance eBay sale, and occasionally restock at Amazon AU.
If you seek productivity, Ryzen 5 and 7 are much better choices in terms of values. Also, they provide an upgrade path to the Zen 2 (3000 series) because you will be able to use the same motherboard. In comparison, Intel is going to change their platform for their next-gen CPUs.
If you seek extreme gaming and overall experience without money issue, just go with 9900k.
Plus, all Ryzen come with a decent CPU cooler, but you are forced to buy expensive after-market cooler for 9-gen intel, and they are known for running super hot.
The 9700k is an inevitable consequence of making the 9900k, and it tends to perform better in gaming than the i7-8700k due to improved single core performance, but otherwise you're 100% spot on about its value.
So true. I think a good-enough cooler for 9700k can also push an 8700k with overlocking to the 9700k-ish level. FPS difference will be less than 1%, and the 8700k are running cooler due to 2 fewer cores.
And, the GPU is going to make more of a difference anyway.
BYO cooler which is a rort at this price point
That sucks.
CA has it for 20% does it not? ($271.20).
Better to wait for Zen2, intel has lost my interest many years ago. Finally Ryzen came along and was able to upgrade from the i5 2500k, Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge intel at their best. After that all I heard was this de-lidding nonsense from then on for better thermals…
Almost better off getting the 9900K which is the new king CPU. Goes for around the $750 mark with eBay 20% off discount. 8 cores / 16 threads. From the benchmarks it's around double the speed of the 6700K / 7700K for encoding, which is about the heaviest load you can put your CPU under. More wattage means more power so expect electricity bills to go up…
Worth waiting for Zen2 in the 2nd quarter of 2019.
2700x is on special for $391.20 on eBay ;) MUCH better option.
Yeah Intel lost the plot
more expensive and while losing 4 cores than previous gen, what a meme.
Nice deal, shame I can't get similar ones for an i9-9960X (believe me, I'm actively searching too).
Any good deals on a matching motherboard?