Intel i7-8700K CPU Review Leaks Onto The Web

When are these 8700 supposed to be available to buy and are they going to be way more than current price of 7700k? Will they require another new motherboard/chipset?

Thinking of getting i7 7700K CPU + MSI Z270-A PRO now for £408 but not sure whether to wait for 8700K + what motherboard

 

According to these prices, there is 100EUR difference bw the 7700K and the 8700K, and the motherboard initial prices may be a bit higher too. I just don't get why not buying Ryzen 1600 for 120EUR less than the 7700K and maybe a bit cheaper mobo? What do you need it for?

 

I see some people having issues even with a 7700K on the BF1 forums. It also depends on the resolution and FPS you are playing at and the number of players in a match. I will probably upgrade to this. My i5 4690k at 4.7GHz is at 99%-100% usage with bare minimum applications open. Quad core doesn't cut it when playing over 60FPS in this game. Hyperthreading helps but 2 extra cores should be better.

 

I'm just wondering why you want to buy a CPU for twice the price the R5 1600 costs. Really curious.

 

How, exactly? The 7800X is basically the same architecture but supports quad-channel memory and fancier motherboards. If anything, I'd say the exact opposite.

 

This might be my next cpu then depending on board availability,I want a m-atx build that can run Sli and still be able to oc decent, If not I will stick to Ryzen 5 1600x or 1600 either way I cant loose.

 

BF1 can almost max out 7700k, I'd say the game already eats that CPU.

Dude, wait 2 weeks and get 2 more cores for almost the same price!

If he wants to drive a high refresh rate monitor, Intel is the way.

 

Are there any Ryzen mATX boards that support multi-GPU? For a long while there hasn't been, even though there is a demand for it. The X370 makes for a pretty solid high-end chipset for mATX (and slightly under-whelming for full ATX) and yet motherboard manufacturers don't seem to get the hint that people aren't looking to build giant PCs anymore. There are way too many full-size AM4 ATX boards, even by the same manufacturer.

Regardless, if you feel a Ryzen build isn't a loss to you, why not get it now? If you deemed a Ryzen to be good enough, I'm guessing you're not intending on going for a G-sync 120Hz+ display, and if you want SLI then that means you don't (or shouldn't) have any plans for VR. So, why wait or spend the extra cash for what will inevitably give you the same result? Competition won't stay healthy if people keep defaulting to Intel. If longevity is your goal, the 8700K absolutely guarantees a longer life than a 1600(X), but, there's also a better probability that you could have a substantial upgrade in the future when going for AM4.

Just trying to put another perspective in. The 8700K seems like the first CPU Intel made since Sandy Bridge that isn't a ripoff, so it's not like getting one is a poor decision.

 

I think you mean Moore's Law

 

Ha, well I only built by PC containing 6700K back in Nov 2016, so I'm hoping games don't get too far ahead of 4 cores / 8 threads any time soon! I don't expect my CPU to last forever, but would like it to be good for gaming for the next 4yrs.

 

On paper it looks like that, but in reality the diminishing returns after 100FPS keep Ryzen very relevant; especially if you take future proofing into account. I'm glad I didn't go for a 7700k like I was going to initially.
That aside, Intel are once again being gypsies with the core count. I'll avoid supporting these scumbags as much as I can.

 

Do you mean i5 2500k vs i7 2600k?
2700k has the same L3 cache as 2600k

 

I too think Ryzens are the better deal in 2017, at least for people building until Q3. I know price/performance you hit a wall of diminishing returns but tell that to people who have 144Hz and up monitors and want to drive them to their full potential.
Don't forget fanboys.

 

As Silva said to drive higher refresh monitor. The Intel CPUs are currently better at gaming and can achieve higher minimum and average FPS. My R9 390 will become the bottleneck if I buy this CPU. But that's OK. I can dial down the settings to try to get as close as possible to 144FPS without the CPU becoming the bottleneck. If I currently lower the settings, I make it worse for the i5. I prefer FPS over Graphics in an FPS game. Until AMD releases a good GPU since I like freesync.

 

The question is WHY on earth test a 1080TI setup on 1080P??? It is pointless...at least start at a minimum of 1440P if the test rigs run a 1080TI. 1080p is for 1060+ It gives just numbers that fail since gaming at 1080p and buying a 1080TI + a 8700K is throwing money out the window in any case.

 

I don't know why people are all of a sudden talking as though because games are bottlenecked by a gpu at 4k ( only a small percentage of people run 4k ) that any cpu overhead is irrelevant.

Every time I buy a cpu I get 2 gou cycles out of it.


What happens when in 12 months nvidia releases a gpu with 30-40% higher performance than a 1080ti....and what happens 2 years after that when you upgrade....I can't even imagine the horrific bottleneck a 4ghz ryzen 5/7 would be gimping gtaphics cards in 2 or 3 years from now.

Dragon age and farcry 2 crushed cpus that were fine for everything else back in the day, I don't want to find myself having to upgrade 2 years after buying a new cpu and platform just for gaming performance because of a bottleneck.

If your ryzen cpu is getting 100 frames to 140 frames on a 7700k....that is a big bottleneck. And in 2 years time when cpus are stressed more in games as well as gpus, then I wouldn't want a weak link in my system and I only game at 60hz....I want cpu overhead and often minimum frames aren't shown in benches, if there is a bottleneck, it is more likely to effect you there than anything else.

I won't be gaming at 4k with the next big thing gpu wise only to have frame drops into the 40s because I went cheap on an 'acceptable' cpu when matching it with the best graphics card I can buy.

 

i could had 6/12 cpu for same prices of a 6700k, not sure if i should be pissed or not by this. intel could choose to not be asses and let the z170/z270 boards support these and cause there same socket. but no they greedy.

i would of bought the 8700k if intel allowed it and gave 6700k my uncles seeing he wants computer with it, which means he just need to by the board. and compared to me he is really cheap when comes to build pc's.

so i wont be bother to get new pc for few another 4 years at min

 

Still pass, I just started to see this OC'ed 4770k stretch its muscles by few games, no min fps issues yet , would prefer 8cores at this point, but not another Coffee Lake.

So looks TigerLake nextgen x86 i7 10700k? 8core (16threads), ddr5, etc for me xD

 

Plenty of people with 120hz+ on 1080P.

Even a TI can't do every single game at a minimum of 120fps on 1080p

 

Tomorrow morning I'm ordering Razer Keyboard and of course the Death-adder mouse ( 16000 dpi ) after it served me more than well for 7 years with intense gaming ( the old had 3500 dpi but who cares about dpi ). This means the first day the i5 8600K becomes available in my country, it's mine. It reminds me a little bit the i5 2500 when I got it first day. Legendary stuff.