![[eBay Plus] Intel Core i7 9700KF 8 Core Processor $475.15 Delivered @ Computer Alliance eBay](https://files.ozbargain.com.au/n/33/473133.jpg?h=25591615)
Marketplace
PASTA15
Great deal for this CPU.
Discrete Graphics Card required
[eBay Plus] Intel Core i7 9700KF 8 Core Processor $475.15 Delivered @ Computer Alliance eBay
130
Snacky on 26/07/2019 - 13:47 ebay.com.au (272 clicks)
Last edited 26/07/2019 - 18:29 by 2 other users
Last edited 26/07/2019 - 18:29 by 2 other users
Related Stores
closed Comments
3700X still doesn't push as many frames as the 9700K. I own both a 3900X and 9900K and to be honest, there are still plenty of things that the 9900K (and Intel platform in general) is better at, e.g. gaming, Premiere Pro, not to mention a lot of my professional apps, e.g. MATLAB, R…etc. I push all my multi-threaded stuff to the 3900X though.
As a workstation would you use 3900X or 9900K?
It depends on what you do with your workstation, I guess
Sorry but this never gets explained properly to the average Joe. If you are competitive gaming at 1080p ,240hz and are using a 2080ti then get a 9700. If you own a graphics card below a 2080ti, the 5% to 6% gap in some gaming performance at 1080p significantly drops to around 3% or less with a 2080 or below. Once you up the resolution it's almost zero difference.This will narrow even more as games get for optimized for Ryzen 2. As someone that owns a 9900k, 3900x and Threadripper 2950x. I find that 3900x performs a lot of the tasks that both the 9900k and 2950x used to do in a much faster time frame whilst consuming a lot less power. The 9900k keeps me warm at night due to the amount of heat it produces with a custom loop. Plus all those patches due to security issues have been a pain.
For someone who owns a 1080ti + i5 8400 + 2400mhz CL16 (2x8gb) ram, would it be worth me upgrading both ram (3200, CL16) and to this processor?
I game at 1440p.
@Shaunzki: I don't think it is worth the upgrade whether it be a CPU or RAM. At the moment the i5 8400 is plenty for the 1080ti at 1440p. If you are not competitive gaming at the highest level it is not worth it. Intel officially supports DDR4 2666, so if you can tweak your RAM it may yield better results.
Sorry but this never gets explained properly to the average Joe.
Ultimately whoever is building will need to look up benchmarks for the tasks they want to do and make an informed decision based on the numbers they see. Any sort of overall high-level comparison is just that - a summary of the numbers that might or might not make sense for a particular use case.
If you are competitive gaming at 1080p ,240hz and are using a 2080ti then get a 9700.
Yes and no, I think we need to make a point of comparing the right CPUs with each other.
The 9900K has seen a pretty significant price cut since the launch of Ryzen 3000 series. It's $650 right now at Computer Alliance, which puts it more in competition with the $629 3800X rather than the $789 3900X. Between the 3800X and the 9900K, the 9900K still holds a pretty significant advantage in most tasks because of its higher clock (even if IPC is comparable).
On the other hand, this 9700K at $475 is significantly cheaper than the 3700X at $519, so you lose HT, but gain back IPC and clock advantages. Is it worth it? Again, it depends on whether HT/SMT or higher clocks are important in what you do.
At the moment, for lower end parts, Intel has the advantage. The 9400F at $194 is better than AMD's offerings and the 9100F at $118 is far better than AMD's 3200G for gaming unless you need the iGPU. Either way, competition is good and I think we have a super competitive market at the moment.
At the end of the day, we care about these sort of things because we're enthusiasts and it's fun to look at the numbers. Would it make any real world difference? Not really, both Intel and AMD are profit maximising companies who've priced their products to be competitive with each other. On average, it really doesn't make any difference at the same price point.
@p1 ama: You also have to take into consideration that reviewers are testing at an absolute best case scenario with a clean install of Windows, with nothing running in the background like an Anti Virus. They are also using a very good cooler, which costs money.In relation to Ryzen vs Intel pricing you also need to take into consideration that one comes with a good cooler and the other doesn't. To get best out of the 9900k you need a good air or AIO cooler which will set you back at least another $80 to $100. Your also need a decent PSU because it uses a lot of power. If you plan on overclocking it your costs go up to keep the heat generated contained like a 360 AIO. This sets you back another $169 at least. 3900x runs really well with the stock cooler provided.
@p1 ama: Good points but I don't understand why you are comparing this $475 sale price of the i7-9700KF to the $519 RRP of the R7 3700X when it has been regularly going on sale for $475 or lower as well
Even if you are "only gaming", I would go for a Ryzen 5 3600 and put the savings toward a better GPU. If you already have a 2080ti, then either the 9900k if you have a 240hz monitor and play on 1080p medium/low(why?) OR upgrade to a better Ryzen CPU (3700x/3900x) if you do work on your PC.
The money to upgrade from a Ryzen 5 3600 to an i7 9700k has much better return when spent on the GPU/Monintor IMO. The 9700k has to come down another 100$ or so, and I think it will.
Unless you plan on gaming, in which case the Intel wins. It's all entirely subjective, there's not really a "more worth it" across the board for CPUs that are inherently better at doing different things. Depends what you want to use it for at the end of the day.
Great price, CPU & RAM all dropping in price …upgraded my system a month too early.
Yep there are indications that RAM pricing may be going back up this year so buy now while you can at a decent price.
There was a 6 day stretch there where everyone had conflicting reports. In terms of the bottom of the market prices, they've been the same for nearly 6 months.
If the trend in the past is anything to go by, the price of RAM will hit rock bottom and then for some particular reason, they'll go up again being the sky is the limit.
does this overclock better than the regular 9700k?
No.
can someone explain what the difference is between the F and 'non-F' series?
F series does not have an in-built graphic card. Non-F does.
could you please dumb that explanation further? (or is that as simpleton as it gets? :( )
It's exactly what he said…. This needs a graphics card, though in this price range you probably will have one anyway.
So basically, most CPU has an internal graphic card which is pretty weak comparing to a stand-alone graphics card. But you will need a graphic card to run the system. The non-F series works pretty well in an office environment if you are mainly doing data processing instead of graphic design. In this case, the graphic card in non-F series is good enough for daily use. But if you do have a standalone graphics card, F version could save you a couple of bucks by eliminating the unnecessary internal graphic card. The only problem might be if your standalone graphics card is faulty, you can't start up your system anymore as you don't have a working graphics card.
Geez, I talked too much :)
It's exactly what he said….
Not exactly… It's not an actual "card" that is inbuilt into the F denoted processor (or G if AMD). What is integrated into the CPU is a graphics processor at silicon level. There are features discrete cards have that an integrated GPU does not, but probably the most noteworthy are that the integrated GPU shares access to the system memory and the overall support for Intel graphics by developers has been less than nVidia and AMD Radeon.
As @ty99234 said though (and in my experience), Intel's integrated graphics are fine for most general office type PC use and productivity suites, but hit their limits quickly in gaming and content creation. AMD's integrated GPU chips would be similar, although arguably integrated Radeon graphics are better supported than Intel…
@ty99234: This!
Non-F series also helps when you need to troubleshoot your computer. Sometimes graphic drivers crashes or fail, being able to plug HDMI into motherboard to reinstall/troubleshoot is so convenient.
Also, if you're planning on overclocking, which most people buying this would be, to a degree at least, there's anecdotal evidence suggesting the KF series chips have more headroom and run cooler that the standard K series
theres really no other benefit to the standard 9700K apart from integrated intel graphics?
You'd think it would be the other way around, if the inbuilt GPU was disabled it doesn't generate any heat but the additional silicon will reduce heat density and has a larger surface area to transfer heat to the IHS. That is just the way I thought it would be, not a single bit of testing or research on my behalf.
That makes no sense, the silicon is there regardless of whether it's disabled or not.
@p1 ama: I didn't know it was disabled, that would make it more likely to overclock better on a KF rather than a K.
3700x way more worth it imo
Intel worth skipping atm