(at least at stock configuration)That is a really good question.Hold off until Zen 2 if you want an upgrade.Believe it or not, single core performance isn't as important as it was before, having strong performance between 6-8 threads is becoming more important. nope, just stay with your 6700k until you really notice big stutters or way lower fps compared to newer systems. This is in-game performance and here the 9900K was 17% faster which is a large margin.At launch we saw AMD claiming -- using their own benchmarks -- that the 3900X was faster than the 9900K in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and we have to admit we didn’t believe them. AMD Ryzen 7 3700X vs Intel Core i7-9700K Gaming Benchmarks. For anyone moving off of something like the i7-2600K or 4790K – present in this cart – you’re looking at noteworthy performance improvements. You're at best gonna get the same level of performance with the 2700X. There's a few titles that do play noticeably better with the Intel CPU, in StarCraft's case in complex late game 4v4 battles. The i7-9700K stock CPU ends up at 273FPS AVG, putting it functionally tied with the 9600K at 5.2GHz, but ahead of the stock 9600K by about 6.2%. The 8700K at 5GHz ends up at 11.8 seconds, also functionally the same, although the stock 8700K ends up outside of error at 12.5 seconds per turn.Thermally, the 9700K isn’t that hard to cool under auto conditions, and can be kept reasonably cool with our X62 280mm cooler under overclocked conditions. This is very different from how something like Premiere would handle encoding, so we’d advise not trying to extrapolate this performance to video applications.We’ve also plotted the 2700 at 4.2GHz for reference, giving a test comparable to the 2700X. Overclocking the 2700 to 4.2GHz, similar to where a 2700X would land, puts it at 23 minutes for the Monkey Heads and 27 minutes for the logo. This is where Ryzen starts to pull ahead, and is also where the 9900K shows its performance advantage over the 9700K. At the same price, it’d be more tenable, but an increase to $400 to $430 is unpalatable in the face of Intel’s similarly performing i7-8700K at cheaper prices. Overclocked is a different story, a 6700K @ > 4.6 GHz would likely trade blows with the 2700X in games. In years past, a move from 4C/8T to 8C/8T would be easier to discuss, but Intel has moved from a 6C/12T 8700K part of a lower price – in the $350-$370 range, on average – to an 8C/8T 9700K at a higher price. Once overclocked the 3900X was the clear winner offering not just greater 1% low performance but a slight improvement in average frame rate performance as well.On average the 3900X was 6% slower than the 9900K when gaming. Intel Core i7-6700K vs. Intel Core i7-8700K - Cinebench 11.5, Cinebench R15, PassMark and Geekbench 3 CPU Benchmark results All the benchmarks were conducted at 1080p using the highest in-game preset. AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X vs Intel Core i9-9900K: 15. Here the 3900X was 9% slower out of the box and 10% once both CPUs were overclocked. The overall result is as we surmised. 6700k is still very good overclocked.CPUID bench shows mine at least neck & neck w a 6700k single thread non oced, it's as if I have x2 6700k in one socket.
It’s still over 60FPS, which would be around the 16.667ms line on the Y-axis, and it is overall consistent in frame delivery, much like the 9900K and 8700K.Going to about 5GHz and 1.35V, the 9700K measures an average all-core load of 54 degrees over ambient, with power consumption at 188W and liquid thermals at about 10 degrees over ambient. The gaming performance is especially a notch above the older Zen+ based Ryzen 2000 chips. You play at big boy resolutions ? In fact, the 2700X is slightly faster in some benchmarks. Keep in mind that this is with MCE disabled, so it’s following the boost duration specification and sticking to a power consumption of 90W. Overclocking the 9700K pushes it to roughly stock 9900K performance levels.For Blender, the 9700K at 5.1GHz ends up completing the GN Monkey Head render in 25 minutes, or the GN Logo render in 28 minutes. Based on 474,374 user benchmarks for the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X and the Intel Core i7-6700, we rank them both on effective speed and value for money against the best 1,257 CPUs. This places the 9700K as noticeably cooler than our 9900K sample when soldered, which measured at 64 degrees over ambient. The smaller the overlap between the yellow and green bars, the better the value for money. This is made obvious by our 7980XE at 4.6GHz outperforming CPUs like the 9700K at 5.1GHz.Now that we’ve tested it, we can see that benchmarking positions the 9700K oft superior in gaming tasks, largely a result of frequency, to the preceding 8700K. The 2700X and 6700K also have relatively equal single threaded performance at stock. For auto settings, keep in mind that we heavily rely upon the motherboard used as the temperature is most directly impacted by auto voltages. This doesn’t remain true in every case, like in Blender workloads where the additional threads of the 8700K prove advantageous. As you can see above, the 2700X outperforms the 6700K by up to 20% in certain CPU-bound scenarios. The margin did grow slightly once both CPUs were overclocked, now the 3900X is seen to be 10% slower.The Resident Evil 2 results are interesting: stock the 3900X was 6% slower on average, but provided stronger 1% low performance, beating the 9900K by 4%.