Marketplace
PAPER
i7 9700k cheapest I've seen it here on OzBargain at least. I'm not with eBay plus but it's saying free delivery for me so not sure if that's normal. My first post so sorry if anything is missing. Enjoy :)
Intel S1151 Core i7 9700K 3.6GHz 8 Core CPU (No Heatsink Included) $519 + $15 Delivery (Free with Plus) @ Computer Alliance eBay
130
Related Stores
closed Comments
King of gaming still..
Very subjective comment. If it's based on a handful of game reviewes that's pretty biased. What about all the other titles out there. If your a streamer, you'll be reaching the limit of 9700k, due to limited threads, with a high quality X264 stream.
From 9 launch reviews, with results averaged from 420 tests, the 3700X is ~5.9% slower than the 9700k in games.
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/cbsmvj/ryzen_3000…
9900K is a little faster still.
@TheContact: And most were done at 720p or 1080p with GTX1080Ti class GPUs to artificially CPU bottleneck.
Real world, 1440p/4k with lesser GPUs as well will be even less difference. Spend more and get flogged in wattage/productivity/cores (and buy a mobo platform with no upgrade path) for a low single digit % edge in gaming? Sounds sensible
@bender000: No one said it was sensible. Doesn't change the fact that the Intel's are still the kings of gaming CPUs, which is what SeriouslyJK said and got negged for.
Neither of us are saying that they're good deals, as neither of us even upvoted this deal.
@bender000: As a Ryzen 7 3700X owner, I don't think it is wise to tease / criticise i7-9700 (at least not using Ryzen 7 3700X). Reason is that with 3700X's current pricing and performance, it only makes sense to people who needs 8 cores/16 threads or better and 3900X is out of the price range. Gaming wise, it offers virtually no advantage over 3600 and 3600X could beat it (due to higher clock speed and in games, you don't need 8 cores).
3600 is just too good (performance and cost) and the only reason 3700X sort of looks good is because of intel's current pricing on their i7 and i9 CPUs (but deep down, we all know you still pay a lot for that extra 2 cores over 3600). I would be much more happier if 3700X actually blows i7-9700 away in single core performance (inc. gaming).
@netsurfer: I brought a 3700x and still waiting on delivery. But I kinda wish I brought the 3600 now after reading about it more. Such is life.
@TheContact: Despite the effort of the person compiling the data. There is significant error due to all the reviewers using different hardware and software configurations. They are not always testing the same scene in each game. If you look at individual reviews there are errors in different BIOS being used on the same motherboard, Windows 10 not being fully patched, different coolers between CPUs and changes in game settings. All these issue create variance in the games selected. For example Linus Tech Tips has AMD winning CSGO against the 9900k whilst, another site doesn't. If the reviewers had the same base line, I would probably take them seriously.
@TheContact: Some games can be up to 20% slower and that's before overclocking. If you only game it makes no sense to go for Ryzen imo. Especially since the 9700k is great overclocker where you can get an extra 400-500mhz of free performance on top.
Ryzens have no overclock headroom at all, they're basically overclocked out of the box with voltages of 1.4v
Very subjective comment.
Not really, the 9700K (and 9900K) do push higher fps than their competing AMD chips (coming from someone who runs a 3900X), no point being dishonest about it.
It doesn't mean that you should buy it or that it's a good value.
Compared to the Ryzen 3700x (the closest price point one to this deal on offer here), a meta-analysis of 9 reviews (all from trusted outlets) had the 9700k at 106.3% of the gaming performance (meaning the i7 is ~6% better), and 81.8% in non-gaming performance (meaning the Ryzen is ~25% better). For gaming the 9700k was also ~5% faster than the 12 core far more expensive Ryzen 3900x. So yeah, the 9700k and 9900k are still the kings of gaming, basically. It's not a night and day difference, but it's real.
If you were interested in gaming performance either exclusively or at least "mostly" (i.e. you only use blender or other things occasionally or don't tax it heavily so the difference doesn't matter) the 9700k is a very good choice at this price. The Ryzens aren't bad for it, by any stretch, but it's up to everyone to decide which is closer to their use case. If you only game on your home PC, it doesn't matter if you buy a chip 10000x better for tasks you don't actually perform. How many people are regular streamers and feel the need to do high bitrate "slow" preset for encoding? Certainly nothing close to a majority, but if it's you, then you buy whatever is best for you (maybe a 3900x).
Note of course to all buyers - if you are only gaming and use a 60hz monitor, there's no point to buying any of these high end CPUs right now. Maybe there will be in a few years, but for now, the far more modest i5/r5 CPUs are more than adequate for 60fps gaming in almost every game on the market.
@ThoseDeafMutes: I'm on neither team (red or blue), but it is what it is, 9700k and 9900k still king of gaming. The higher the resolution the smaller the gap between AMD/Intel only because it becomes more GPU dependent.
Also for the 'AMD is 8% cheaper' argument, compare 2 of the same board models in Z390 and X570. You'll find once you factor in the much higher X570 chipset motherboard, AMD ends up costing the same, if not more.
Edit: Thosedeafmute, ignore the tag. Accidently replied to the wrong comment, not targeted at you
@NixMo1: You don't need X570 for Ryzen. Works perfectly fine with even B450.
"King" is a strong word for a 6% advantage in gaming with a 2080ti in 1080p(not the way most people use the 2080ti), so pretty much an advantage that is only theoretical at best for the majority. And the lack of multithreading makes 9700k way slower in everything else.
9900k is not bad, but I wouldn't buy the 9700k at this point. Only 6% faster in non-realistic gaming scenarios and no hyperthreading. I'd go for a 3600x and put the money toward a better GPU.
@hms: I know Ryzen runs on B450, but i'm comparing apples with apples. Current gen board, same model. Asus Z390-F ($350) vs Ryzen equivalent Asus X570-F ($420).
@NixMo1: You can overclock Ryzen on a B450 board, and the performance is pretty much the same as X570. So The Ryzen owner doesn't have to buy an X570 board while the 9700k owner has to purchase a decent cooler. A B450 Tomahawk is the most you would need to game on Ryzen, it is actually a cheaper platform, that's how they beat Intel.
@hms: Same could be said about the 9700k running on a Z370 board priced around the same price as the B450 tomahawk. Apples and apples.
@NixMo1: No cooler? Keep in mind that the 9700k might not have the 6% advantage you see in benchmarks with a cheap board and a weak cooler, while Ryzen has been shown to perform the same(Hardware Unboxed). All benchmarks use top of the line coolers for the 9700k. All that and the 9700k ends up more expensive for a 6% advantage that most people would never even get/notice. I don't see why one would want to pay more for a 9700k and also lose hyperthreading for a theoretical 6% advantage in an unlikely(at best) scenario, unless you like to pay for the Intel branding.
@hms: TBH I have no idea about the OEM Ryzen cooler and how effective it is. I have not known anyone to ever run stock cooler on higher end CPU especially with OC. The only thing I don't like about the Ryzen 3 is it's a terrible OC'er.
9700k - 6% better performance. Ryzen 3700x, we add 6% to the price to compensate for Intel performance. Intel is still more expensive by ~$15. We're splitting hairs on $500+ CPU's.
Reality is, they're actually really closely matched and most end users won't notice difference. But going by the good ole saying, winning by an inch or a mile is still winning and at 6%, 9700k is still winning at games. Hear me out though, that's current games, that could and probably will change once coders start utilising Ryzens potential and end up being Ryzen>Intel. Unfortunately, by the time that happens, we will be another few CPU generations ahead.
@NixMo1: Not to mention with a decent AIO cooler, the 9700ks have way more headroom for OCing than the AMD's currently, and that gap widens to 10-15%. Could change with future BIOS updates though, the Ryzens are showing some weird numbers with their boost clocks currently, but realistically, the X cores in the Ryzen are a factory OC anyway, they're not likely to ever have that same single core performance
@Thefong: Sure does open up the gap and they OC so easily. I can't believe how terrible of an OC'er Ryzen is, like advertised boost on the 3700x is 4.4ghz but it's only manually overclocking to 4.2ghz before it becomes unstable AF lol.
Ryzen seems to be the flavour of the month on here and the fan boys seem to be a little upset it didn't live up to the hype… unfortunately real world numbers don't lie and the 9700k is still a gaming beast.@NixMo1: Past 1440p gaming its GPU bottlenecked anyway. Who the hell games at 720p where all the 'gaming' advantage are blown out of proportion?
In every creative and productivity related field, ryzen blows out Intel out of the water in the same price category. I'd say AMD delivered as promised.
@hms: What reviews did you read? Virtually every review of the dozens I've seen used AIO coolers for the Ryzen and Intel testing, even down to the same thermal paste for consistency. Wouldn't really have made much sense otherwise
@NixMo1: Unfortunately you forgot to take into consideration that your not limited to X570 with the AM4 platform. There are plenty of cost effective alternatives with the X470 and B450 chipset which support Ryzen 3000, with decent VRMs. Asus just released a list of X470 and B450 motherboards which support PCIE 4.0 with a BIOS update.
People are forgetting, the 9700K can do 4.8 GHz on all 8 cores with no trouble. If AMD can achieve just 4.3 that would be considered to be exceptionally rare. Most people that buy the 9700K or the 9900K always looking to achieve at least 5 Ghz on all cores. So you're not talking about Intel just being the highest on a single core even though that's stock.
Gamers Nexus 3700X review shows that the stock 9700K is consistently 10% faster at 1440P. For gamers, the only thing great about the new Ryzen release is the 3600. The problem is that the 3600 may bottleneck GPUs from the RTX 2080 and up. And a lot of games don't like hyperthreading once you have 8 threads so you'll find that the 9700K actually gets ahead of the 9900k half the time. Sure it's still too expensive, but if you have money for 2080+ level graphics, the 9700k remains the best option.
That'd be the i9 9900k.
This thing was a bad product to begin with, losing hyperthreading just to justify the i9 9900k existing. Now that we have the cheaper 3700x that really doesn't perform that much worse? Yah, it's pretty obselete.
Yeah and everyone who bought into the i9 9900k got screwed since now you have to disable HT in the BIOS due to the security flaws :(
Only by a few frames. Not worth the sacrifice in other areas.
Please.
Retired lol. Good cpu but never liked it. 8 cores / 0 thread. Weird cpu.
0 threads?
It has 8 threads.
No hyperthreading, that's a super luxury feature.
..That or they had to disable it because of all their security holes haha.
Nah, they just disabled it to squeeze more money from their customers!
why does 9900k even exist now?
Was the same price on the last CA eBay 20% off. 520$ should have been the launch price
$15 postage for me without eBay Plus.
Nearly bought this last week. Might still be better for me(flight sims) but can't beat the versatility of the new Ryzens.
Hard sell at 520$
Ryzen 3600 for 300$ + good B450 board for 200$ because the ryzen 3000 series don't OC well at all, that's board and CPU for less than the 9700k alone with probably another 150$ saving on b450 vs z390. Put the savings into a better GPU or something.The last time I paid more than $500 for a CPU was 19 years ago (October 2000), when I got a Pentium III 866 for $515. Since then, most CPUs I've bought have been in the $200-$250 price range. A $500+ CPU will become outdated just as quickly as one costing half the price.
A $500+ CPU will become outdated just as quickly as one costing half the price.
How so? This CPU will still be quite relevant in years to come.
Well, I'm sure people who bought their quad-core i7s a few years ago were saying the same thing, but now even the latest i5 has made a 2-year-old i7 obsolete.
Well, I'm still using an i7 2600k and when was this CPU released?
@pacificstorm: I had to upgrade my PC when my motherboard died, was using 2600k too. After switching to 6700k a few yrs ago I can say that there was a big fps increase in some games (GTAV, Overwatch went up a ton of fps) so the 2600k is quite obsolete for modern games but for desktop productivity I never noticed any issues with it.
@pacificstorm: you may still be using an i7 2600k but its in no way able to hand top tier stuff at high fps anymore. like it barely manages 60 fps average with probably some low 1% dips on assasins creed.
It was a good cpu no doubt but its definitely a handicap if you are still using it.
Yeah let's not get carried away, an 8700k isn't obselete lol
@scuderiarmani: In terms of buying it brand new or more than half of what its launch price it is, it will still handle most tasks fine but its not worth its original price anymore by a long shot.
Nor is the 2700x.
But it's great to know, I can just drop a gen 3 in at any time.Nor is the 2700x.
But it's great to know, I can just drop a gen 3 in at any time.
Too many AMD fan bois these days
Still rocking my 3770k @4.8ghz
Obsolete.