add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

9700K vs. 3700X - Gaming & Streaming

Carrier_Taihou

3 months ago

I've been stuck at an impasse with this for the last few weeks. I'm planning an upgrade from my 6700K to a new CPU and platform, and haven't been able firmly settle on either an Intel or AMD CPU.

I do a lot of gaming on my PC, currently on a 1080p 144hz screen, though the 27" 144hz 1440p screen I'm replacing the main monitor with is supposed to be 2 days away. I've started doing more frequent gaming streams however, and the 6700K just isn't cutting it anymore.

Intel definitely holds the straight gaming advantage due to the overclocking ability, though it isn't so much anymore that AMD can't hold it's own. The 3700X obviously has the core and thread count advantage, which would help while I'm streaming a lot, and has the added advantage of the socket being supported for another year should I need to upgrade further.

Which direction should I go? Or am I just overthinking the supposed Intel gaming advantage?

Any help or opinions would be appreciated.

Comments

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

I would go with an 3700X, because it's the faster gaming processor and would be excellent for streaming purposes as well.

If you are on a budget the 2700X is the better choice though, because your RIG would cost less considering the price of the processor + board expenses.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

i7-9700K is an overated chip for the money. A lot of the so called benchmarks are fake or rigged. Not the best chip for gaming or applications that scale with cores.

The 3700X for some reason wont schedule all threads but it should still be a step up on the i7-9700K. Performance wise it should beat the 9700K in both gaming and streaming.

I would avoid Intel for now. Dated platform and most manufacturer's are no longer supporting the Z390 chipset now that it is in it's dotage.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

A lot of the so called benchmarks are fake or rigged.

Its pretty common on both sides since neither enforces base clock speeds/uses non-standard timings so timed benchmarks don't mean much anymore when a second is not actually a second.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Definitely thinking that AMD will be the way to go.

I am curious why the 2700X pulls ahead in streaming tasks, especially when compared to the 3700X which is also an 8 core/16 thread CPU.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

I am curious why the 2700X pulls ahead in streaming tasks, especially when compared to the 3700X which is also an 8 core/16 thread CPU.

AMD and Intel both have worked with Microsoft and Linux to prioritize the use of cores marked as best and avoid cores marked as worst.

This allows for easier binning as only a few or even one core per chip have to meet requirements for boost clocks, and the overall performance loss from having poor cores on a CPU are minimized.

Intel isn't implementing their side of it till 10th gen.

AMD started with the 3000 series.

The problem for streaming is Windows treats the CPU not as an 8-core/16-thread CPU but as a 1 to 4-core/16-thread CPU focusing all the work onto marked best cores and avoiding poor and unmarked cores.

Good for Both Intel and AMD as now far more chips validate as higher tier models.

Good for people who don't need cores.

Bad for heavy multi-taskers like streamers unless they move up the lines to higher core counts to offset the lost performance, which is also a win for AMD/Intel since they make more on those models.

2700/2700X being built prior to this process don't have marked cores so Windows allows normal use of the cores letting them keep up and beat newer models even though they have the same number of slower cores.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Thanks for the info!

I'll have to do some thinking to decide if I go with a 2700X or 3700X. I'll definitely be going with an X570 motherboard since I'm a huge fan of how they look (still hoping to score a deal on an MSI MEG ACE).

Thanks again for all the help!

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

No worries.

And it isn't a AMD only thing, Intel just hasn't launched desktop models yet that do the same.

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

For thew price if you're bent on upgrading... 3700X got you covered. Yeah it doesn't clock at 5GHz but I still haven't seen a game buckle because of it. Bottom line, unless you're trying to get the highest amount of FPS on your rig (even beating other by 5-6FPS if it matters) then the AMD 3700X got your back.

Simply put, it has more brawn,8 cores/16 threads, compared to 8 cores. So for multitasking like you do, you will be well served. Not that Intel has issues handling the load but... 8 cores VS 8 cores/16 threads and a seriously mad horsepower for multitask all of that for a lower price in most cases... No wonder why people have a dilemma.

I switched to AMD recently. I am happy with my rig, which is all that truly matters.

  • 3 months ago
  • 0 points

I've started doing more frequent gaming streams however, and the 6700K just isn't cutting it anymore.

So your using CPU resources to handle the stream then.

Which direction should I go?

Neither both are overpriced for what you get performance wise.

3700X at best trades blows with the previous generation Ryzen model because of Windows forcing all tasks to a select few cores, so the true core and thread count cannot currently be leveraged without assigning core priorities to every task on the PC.

It is a advantage when say benchmarking or just gaming as you are always using the fastest cores, but running multiple tasks at the same time it also guarantees that proper multi-threading isn't possible.

9700K runs into issues when higher quality settings are used and drops a large number of frames.

For the near future at least the best options are go to a 9900K, 3900X where pure number of cores and double the number of preferred cores offset the sabotaging, use the GPU encoder/separate capture system, or get a 2700/2700X for less that more often then not beats both the newer options.

Personally I would go for the 2700/2700X route, they are not poor at pure gaming so in case you move to GPU encoding still a great option, trade blows or beat for CPU encoding, and save you money.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

I second the 2700(x) advice, especially in the case of value for money.

X570 should be compatible with 2nd-gen Ryzen, meaning you'll still have the option for moving onto at the very least a 3900x/3950x in the future if or when you feel the need to, potentially even a 4000-series Ryzen if they maintain socket compatibility. Plus, a 2700(x) shouldn't be bottlenecking even a 2080Ti in your use case of 1440p/144Hz.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

However, they are looking at running a 144 Hz monitor which is where the 3700X may be the better buy over the 2700X as it can drive higher framerates in order to reach or get as close as possible to 144 FPS.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Less then 10% frame rate difference, 50%+ more price, and worse on average streaming performance.

If your going to argue better frame rates then the 9700K is the clear winner, but for streaming along with gaming both are poor options and the older models are better.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube