Intel Core i7-8700K 3.7 GHz

[StrayKAT]

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

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

He's right about heat though. It stinks.

 

[Komshija]

@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]

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.

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]

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.



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


Yeah... heat...

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]

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

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

 

[dirtyferret]

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

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[Prima.Vera]

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]

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.