Intel Core i7-9700K

[Lanky123]

Yes, the Bang4Watt chart is much better now. It's interesting just how little difference there is across all the different CPUs. Seems it's impossible to buy an inefficient dog of a CPU these days...

[nobodyspecial]

Min fps show you'd probably rather have a 8700k and save 110. This chip is useless unless you're going to clock it at 5ghz+. If you can't get that, you've wasted money for nothing IMHO. You can put that $110 into 16GB of mem, more on your vid card etc. It lost every 1080p benchmark in games. Not a good chip for $110 extra. I'm thinking things would get even worse with faster vid cards and more games tested to show more weaknesses of 8 core (especially if you care about mins) and only 8 thread vs. the rest. You shouldn't lose a SINGLE benchmark to last years chips in your own lineup. IF that happens, YOU HAVE FAILED.

The 4k benchmarks, as usual pointless and as steam survey shows as of last week, 4k is 1.3% of steam users...ROFL. Why even bother testing it until at least another year? For 1.3% of readers? I'd rather see another bunch of games tested where 67% of the people are playing - 1080p according to steam hardware survey. 1440p isn't even mainstream at 3.52%. But at least that is ~3x more relevant than 4k tests...Note more people are running 11GB+ cards (titans, hello!) at around 6.6% and they don't buy them to run 4k...LOL. So down with the "you don't buy a Titan to run 1080p" crap...LOL. Yes, quite a few actually DO. Larger percent of people running DUAL monitors at 3840x1080p also. Again, 4k is pointless to test until it reaches 5%. Even then you're still testing for a few rich people, and it should only be tested at launch of a new gpu just to show what it can do. After that, pointless to include in every gpu test, and again more time should be spent on what people actually GAME at. 1080p.

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
It's a shame they don't break out the Titan cards. But there are a lot of cards running 11GB+ in there compared to 4k monitors. All 4k tests should pretty much be dedicated to 1440p which is still a joke, but if you're going to waste time, 3.52% is far better than 1.3%. 1.49% are 1080ti, of the 2%+ that have 11gb, so some are titan there, and of a course the rest ABOVE all other cards here are titans. It seems about 4.45% are 12GB probably as they don't fit in anything below it. Most of the people running 4k (or thereabouts) are using multiple cards it seems. Well duh, who pays that kind of money and wants to turn crap down? LOL. I don't play a game until my card can MAX IT OUT on my native res (1200p dell 24in - clinging to 16:10 until it dies!) or if I'm desperate to play it, I can toss it to my smaller 22in with lower native. I have no intention of playing a game NOT looking exactly as the devs designed it. MAX IT OUT. The only time I'd back off that is multiplayer FPS where I might want massive fps so a room full of players won't take me down.

Why do review sites (cough anandtech/toms etc cough) keep claiming 4k is taking over the market? ROFLMAO. Wake me when that's even true for 1440p. Steam has 125mil+ users, it doesn't lie. That's one HUGE sample size! Also, many people like myself have NO steam account as DRM is against our religion GOG for the world! So even more Titan users are probably out there (and 1080ti users running 1080p on top of steam survey too). Is it comic Titan seems to out sell 1080ti, and 1080ti sells almost double 1070ti? Sheesh. People clearly see value in the top end. Another dumb comment by many, "most of the INCOME come from the low end under $200"...LOL. NOPE. Most comes from $250+ and that was 2yrs ago. Worse now as HEDT+top end gpus sell enough to gobble up 80% of the INCOME (not revenue, INCOME). Meaning 1060+ type pricing and workstation gpus, & on the cpu side HEDT/server.

[DanceswithUnix]

Steam has 125mil+ users, it doesn't lie.

It makes for interesting reading, but there are things we don't know about it and I'm sure there is some selection bias if only from the people who click that no they don't want to submit a survey may be the sort of person that buys a certain type of hardware.

There is a legion of low powered laptops on there. I've done that myself, installed the Steam client on a gutless laptop with a 720p 11" display just so I could play plants vs zombies. That isn't my main machine, but it dilutes the results. From a quick look at the "Primary Display Resolution" breakdown the screens under 1680x1050 have got to be laptops, I mean who the heck buys a 900p display for a desktop machine? That's a quarter of the results seem to be low end laptops, yet 1080p 15.6" displays seem way more common in laptops than the lower resolution displays. So my take on the statistics, a quarter of those results are junk laptops, at least another half are 1080p laptops often with some sort of Nvidia graphics but never going to play anything above medium settings. That leaves about a quarter as desktop machines?

If Steam reported "Battery available" status of the machine it would be a big help, but I think the "of desktop users" numbers are way higher. My experience is that of desktop users, screens are usually replaced with 1440p, 4K or 144Hz 1080p models.

[kalniel]

Also, I think reviews should be forward looking - if they concentrated solely on what people are currently using then you wouldn't be reviewing new products, you'd be reviewing 3+yr old ones

[wilko]

All of the reviews I've read so far suggest it's not worth upgrading to this chip unless you have money to burn.

[Ozaron]

It makes for interesting reading, but there are things we don't know about it and I'm sure there is some selection bias if only from the people who click that no they don't want to submit a survey may be the sort of person that buys a certain type of hardware.

There is a legion of low powered laptops on there. I've done that myself, installed the Steam client on a gutless laptop with a 720p 11" display just so I could play plants vs zombies. That isn't my main machine, but it dilutes the results. From a quick look at the "Primary Display Resolution" breakdown the screens under 1680x1050 have got to be laptops, I mean who the heck buys a 900p display for a desktop machine? That's a quarter of the results seem to be low end laptops, yet 1080p 15.6" displays seem way more common in laptops than the lower resolution displays. So my take on the statistics, a quarter of those results are junk laptops, at least another half are 1080p laptops often with some sort of Nvidia graphics but never going to play anything above medium settings. That leaves about a quarter as desktop machines?

If Steam reported "Battery available" status of the machine it would be a big help, but I think the "of desktop users" numbers are way higher. My experience is that of desktop users, screens are usually replaced with 1440p, 4K or 144Hz 1080p models.

Hey, I was still running 900p until 2016. Good friend of mine only moved from 900p this month, with a simultaneous rebuild involving Ryzen 2600 and RX 570 8GB. They do exist. Lots of old, mediocre OEM displays from a several years ago.