The state of the 7600K/7700K on its release and how it has aged will be very different compared to what will become of the 9700K/9900K. The reason that the 7600K and 7700K haven't aged well is because, as you said, games are using more threads. However, the story with the 9700K will be very different as with current technology, parallelisation takes a big performance hit when we throw 6 or more threads at it. In the future, this won't be a problem as the CPU's developed then will be fast enough to negate cut off point and increase the number of threads which can compute in parallel efficiently.
Let me put that straight, in the future, games will use more threads but only in the CPU's which can actually utilise all those threads, for example, CPU's which are extremely good at executing instructions at the exact same times. The CPU's that we have today won't be able to do that. The only reason this didn't happen with the 7700K and 7600K is because they hadn't hit that parallelisation whilst AMD have forced Intel to push chips that have already extended beyond this limit so the top end chips are beyond anything games will ever use.
I know where you are coming from in the sense of future proofing but in reality, due to the rapid multi core enhancements we are getting from Intel and AMD's competition, the rules aren't the same as when we had marginal CPU improvements.
i understand both yalls points and well make the best decision i believe for myself.
I'm not a CPU engineer, so I can't argue against what you've said. I'm only basing my justification on what I've seen, from history, from reviews and from benchmarks.
Based on what you've said, once it goes beyond six threads, the improvements take a hit, how far does this extend? I mean, take frame pacing, for example. This is not first hand experience and I'm just going off reviews. Threads improve frame pacing consistency, and hence a smoother experience. Frame pacing consistency is why for old consoles (not sure about now, but PS2 at least) felt smooth despite only being 30 FPS, because everything was controlled by the console, so each FPS was delivered at 1/30 of a second (except for insanely high load games, which were extremely few for the PS2). For computers, however, this is different, there are more factors, and thus the number of threads improve frame pacing consistency. We don't see this issue in benchmarks, because numbers don't show this and even gameplay video is a video, which again, is delivering consistent FPS, so it doesn't show, but when we play the game first hand, it becomes noticeable, because our eyes are more perceptive and the micro stutters coming from less consistent frames become far more noticeable than a Youtube video. Is this not the case?
I mean, based on what you've said, with today's CPUs, once you go beyond six threads it makes no real difference, doesn't that mean for gamers who aren't streaming, they should just get a 9600K and be done because the 9700K and 9900K don't offer much beyond that? Or with last generation, people should've bought the 8600K rather than the 8700K for gaming? I don't know. All this time, I knew hyper-threading/multi-threading didn't offer more performance, it just offered better frame consistency for games that needed more threads, but with what you said, I just want to know more.
Yes, what you're talking about is the consistency of FPS in games and that certainly is directly related to the number of threads in a CPU. In this scenario, having extra threads means the OS can dedicate more of the CPU to the game. Of course, in a perfect situation, the CPU will never use all the available resources the OS gives it meaning you won't experience drops in FPS due to another program hogging some of the CPU.
In that situation, it makes sense to maximise the number of threads you have available to reduce the stability of consistent frame rate but there is a catch. Frame stutters only occur on games which can use all the threads efficiently and are CPU bound where the GPU cannot be fully utilised as it has to wait for the CPU. Unfortunately, the number of games that have this are few and far between. Battlefield V is probably the best example of a game where the developers spent a lot of time getting the engine to use as many threads. What my take on the fact why they use lots of extra threads inefficiently is not for bragging rights on how well optimised the game is but to simply reserve the threads from other resource hungry programs to ensure, as what you said, the frame pacing is extremely consistent.
Well, that's largely what I meant initially. Battlefield V uses that many. Shadow of the Tomb Raider uses up to 12, as well. How efficiently? I don't know. But going forward in time, this will become more common, and that's why I would suggest having more threads than fewer. Yeah, it may not be the best, it's an extra $100, but it's better than risking it. If it's within budget, I'd just get the extra threads than be annoyed at any form of stutter caused by saving it. Ultimately, in gaming, nothing is more annoying than "lag" affecting the overall experience. As a gamer myself, I'd be happy to pay the extra $100 premium to avoid this being an issue now and in the near future. This is simply my personal take.