Review: Intel Core i7 8700K processor

The truth. Mixed with misinformations, half truths and cherry picked facts. Is the basic principle of unloading propaganda. Because only the most gullible and those who are already followers would trust 20 minutes of pure insanity, downright lies and speculations. Hence one needs to mix; see bellow:

Whats there to be a fan of? The guy is the raving AMD fan with a gift of speech and lots of time on his hands. That fact alone should by default make anyone with half a brain doubtful about anything he says on the matter.

 

Still smarting at being called out on your GTX 1060 Doom benchmark using OpenGL numbers Hilbert?

You are correct in your case - obviously - as you have the CPU on hand you know what results you are getting. You should be aware however that I base my analysis on what you say. For example at the end of your 8700K review you stated...

So I simply have to go on that. I didn't know that you had used the worst results from the Aorus and that you had different results on the Godlike. It's not possible to check every single article, I only have time to check the main reviews when researching 10+ of them for a video.

In the case of your main review, it appeared that you tested multiple mobos and got the same (low Cinebench R15) result in each. That's what your conclusion looks like to anyone who reads it.

With that said, looking at your MSI Godlike review it's pretty clear that what I said about mobo quality being a factor in performance is true?



Yeah you're getting more perf out of the Godlike, but the power is up over 20% just to reach those "middle 1400ish" Cinebench R15 numbers that most got. No free lunch here, nobody should expect to see those numbers on cheaper mobos. Which is basically, what I said.

 

It would be fact, if it were real.

As i stated, and will continue to state since i have an FPS counter that is enabled in all games that allow, Ryzen processor + 1440p + 144hz + 1080 ti = 144fps+ in the majority of games that a 1080 ti would be capable of getting 144fps, and the games that it doesn't, intel generally doesn't get 144fps either since it's the GPU, because they are either too demanding even for a 1080 ti at the highest settings (or unoptimized), or they have an FPS cap on them and at that point, it really doesn't matter.

I'm not saying that that intel doesn't get better FPS in some games, that is fact, but it's by no means the majority, it's only in some (@1440p, 144hz, 1080 ti, highest settings possible, etc.), and most of the time when that happens, it's a very small difference, or its above 144fps either way, so who cares.

The only people who refute this are elitist intel fanboys that will hold onto one, two, MAYBE three benchmarks showing that their lord and savior performs better as to why "you'd get a better experience with Intel vs AMD at 1440p" as if somehow those 1, 2 or 3 benchmarks = all of gaming.

So my point still stands as to my reply: I don't know where this "bottom line" is that typhon6657 speaks of, since it doesn't exist.

 

Yes while I made that claim in the video (due to not having the entire facts of your CPU at hand), that's not what I claimed in my post.

While running Cinebench? What's it doing, installing drivers? Come on you don't believe that for a second Hilbert. The maximum extra will be the difference between idle on both mobos, which still leaves a lot of extra power for that minor increase in performance.

What is Intel doing to prevent this? Nothing obviously. I know the mobo guys are all trying to beat each other. I also know Intel encourages reviewers to bench with MCE on. We both know that you've been asked to do certain things in the past that didn't sit well with you. Not just from Intel obviously, but from Nvidia and AMD too.

I don't need legal consent to use work from other websites. I'm creating original work using small pieces of work created by others, which has been established practice for millenia. It's all within reason obviously, it's not like I rip off your numbers and present them as my own. In fact I always cite my sources as my own work *actually* gets ripped off, sometimes in it's entirety. There is nothing more annoying than that.

Other example of dodgy behaviour could be taking content from other guys and removing their logos while presenting it as your own work.

That's fine, disagreement is always gonna happen. It's clear to me that you got your pants in a knot because I called you out over benching Doom on OpenGL. Sure maybe I was a bit hasty and since that point I've understood the whole reviewing process a bit more, but you're being hasty in your assumptions here.

And let's be honest, you should have benched Doom on Vulkan. Back then my concern was the gap we were seeing between the 480 and 1060 and Doom on OpenGL was a large part of the problem. As we saw in the end, there really wasn't any difference between those cards, the launch difference was down to some poor reviewer choices i.e. Project Cars, the aforementioned Doom on Vulkan etc. 3 months later and the cards were basically tied, which is what I said would happen.

That makes me a "conspiracy theorist" but when you have a success rate on "conspiracies" like I do, you earn the right to be at least known as a conspiracy..factist?

Note - I'm mostly just pulling your leg Hilbert, in no way do I consider you to be one of the worst out there. Far from it in fact, at least you know what you're doing unlike most of the rest.

 

Jim.

 

Cheers Hilbert, you know you can always drop me an email if you have an issue with something I've said or done.

I promise you this - I'm not out to make your lives harder and I know that some AMD fanboys are ridiculous in how far they take things. I do try to reel them in, but I can't control them any more than you guys can control the idiots from the "other side" that plague my channel. You only need to read some comments in this thread to understand the crap I get every day.

And you're right, I'm a lot newer at this than most of you and it's still a learning process.

 

I think 720p results are a lot of work for little added information. Perhaps on a for cpu views for those wanting to know. I really like the way your views are ran presently. I find them to be very relevant in actual gaming, which I think everyone really wants most.

 

I would prefer minimun fps information in the current tested resolutions (or just 1080p) instead of 720p results.

 

More info is never a bad thing.

Pure minimum is not a good indication as it can falsely flag a runt frame as a minimum. 99 percentile should be used.

 

"two, MAYBE three"

I could pull out dozens of benchmarks that refute that statement.
But one would say "oh that's a bad engine, it's an older game, who cares it's above my refresh rate" etc.

Nothing elitist about wanting a high min FPS; clearly you play different games than I.
Even BF1 8700k is significantly faster than ryzen in 64player servers, a game that's known to be well threaded.

For me, 100 vs 144fps is easily noticeable.
Ryzen is a good choice for refresh rates up to 100hz generally.
Past that, there are many games that it will not keep up.

 

You are rigth. I was thinking in 1% and 0,1% lows.