Review: Intel Core i7 8700K processor

if what adoredtv claimed is right ...then no matter how much you want this you have to wait few months before you get your hands on em .... for Europe at least , especially if Europe stores get non k cpus and only z370 motherboard with the first just being a handful

 

Are we limited to specific games now? You can lower video settings and get 200fps on GPU side. Sadly, CPU won't be able to deliver more fps, since video settings are GPU bound.

100fps vs 110fps ON ULTRA SETTINGS. It tells nothing at all. Once you drop AA and set settings from ULTRA to medium, that where CPU starts to struggle. We again just watching GTX1080 benchmarks and NOT CPU benchmarks.

 

Hilbert, thank you for the review but one question. Looking at the gaming benchmarks, it looks like the games are being limited by the GPU. Many of the games have close to the same performance across all processors (including sh*t like i3). I understand showing that you can get decent performance on today's games in the gaming benchmarks but they don't really show the extent of how much stronger a given processor is at gaming. This is relevant because if I am considering buying an i7 8700k, I want to be able to consider how it may perform 2-3 years from now compared to other CPUs. Your gaming benchmarks are structured in a way that really isn't useful for that purpose.

I'd argue it is just as important, if not more so, to know the extent of how a given CPU out performs another CPU then to know that almost any CPU is "good enough" at high resolutions and/or quality settings. A just good enough CPU today won't be just good enough two GPU generations later when GPU performance has doubled. I'd note that some of your non-gaming benchmarks are *not* limited by other components like the GPU and are actually only testing the CPU (this is good!). I think you should consider the same goal for the gaming benchmarks when testing CPUs.

Edit - I wanted to add that there are games out there that use much more CPU power (heavy AI use, large multiplayer games, etc) than most of the games in the benchmark suite in this review. Minimum frame-rate and being able to lower graphics settings to max frame-rate is also an important issue for those of us with high Hz-monitors. So even with today's games, the extent that a processor is better at gaming performance is important. It isn't just a matter of decision making based on future proofing. Again, thank you for your thorough reviews!

 

So you're complaining a ryzen processor doesn't get good enough performance when you lower the settings and have worse image quality, but at highest settings gets about the same if not a little worse?

So...you're saying people are buying expensive hardware to specifically not utilize said hardware to its max but rather to limit the hardware just so they can have an unreasonable amount of FPS?

........

If that's not the most backwards nonsense i've ever heard, i don't know what is, but i'm sure you're right, i'm sure people do that for some nonsensical reason.

 

ULTRA settings, MAX AA, HIGH resolution : GPU cap
MEDIUM settings, no AA, LOWER resolution : CPU cap

Are we testing GPU or CPU? Understand?

 

Now increased to €450.

 

That's pretty much what I was thinking too, I don't think the 1600X comparison has much purpose from a performance standpoint; the Intel is expected to win since it's significantly more expensive.
The 1700X looks like a more logical comparison.

All you've done in this thread so far is speculate and make ridiculous bouts like 'Better than Ryzen in every way'.
This CPU is quite expensive for what it offers, meaning that the 1600X is still a valid proposition; the 8700k is competing with the 1700X where overall it loses in the multithreaded scenario but wins in the singlethreaded one. By how much depends on the specific game or piece of software.

Also, JEDEC are going to finalize the DDR5 standard somewhere in 2018. Considering that DDR4 adoption was quite slow, I wouldn't bet on DDR5 being mainstream by Zen+.

 

www.proshop.dk/CPU/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-Coffee-Lake-CPU-37-GHz-Intel-LGA1151-6-kerner-Intel-Boxed/2614174

That's 429 euro for the 8700k - expected availability October 26th. Danish VAT is 25%.

www.proshop.dk/CPU/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-Coffee-Lake-CPU-37-GHz-Intel-LGA1151-6-kerner-Intel-Boxed/2614174

That's 310 euro - expected availability October 16th. These are both a notch up in price from the previous gen.

 

In Czech Rep.:
8700k - 11 499CZK = 445EUR - backorder
1800x - 11 999CZK = 465EUR
1700x - 8 999CZK = 350EUR
1600x - 6 699CZK = 260EUR

 

Said APU can't compete in processing power versus any of the new CPU released by Intel. For a cheap indie gaming machine it's enough but for rendering and such the APU will have a hard time.

And then the same people who reply at me like this wonder why we where stuck with 4 cores for 7 years.
Seriously dude, would you buy a Ferrary if a Honda (S2000) or a GTR would beat it for a fraction of the price? You're one of those people who likes to brag about what you have, it's not about being an enthusiast.

I agree that comparing same core count products with massive price differences isn't the way to chose a CPU.
You should compare products at the same price point and take your conclusions from there. The i5 8400 is in R5 1600 territory and the i7 8700k is more expensive over the R7 1700X.
It doesn't mean the review is bad, it's just a point of view. If this is an enthusiast forum (as many care to point me out), people should have the brain cells to see there's a price difference.

Do you game at lower than 1080p? This argument gets on my nerves. If you want 10 year old resolutions you can check other reviews.

 

AdoredTV is usually very pro-AMD (so you have to keep that salt handy ) but I think there is a kernel of truth to what he is saying. There were rumors about a short supply, and it seems to have played out on launch day, with the 8700K quickly selling out. Add to the fact that the mainstream and budget boards won't be available until next year, and it is indeed looking like a paper launch. I'm guessing that it'll be several months before regular customers can get their hands on one, and prices will probably be inflated by retailers during that time. It's well known that Coffee Lake was originally scheduled for 2018, so that's when we should expect mass market availability.

 

Ugh, that's my whole point, some people don't compare the way you do, they don't make direct comparisons by price point and it has nothing to do with 'brain cells'.

Some people aren't interested in AMD and therefore AMD is not a consideration for them, others are not interested in Intel and so it goes.

And 'You're one of those people who likes to brag about what you have'. Where do you see me bragging exactly?

All I see is a guy who has an unjustifiable habit of condescending to people who don't share his point of view, and it's long past it's 'sell by' date; specifically in every Intel product discussion thread where it has absolutely no place.

 

It's a nice fast cpu, but I wonder for how long Intel will be able to keep on bumping clocks to get more performance before they run into a wall? Basically they at a wall in terms of ipc atm. All they do is bump clock and core count.... You can only play that game for so long

 

Intel and AMD are both banking on multi-threading taking over vs. IPC of single threads.

 

Something is wrong with this review. In many other tech review sites the 8700k takes more than 1500cb in Cinebench R15 and here it only pulls 1296cb in multithread ?? Even on the channels of Jayztwocent and Linustechtips I am seeing similar results.

 

Hilbert, is there any reason you don't do any sort of VR benchmarks in your reviews?

I really think that VR is the only thing right now that really pushes both the CPU and GPU of modern setups, as well as the motherboard/chipset with all the bandwidth needed for multiple simultaneous USB3.0 and USB2.0 connections during gameplay on the headset. This use of 1920x1080 or the larger monitor 2560x1440 is pointless since lots of high-end GPU/CPU combinations can do well over 60fps easily these days.

For starters the system has to pump video over USB3.0 to the headset.

At same time it must read both USB3.0 and USB2.0 from one, two, three position sensors (and on my system there is not enough bandwidth to even do two of these on USB3.0 with headset)

The resolution to Oculus (and Vive) is 1,080 x 1,200-pixel resolution for each eye to bring the final resolution to 2,160 x 1,200, and at a preferred 90Hz refresh rate.

Also many people use the Oculus Debug tool to increase oversampling from default 1.0 up to 2.0 or more which greatly increases the resolution to be rendered per frame and then down-sampled for display at 2160 x 1200

I have Dirt Rally VR and there is a built in benchmark mode which runs a single 5 minute stage and at the end gives you minimum, maximum and average frame rates as well as outputting an Excel CSV with all data.

I was getting motion sickness with high settings and ran benchmark and found even with Gigabyte GTX1070 Xtreme card I was only getting about 40-50fps at these settings.

I had to decrease a load of custom settings in graphic options and re-ran benchmark and found then I was just about getting 90fps average. This made the motion sickness a lot less.

It would be way more useful to me if I had benchmark runs in Dirt Rally VR at Ultra settings for various cards and even different Oculus Debug oversampling settings of say 1.0, 1.5, 2.0

This would tell us way more about modern hardware setup than simplistic 1920x1080 or 2560x1440 monitor fps results.
Modern VR game requirements are way higher than monitor requirements.

The CPU is also used a lot more in VR than normal gaming so would be useful for CPU testing.

Please add this to your testing suite!

Regards,

 

I have some issues with the review. There wasn't any consistency of the 8700K vs other processors. Noticed on some of the panels, the i7 6850K was ranked...as well as the i7 5820K. In other panels they were missing. Why wasn't the data consistent for different processors from one panel to the next???? I get that the 8700K is a nice product and may finally stabilize Intel's waffling of late. This processor is exactly going to do what I also thought...kill the X299 platform below the i7 7820K. Why invest in X299 with this release? LGA2066 is way too hot to handle.

 

These are just processors tests dude, not some build a pc for gaming in a budget article.

 

Oh i am very aware he is pro amd , this is the reason i said if and did not take it for granted , i am not salty really ,i love this !finaly cpu releases are exciting again! The reason i mention it is because if it is true then all the people that mention they do not want to wait they might have too anyway , i did not even bother to argue or enter a conversation if ryzen or core ix is a better option , as i see it now you can't go wrong either way.