I7-9700k or I7-8086k?
The 8086 costs $425 dollars, while the 9700k costs around 400$. The 8086 has only 6 cores, and 12 threads with a max clock speed of 5 ghz, while the 9700k has 8 cores with 8 threads, but has a max clock speed of 4.9 ghz. The 9700k is around 4 months newer than the 8086.
Thank you! I didn't need the integrated graphics. I never knew Intel sold CPUs without integrated graphics.
So this will help out alot.
Thank you so much for the help!
For gaming I would go for the 9700k. Save yourself $25 and get 2 more cores. Perhaps explaining hyperthreading may help. In a CPU core it can do so much work per clock cycle and not every task that gets pushed through a core can take up the full load of that clock cycle. Hyperthreading allows another task to use the unused portion in the core so hyperthreading allows a more efficient use of the CPU core. Due to its nature some tasks can benefit a lot from it while other tasks don't benefit as much.
Typically more cores outweigh more threads from hyperthreading. Gaming is also a task that does not heavily benefit from hyperthreading, well it can a bit when core limited but more cores are generally better. Now looking at gaming benchmarks of the i7 7700k(5ghz) vs i7 8700k(5ghz) vs i7 9700k(5ghz) and that paints a good picture on hyperthreading scaling with games. Compared to the 9700k the 7700k has the same thread count with its hyperthreading but it lags the furthest behind. Even the 8700k with 4 more threads lags behind the 9700k by only a hair so the hyperthreading isn't making up for the lack of 2 more cores.
Now I know I was comparing the 8700k and not the 8086k but the only difference is stock and boost clock settings. OC both CPUs to 5.0 GHz and they will operate the exact same.
Tasks like video editing and 3D rendering to name a couple can really benefit more from hyperthreading but at that point you could just got with an r9 3900x but will be around $470 so a bit of a jump in price but you get 12c24t which will be a beast at those tasks. Even the r7 3700x at $340 will be a beast at this too and it has 8 cores 16 threads. The r7 2700 at $150 is the best price to performance, sure the 9700k will outperform it but by a FAR smaller margin than the cost difference.
Edit: the 9700kf is cheaper and only lacks integrated graphics which wont matter when using a video card in the PC.
I have a i7 - 8086K, best gaming CPU I have ever used. Better than my i9-9900K in fact. Reason I will attribute is silicon lottery - I have it set at 5.5GHz in a liquid cooled system and it pulls higher frame rates than any other CPU I have tested. On a 240Hz monitor, as glorious as the smooth gameplay feels, it is hard to appreciate a 20fps boost over another CPU when both are blazing 200fps plus.
But to be realistic, outside of lucking out on a chip that overclocks like a champ, the i7-8086K is discontinued (and overpriced), average samples barely run faster than a Ryzen 5 3600X which is half the price, and it trades blows (or slightly underperforms) against a good i7-9700K/KF sample both of which are cheaper.
I have no idea about your budget or what requirements you have that gravitated you towards the 9700K or 8086K. For pure gaming, yes, right at or near the top. But what is performance anyway? 144Hz monitor, get cheaper CPU's like Ryzen 7 3700X or R5 3600, they wont perform as well in most gaming scenario's but a 144Hz monitor will not care, the extra frames juiced out of an 8086K or 9700K wont be seen anyway. Monitor should dictate choice - any monitor 165Hz or below do not waste your money chasing the most expensive and delicate silicon your money can buy - it will be wasted in gaming on such a monitor. 240-300Hz on the other hand is at an extreme edge of gaming, a niche, it might make sense to overspend on an overclockable Intel chip.
If your requirements fall more in line with CPU intensive tasks (gaming is not a CPU intensive task at all, even modern titles that use 8 threads have no issue running on any 4core/8thread CPU let alone 6cores and above) then you might be better off looking at the i9-9900K or the Ryzen lineup starting with the Ryzen 7 3700X up to 3950X.
If you plan on gaming and streaming the requirements may as well be the same for a typical workstation - half your cores/threads will be eaten up encoding. May as well get 8core/16thread CPU and up.
Hope this helps.
8086K if you are working with video, audio, or any other creative type work. They will benefit a lot from the hyperthreading.
9700K if you are mostly gaming.
Or if you have a flexible budget, I'd go i9-9900K to futureproof.
honestly, on the topic of future-proofing, you never know when hyperthreading will be more utilized in gaming and other tasks. It's better to have it than to not have it. I have a 8700K and I feel like my system could cut through anything I throw at it.
I have the 8086k as well and it's a good overclocking chip. About as far as I pushed mine is to 5.2ghz at 1.29v with a -2 AVX offset. I have a decent 8700k (now in my sister's system) which can do 5.2ghz at 1.305v with a -2 AVX offset. It's passed every stress test I can throw at it whether it be LinpackXtreme, Prime95 Small FFT or Blend, Aida64, whatever. Although I have it with the EVGA 280 clc and the temps have hit the low 90's at the most while stress testing. I'm pretty happy with it where it's at so it will be a while before I delid it or anything.
The disclaimer about the 8086k is, The only difference between the 8086k and the 8700k is the double core turbo of the 8086k is 5.0ghz. The stock all core Turbo of the 8700k and 8086k is 4.3ghz. There is no real difference between the 8700k and 8086k at stock speeds because most games are going to use much more than 2 cores. The 9700k has a an all core Turbo of 4.6ghz.
Typically an 8086k will overclock better but that depends on the silicon lottery.
IMHO, for gaming with both processors at 5.0ghz, it's like comparing Apples to Oranges.