I kicked intel to the curb, I'm a Ryzen boi now.

[Bofferbrauer2]

vivster said:

JRPGfan said:

^ note this is from before the Agesa ABBA (boost clock fix) update.

And this is with one of those factory overclocked 2080 Ti's.... the CPU isnt the bottlenecks for performance.

On avg its probably less than 1% performance differnce, between the two, for general gameing (at 1440p).

"The 9700k is even cheaper and still better." - vivster

~0,4% performance differnce.

Yeah the "smart" consumer buys a 9600k or 3600X and calls it a day.
Better to save the money for a stronger graphics card instead.

Sounds like I'm good. Though the benchmarks I looked up on computerbase.de had a few more percentages between them. I can't have my PC subjected to 1% inferior performance when I build a brand new rig.

If you want to see bigger gaps between CPUs, you'll probably have to go to PC Games Hardware (pcgh.de), since they test in 720p and reduce some graphic details (not all, since some like particle effects actually are more CPU intensive tasks) to get as far away from a GPU limit as possible.

There, the 3900X does slightly edge out the 9700k in gaming (95.6 to 93.3 points, 9900K is the benchmark in gaming with 100 points).

Though that was before the dancing queen ABBA Agesa update, which gave some games up to 7% more performance, as Hardware Unboxed found out in their tests.

Besides, due to not having SMT, I'd rather take an 8700K than a 9700K if I had a choice. While the former has 2 less cores, it has 4 more threads in total and should thus have more reserves for later games.