As proven above, when talking gaming, the 3700X is no match for an overclocked 8700K, forget the 9700K and 9900K. The gaming difference is still significant, and the 8700K is not a niche market, and neither is the 9700K.
From a gaming perspective, even an argument can be made to get a 7700K second hand ($200) as it would still be a better value when talking gaming performance.
Lots of top end gamers use these types of CPUs or something similar.
You don't need to be in the extreme spectrum to benefit from an Intel CPU for gaming, so zip it with the biased reach.
Both the 8700K and 3700X sit right around $350 give or take and the 8700K smashes the 3700K in stock form in games, and even more so when its at 5.2GHz...which it clocks too, effortlessly. You then looking at a 15-40FPS advantage in games across the board.
Um, the 8700K has a higher relative gaming performance then the 9900K / 9700K. Techspot even recommended it over the 9900K for gaming
https://www.techspot.com/bestof/cpu/
The 8700K, 9700K, and 9900K are indeed a niche market. The number of hoops you need to jump through in order to actually benefit from a tiny performance increase is insane. Overclocking is naturally for enthusiasts which in fact makes it niche. 1080p, RTX 2080 Ti, 144 Hz? That's even more niche.
The 9700K is the worst value of the bunch. No point in buying a worse performing CPU when you can get the best gaming performance with a 8700K.
Oh and the 8700K certainly doesn't clock to 5.2 GHz effortlessly.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=silicon+lottery+8700K+stats
In fact only 30% reach 5.2GHz at 1.425v, which is considered extreme overclocking.
Let's compare an OC'd 8700K to a 3700X
8700K (
OC'd to 5.1 GHz)
pro
- Approx 7.2% better single threaded performance
cons
- Approx 20% lower multi-threaded performance
- Approx $160 more expensive if you factor in the additional cost of the CPU, CPU cooler, and motherboard.
- Consumes far more power
- Produces far more heat
- Requires expensive motherboard
- Requires expensive cooler
- Has unpatched security vulnerabilities
- Much more time consuming to setup. From the cooler install to the overclocking setup to the research required to select the correct parts.
- Requires OC know-how (of which likely only 15% of all PC gamers even have XP in). You can get to 5.0 GHz using built-in motherboard presents but for 5.1 GHz most motherboards have an unsafe voltage level applied to those presents and typically have them presented in red as a warning.
- Requires the use of a $1,200 GPU in order to see full advantage in many games
- Requires a 144 Hz monitor in order to see full advantage in many games.
Yeah, I'd say it's pretty darn niche. In fact many of the cons are simply disqualifying for a majority of PC gamers. Even professionals who game for a living like Harblue, Pine, or other professional players / streamers do not OC their 8700Ks. Harblue for example has his 8700K set to 4.8 GHz, which is below stock boost. He uses NVEC to steam so it isn't stealing CPU reasources (overwatch isn't a thread heavy game anyways). In fact I see a fair amount of OEM PCs in the pro gamer world. Overwatch league for example uses HP omen computers, which most certainly do not get their 8700Ks anywhere near 5.1 GHz. In the end a 5.1 GHz 8700K is for PC enthusiasts at the most extreme end of the spectrum. Pushing the CPU that far isn't a good idea for competitive gaming nor can you expect everyone to just be able to extract that extra performance, silicon lottery and experience issues aside. I've always enjoyed overclocking but the level of overclocking you are pushing here is not the kind I enjoy anymore. I've been through too many mid game crashes to realize that even though you stress tested that OC for 6 hours it can still crash in games. Now if I want to push a heavy OC I do it on my test PC.
