Monday, August 28th 2017
Intel Core i7-8700K and i5-8400 SANDRA Benchmarks Surface
Ahead of their launch later this quarter, SiSoft SANDRA benchmarks of Intel 8th generation Core i7-8700K and Core i5-8400 six-core processors surfaced in benchmark databases, which were promptly compared to their predecessors by HotHardware. The results put to the test Intel's claims of "over 40 percent more performance" compared to the 7th generation Core processors, which the company made in its 8th Generation Core Launch Event presentation. A bulk of these performance increases are attributed to the increasing core-count over generation, which directly yields higher multi-threaded performance; while a small but significant portion of it is attributed to increases in single-threaded performance. Since the "Coffee Lake" micro-architecture is essentially a refresh of the "Skylake" architecture, single-threaded performance increases could be attributed to higher clock speeds.
The Core i7-8700K is the top-dog of the 8th generation Core mainstream-desktop processor family. This six-core chip was compared to the product it succeeds in Intel's MSDT product-stack, the quad-core Core i7-7700K. There is a 45 percent increase in performance, in the "processor arithmetic" test; and a 47 percent increase in the "processor multimedia" test. These two test-suites are multi-threaded, and hence benefit from the two added cores, which in turn add four additional logical CPUs, thanks to HyperThreading. "Processor cryptography" sees a 12 percent increase. The single-precision and double-precision "Scientific Analysis" tests, which again are multi-threaded, see 26 percent and 32 percent performance gains over the i7-7700K, respectively.
The next processor on the chopping block is the Core i5-8400. This chip is of particular significance because it is expected to give you six cores around the $200-mark, and logically succeeds the Core i5-7400, and yet it was compared to the i5-7600K (which is succeeded by the i5-8600K). Despite that, we see a healthy 40 percent increase in "processor arithmetic" performance, a staggering 50 percent increase in "processor multimedia" performance, a 14 percent increase in "processor cryptography," and 30 percent and 17 percent increases in single- and double-precision "scientific analysis" results, respectively. It looks like the generational update could entice Core i5 owners more than Core i7 owners. For someone with, say, a Core i5-4670, the upgrade to an 8th generation Core i5 could bring tangible performance gains. The results also show i7-8700K to be a formidable opponent to the Ryzen 7-1800X.
Source:
HotHardware
The Core i7-8700K is the top-dog of the 8th generation Core mainstream-desktop processor family. This six-core chip was compared to the product it succeeds in Intel's MSDT product-stack, the quad-core Core i7-7700K. There is a 45 percent increase in performance, in the "processor arithmetic" test; and a 47 percent increase in the "processor multimedia" test. These two test-suites are multi-threaded, and hence benefit from the two added cores, which in turn add four additional logical CPUs, thanks to HyperThreading. "Processor cryptography" sees a 12 percent increase. The single-precision and double-precision "Scientific Analysis" tests, which again are multi-threaded, see 26 percent and 32 percent performance gains over the i7-7700K, respectively.
58 Comments on Intel Core i7-8700K and i5-8400 SANDRA Benchmarks Surface
The AMDones are afraid to loose their safe zone? Don't be frightened children, we will not hurt you, we're honorable people... well, most of us anyway.
I couldn't give a crap about the multithreaded numbers, they don't mean anything when most programs are still single threaded including games.
So yeah, when compared to Ryzen Intel is still the undisputed king of performance. Period.
FYI, Intel themselves have already proven that clockspeed isn't the only thing that matters. You can go out and buy a i7-5775c clocked at 3.7 GHz and it will outperform the 7700k in games with the EDRAM enabled. In fact, it will outperform the 7700k if you overclock the EDRAM.
Now it's great that your world revolves around gaming but some of us need to use computers for big boy work.
Not only that but there's still RAM issues on the Ryzen platform months after it was released. And then let's not forget that AMD Ryzen's clock speed limit appears to be a hard 4.0 GHz wall with a majority of people unable to even crack past 3.8 GHz due to shit silicon (except for the Ryzen 7 1800X which is already heavily binned). They keep ramming their heads into it and not making a dent other than in their own heads. Meanwhile Intel chips are clocking past that. The Core i7 8700K has a boost clock of 4.3 GHz and if you have good cooling like a good water cooling system that CPU is bound to stay at 4.3 GHz the whole damn time and when you combine that with Intel's superior IPC numbers that means Intel is going to positively wipe the damn floor with AMD's Ryzen.
Sorry you AMD fanboy, that's just the way it is; Intel is the undisputed king of CPU performance. AMD is once again trotting out the tired "moar cores!" because that's all they can deliver.
I can be the "most people" since I have managed to change my computer to Ivy long time ago. Believe me if I didn't have to swap my entire rig I'd go with a better CPU. So Most people may be in the same situation as I am. Don't wanna change my entire rig for minimal gains. But if it was only CPU I'd go with the new gen for sure. I understand what evernessince's saying and I agree.
So Ryzen is a better choice from variety of reasons not just gaming.
funny how people moan about amd fanbois, but it is the intel trenches which stink the worst :(
Newer chipset = new features.
It's happening now... or have you ignored TechSpot and other outlets CPU scaling benchmarks.
"It's not just a 1% FPS difference man, I've watched enough benchmark videos and read enough data on the subject that quite often there's a much larger FPS gap than that; sometimes by as much as 15 to 20 FPS difference. That's a huge difference in performance in games."
You are quoting best case scenario in a benchmark situation at 720p. Congrats, you pulled up data with context that is irrelevant. I don't see that as a viable way to use your $300+ CPU.
"That's nowhere close to being the truth and you know it, that's pulling numbers out of thin air and you know it."
lol, no www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/20
It should seem pretty obvious that an easily threaded task like encoding is nearly doubled with double the cores. Derp. By the way, I have my Ryzen OC'd to 4.0 GHz, so it actually gets better encoding performance then an 1800X.
"Most people keep their machines for more than eight months, they build for the long term like 4 to 5 years. Which if you look at Intel vs AMD's IPC numbers it shows that Intel is still going to last you longer than an AMD chip regardless how many cores your AMD chip has because when it comes down to it single core performance is and will be king for years to come which is where Intel is king."
That's exactly what I was saying. Intel just released a 2nd forced mobo upgrade in a single year. AMD does not require you to upgrade your mobo every year. Like I said before, Intel and AMD's IPC are neck and neck. Show me a reputable source that says otherwise.
"Not only that but there's still RAM issues on the Ryzen platform months after it was released. And then let's not forget that AMD Ryzen's clock speed limit appears to be a hard 4.0 GHz wall with a majority of people unable to even crack past 3.8 GHz due to shit silicon (except for the Ryzen 7 1800X which is already heavily binned). They keep ramming their heads into it and not making a dent other than in their own heads. Meanwhile Intel chips are clocking past that. The Core i7 8700K has a boost clock of 4.3 GHz and if you have good cooling like a good water cooling system that CPU is bound to stay at 4.3 GHz the whole damn time and when you combine that with Intel's superior IPC numbers that means Intel is going to positively wipe the damn floor with AMD's Ryzen."
Lol, I must have missed how my RAM is currently clocked at 3600. Hard clock speed limit of 4.0 GHz? You do realize threadripper is clocked at 4.2 GHz correct? Dam, if only you actually knew anything about what you are talking about...
"Meanwhile Intel chips are clocking past that."
And yet AMD achieves better performance at a lower clock. Oh, did you see those power consumption numbers? I'm sure people love that. Oh, and that lovely thermal paste better the IHS. Good luck cooling that furnace.
www.techspot.com/review/1433-intel-core-i9-core-i7-skylake-x/
Yay for throttling with everything but the highest end AIO liquid coolers! Intel is so awesome! For god's sake, just admit when Intel fucks up. At least I have the ball to admit AMD's obvious fuck ups.
"Sorry you AMD fanboy, that's just the way it is; Intel is the undisputed king of CPU performance. AMD is once again trotting out the tired "moar cores!" because that's all they can deliver."
Like I said before, I don't care how is providing the performance. You can keep sucking that Intel cock tho, your obviously attached.
No one said they wouldn't release revisions in between either nor that vendors couldn't add features.
These trolls, you don't even do a cursory check on google to make sure your rhetoric is even remotely correct.