Choosing cpu i9 or threadripper

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
omar80747326

omar80747326

Honorable
Dec 16, 2017
174
0
10,690
Hi, for my pc build. I want to choose a cpu that it is suitable for hard gaming and professional work. But what to choose core i9 or threadripper
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Dunlop0078

Dunlop0078

Titan
Ambassador
Feb 13, 2014
13,306
146
70,990
Well for gaming a coffee lake CPU like the 8700k will outperform both of them and is decnt for workstation tasks as well.

Threadripper tends to be cheaper and offers more value, generally depending on application, than an i9 cpu does for a workstation build but tends to do worse in gaming.

I would go threadripper if you are primarily building a workstation or an i9 for both if you have the money for it. I personally think an 8700k is the best all around choice.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
EpIckFa1LJoN

EpIckFa1LJoN

Admirable
Jul 27, 2016
1,794
0
6,460
The problem is that i9's and thread rippers are not extremely well suited for gaming. The problem is that most games only use 4 cores, and then higher core counts don't matter and then clock speeds take over.
For strict gaming the 8700k has the highest SC and QC speeds and the multi-threaded performance is more than enough for gaming, but full multi-threaded performance it gets creamed by those i9's and TR's.

The only thing that gets close to the SC and QC of the 8700k and also has a substantial multi-threaded performance is the i9 7900x, but even there you are sacrificing A LOT of potential multi-threaded performance from the i9 7980XE or TR 1950X.

So it's up to you to decide what is more important.
For gaming the others won't be bad, but they just will be closer to performance of something like i3 8100 for gaming performance for the most part. (except of course games that use MORE than 4 cores)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
EpIckFa1LJoN

EpIckFa1LJoN

Admirable
Jul 27, 2016
1,794
0
6,460
Since Ryzen already has high core counts I can only assume their next gen clock speeds will be higher, which will help it in gaming, they likely will be ideal for multi-use computers. (high-end gaming and productivity).

Down side: I'm not sure anyone actually knows when that will be.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Barty1884

Barty1884

Retired Moderator
Apr 16, 2015
22,250
1,350
108,740


From CES coverage and AMD's roadmap, looks like you're looking at Q2 2018 for the refinement of the architecture (die shrink.... likely no groundbreaking changes, probably just clock speed increases etc)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VY0v6X9-mo (around the 3:49 mark)

2H for updated Threadripper, 2019

Zen2 looks to be 2019 (around the 1:50 mark of the same video).


I'd second (third?) the recommendation for an i7-8700K over i9's or Threadrippers..... UNLESS you're predominantly performing tasks that'll substantially benefit from either chip (ie not gaming).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
EpIckFa1LJoN

EpIckFa1LJoN

Admirable
Jul 27, 2016
1,794
0
6,460
Yeah it all depends on the amount of gaming being done. The 8700k is second to none for gaming performance. Only reason to get anything more is if you're doing a substantial amount of work that utilized the full CPU. (yes, not gaming except in a few cases, like Battlefield 1). And Like I said the 7900x is the only thing that will get close to the 8700k's gaming performance AND offer substantial multi-threaded performance. But for the price, the 8700k still is awfully tempting.

I have one it's great. Came from a 6700k too, still very happy with the purchase. My min fps for most games is in the low 90's, even the unoptimized ones.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The Original Ralph

The Original Ralph

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2011
2,222
1
20,510


just curious - i've been looking at the 7900x, not for gaming but video work - one of the programs i use only likes a few cores, while others are core hogs - that Intel® Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 Frequency is supposed to boost the freq to 3.5 on 2 cores, and you can designate the applications - i've been meaning to do some research on it, but figured i'd wait to see what reviewers said about it

wouldn't that serve to give the i9 an advantage in gaming?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
EpIckFa1LJoN

EpIckFa1LJoN

Admirable
Jul 27, 2016
1,794
0
6,460


Not really. The 8700k boosts to 4.3GHz on six cores. 4.4-4.5GHz on 4 cores, 4.6GHz on two cores, and 4.7GHz on 1 core. Basically the less cores the program uses the higher advantage the 8700k has, (not to mention most of them easily overclock to 4.9GHz on all cores), which is why it is better for gaming. If any other program uses less cores, the 8700k wins. The only time the i9 has an advantage is when the program uses ALL cores. (the 7900x has a full 4c/8t more than the 8700k so even with a beast of an OC the 7900x has nearly twice the core count so it is still way better for multi-threaded performance)

So if you mostly use programs that utilize all the cores, the i9 is better yes.

However cost-effectiveness still comes into play, and the 8700k has a slight advantage there as well, since it costs about half what the i9 does and performs a little over half as well in multi-threaded performance.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The Original Ralph

The Original Ralph

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2011
2,222
1
20,510
thanks - i should have looked at the specs on that 8700k before i posted

looks like it's the 4790K's successor plus some

my problem is one of my programs in particular, HandBrake, runs as many cores as you give it at 97-100% load
whether my old 4790 or the rig in my sig with 8C/16T. With 4k files generally running 50-150GB, my goal is to keep rendering times as low as possible - that's what prompted me to look at the 7900x series
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
EpIckFa1LJoN

EpIckFa1LJoN

Admirable
Jul 27, 2016
1,794
0
6,460


Well for starters. There have been a few successors to the 4790k. 6700k, 7700k, and now the 8700k.

And secondly, With a good overclock the 8700k may actually beat the 5960x even in multi-threaded performance.
However, multi-threaded performance still is no match for the 7900x. If your goal is to reduce your render times as much as possible in that, and don't really care about gaming performance, you can go even higher than the 7900x. The 7980XE is an absolute beast. It is about 3 times faster at multi-threaded performance than the 8700k with a good OC on it.

And as for all of these i9's Gaming performance isn't bad, its just not as good as the 8700k. And really the 8700k is more than plenty for most resolutions and refresh rates. The only time you will even see a difference is in refresh rates of 144Hz or above (I would venture to even say 100Hz as some games it's even hard to do that with 4.7GHz clock speeds). So it's pretty easy to weigh them against each other. If you are gaming at 4k and editing video at 4k often enough to make an i9 worth the cost. The best i9 you can afford will be just as good. But if you are gaming at 144Hz the 8700k will be noticeably better.

It's just a matter of what you really want.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The Original Ralph

The Original Ralph

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2011
2,222
1
20,510


maybe a more accurate way of stating what i was trying to state, "it looks like it the current gen 4790K". I've been away from computer since i built this current rig in my sig.

That OC freq of the 8700k might very well give my 5960x a run for it's money, but i'm looking to future proof myself against the ever growing file size, especially with 8K video in the future. But core count is critical, OC freq is also important but not as primarily important as cores. When i render a 40-45 GB file on my 4790(non-K) w 4 cores, at 4.0, it takes 45-55 minutes, depending on the format, and all 4 cores are at 99-100%. When i had my 5960x at 4.0, and ran the same file for comparison, it rendered that file in 27 minutes. When i OC'd it to 4.2, which is where it's at now, i brought that time down to 22-23 minutes. Not as much of a decrease as i'd hoped for, with the OC bump.

Yeah, i've looked at the 7980XE, it is a beast, but at $1970 dollars, it's a bit more than i'm ready to spend right now. The i9-7940X or the 7960X are what i'm actually thinking, the 7940 will probably win out. From the 7900x, intel's pricing seems to run $400 for the first additional 4 cores with the 7940x, then $300 per addtional 2 cores above that to the 7960x and $300 again for the next 2 additional cores in the 7980XE. There are other factors in the model increases, but cores are what i'm focused on.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom