Intel Core i7-8700K and i5-8400 SANDRA Benchmarks Surface

[trparky]

You do realize threadripper is clocked at 4.2 GHz correct?

Threadripper is even more heavily binned than the Ryzen 7 1800X. Threadripper uses only the best silicon possible meanwhile the mere peasants get the table scraps.

I must have missed how my RAM is currently clocked at 3600.

Very cool man, you are one of the few that have been able to achieve those RAM speeds. The rest can't even get past DDR4-3200 without using very specific RAM along with extensive tweaking in UEFI. Meanwhile in the Intel camp all I need to worry about is sticking the stuff into the slot and... oh yeah, that's it.

Oh, and that lovely thermal paste better the IHS. Good luck cooling that furnace.

As long as the CPU is running within thermal limits it doesn't matter how "hot" the CPU gets. And as for the thermal stuff, @EarthDog and a number of other people who actually know what they are talking about have said that the TIM doesn't mean anything.

You are quoting best case scenario in a benchmark situation at 720p.

It's also an issue at 1080p which still a lot of gamers play at. Sure, the CPU bottleneck goes away at 4K or even 2K gaming but who the hell has the money to go that route? Most of us plebes are still playing at 1080p.

 

[evernessince]

Threadripper is even more heavily binned than the Ryzen 7 1800X. Threadripper uses only the best silicon possible meanwhile the mere peasants get the table scraps.


Very cool man, you are one of the few that have been able to achieve those RAM speeds. The rest can't even get past DDR4-3200 without using very specific RAM along with extensive tweaking in UEFI. Meanwhile in the Intel camp all I need to worry about is sticking the stuff into the slot and... oh yeah, that's it.


As long as the CPU is running within thermal limits it doesn't matter how "hot" the CPU gets. And as for the thermal stuff, @EarthDog and a number of other people who actually know what they are talking about have said that the TIM doesn't mean anything.


It's also an issue at 1080p which still a lot of gamers play at. Sure, the CPU bottleneck goes away at 4K or even 2K gaming but who the hell has the money to go that route? Most of us plebes are still playing at 1080p.

Wait, according to you 4.0 GHz was the cap. Obviously it goes above that.

"Very cool man, you are one of the few that have been able to achieve those RAM speeds. The rest can't even get past DDR4-3200 without using very specific RAM along with extensive tweaking in UEFI. Meanwhile in the Intel camp all I need to worry about is sticking the stuff into the slot and... oh yeah, that's it."

Um, DDR4 3200 is a pretty major overclock for any CPU to handle. There are many Intel motherboard that have problems with that. My 5820K couldn't' even go about 2133.

"As long as the CPU is running within thermal limits it doesn't matter how "hot" the CPU gets. And as for the thermal stuff, @EarthDog and a number of other people who actually know what they are talking about have said that the TIM doesn't mean anything."

Yeah, because temps don't matter...except for when you live in a hot climate and it throttles. Not only can't you OC, you also can't run stock without throttling. I seem to remember AMD getting skewered for it's temps, double standards much? Fact is temps matter, not only to performance but also to power draw. Leakage increases as temp increase, thus increasing power usage.

"It's also an issue at 1080p which still a lot of gamers play at. Sure, the CPU bottleneck goes away at 4K or even 2K gaming but who the hell has the money to go that route? Most of us plebes are still playing at 1080p."

Pleb and 7700k don't go together. You don't buy a cheap monitor to go with an expensive CPU. Like I said earlier, you are presenting a situation that is unlikely. You can't say "OMG INTEL DA BEST" and then in the next sentence "WE ARE PLEBS WHO ONLY PLAY AT 720P!", unless of course you are insinuating that Intel is only for plebs.

 

[ps000000]

Very funny to read all comments here.

 

[hapkiman]

After reading all these (and other) comments about the i7 8700k, I am beginning to contemplate that it may very well be a decent processor to consider, and possibly just what I'm looking for. Although I have a i7 7700k system right now, I have been considering giving it to my son who started college this week and has only a weak sauce laptop. He needs a desktop and has hinted to me many times how he wants a rig similar to mine (but can't afford it). If I gave him this rig -I would then be in line to make a completely new build from scratch, with all new components. Yes, I do realize Ryzen is out, and has actually proved to be better than I thought it would be [eating crow here], but I very rarely do any heavy multi-threaded stuff at home that would justify even a 1700. I have a 3 year old Xeon workstation at work, so there is no way my boss is gonna let me upgrade that rig (unless I pay for it). And I know that the i7 7800x or 7820x should also be a consideration. But this 6 core 12 thread 8700k, seems to be giving Kaby Lake levels of performance in gaming, with the ability to do occasional multi-threaded tasks at much improved speed/perf as compared to a 4 core 8 threaded Intel proc. Kind of just what I need.

I've got some thinking to do about this......

 

[biffzinker]

Although I have a i7 7700k system right now...I would then be in line to make a completely new build from scratch, with all new components.

The upgrade itch is getting to you already? Still a nice gesture to hand off your 7700K build to your son.

 

[Vayra86]

^^
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.

If you want to see some respect, change the tone. And don't double post, forum rule - we have edit buttons so you can merge.

The 1700X was using 2166 RAM. lol

My 1700X modestly OC'd to 3.9ghz still outpaces the 8700K in multithreaded. Hopefully single core improves in the next revision.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/3829403?baseline=3797188

You outpace a 8700k @ 3.7 with stock RAM.. by 300 points. This only supports the statement that the 8700k will destroy Ryzen perf both ST and MT. This is not directly bad, but lets call it what it is, don't delude yourself.

AMD already has a new platform planned for Ryzen 2 FYI in 3 years so yeah...

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.

You need to take a chill pill too... Damn man.

 

[trparky]

What really makes me shake my head a lot of the time here is this mentality that multi-threaded performance is the end all, be all when it comes to computing performance. I have news for you, outside of a small subset of the computing market having more cores really makes no difference. I'm not going to deny that AMD's multi-threaded performance beats the snot out of current generation Intel chips but in order to get to get those multi-threaded numbers AMD had to trade one for the other. It's like The Law of Equivalent Exchange from Full Metal Alchemist, you have to give something up to gain another. In this case AMD gave up high clock speed and single-core performance numbers to gain more cores, unfortunately that's a gamble that didn't quite pay out as well and AMD had hoped.

 

[Vayra86]

Isn't it paying out well? Ryzen is selling quite OK. It's not like half the world was eagerly awaiting that affordable hexacore, just a handful of enthusiasts. Which also explains why we're still stuck with quads, too. Its not just 'Intel and lack of competition'. Its also a mainstream market and applications that just don't take advantage of that performance. These things are very, VERY slow to change within the mainstream markets, look at how long it took some people to say goodbye to an OS like XP, even though we've made giant leaps since then in terms of performance.

 

[Hooride]

+evernessince
You said

"That's exactly what I was saying. Intel just released a 2nd forced mobo upgrade in a single year."


Incorrect. x299 replaced the long needed x99 , z370 replaced z270 and z170 .Before that it was z87 and z97 All have had multiple cpu's released over time, and have the ability to do bios updates and no new board needed . Wheres this " new mobo every year" coming from?

You also said

"AMD does not require you to upgrade your mobo every year."

You mean amd took so long to make new stuff they didnt even give you the option to upgrade your mobo if you wanted to, so that counts as not requiring a new mobo every year,just silly.