# Intel Core i7-8700K 3.7 GHz



## W1zzard (Oct 5, 2017)

Intel strikes back! The Core i7-8700K comes with six processor cores, plus HyperThreading, for a total of twelve threads. Overclocking potential is excellent, reaching 5 GHz on all cores, with ease, on just air cooling. Pricing is also extremely reasonable, with just a small increase over the previous quad-core 7700K.

*Show full review*


----------



## cryohellinc (Oct 5, 2017)

" One Zen 2 please. Thank you "


----------



## KarymidoN (Oct 5, 2017)

So thats it?
gaming performance nearly the same from i7 7700k.
Overall performance really increased thanks to more C/T  but thats it.
as always intel promissed 15%+ increased performance and again its not there....
Too bad for AMD their next processors is arriving only in 2018 cause RN Intel is basically rebranding 7700k with more Cores.
(Sorry my bad english)


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 5, 2017)

You have to thank AMD for this, really.  That being said, I'd much rather have this CPU over my 1700X.

Sad Face.

And hoping the Q1 Zen refresh is fruitful.


----------



## StrayKAT (Oct 5, 2017)

edit: My bad. Nvm.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Oct 5, 2017)

I am still good with my old stone.

Shame I am unlucky and the tests are being done with 1080. Would ran through few benchies to compare.


----------



## TXST Guardian (Oct 5, 2017)

Was waiting for this to make the decision between going Ryzen 1700X and 8700K. I think I'll go with the 1700X since it $100 cheaper and buy a better X370 board.


----------



## natr0n (Oct 5, 2017)

(ES)


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 5, 2017)

This 8700K is actually best of both worlds. It has plenty of threads and also clocks ridiculously high for single threaded stuff pretty much out of the box. It does great with multithreading and also runs games well where multi threads don't count all that much (yet). They could bump up the multi clocks to at least 4GHz, but I guess it's a good balance. Intel is doing similar to NVIDIA with graphics. The chips boost so high out of the box it almost defeats the purpose of overclocking and most people won't even see the need to do that.


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 5, 2017)

Nice review and a testament to the Noctua U14S cooler...  only a 0.1 Ghz improvement with H2O.

That said, I'm holding onto my rig for another few years


----------



## Parn (Oct 5, 2017)

For anyone with a Haswell or above who don't run many heavily threaded apps, they can safely skip this one and wait for 8-core CFL with Z390.


----------



## BorisDG (Oct 5, 2017)

But hey... we had those 6-core CPUS since many years on HEDT?  Why people are going crazy now? Yeah, I know it's supposed to be mainstream and not HEDT, but ... come on.


----------



## Leon2ky (Oct 5, 2017)

KarymidoN said:


> So thats it?
> gaming performance nearly the same from i7 7700k.
> Overall performance really increased thanks to more C/T  but thats it.
> as always intel promissed 15%+ increased performance and again its not there....
> ...


Not just 7700K but 6700K which is 2 years old.


----------



## Andrej (Oct 5, 2017)

New King)


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 5, 2017)

I guess dave's was a dud... 
@cadaveca


----------



## Sandbo (Oct 5, 2017)

This CPU is pretty much what Intel should have released instead of the CrappyLake, great gaming performance and decent multi-threading on the same silicon, and the 5 GHz on air.......
Except that this will be a hit to the (yet another) short life Skylake-X platform.


----------



## dj-electric (Oct 5, 2017)

The argument here is that people do more with advanced CPUs these days.
Clean systems with gaming benchmarks will favor CPUs with less resources, but what about those systems who run many softwares and other resource consuming items on their background when they want to game. Also, content streaming is a thing


----------



## Outback Bronze (Oct 5, 2017)

Looks like another New Board and CPU upgrade for me. I just wish it was the CPU only... Damn it.


----------



## oxidized (Oct 5, 2017)

No temps again?


----------



## efikkan (Oct 5, 2017)

KarymidoN said:


> So thats it?
> gaming performance nearly the same from i7 7700k.
> Overall performance really increased thanks to more C/T  but thats it.
> as always intel promissed 15%+ increased performance and again its not there....


Gaming performance is the same since there is not much more to gain when the CPU is no longer a bottleneck for gaming.
The core performance is ~15% better as Intel promised.



KarymidoN said:


> Too bad for AMD their next processors is arriving only in 2018 cause RN Intel is basically rebranding 7700k with more Cores.


AMD only have a refresh in store for next year, at least Intel provided more cores.


----------



## warup89 (Oct 5, 2017)

Being Intel and how big they are, I'm sure the initial shortage will be short and supply will meet demand thus maintaining msrp.

Very nice chip with an alright amount of extra performance if overclocked. Well at least you can still use the same ram after changing motherboards.


----------



## dicktracy (Oct 5, 2017)

This thing is better than even the 7820x.


----------



## dcf-joe (Oct 5, 2017)

So, I am confused about the chipsets. The Z370 motherboards are out now, what is supposed to be coming in Q1 next year?


----------



## Patriot (Oct 5, 2017)

TXST Guardian said:


> Was waiting for this to make the decision between going Ryzen 1700X and 8700K. I think I'll go with the 1700X since it $100 cheaper and buy a better X370 board.


Go 1700 or 1600... all ryzens can pretty much hit 3.9-4ghz... save money, get a good board and good gfx.   5ghz 8700k hits stock 1800x multithreaded... 3.6ghz on any ryzen chip is pie. .. clock it to 4ghz and you have a winner.


----------



## Dimi (Oct 5, 2017)

KarymidoN said:


> So thats it?
> gaming performance nearly the same from i7 7700k.
> Overall performance really increased thanks to more C/T  but thats it.
> as always intel promissed 15%+ increased performance and again its not there....
> ...



You should check the Digital Foundry review. It rofflestomps the 7700K in games that can use more cores. Extremely smooth frametimes, better than any other cpu on the market.


----------



## TXST Guardian (Oct 5, 2017)

Patriot said:


> Go 1700 or 1600... all ryzens can pretty much hit 3.9-4ghz... save money, get a good board and good gfx.   5ghz 8700k hits stock 1800x multithreaded... 3.6ghz on any ryzen chip is pie. .. clock it to 4ghz and you have a winner.



There's only a $10 difference between the two at mircocenter so that's why I was going with that , I will keep it in mind if the 1700 dips lower though.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Oct 5, 2017)

Seems to be great CPU, nice balance of cores and clock speed.

Ebuyer have it for pre-order @ £ 343.98, tempted...


----------



## yogurt_21 (Oct 5, 2017)

Ah look what the competition dragged in, Actual affordable high performance cpus. I like it. Getting to the point of having to replace CPU/Mem/Mobo/GPU. might have to plan it around this guy. Granted I'll likely do it next summer to hopefully hit the next gen of gpu's. All the kinks should be worked out by then for this platform.


----------



## raptori (Oct 5, 2017)

*

"6-cores, large multi-threaded gains over previous generation"*


----------



## Suka (Oct 5, 2017)

[QUOTE="

AMD only have a refresh in store for next year, at least Intel provided more cores.[/QUOTE]
They cant give more cores , can they?


----------



## KarymidoN (Oct 5, 2017)

TXST Guardian said:


> Was waiting for this to make the decision between going Ryzen 1700X and 8700K. I think I'll go with the 1700X since it $100 cheaper and buy a better X370 board.



you might wanna wait till Q12018 for ZEN+ (they will be AM4/X370/B350) and better than the actual R7/R5 line-up.


----------



## zAAm (Oct 5, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> This 8700K is actually best of both worlds. It has plenty of threads and also clocks ridiculously high for single threaded stuff pretty much out of the box. It does great with multithreading and also runs games well where multi threads don't count all that much (yet). They could bump up the multi clocks to at least 4GHz, but I guess it's a good balance. Intel is doing similar to NVIDIA with graphics. The chips boost so high out of the box it almost defeats the purpose of overclocking and most people won't even see the need to do that.



I have to agree with you, it bridges that gap where people would like to have more cores whilst not sacrificing gaming performance. Count me as impressed


----------



## xkm1948 (Oct 5, 2017)

This is awesome.

Now if Intel brings out a mainstream 8 core 16 threads that can easily get to 5GHz on air. Damn that would REALLY up the game.


On a side note, 

*How does a 4GHz RyZen 8 core 16 threads with high speed ram stack against a 5GHz Core I7 6 core 12 threads?  I bet 99% RyZen owners will go for at least DDR4-3000 and RyZen does benefit greatly from overclocked RAM. *


----------



## nickbaldwin86 (Oct 5, 2017)

Ordering!!!!


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 5, 2017)

That 1700x is looking more attractive with 2 extra cores and 4 extra threads.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Oct 5, 2017)

it just smells of "quickly get something out to compete!!!!" coming from Intel.
Well too little too late imo, I would recommend going for Ryzen over this.


----------



## FlanK3r (Oct 5, 2017)

And do not forfet, results in graohs are not at Intel spec, but at multicore turbo settings, thats mean CPU working at 4.7GHz in load (non avx load)...3,7GHz is only paper, not reality


----------



## lyndonguitar (Oct 5, 2017)

I'm impressed with the 8700k, I'm gonna buy it soon. But I'm more impressed with the G4560, By far the best budget CPU I have seen. could go toe to toe with and even surpass the i7s on some occasions


----------



## Tomorrow (Oct 5, 2017)

1080p  and 1440p tests seem to be more GPU than CPU limited. Perhaps test with 1080Ti instead of 1080 in the future @ W1zzard?
Also no temp graphs. In Hardware Unboxed video he's sample went to 5,2Ghz but at 97c at load. Ouch.

Better question is what use is the high OC potential if you can't use it without buying AIO or custom loop and voiding warranty in the process?
Sure you can OC to a point but after that it gets too hot and throttles back down so net gain=0


----------



## lyndonguitar (Oct 5, 2017)

Tomorrow said:


> 1080p  and 1440p tests seem to be more GPU than CPU limited. Perhaps test with 1080Ti instead of 1080 in the future @ W1zzard?
> Also no temp graphs. In Hardware Unboxed video he's sample went to 5,2Ghz but at 97c at load. Ouch.
> 
> Better question is what use is the high OC potential if you can't use it without buying AIO or custom loop and voiding warranty in the process?
> Sure you can OC to a point but after that it gets too hot and throttles back down so net gain=0



Voiding warranty? you mean with delidding?


----------



## Tomorrow (Oct 5, 2017)

lyndonguitar said:


> Voiding warranty? you mean with delidding?


Yes.


----------



## dicktracy (Oct 5, 2017)

Tomorrow said:


> 1080p  and 1440p tests seem to be more GPU than CPU limited. Perhaps test with 1080Ti instead of 1080 in the future @ W1zzard?
> Also no temp graphs. In Hardware Unboxed video he's sample went to 5,2Ghz but at 97c at load. Ouch.
> 
> Better question is what use is the high OC potential if you can't use it without buying AIO or custom loop and voiding warranty in the process?
> Sure you can OC to a point but after that it gets too hot and throttles back down so net gain=0


Pretty much. Other reviewers without a GPU bottleneck puts Coffee Lake noticably above others.


----------



## xorbe (Oct 5, 2017)

Maybe I'm crazy, but all the benched CPUs look pretty good: fast, faster, fastest.


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 5, 2017)

This line by wizard from the i5-8400 review is what sticks out to me about all these coffee lake chips.  
_
For gaming, things are different. Here, the i5-8400 breezes past all AMD Ryzens thanks to its high per-thread performance and the boost clock of 4.0 GHz. I find it surprising that there is very little difference between the i5-8400, i5-8600K, and i7-8700K in gaming, even at the highly CPU-limited scenario of 720p. This suggests that today's games see limited gains from more than four cores. It is good news for gamers on a budget because a Core i5-8400 will be completely sufficient to not bottleneck even the fastest graphics cards._


----------



## theeldest (Oct 5, 2017)

I'm still happy with my 1800x. Intel can go eat a bag of dicks. They could have released a mainstream 6-core CPU 3-5 years ago but didn't until AMD forced their hand.


----------



## erixx (Oct 5, 2017)

7700K, standing strong, owner resting now.


----------



## Slizzo (Oct 5, 2017)

FlanK3r said:


> And do not forfet, results in graohs are not at Intel spec, but at multicore turbo settings, thats mean CPU working at 4.7GHz in load (non avx load)...3,7GHz is only paper, not reality




.... That is literally Intel's spec. single core turbo of 4.7GHz. All core turbo is 4.4GHz I believe.


----------



## ShurikN (Oct 5, 2017)

oxidized said:


> No temps again?


Tom's ran it at 4.9GHz on a 420mm rad AIO and it reached 90° during gaming.
Looks to me TPU got a heavily binned chip and you are more likely to get a similar chip from a store as Tom's did. If you can find in stores as this looks like a huge paper launch if other tech sites are to believe.


----------



## birdie (Oct 5, 2017)

So many falsehoods from blind AMD fanboys it's just staggering.

1) No, Intel couldn't have released these 6 core parts several years ago. They absolutely needed a new refined 14nm process, because you can easily see that 8700(K) is a lot more power efficient than 7800X. Most users will never want 140W TDP in their desktop computers (6 core SkyLake-X CPUs).
2) 6 core Coffee Lake parts were on Intel roadmaps way before AMD released Zen.
3) For games Coffee Lake CPUs are unconditionally better than any Zen based CPUs because even in 2017 most games are bottlenecked by single core CPU performance where Intel is unrivaled due to higher performance per clock (IPC) and also higher attainable frequencies.

There's only thing I don't like about Coffee Lake CPUs: Intel is mum about the 300 series chipset compatibility with Cannonlake and Ice Lake CPUs. I've never actually upgraded CPUs but it's important for many other users.


----------



## mcraygsx (Oct 5, 2017)

Now it is up to Software Developers to catch up with multi core CPU's.


----------



## StrayKAT (Oct 5, 2017)

birdie said:


> There's only thing I don't like about Coffee Lake CPUs: Intel is mum about the 300 series chipset compatibility with Cannonlake and Ice Lake CPUs. I've never actually upgraded CPUs but it's important for many other users.



I've thought of that too.

I wonder why many aren't as enthused about x299? It seems to have a clearer future roadmap at least. But I'm probably missing something obvious...


----------



## mastershake575 (Oct 5, 2017)

ZoneDymo said:


> it just smells of "quickly get something out to compete!!!!" coming from Intel.


 What ?? 

These processors where announced before Ryzen and these processors are more power efficient then last generations 6 core line. 

This is literally the complete opposite of "quickly get something out to compete". It's well engineered and has been on the roadmap for quite some time........


----------



## oxidized (Oct 5, 2017)

ShurikN said:


> Tom's ran it at 4.9GHz on a 420mm rad AIO and it reached 90° during gaming.
> Looks to me TPU got a heavily binned chip and you are more likely to get a similar chip from a store as Tom's did. If you can find in stores as this looks like a huge paper launch if other tech sites are to believe.



Yeah but where are those temp tests, almost nobody did that


----------



## laszlo (Oct 5, 2017)

reading the review and comments ...

i feel this new line-up was a forced answer to zen and intel basically corrected previous gen faults, improved manufacturing process & add more cores.

price-wise are well situated but is questionable if owner of previous gen need it or worth the change of mb also as the gains in gaming are minimal, productivity wise could be beneficial... but not for majority

for sure due e-peen both camps fans will buy the latest product and i encourage them to do !!! ....so we could buy slightly used cheap stuff...

with this release they forcing amd to correct their mistakes and improve 1st zen's faster than anticipated... i love competition ty intel&amd!


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 5, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> This 8700K is actually best of both worlds. It has plenty of threads and also clocks ridiculously high for single threaded stuff pretty much out of the box. It does great with multithreading and also runs games well where multi threads don't count all that much (yet). They could bump up the multi clocks to at least 4GHz, but I guess it's a good balance. Intel is doing similar to NVIDIA with graphics. The chips boost so high out of the box it almost defeats the purpose of overclocking and most people won't even see the need to do that.



I noticed this too, a striking similarity in behavior when it comes to core voltage/temp and the OC ceiling it hits with Pascal/GPU Boost 3.0.

Its really a sign of a very strong process/node, and it seems the lottery effect is heavily mitigated by now.



Dimi said:


> You should check the Digital Foundry review. It rofflestomps the 7700K in games that can use more cores. Extremely smooth frametimes, better than any other cpu on the market.



Somebody gets the real world scenario  Even a quad core optimized game will see a huge benefit because you are always multitasking anyway these days. Browser up for whatever? It will run on the spare cores. Streaming? Got two cores for that. Want to do in-depth monitoring at full GPU utilization, so very high polling rates? No problem.

And yes, the real profit is not always measurable in hard FPS, because most of the time, even with Ivy I can hold 120 fps in many cases, but you do lose that stutter that is so extremely pronounced especially at high FPS/refresh rates. 

This 8700k is a winner, and I'm gettin' one 



Tomorrow said:


> 1080p  and 1440p tests seem to be more GPU than CPU limited. Perhaps test with 1080Ti instead of 1080 in the future @ W1zzard?
> Also no temp graphs. In Hardware Unboxed video he's sample went to 5,2Ghz but at 97c at load. Ouch.
> 
> Better question is what use is the high OC potential if you can't use it without buying AIO or custom loop and voiding warranty in the process?
> Sure you can OC to a point but after that it gets too hot and throttles back down so net gain=0



This is why there are 720p tests. If you want to see raw relative performance that's where you gotta go.

At 1080p every GPU will provide different FPS, which is precisely the real world scenario where everyone runs something different. I would say its more relevant to NOT use the highest end card, there are way fewer people who have similar; oh and even a 1080ti will find its max with this CPU at 1080p, don't you worry. There are multiple games heavy enough for that.

@W1zzard awesome as always, and thank you for sticking to the 720p benches. I'm a big fan


----------



## lyndonguitar (Oct 5, 2017)

theeldest said:


> There's only thing I don't like about Coffee Lake CPUs: Intel is mum about the 300 series chipset compatibility with Cannonlake and Ice Lake CPUs. I've never actually upgraded CPUs but it's important for many other users.



This. I generally don't care if they make the Z370 a one and done platform, as people generally buy a new mobo by the time they wanna change the CPU(never upgraded the CPU on the same mobo as well). But I'm kind of expecting Intel to jump even a bigger leap forward with Cannonlake/Icelake, so much that if it becomes one of the biggest jumps in years, It might just BE worth it to upgrade even from a 8700k(which I am getting), so I'm starting to care lol. I originally planned to wait until cannon/icelake but they're taking too long and I'm getting older now.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 5, 2017)

lyndonguitar said:


> This. I generally don't care if they make the Z370 a one and done platform, as people generally buy a new mobo by the time they wanna change the CPU(never upgraded the CPU on the same mobo as well). But I'm kind of expecting Intel to jump even a bigger leap forward with Cannonlake/Icelake, so much that if it becomes one of the biggest jumps in years, It might just BE worth it to upgrade even from a 8700k(which I am getting), so I'm starting to care lol. I originally planned to wait until cannon/icelake but they're taking too long and I'm getting older now.



There are additional power pins on the CPU/socket that weren't used as such on Z270 / Kaby Lake. So KL has a few 'dead pins' that CL does use.

Which in all fairness is 100% logical given increased core counts in the lineup. And about your upgrade plans, yes man, I think for us early Core buyers (your Sandy my Ivy) this is the moment where it'll pay off. We actually run pretty darn similar performing rigs, yours at 4.5 and mine at 4.4 but a gen newer 

EDIT: OMG 2500 thanks and 3k msgs, new milestones haha... wonder if I'll ever get that 1:1 ratio going


----------



## xorbe (Oct 5, 2017)

mastershake575 said:


> What ??
> 
> These processors where announced before Ryzen and these processors are more power efficient then last generations 6 core line.
> 
> This is literally the complete opposite of "quickly get something out to compete". It's well engineered and has been on the roadmap for quite some time........



Wat?? 8700K is just some quickly glued together moar cores!!1! /s


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 5, 2017)

With some of these responses, you'd think Intel can design, fab, test, and distribute chips within months... WTH?????????


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 5, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> With some of these responses, you'd think Intel can design, fab, test, and distribute chips within months... WTH?????????



Yeah man they already have a Quantum Core chip laying around somewhere, hell they're even playing Crysis on it in deep space somewhere, probably with aliens.



dirtyferret said:


> You didn't hear?  Next month Intel is releasing "instant coffeelake" chips.  More cores! 15% Higher IPC!! similar gaming performance as kabbylake and you need a new mobo...



I think Instant Coffee rather applies to this gen seeing how they pulled it in.  Nice one


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 5, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> With some of these responses, you'd think Intel can design, fab, test, and distribute chips within months... WTH?????????



You didn't hear?  Next month Intel is releasing "instant coffeelake" chips.  More cores! 15% Higher IPC!! similar gaming performance as kabbylake and you need a new mobo...


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 5, 2017)

StrayKAT said:


> I've thought of that too.
> 
> I wonder why many aren't as enthused about x299? It seems to have a clearer future roadmap at least. But I'm probably missing something obvious...


It's the same reason why hex core CFL wasn't confirmed up until Q2 of this calendar year. The reason being they wouldn't want to cannibalize the sales of existing KBL chips, now imagine if the rumor of 8 core CFL were true, what if it'd also work on Z370 

Maybe *Dave* can fill in some of the details here 


dirtyferret said:


> You didn't hear?  Next month Intel is releasing "instant coffeelake" chips.  More cores! 15% Higher IPC!! similar gaming performance as kabbylake and you need a new mobo...


Wait didn't many users say that the hex core was in the pipeline a long way back, or am I imagining things?


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 5, 2017)

R0H1T said:


> It's the same reason why hex core CFL wasn't confirmed up until Q2 of this calendar year. The reason being they wouldn't want to cannibalize the sales of existing KBL chips, now imagine if the rumor of 8 core CFL were true, what if it'd also work on Z370
> 
> Maybe *Dave* can fill in some of the details here



Almost... ALMOST feel sorry for all the nubs who jumped on and delidded that 7700k.

Almost.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 5, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> Almost... ALMOST feel sorry for all the nubs who jumped on and delidded that 7700k.
> 
> Almost.


The n00bs would like to have a word with you, privately


----------



## StrayKAT (Oct 5, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> Almost... ALMOST feel sorry for all the nubs who jumped on and delidded that 7700k.
> 
> Almost.



I still get tempted to from time to time, but I'll never do it.


----------



## eddman (Oct 5, 2017)

@W1zzard

What was the sustained turbo frequency in benchmarks? 4.3 GHz?


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 5, 2017)

StrayKAT said:


> I still get tempted to from time to time, but I'll never do it.



You're wise  If you do suffer from buyer's remorse, now's the time to sell it off. It will not hold its value well either way.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 5, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> Almost... ALMOST feel sorry for all the nubs who jumped on and delidded that 7700k.
> 
> Almost.


There isn't an almost. I don't feel sorry for them because, frankly, there isn;t a reason to feel sorry for them. 

The only place where that hex will show off over the 7700K is perhaps towards the end of its life in a few years.


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 5, 2017)

eddman said:


> @W1zzard
> 
> What was the sustained turbo frequency in benchmarks? 4.3 GHz?


Depending on the number of threads the frequency differs. Highest boost is 4.7


----------



## eddman (Oct 5, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> Depending on the number of threads the frequency differs. Highest boost is 4.7


Let me word it better. What was the sustained boost under cinebench MT?

The reason that I'm asking is that some reviewers ran their benches with multi core enhancment enabled, which meant all 6 cores were locked to 4.7 GHz, all the time, even under cinebench MT.


----------



## opojare (Oct 5, 2017)

ZoneDymo said:


> it just smells of "quickly get something out to compete!!!!" coming from Intel.
> Well too little too late imo, I would recommend going for Ryzen over this.


That's actually make things even scarier, if this is only interim answer.

"Guys ryzen is out what we should do?"
"Nah just add +2 cores and call it a day"

Imagine the real answer (Ice Lake) will be, if they are not mess things up ofc


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 5, 2017)

opojare said:


> That's actually make things even scarier, if this is only interim answer.
> 
> "Guys ryzen is out what we should do?"
> "Nah just add +2 cores and call it a day"
> ...


Icelake is well over a year away, at least if 8 core CFL rumors are to be believed. There's also the transition to 10nm which isn't going smoothly, Icelake is 10nm+ btw.

Then there's *0* ipc gains from SKL to CFL, only more cores &/or higher clocks, Icelake wouldn't bring the magical 10% (or above) ST performance increase that many Intel users expect each new gen.


----------



## StrayKAT (Oct 5, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> You're wise  If you do suffer from buyer's remorse, now's the time to sell it off. It will not hold its value well either way.



I think I'll just grin and bear it. Either move to Ryzen or x299 next year. Not sure.


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 5, 2017)

eddman said:


> multi core enhancment enabled


If I remember correctly my board's BIOS defaults have that enabled. I do remember turning it off at some point and keeping it off.


----------



## DigitalDude (Oct 5, 2017)

where are the temps?

will a cryorig H7 be sufficient (without overclocking)????


----------



## erocker (Oct 5, 2017)

DigitalDude said:


> where are the temps?
> 
> will a cryorig H7 be sufficient (without overclocking)????


Without a doubt, the H7 will be more than sufficient.


----------



## Xzibit (Oct 5, 2017)




----------



## noname00 (Oct 5, 2017)

I don't understand anyone who is disappointed about the 8700k performance. The chip is basically a 7700k with two extra cores and a small frequency bump. It's basically a 7700k with the multithread performance of the 1700x or 1800x, depending on the use case.

Same thing happened 7 months ago, with Ryzen. People were disappointed that 1800x did not beat the 7700k in every possible workload. Even AMD, indirectly, said that gaming performance will be worst with ryzen compared to 7700k (remember they only talked about gaming while streaming? )



Chaitanya said:


> That 1700x is looking more attractive with 2 extra cores and 4 extra threads.



Did you even look at the benchmark results?



ZoneDymo said:


> it just smells of "quickly get something out to compete!!!!" coming from Intel.
> Well too little too late imo, I would recommend going for Ryzen over this.



Someone already said something similar before me - It took AMD at least 5 years to develop Ryzen to a stage it can sell it to the Beta testers (aka early adopters). Do you really think they did not have 6c/12t planned before? I'm not saying this is not an answer to Ryzen, but it wasn't a rushed job. They knew AMD will release a CPU this year, and it was fair to assume it will be quite fast at least compared to the FX lineup. What Intel might not have expected is Threadripper.
If you add the fact that people are still rocking 2500k, 2600k and newer CPUs, because there is no real reason to upgrade, Intel had to do something to compete with their 5 year old products.

PS: 1700x and 1800x prices just hit a record low. I wonder why.
Edit: I hope AMD will not become, again, the "value option", as they were for the past 6-7 years.


----------



## efikkan (Oct 5, 2017)

Tomorrow said:


> 1080p  and 1440p tests seem to be more GPU than CPU limited. Perhaps test with 1080Ti instead of 1080 in the future?


They should, there is a large gap between the two, and using GTX 1080 Ti will be a better representation of what to expect going forward with Volta.



ZoneDymo said:


> it just smells of "quickly get something out to compete!!!!" coming from Intel.


As many have mentioned already, this chip has been known to the public for years, and planned for even longer. The release of this chip has *nothing* to do with Ryzen. It's also impossible for Intel to have developed this since February.



ZoneDymo said:


> Well too little too late imo, I would recommend going for Ryzen over this.


Why? i7-8700K is clearly better and cheaper than Ryzen 7 1800X. What is the rational argument for choosing an inferior product?


----------



## Folterknecht (Oct 5, 2017)

DigitalDude said:


> will a cryorig H7 be sufficient (without overclocking)????



Yes

If not (looking at GB from past experience), go into the BIOS and fix the AUTO voltage setting for VCore. Some manufacturers tend to overdo it in that department.


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 5, 2017)

@W1zzard, did you happen to gather any CPU power consumption numbers when you overclocked it? It appears to me that at stock, consumption is similar to Ryzen but, I'm sure it eats more power when you're overclocking it. It's worthwhile to understand how much more that is because even if it's faster than AMD's option, it doesn't seem to have the power consumption advantage to achieve similar performance in the non-single threaded measures.


----------



## Xzibit (Oct 5, 2017)

Aquinus said:


> @W1zzard, did you happen to gather any CPU power consumption numbers when you overclocked it? It appears to me that at stock, consumption is similar to Ryzen but, I'm sure it eats more power when you're overclocking it. It's worthwhile to understand how much more that is because even if it's faster than AMD's option, it doesn't seem to have the power consumption advantage to achieve similar performance in the non-single threaded measures.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 6, 2017)

It is indeed a fast gaming CPU but over all its about on par with the Ryzen 1700X (out of the box) and here in Australia you can get the Ryzen 1700X for $60 cheaper then the 8700K which is priced at $550 Aus.


----------



## Mistral (Oct 6, 2017)

So, is this real a real or a paper launch? I keep hearing that stock is close to non-existent at the moment and is only expected to fully improve H1 next year.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Oct 6, 2017)

Pfff.... zero increase of performance in ALL games at 2K or bigger resolutions...
No upgrade for me this year. Waiting for the 8 Core one which also will require a new mobo again. So this CPU will be probably the shortest live one from Intel's history.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 6, 2017)

Mistral said:


> So, is this real a real or a paper launch? I keep hearing that stock is close to non-existent at the moment and is only expected to fully improve H1 next year.


At this point in time it looks like a paper launch, but it could also be Intel helping retailers clear their KBL stock, with questionable CFL supplies. The problem is it'll only get worse in the short to medium term as RR is confirmed to debut before the year ends, then PR is likely Q1 next year.

So even if the ASP might be going up, informed buyers could simply hold their purchases, hurting Intel even more.


----------



## Vario (Oct 6, 2017)

Looks amazing to me.  6C/12T without the single thread speed penalty of the old 2011 platform.  Should be future proof for years to come.  If only it also had a Crystalwell style L4 cache too .


----------



## XiGMAKiD (Oct 6, 2017)

Solid product, now I just need to see the street price of the CPU and MB


----------



## StrayKAT (Oct 6, 2017)

XiGMAKiD said:


> Solid product, now I just need to see the street price of the CPU and MB



At least $500 or a little more for both... if you can find the CPU.


----------



## Kanan (Oct 6, 2017)

dirtyferret said:


> This line by wizard from the i5-8400 review is what sticks out to me about all these coffee lake chips.
> _
> For gaming, things are different. Here, the i5-8400 breezes past all AMD Ryzens thanks to its high per-thread performance and the boost clock of 4.0 GHz. I find it surprising that there is very little difference between the i5-8400, i5-8600K, and i7-8700K in gaming, even at the highly CPU-limited scenario of 720p. This suggests that today's games see limited gains from more than four cores. It is good news for gamers on a budget because a Core i5-8400 will be completely sufficient to not bottleneck even the fastest graphics cards._


That's pretty much a wrong conclusion then, because if the i5 8400 which only has 6 low clocked cores can match the 8700K which has 6 very high clocked cores, it essentially means, most games are indeed using 6 cores today. It also makes sense because consoles use over 6 cores too, and most games are ports anyway.


birdie said:


> So many falsehoods from blind AMD fanboys it's just staggering.
> 
> 1) No, Intel couldn't have released these 6 core parts several years ago. They absolutely needed a new refined 14nm process, because you can easily see that 8700(K) is a lot more power efficient than 7800X. Most users will never want 140W TDP in their desktop computers (6 core SkyLake-X CPUs).


And you're the Intel fanboy coming to attack those AMD fanboys / defend Intel, huh? Pretty obvious. 8700K is more efficient because it's still on ring bus and not on mesh - mesh is basically not efficient, hence the reason why X299 CPUs suck. There's also more lanes and quad channel - your comparison basically just sucks. There's no comparing MSDT with HEDT, you're making no sense here.


> 2) 6 core Coffee Lake parts were on Intel roadmaps way before AMD released Zen.


Still AMD forced Intel to pull it to 2017 instead of releasing it 2018. That's a fact, go and check old marketing stuff of Intel. So Ryzen helped indeed. I also bet 8700K would've cost more without Ryzen, maybe 500 bucks - no competition sucks.


> 3) For games Coffee Lake CPUs are unconditionally better than any Zen based CPUs because even in 2017 most games are bottlenecked by single core CPU performance where Intel is unrivaled due to higher performance per clock (IPC) and also higher attainable frequencies.


Better yes, but just by small, largely irrelevant amounts. We're talking about 8% in 1080p and basically 0% in 1440p and higher here. Obvious Intel fanboy comment btw. and simply debunked too. Ryzen is great for gaming, you can repeat that Intel superiority crap all day, it doesn't change the fact, that AMD is a great alternative and Intel isn't a "must" for gaming anymore. Ryzen changed everything. And for work Ryzen is even better.



> There's only thing I don't like about Coffee Lake CPUs: Intel is mum about the 300 series chipset compatibility with Cannonlake and Ice Lake CPUs. I've never actually upgraded CPUs but it's important for many other users.


Only one thing? So you don't care Intel is milking its customers because of some shady difference between sockets to release a guaranteed new chipset every year? The difference between doing what AMD is doing and Intel, is, Intel is milking their buyers who switch from gen to gen (1 gen at a time), while AMD is not doing that. Both earn money on chipset sales, while Intel earns extra money on chipset sales on buyers who already own a CPU from them, eg 7700K or 6700K. It's simply capitalism at the extremes and anti-consumer.



Xzibit said:


>


Thanks to the cheap glue Intel is using, the temps are terrible once again and pretty much a hindrance for OC. Not a big one, but still.



efikkan said:


> As many have mentioned already, this chip has been known to the public for years, and planned for even longer. The release of this chip has *nothing* to do with Ryzen. It's also impossible for Intel to have developed this since February.


Pretty much wrong. 6 core Intel CPUs were planned for 2018 still and not 2017, go and check the facts, there's PR stuff from Intel, roadmaps, that say otherwise. Ryzen changed that, so it has a lot to do with Ryzen. The pricing of 8700K as well - I bet it would've been around 500 bucks without AMD having released very competitive Ryzen CPUs.

And my own opinion: nice CPU, but nothing special. It's basically 7700K + 2 cores, old trusty ring bus and cache hierarchy etc. IPC gain 0%, overclocks are a tad better vs 7700K and 6700K, thats it. Prices are also higher so you pay for it. Thanks to AMD the prices are still in check though, I bet without Ryzen Intel would've released it mid 2018 at 500$.


----------



## Mech0z (Oct 6, 2017)

Paper launch  one of the biggest stores in Denmark

https://www.komplett.dk/product/950...er/processorer/intel-core-i7-8700k-processor#
"Ikke på lager. 100+ stk. på vej ind d. 2.dec.2017."

Not in stock, 100+ arriving on december 2.....


----------



## Prima.Vera (Oct 6, 2017)

noname00 said:


> If you add the fact that people are still rocking 2500k, 2600k and newer CPUs, because there is no real reason to upgrade, Intel had to do something to compete with their 5 year old products.


Well, considering the gaming performance equal to ZERO on higher resolutions, yeah, I still thing there is absolutely no reason at all to upgrade for gaming purposes only right now.


----------



## Kanan (Oct 6, 2017)

Prima.Vera said:


> Well, considering the gaming performance equal to ZERO on higher resolutions, yeah, I still thing there is absolutely no reason at all to upgrade for gaming purposes only right now.


Especially because it's expensive. Almost 400 bucks isn't cheap. I think the 6 core Ryzen's are a great great bargain now, and their performance is just going up over time as well, because games/apps are still not all optimized for Ryzen but soon will be, especially new ones.


----------



## BorisDG (Oct 6, 2017)

Vario said:


> Looks amazing to me.  6C/12T without the single thread speed penalty of the old 2011 platform.  Should be future proof for years to come.  If only it also had a Crystalwell style L4 cache too .


I'm pretty tempted to see 8700K vs 5775C. They will be pretty close now in gaming.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 6, 2017)

Prima.Vera said:


> Pfff.... zero increase of performance in ALL games at 2K or bigger resolutions...
> No upgrade for me this year. Waiting for the 8 Core one which also will require a new mobo again. So this CPU will be probably the shortest live one from Intel's history.



That's because CPU is not a bottleneck, but a graphic card. The current reality is, for gaming, you're fine with bottom most CPU that can be clocked as high as it can go. That includes even Core i3's with 2c/4t. If you can push them up to 4.5 GHz or even beyond, it'll run any game with almost max frames and will only lose a bit in few multithread aware games which you can count them all on a one hand of a very clumsy carpenter. Things will change a bit in near future since AMD pushed the whole MOAR CORES seriously this time, but it'll still take few years. If you're a gamer, graphic card is still what you want to spend the most money on as you'll benefit the most from it in either case.


----------



## noname00 (Oct 6, 2017)

Mistral said:


> So, is this real a real or a paper launch? I keep hearing that stock is close to non-existent at the moment and is only expected to fully improve H1 next year.



In Romania you can already preorder a 8600k or a 8700k and it will be delivered on Monday or Tuesday. Non k CPUs you can personally pick them up on the spot from the store - https://www.pcgarage.ro/procesoare/filtre/general-socket-1151-v2/


----------



## phill (Oct 6, 2017)

I'm a little uninterested with the latest offerings from Intel and even gaming with my 920 D0, 2600k and such if I do anything else, I can just simply wait a few seconds till something is done that the newer CPU's do faster...  I think they need to bring a little more to the table..  I understand power consumption is important to quite a few people so the drop in consumption from my 920 to my 2600k is very impressive, but from the 2600k to my 4770k there's not masses in it and as I run overclocked on every system I have, power consumption for me, is one thing I'm not so worried about


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Oct 6, 2017)

Mehhh, my i7 2600 just perfectly find  . .

I wonder, will Z370 mobos support at least for next tealake/cokelake/xxxlake CPU ?

or after this, Z470 coming out for intel core 9 generation ?


----------



## Komshija (Oct 6, 2017)

This CPU arrived some 4 years too late. Let's not forget if AMD didn't release Ryzen's, we would still have few more years of "Intel's traditional" 4C/8T i7's and 4C/4T i5's with ~5% performance increase per generation.

As expected, i7 8700K runs way too hot for my taste and it's not compatible with older 100 and 200-series motherboards.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 6, 2017)

You act like the majority need more than 4c/8t...

...and 4 years ago?!!! No.


----------



## StrayKAT (Oct 6, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> You act like the majority need more than 4c/8t...
> 
> ...and 4 years ago?!!! No.



He's right about heat though. It stinks.


----------



## Komshija (Oct 6, 2017)

@EarthDog  They don't, but considering the advancement of Intel's Xeon platform, it would be nice towards the consumers to offer 6C/12T CPU 4 years ago - eg. starting from i7 4790K as 6C/12T (for the same price tag) would be great!
Thus, it would be possible to extend the lifetime of high-end system. For instance if I, and I bet majority of others, spend almost 2000 € on high-end PC, than we expect it to be a reasonably powerful in the following 4 or 5 years. Right now since AMD made an excellent move with Ryzens, Intel had to respond by increasing the number of cores. All that means that 4C/8T i7's and 4C/4T i5's will become obsolete much faster - they'll be OK for gaming, but they'll lack the performance in some other professional or semi-professional aspects. That's one big problem.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 6, 2017)

A 4790k is still plenty today bud... a 6 core from the same time would make lkttle difference to most.

Now is the time to start with more cores...it isnt needed now, but certainly wasnt 4 years ago.




StrayKAT said:


> He's right about heat though. It stinks.


Meh... look at 20t cpu at 4.5ghz... quads and hexs at 5ghz with aio...


Yeah... heat...


----------



## StrayKAT (Oct 6, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> A 4790k is still plenty today bud... a 6 core from the same time would make lkttle difference to most.
> 
> Now is the time to start with more cores...it isnt needed now, but certainly wasnt 4 years ago.
> 
> ...



I don't mean just this. I mean all of Intel's recent options. I'm not exactly a happy 7700k owner. I don't want to use AIO. I'm just increasingly feeling forced to (technically not, but double towers are ridiculous). It'll only get worse.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 6, 2017)

Why do you need to use an AIO? Why double towers? 

I mean, that's the game now man... put up or...


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 6, 2017)

JackOne said:


> That's pretty much a wrong conclusion then, because if the i5 8400 which only has 6 low clocked cores can match the 8700K which has 6 very high clocked cores, it essentially means, most games are indeed using 6 cores today. It also makes sense because consoles use over 6 cores too, and most games are ports anyway.



lol the guy who has been reviewing CPUs for one of the top tech sites on the internet is clueless but me the clueless fanboy knows exactly what he is talking about.  Consoles used a glorified tablet CPU (AMD jaguar) that's reused from their previous units launched in 2013.  Sony/MS gave it a small OC, around 25%, but the chip was intended for tablets and notebooks.  You can continue on your immature hissy fit and rants but no one is taking you seriously.

facts hurt









RejZoR said:


> That's because CPU is not a bottleneck, but a graphic card. The current reality is, for gaming, you're fine with bottom most CPU that can be clocked as high as it can go. That includes even Core i3's with 2c/4t. If you can push them up to 4.5 GHz or even beyond, it'll run any game with almost max frames and will only lose a bit in few multithread aware games which you can count them all on a one hand of a very clumsy carpenter. Things will change a bit in near future since AMD pushed the whole MOAR CORES seriously this time, but it'll still take few years. If you're a gamer, graphic card is still what you want to spend the most money on as you'll benefit the most from it in either case.



This post nails it on the head.  All these Ryzen & coffee lake CPUs are just a re-hash of the original Phenom & Core 2 Quad days of gaming.  Everyone rushed out to get the Q6600 or Phenom because every peace of software will be multi core optimized over night while in reality neither CPU at stock even offered gaming performance of the soon to be launched dual core Wolfdale E8400 (you had to OC the Q6600 over 3ghz, the Phenoms just sucked). 

The intel i5-750 and AMD Phenom II x4 launched soon after the Q6600 & Phenom I and actually provided real world gaming performance.  Then came the i5-2500k and blew everything away.

My personal opinion, wait for the modern day versions of the i5-750 & Phenom II if you have a good i5 or i7 CPU.  Better yet wait for the next i5-2500k.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 6, 2017)

dirtyferret said:


> lol the guy who has been reviewing CPUs for one of the top tech sites on the internet is clueless but me the clueless fanboy knows exactly what he is talking about.  Consoles used a glorified tablet CPU (AMD jaguar) that's reused from their previous units launched in 2013.  Sony/MS gave it a small OC, around 25%, but the chip was intended for tablets and notebooks.  You can continue on your immature hissy fit and rants but no one is taking you seriously.
> 
> facts hurt
> 
> ...


Yeah good luck waiting the next decade for that, ST performance or IPC isn't going up more than single digits the last few years, heck SKL-KBL-CFL has just been about higher clocks & more cores.

If you are waiting for 20~40% more IPC than the current gen ~ it isn't happening, hell Icelake isn't guaranteed to sustain high clocks on 10nm+ so depending on your needs the current Ryzen & CFL are great VFM chips, obviously some are better VFM than others.

The supposedly better (VFM) options to be released some time next year are PR & an 8 core mainstream Intel chip, rumored to be CFL. That's the best you'll get & even then IPC or ST performance will be negligibly higher than the current offerings, though MT should be much higher depending on the max OC.


----------



## StrayKAT (Oct 6, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Why do you need to use an AIO? Why double towers?
> 
> I mean, that's the game now man... put up or...



On my chip, I'm barely safe with a single tower. It'll hit over 90c on a 212 evo (not exactly the greatest single tower, but the most popular). That's auto, I mean. It's a little better with negative offsets. What am I going to get out of a R7? A couple more degrees?

While AIO is louder. And I'm still paranoid about it (got a h100i).

I also like lugging the case around. I don't want a double tower just for that... besides just being ridiculous in principle.


----------



## Vario (Oct 6, 2017)

StrayKAT said:


> On my chip, I'm barely safe with a single tower. It'll hit over 90c on a 212 evo (not exactly the greatest single tower, but the most popular). That's auto, I mean. It's a little better with negative offsets. What am I going to get out of a R7? A couple more degrees?
> 
> While AIO is louder. And I'm still paranoid about it (got a h100i).
> 
> I also like lugging the case around. I don't want a double tower just for that... besides just being ridiculous in principle.


Auto does make things run 5 to 10 *C hotter in my experience because it always tends to overvolt.  Add to that the fact that the 212 isn't the greatest and it does wiggle a bit even clamped in my experience, so if you are lugging it around it could shift your thermal paste.  The fans that the 212 comes with are terrible so that can also cost you 1-3 degrees there. You might have been able to reduce by as much as 15*C with that setup, or switch to a PHTC14PE or similar dual tower cooler.  If you are willing to take the risk of the AIO cooler than that should give you good results either way.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 6, 2017)

StrayKAT said:


> On my chip, I'm barely safe with a single tower. It'll hit over 90c on a 212 evo (not exactly the greatest single tower, but the most popular). That's auto, I mean. It's a little better with negative offsets. What am I going to get out of a R7? A couple more degrees?
> 
> While AIO is louder. And I'm still paranoid about it (got a h100i).
> 
> I also like lugging the case around. I don't want a double tower just for that... besides just being ridiculous in principle.


Stop being a noob and get it off auto...

Hyper 212 Evo is a bang for you buck cooler...it does well, but isn't great. 

Also, single/dual towers really don't denote performance. There are some monster 'single tower' coolers out.


----------



## StrayKAT (Oct 6, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Stop being a noob and get it off auto...
> 
> Hyper 212 Evo is a bang for you buck cooler...it does well, but isn't great.
> 
> Also, single/dual towers really don't denote performance. There are some monster 'single tower' coolers out.



Hah... you're right about being a noob. But I'm a fast learner. I already did get it off auto. This was my first desktop since.. umm.. 2004 or something. I'd been lost in laptops and Macs for awhile.

So Noctua or Cryorig? Single tower I mean...


----------



## Basard (Oct 6, 2017)

Let us hope Zen+ can hit 4.7Ghz+.....  Cuz I'm definitely not waiting for Zen2 to upgrade.  It will probably be Intel for me next round--i5, that is.  
The 20% clock advantage is showing pretty well in the performance summary.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 6, 2017)

StrayKAT said:


> Hah... you're right about being a noob. But I'm a fast learner. I already did get it off auto. This was my first desktop since.. umm.. 2004 or something. I'd been lost in laptops and Macs for awhile.
> 
> So Noctua or Cryorig? Single tower I mean...


Read reviews and find out which "single tower" is best for you and fits your requirements.


----------



## efikkan (Oct 6, 2017)

Basard said:


> Let us hope Zen+ can hit 4.7Ghz+.....  Cuz I'm definitely not waiting for Zen2 to upgrade.  It will probably be Intel for me next round--i5, that is.
> The 20% clock advantage is showing pretty well in the performance summary.


Where do you get the 20% clock advantage from? When i7-8700K have load on multiple cores it will only hit 4.3 GHz, so the difference is much smaller. Ryzen 7 1800X hits 4.0 GHz plus XFR, so the real advantage is less than ~200 MHz, so less than 5%. The advantage you see is mainly due to much higher IPC.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 6, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Where do you get the 20% clock advantage from? When i7-8700K have load on multiple cores it will only hit 4.3 GHz, so the difference is much smaller. Ryzen 7 1800X hits 4.0 GHz plus XFR, so the real advantage is less than ~200 MHz, so less than 5%. The advantage you see is mainly due to much higher IPC.


Probably max OC, which is fair but *YMWV*, so not exactly apples to apples because in case of OC there are a host of other factors in play.


----------



## TXST Guardian (Oct 6, 2017)

KarymidoN said:


> you might wanna wait till Q12018 for ZEN+ (they will be AM4/X370/B350) and better than the actual R7/R5 line-up.



I do plan on looking at those when they come out since the socket wont change I can just sell my cpu and upgrade if it's much better performing.


----------



## Basard (Oct 6, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Where do you get the 20% clock advantage from? When i7-8700K have load on multiple cores it will only hit 4.3 GHz, so the difference is much smaller. Ryzen 7 1800X hits 4.0 GHz plus XFR, so the real advantage is less than ~200 MHz, so less than 5%. The advantage you see is mainly due to much higher IPC.


Well, I was just sorta estimating....  
Will the Ryzen sit at 4.0Ghz with a multi-core load?  (not sure)
I guess I was just assuming a moderate OC on them both... which would leave Intel about 20% ahead.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 6, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Where do you get the 20% clock advantage from? When i7-8700K have load on multiple cores it will only hit 4.3 GHz, so the difference is much smaller. Ryzen 7 1800X hits 4.0 GHz plus XFR, so the real advantage is less than ~200 MHz, so less than 5%. The advantage you see is mainly due to much higher IPC.


LOL, XFR is 4.1 (when it can meet that criteria, and its ONE core there...... it surely never goes above.

All Core/thread boost on 1800X isn't 4 Ghz... isn't it like 3.8?

1800X tops out at 4-4.1GHz on all cores.. PERIOD. The 8700K is good for all cores well past the mid 4Ghz range, in not closer to 5 on high end air or AIO...


----------



## Tomorrow (Oct 6, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Where do you get the 20% clock advantage from? When i7-8700K have load on multiple cores it will only hit 4.3 GHz, so the difference is much smaller. Ryzen 7 1800X hits 4.0 GHz plus XFR, so the real advantage is less than ~200 MHz, so less than 5%. The advantage you see is mainly due to much higher IPC.


Like previously said max oc on both. Although even so 4Ghz vs 5Ghz is 10% not 20%
And no - Intel has very small IPC advantage. Only 6-7 fps at 1080p 7700K vs 1800X (other clock for clock tests were performed at Ryzen launch and are no longer valid). Even less of a difference at 1440p not to mentioned 4K.
Most of Intel's advantage comes from pure clockspeed. 

As for Pinnacle Ridge i do not expect more than 4,4-4,5Ghz for top binned Ryzen 2000 parts and that's generous. Still it will cut Intel's lead significantly.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 6, 2017)

Tomorrow said:


> Only 6-7 fps at 1080p 7700K vs 1800X


I hate this (sorry)

Talk in %... 6-7 FPS matters at, well, even 50 FPS.. not so much at 100 FPS... also, not knowing what GPU is on there makes that FPS number, borderline useless, especially without contest.


----------



## Basard (Oct 6, 2017)

Tomorrow said:


> Like previously said max oc on both. Although even so 4Ghz vs 5Ghz is 10% not 20%
> And no - Intel has very small IPC advantage. Only 6-7 fps at 1080p 7700K vs 1800X (other clock for clock tests were performed at Ryzen launch and are no longer valid). Even less of a difference at 1440p not to mentioned 4K.
> Most of Intel's advantage comes from pure clockspeed.
> 
> As for Pinnacle Ridge i do not expect more than 4,4-4,5Ghz for top binned Ryzen 2000 parts and that's generous. Still it will cut Intel's lead significantly.


5Ghz is 20% more than 4Ghz.
And, with a few exceptions, the only way to get a CPU bottleneck on games is to run low res.


----------



## Tomorrow (Oct 6, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I hate this (sorry)
> 
> Talk in %... 6-7 FPS matters at, well, even 50 FPS.. not so much at 100 FPS... also, not knowing what GPU is on there makes that FPS number, borderline useless, especially without contest.


Sorry i forgot to put the link. In BF 1 (1080p with GTX 1080) 1800X gets ~96% of 7700K-s performance.
In Witcher 3 (same settings) 1800X gets ~95% of 7700K's result.

So roughly 4-5% slower at same clock wich seems to be 2,8Ghz on both (they problably had to go that low because there are older processor in the test that may not do 4Ghz).
Oddly Broadwell-E was the fastest there in games wich i can't really explain vs 7700K. Quad-channe RAM, eDRAM helping maybe?

Link (in swedish): https://www.sweclockers.com/test/23426-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-och-7-1700x/29
Use the arrows above charts to move to next chart.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 6, 2017)

Basard said:


> 5Ghz is 20% more than 4Ghz.
> And, with a few exceptions, the only way to get a CPU bottleneck on games is to run low res.


Oye...5Ghz is 25% more than 4GHz. Its 1000 Mhz more than 4Ghz. 1000Mhz is 1/4 of 4000Mhz or 25% faster than 4Ghz.

You are comparing it to the 4Ghz value, not the 5Ghz value the way you said it. 4Ghz is 20% slower than 5 Ghz since 1000Mhz less is 1/5 of 5000Mhz or 20% slower. Its in the wording. 



Tomorrow said:


> Sorry i forgot to put the link. In BF 1 (1080p with GTX 1080) 1800X gets ~96% of 7700K-s performance.
> In Witcher 3 (same settings) 1800X gets ~95% of 7700K's result.
> 
> So roughly 4-5% slower at same clock wich seems to be 2,8Ghz on both (they problably had to go that low because there are older processor in the test that may not do 4Ghz).
> ...


4-5% is enough to keep an eye on..


----------



## Prima.Vera (Oct 7, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> That's because CPU is not a bottleneck, but a graphic card. The current reality is, for gaming, you're fine with bottom most CPU that can be clocked as high as it can go. That includes even Core i3's with 2c/4t. If you can push them up to 4.5 GHz or even beyond, it'll run any game with almost max frames and will only lose a bit in few multithread aware games which you can count them all on a one hand of a very clumsy carpenter. Things will change a bit in near future since AMD pushed the whole MOAR CORES seriously this time, but it'll still take few years. If you're a gamer, graphic card is still what you want to spend the most money on as you'll benefit the most from it in either case.


Aye, agreed. The only temptation right now is go upgrade to DDR4 and M.2 slots. Also to a chipset that supports moar PCIE lines....


----------



## Upgrayedd (Oct 7, 2017)

Parn said:


> For anyone with a Haswell or above who don't run many heavily threaded apps, they can safely skip this one and wait for 8-core CFL with Z390.


4790K stock here. I'm waiting another cool 2 years. Whatever their TigerLake is supposed to be unless AMD has something better by then.


----------



## Kanan (Oct 7, 2017)

dirtyferret said:


> lol the guy who has been reviewing CPUs for one of the top tech sites on the internet is clueless but me the clueless fanboy knows exactly what he is talking about. Consoles used a glorified tablet CPU (AMD jaguar) that's reused from their previous units launched in 2013. Sony/MS gave it a small OC, around 25%, but the chip was intended for tablets and notebooks. You can continue on your immature hissy fit and rants but no one is taking you seriously.


I didn't say he is clueless, but he isn't always right either. You're offended and behaving like a little child that got his lolly stolen from him. Face it: games are using many cores since years, consoles played a integral part in fastening the advancement of 4+ Core support in games, it's a fact. I can see it in reviews, I can see it on my own machine. And your table doesn't mean anything, I don't think anything what you just said makes any sense, sorry.


Tomorrow said:


> So roughly 4-5% slower at same clock wich seems to be 2,8Ghz on both (they problably had to go that low because there are older processor in the test that may not do 4Ghz).
> Oddly Broadwell-E was the fastest there in games wich i can't really explain vs 7700K. Quad-channe RAM, eDRAM helping maybe?


Broadwell-E has no eDram, that was the original Broadwell, eg. i7 5775C processor. Quad Channel is unlikely to be the culprit, it doesn't really make a difference in games unless the other CPU had very slow Ram in comparison. Also only a few games are very bandwidth hungry, like BF series (BF4, BF1).


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 7, 2017)

Games are using many cores since years.... is that so? The truth of the matter is, very few games can use more than 4 threads. Tbe sweetspot for gaming now is 4c/8t. Very few games show improvements with more threads. Now, 3 hears from now... with you.


----------



## _Flare (Oct 7, 2017)

4.6GHz 5775C in Games still blows everything out of the water.


----------



## Agony (Oct 7, 2017)

Thermals ???  My 7700K with XMP enable gets 85C  on stress test. _wonder what happens to that 8700k_


----------



## dj-electric (Oct 9, 2017)

8700K has larger area to dissipate its heat, and supposedly a better quality TIM.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 9, 2017)

Agony said:


> Thermals ???  My 7700K with XMP enable gets 85C  on stress test. _wonder what happens to that 8700k_


read some reviews and see... 5 ghz with all 12t... doesnt seem to be a problem.


----------



## kiss4luna (Oct 9, 2017)

well, i bet 2600K will make this table much more ugly!


----------



## Kanan (Oct 9, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Games are using many cores since years.... is that so? The truth of the matter is, very few games can use more than 4 threads. Tbe sweetspot for gaming now is 4c/8t. Very few games show improvements with more threads. Now, 3 hears from now... with you.


In the end you're trying to say I'm wrong but then again you say I'm right. Sweetspot is 4/8? Maybe so. It also means those games can utilize more than four threads (or four cores). See where I'm going with this?  Fact is 6 true full power threads give you more performance than 4 real ones and 4 "fake" ones. But they only do, if the power is needed. Atm only a handful of games are that CPU heavy. But this will change soon enough anyway. I think 6 cores or more are a great thing to have now and for the future. Anyway, this is probably strictly highend/enthusiast gamer relevant. I doubt average gamers need a 7700K let alone a 8700K, they are good with normal 4 cores CPU's like R5 1400 or i5 6600K.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 9, 2017)

Intel had a panic attack so they pushed this. Sucks that another mobo has to be used though...


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 9, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Games are using many cores since years.... is that so? The truth of the matter is, very few games can use more than 4 threads. Tbe sweetspot for gaming now is 4c/8t. Very few games show improvements with more threads. Now, 3 hears from now... with you.



Earthdog is correct but I believe the timeline is even further out the 3 years.

The Q6600 & Phenom I came out around 2006-2007 (I'm too lazy to look up exact dates).  It only took ten years for dual cores to go by the way of the Dodo for gaming PCs (and 2c/4t is still a viable option today).   Way too many obstacles for the gaming industry to move that fast forward;

May 2017 is the first time in Steam's Hardware Survey that quad cores outpaced dual core CPUs (currently 59 to 36% in Sept 2017).  Prior to May they were dead even.  Six core + CPUs barely break 2%.  That is a lot of new CPU hardware that the average PC gamer is not about to give up on.

Laptops still outsell desktops two to one and most laptops use dual cores CPUs or 2c/4t.

Improving CPU performance doesn't sell games.  No one posts pictures of great looking AI on their web sites for games.  Graphics sells games and graphic cards are much easier to upgrade for the average PC gamer.

The PS4 Pro and Xbox One X - (the former launched in late 2016 with the latter launching next month) both are re-using their jaguar CPU (glorified tablet CPU) just with an OC.  The AAA titles are all driven by the consoles so they can't push CPU demands to current desktop performance levels with a CPU made for 2012 consoles.  New consoles won't launch until holiday season of 2020 (maybe even 2021).

Unless 120 & 144hz monitors just take off as opposed to 2k monitors (or combined with), you are going to see a similar adoption rate of five years for the mainstream PC gamers to adopt six core CPUs and ten for quads to be avoided for new builds.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 9, 2017)

_Flare said:


> 4.6GHz 5775C in Games still blows everything out of the water.



Actually seriously considered that chip not too long ago because its just Core in its best form IMO... but performance wise and older platform, meh, couldn't justify.


----------



## Xzibit (Oct 9, 2017)

Agony said:


> Thermals ???  My 7700K with XMP enable gets 85C  on stress test. _wonder what happens to that 8700k_



It throttles.



			
				xdadevelopers said:
			
		

> In daily use of the system for a week, the system was overclocked to 5 GHz and stable without any halts or errors noticed on Windows. But a quick look at HWInfo indicated a few notes of concern, and for those who have been following the thermal challenges of the i7-7700K it should not be a surprise that thermals are a very real concern when overclocking. The MasterLiquid Pro 240 easily keeps the processor in the mid-30s Celcius when at idle. *As soon as the i7-8700K is placed under a full CPU load it shoots to the mid-80s within seconds, even if the cooling fans are manually set to their full speed*.
> 
> *In some instances we even noticed the throttle sensors being triggered.* *The times that it was throttled were limited exclusively to when the processor was overclocked and under full CPU load*. In addition the throttling was not observed to remain for a long period of time. Based on the stability within Windows we attempted to test within Ubuntu at the same 5 GHz speed. *Unfortunately the rapid increase in temperature was too much and came too quickly for Ubuntu to be able to do the same throttling, causing the system to freeze instead*. A decrease in the multiplier down to 4.9 GHz corrected the issue and so we used this as our overclocking results for both Phoronix and LineageOS build times.
> 
> Long story short, overclocking the Core i7-8700K will need to dissipate the heat as much as possible to overcome the thermal barriers it introduces. *A 240mm cooler appears to handle this for the most part, and we are considering a future delid test of this CPU to see if the temperatures keep it under throttling levels*. So long as the temperatures are managed the 6-core, 12-threaded headliner really does beat out even its larger LGA2011 predecessors significantly.





			
				Tom's Hardware said:
			
		

> Looking at our power consumption and performance graph, *we see a bend at ~4.8 GHz. Power use continues increasing with higher clock rates, but the Cinebench score levels off. A failure to continue scaling at 5.0 GHz is a good indicator that our CPU is throttling*
> 
> AVX without offset pushes the result as high as 170W. *The Core i7-8700K at 4.9 GHz even throttles due to its package temperature*. And that's in spite of our compressor cooler's efforts! Thermal paste under the IHS does us no favors.
> 
> *While we're only measuring an average of 170W, thermal throttling keeps the 180W+ peaks from becoming our average power consumption result*. At that point, even the most powerful coolers have to throw in the towel.



It looks like you need a AIO for the rapid thermal increases.


----------



## StrayKAT (Oct 9, 2017)

This is a very old argument, but I think dogging the PS4/X1 merely on hardware is unfair. Developers leave nothing to waste on any console...and even find more to squeeze out at the end of it's lifecycle (that was especially the case with the PS3 and it's Cell arch).

And you especially won't find a tablet that offered as much. They're reduced to playing Windows 8 era webstore games.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Oct 10, 2017)

RLTTP on this review but just finished reading it all...

9.8 score!!?? Why?

It's $180 more expensive than a Ryzen 1600 (and total platform cost will also be much higher than this new Intel platform) yet gaming performance is only 3% faster on average at 1440p resolution and 7.8% faster @ 1080p resolution.

CPU tests it's a lot faster than the Ryzen but TPU's 'CPU tests' are still laughably frequency biased. So the actual difference across proper comprehensive and representative CPU tests would be much, much smaller.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 10, 2017)

Shatun_Bear said:


> RLTTP on this review but just finished reading it all...
> 
> 9.8 score!!?? Why?
> 
> ...



Read more TPU reviews and you can see that the score given is quite irrelevant, and for good reason, because it never tells you jack shit.

But yeah, then there is the i5 8600k. Looks to be a much bigger winner for a much larger target audience. You lose the HT... and you also lose these horrible temps.


----------



## Octopuss (Oct 12, 2017)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> and supposedly a better quality TIM.


Says who?


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 12, 2017)

Shatun_Bear said:


> RLTTP on this review but just finished reading it all...
> 
> 9.8 score!!?? Why?
> 
> ...


Lol fan boy much? TPU tests show similar results as other professional tech review sites.


----------



## Octopuss (Oct 12, 2017)

I'd like to see a comparison with 3770K. Perhaps it's time to upgrade, but I'd like to see some real numbers first.


----------



## wzrd (Oct 18, 2017)

130+fps on Pentium G4560? tested idiot.
where here 100+ fps?


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 18, 2017)

Video is with Gtx 1070 only


----------



## Dan848 (Nov 6, 2017)

Thank you for taking the time to write this up.  
At 5.0GHz you got a good one; I doubt most people will hit 5.0GHz unless they delid it.  Did you purchase the CPU, get it on loan to test or given to you by Intel?


----------



## mouacyk (Feb 2, 2018)

JackOne said:


> Broadwell-E has no eDram, that was the original Broadwell, eg. i7 5775C processor. Quad Channel is unlikely to be the culprit, it doesn't really make a difference in games unless the other CPU had very slow Ram in comparison. Also only a few games are very bandwidth hungry, like BF series (BF4, BF1).


BF1 has an appetite for more cores, on top of its bandwidth hunger.  On 5775C at 4.3GHz, 2200MHz eDRAM, 16GB 2400MHz Dual-channel RAM, while fps was smooth at 1440p Ultra with 1080Ti, it was hardly able to keep the GPU full -- usage was jumping from 80-99%, usually hanging at 90%.

8700K at 5GHz running 6 game threads increased the minimum fps as well as tightened the GPU usage to 97-99%. 

Then again, how many games out there are like this.  Basically, none.  At the end of it all, 8700K doesn't offer much over a decent quad, unless you're chasing a stable 120fps+.



_Flare said:


> 4.6GHz 5775C in Games still blows everything out of the water.



You'd be lucky to get a 5775C to 4.4Ghz at absurd voltages for 24/7.  Under 1.4v, the best you'll see is 4.3GHz with maybe some extra from BCLK.


----------

