i7-8086K

[phill]

Yeah for anyone who hasn't gone the 8700k or 8086k route, the upcoming 8 cores are an enticing prospect, for gaming or otherwise.
Intel won't release the i9 unless it beat 8700k in majority of the tasks, including gaming.

I don't want to de-rail the thread here but what about the 5960X?? That was 8 cores... Seems people forget or don't want to go back that far..

I'm still hanging on to mine, all threads @ 4.62Ghz @ 1.23vcore... Max load temp 60C ish.. What more does anyone need??

 

[FireFox]

Yeah for anyone who hasn't gone the 8700k or 8086k route, the upcoming 8 cores are an enticing prospect, for gaming or otherwise.

I went that route but it doesn't mean that i won't buy a 9700k or 9900k

 

[phill]

I went that route but it doesn't mean that i won't buy a 9700k or 9900k

Was I reading it right that Intel might not be putting hyper threading on the i7 9700k? Rumour again??

 

[FireFox]

Was I reading it right that Intel might not be putting hyper threading on the i7 9700k? Rumour again??

I was reading that too.

https://www.techradar.com/news/intel-core-i7-9700k-rumored-to-abandon-hyper-threading

 

[hat]

I don't want to de-rail the thread here but what about the 5960X?? That was 8 cores... Seems people forget or don't want to go back that far..

I'm still hanging on to mine, all threads @ 4.62Ghz @ 1.23vcore... Max load temp 60C ish.. What more does anyone need??

Sure, but that was HEDT. These are mainstream boards, so the fact that 8 core is finally available "for the masses" is a big deal. That, and for people like us, these 8 cores a are a bit more advanced than that 5960x. While still a great chip to be sure, and I wouldn't mind having one myself, the 9900k would be even better, along with whatever newer technologies Z390 offers over x99.

Was I reading it right that Intel might not be putting hyper threading on the i7 9700k? Rumour again??

Isn't the 9700k like the 8600k equivalent, with the 9900k being the 8700k equivalent? Seems to make sense to me, given they can't name their product stack worth shit.

 

[Deleted member 178884]

Doesn't seem to be a scam too - the guy bought it and cancelled his build - I'll have to get the money saved up first and hope on either a ryzen 7 2700x or this 8086k.

 

[phill]

I was reading that too.

https://www.techradar.com/news/intel-core-i7-9700k-rumored-to-abandon-hyper-threading

Sure, but that was HEDT. These are mainstream boards, so the fact that 8 core is finally available "for the masses" is a big deal. That, and for people like us, these 8 cores a are a bit more advanced than that 5960x. While still a great chip to be sure, and I wouldn't mind having one myself, the 9900k would be even better, along with whatever newer technologies Z390 offers over x99.

Isn't the 9700k like the 8600k equivalent, with the 9900k being the 8700k equivalent? Seems to make sense to me, given they can't name their product stack worth shit.

There I was thinking that X99 was for the masses as well! Well overkill masses maybe but still...

Well I hope they solder the damn thing for a start, I'm guessing this is all down to AMD and I can't thank them enough for all the gains we've all had over the last year or so with Ryzen.. Intel have been plodding along ever since they haven't been a threat, now they are, they are probably still plodding along but in a bit of a panic...

I guess since the 5960X is what 3 years old, I'd bloody hope that the 9900k would have newer things going for it lol The game Intel is playing will probably back fire at some point..
The naming kinda makes sense but all the years before hand that have been no hyper threading i5's, why they haven't just stuck with that I've no idea.. I'd love to meet these people that think up these naming conventions.. Bloody hopeless!! lol
My 5960X is very much a cherry picked example and with it being possible to hit 4.8Ghz without to much more volts, I would like to hope that this new 9900k is going to be a little bit faster again.. But I will ask this, in games, do you really think there will be a noticeable difference between the two CPUs?? Screw the benchmarks, in game, FPS, would you be able to tell the difference? That's what I'm looking forward to seeing and reading about

 

[hat]

Well, anyone who wants it enough can get x99, but by "the masses" I meant your average guy getting a system from Best Buy or something... though that guy still isn't likely to buy the 8 core system... it's on the mainstream platform now at least, is what I'm saying. The top end chips are rumored to be soldered, whether they start soldering more remains to be seen... I'd be okay without solder if they at least used better paste, though.

I think the only discernible difference would come if the rest if your system is also comprised of -very- strong hardware, such as 1080Ti, and you're going for really high refresh rates, like 144hz or above... or if you're playing very CPU limited games. As good as Ryzen is right now, Intel has still been shown to have the lead in this scenario, most notably with better minimum FPS. That said, if you were to start your own thread on this topic, there would likely be much disagreement between two sides... one who say it's noticeable, one who say not so much.

To get right down to it, from 5960x to 9900k (or 9700k) you stand to gain maybe 10% improvement clock for clock, and I'd expect them to be able to hit 5.5GHz at best, with 5.3 being a more likely result. At 5.3, that would be roughly equivalent to running your 5960x at around 5.8GHz, maybe more given you'd likely have much faster RAM in this system as well.

It's not much, but that's what market stagnation does. Thankfully we haven't really had much of a need for faster hardware in recent years... even as tough as PS2 emulation can be, so far even my insignificant i5 2400 destroys it. I have one game that I find my processor insufficient for at times... but everyone else does too in that game.

 

[phill]

Well, anyone who wants it enough can get x99, but by "the masses" I meant your average guy getting a system from Best Buy or something... though that guy still isn't likely to buy the 8 core system... it's on the mainstream platform now at least, is what I'm saying. The top end chips are rumored to be soldered, whether they start soldering more remains to be seen... I'd be okay without solder if they at least used better paste, though.

I think the only discernible difference would come if the rest if your system is also comprised of -very- strong hardware, such as 1080Ti, and you're going for really high refresh rates, like 144hz or above... or if you're playing very CPU limited games. As good as Ryzen is right now, Intel has still been shown to have the lead in this scenario, most notably with better minimum FPS. That said, if you were to start your own thread on this topic, there would likely be much disagreement between two sides... one who say it's noticeable, one who say not so much.

To get right down to it, from 5960x to 9900k (or 9700k) you stand to gain maybe 10% improvement clock for clock, and I'd expect them to be able to hit 5.5GHz at best, with 5.3 being a more likely result. At 5.3, that would be roughly equivalent to running your 5960x at around 5.8GHz, maybe more given you'd likely have much faster RAM in this system as well.

It's not much, but that's what market stagnation does. Thankfully we haven't really had much of a need for faster hardware in recent years... even as tough as PS2 emulation can be, so far even my insignificant i5 2400 destroys it. I have one game that I find my processor insufficient for at times... but everyone else does too in that game.

Give me some LN2 and this 5960X does do about the 5.7Ghz I'm told, so.... It'll cost a bit to run but then maybe I could try a chiller and see how I get on like Intel did

Jokes aside, since Ryzen has come out, 8 core CPUs have become cheaper and been amazing value for money... I'd hazard a guess unless people are wanting 1080P res to be as fast as possible for competition gaming etc, it might be the only area it will be best at.. Anything else, has been proven with X58 even, 1440P and even 4k, the CPU performance is pretty null and void.. That said, you'd hope that even at 1440P/4k, there might be a bit of an increase in performance but would it be noticeable? Well, depends on how deep your wallets are I suppose Which is why I guess some people have gone to Ryzen?? But I'm unsure why you'd want to run 1080P if you run 1080/1080 Ti anyways (aside from competition etc... Must be a numbers or e-peen thing maybe??)

I understand you logic and respect the reply, shall we both agree on the upcoming review to see how it actually fairs and go from there??
Just out of pure interest, what is the game that your current setup/CPU struggles with??

 

[hat]

CPU performance is pretty much "null and void" past a certain point, for the most part (especially at 4k)... but, it mostly becomes relevant again once you start pushing high refresh rates, like 144hz. Almost any CPU (unless it's a very demanding game) these days can keep up with 60hz. Look at any CPU review, or any kind of comparison that shows what results look like at 4k. There is very little difference between even Pentium chips and the 8700k because at that point the limiting factor is very much the GPU. If you had a magical GPU 5x faster than the 1080Ti, the differences between the CPUs would soon become apparent again. If you're running 1920x1080 with a 1080Ti, it's because you're more interested in hitting high refresh rates (144hz).

A lot of people have gone for Ryzen because they're more interested in... a whole list of possible reasons. Maybe they'd rather give their money to AMD than Intel, or they're interested in the high multithread performance, or the price. Ryzen does very well, it's not a bad chip by any means, nothing like Bulldozer. All that said, sure, go ahead and wait it out and take a look at the reviews that will surface. It's the best way for anyone to make an informed decision. You know yourself better than anyone else knows you, so you can judge what hardware is best with your own needs in mind.

The game I have trouble with is 7 Days to Die... it seems really CPU bound. While playing the game my 1070 doesn't even run at high clocks or show high utilization, but I still get low frames, especially when a lot is going on.

 

[phill]

CPU performance is pretty much "null and void" past a certain point, for the most part (especially at 4k)... but, it mostly becomes relevant again once you start pushing high refresh rates, like 144hz. Almost any CPU (unless it's a very demanding game) these days can keep up with 60hz. Look at any CPU review, or any kind of comparison that shows what results look like at 4k. There is very little difference between even Pentium chips and the 8700k because at that point the limiting factor is very much the GPU. If you had a magical GPU 5x faster than the 1080Ti, the differences between the CPUs would soon become apparent again. If you're running 1920x1080 with a 1080Ti, it's because you're more interested in hitting high refresh rates (144hz).

A lot of people have gone for Ryzen because they're more interested in... a whole list of possible reasons. Maybe they'd rather give their money to AMD than Intel, or they're interested in the high multithread performance, or the price. Ryzen does very well, it's not a bad chip by any means, nothing like Bulldozer. All that said, sure, go ahead and wait it out and take a look at the reviews that will surface. It's the best way for anyone to make an informed decision. You know yourself better than anyone else knows you, so you can judge what hardware is best with your own needs in mind.

The game I have trouble with is 7 Days to Die... it seems really CPU bound. While playing the game my 1070 doesn't even run at high clocks or show high utilization, but I still get low frames, especially when a lot is going on.

Again, I agree with what your saying As I mentioned, the Ryzen CPUs will do well, but the Intel clock speeds are slightly higher and will clock higher again have that edge.. Would I personally consider one over an Intel? Damn right I would but I'm not worried about the 144hz at the moment, that's when I go for bigger screens myself as I currently game on triple 1080P..

I've not heard of the game before, what is the CPU that your currently running? The i5 2400? The spec list of the game on Steam, doesn't really give masses of hints to what it needs, just says a quad faster than 3Ghz... I didn't really notice any issues with my 2600k and 1070 whilst gaming so might just be a bit of clock speed on your side of things it's having a struggle with? Noticed that with a G3258 then swapping over to a 4770k.. But I digress...

 

[hat]

Yeah, the i5 2400. It runs acceptable most of the time, but there are sudden, seemingly random and noticeable FPS drops, and during a big fight things can get rough. I do want to upgrade my system sometime, mostly because of that game... but I know outside of that I'll likely not notice much difference, and the money is best held on to when it's something I don't really need. Every once in a while though I try to see if I can find a Z68 or P67 board for super cheap so I can bump it up a little bit, but I never find one cheap enough.

 

[Caring1]

Yo mean this?: Intel Core i9-9900K Flagship CPU Performance Benchmark Leaked –Tested in 3DMark Performance Benchmark and Clocking Up To 5.0 GHz Blue Team’s 8 Core is Way Faster Than Red Team’s 8 Core.

In other news, Flagship Veyron faster than average family car.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Yeah but then there's the 9700k & 9900k waiting in the wings, for anyone who hasn't chosen CFL atm now's not the time to hurry.

Those will be $1000+ cpu's. The 8086k is reasonably priced for the performance it offers.

I don't want to de-rail the thread here but what about the 5960X?? That was 8 cores... Seems people forget or don't want to go back that far..
I'm still hanging on to mine, all threads @ 4.62Ghz @ 1.23vcore... Max load temp 60C ish.. What more does anyone need??

Good point. I think the purpose of this discussion is for those who don't already have a top-tier CPU. Going from a 5960X to a 8086k would not be an upgrade. But going from an older quad-core or even older 6-core would. I'm betting that the new i9's won't even be much of an upgrade from your 5960x and thus not worth the money.

 

[phill]

Yeah, the i5 2400. It runs acceptable most of the time, but there are sudden, seemingly random and noticeable FPS drops, and during a big fight things can get rough. I do want to upgrade my system sometime, mostly because of that game... but I know outside of that I'll likely not notice much difference, and the money is best held on to when it's something I don't really need. Every once in a while though I try to see if I can find a Z68 or P67 board for super cheap so I can bump it up a little bit, but I never find one cheap enough.

My 2600k sits in an Asrock Z77 OCF Formula board, as does my 4770k and 6700k, they all have OCF boards.. I don't personally like trying to cheap out on things because I find I have to buy twice, waste more money and so on.. I spend a bit more the first time, get the board I really want and go from there..
I suppose that said you could always upgrade to a Ryzen or the new i9 if you wanted too

Those will be $1000+ cpu's. The 8086k is reasonably priced for the performance it offers.

Good point. I think the purpose of this discussion is for those who don't already have a top-tier CPU. Going from a 5960X to a 8086k would not be an upgrade. But going from an older quad-core or even older 6-core would. I'm betting that the new i9's won't even be much of an upgrade from your 5960x and thus not worth the money.

I'm looking forward to the reviews @lexluthermiester , I'm just surprised that its the first for the masses type thing.. It was one reason why I went for the 5960X as it was an 8 core beast from a 920 D0... I've most of the sockets in between granted but this is the system I use every day Which reminds me, its cooler today.. Must start pushing it a little more...

 

[dorsetknob]

In other news, Flagship Veyron faster than average family car.

you bring the Veyron and i'll Bring a DAF 33
i bet that old DAF wipes the Floor with the Veyron ( in Reverse )

 

[Deleted member 178884]

That 8086k that I found sold already, damn it.

Gotta love how the solid old tech makes more sense still - a 6950x costs £440 at CEX used with 2yrs warranty whilst the 7820x costs that much alone.

 

[FireFox]

That 8086k that I found sold already, damn it.

Gotta love how the solid old tech makes more sense still - a 6950x costs £440 at CEX used with 2yrs warranty whilst the 7820x costs that much alone.

If i wouldn't pay that much for mine i would sell it to you

 

[Deleted member 178884]

If i wouldn't pay that much for mine i would sell it to you

Or sell your 8700k to me

 

[las]

I'd choose 9700K 8C/8T over 8700K 6C/12T any day of the week. Especially considering it's has soldered IHS. Lets see tho. I find it strange that Intel does not release any new 6C/12T, unless they keep selling 8700K/8086K. Maybe we'll know more tomorrow.

8700K performs better in pretty much all games with HT disabled. So does Ryzen with SMT off. 9700K will have it's place. Could turn out to be the best gaming chip.

Those will be $1000+ cpu's.

Haha, no way. Rumour is $450 for 9900K and $350 for 9700K.

I'd gladly pay $500 for that i9 if rumours are true tho. Day one purchase.

 

[FireFox]

those will be $1000+ cpu's.

Even If so i would give it a try as always

 

[lexluthermiester]

Haha, no way. Rumour is $450 for 9900K and $350 for 9700K.

Even If so i would give it a try as always

We'll see. Intel may decide to compete with AMD on price. Could be interesting. Then again, those are top shelf offerings from Intel's line-up. If they let those loose for a bargin, they would need to discount the rest of their offerings and it just doesn't seem likely..

 

[las]

We'll see. Intel may decide to compete with AMD on price. Could be interesting. Then again, those are top shelf offerings from Intel's line-up. If they let those loose for a bargin, they would need to discount the rest of their offerings and it just doesn't seem likely..

It's stil MSDT and the "Limited Edition" i7-8086K is $429 MSRP I doubt i9-9900K is going to be much more than this. Hopefully we'll know soon. I'm getting 9700K or 9900K ASAP. I hope to see some Z390 board specs/pictures soon.

 

[Vayra86]

Those will be $1000+ cpu's. The 8086k is reasonably priced for the performance it offers.

Good point. I think the purpose of this discussion is for those who don't already have a top-tier CPU. Going from a 5960X to a 8086k would not be an upgrade. But going from an older quad-core or even older 6-core would. I'm betting that the new i9's won't even be much of an upgrade from your 5960x and thus not worth the money.

Intel will put an 8 core, mainstream part at 1k versus AMD's Ryzen offering? Not very likely...

 

[kbk_75]

I can’t see the so-called i9-9900k being anywhere near $1000. I would imagine more in the region of $550 or so. If these 8C/16T chips can do 5 GHz on all cores at sensible volts for 24x7 operation, Intel will have done well.

My overclocked 8086K scores within 3-4% of a stock 2700X on multi-core benchmarks and wipes the floor with them in single core tests, so an all core 5GHz 9900k should be around 25-30% faster than a stock 2700X, I’d wager. Either way I can’t see a huge improvement to gaming FPS going from 8086K @ 5.2GHz to 9900K even @ 5GHz. It would be nice for encoding / converting / compression though.