Review: Intel Core i7 8700K processor

First! Lets read XD

EDIT: Looks like the iGPU doesn't suck as mush as before, at least is finally competing with AMD APU line dedicated for what it is. Now let's see how the Zen+Vega APU will change this picture.
As single thread performer, nothing changed and that's a great sign: more cores didn't mean loss in performance. As a multi-threaded performer it's a bit low from what I expected, but still a solid performer for what it is: what Intel should have launched 2 years ago.
I think the majority of gamers will be inclined to the i5 because of the price point, that will be interesting to compare to the R5 1600(x).
Finally Intel moved it's ass, thanks to AMD. Let's hope AMD doesn't sleep 6 more years because this is a great CPU for who have been waiting with their i5/7 2500/2600/2700!

 

Second. Will reserve my final thoughts after reading!

Negatives:
Only 16 PCIe lanes - miserly
Dual channel DDR4
No USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10 Gbps) on chip
Integrated graphics - waste of die space that could be used for more useful things (like more PCIe lanes or USB3.1)
THAT INTEL ONLY GIVES A crap SINCE COMPETITION FROM THREADRIPPER APPEARED (corporate consolidation?)

Positives:
Price (compared to the i9 series)
10x USB 3.1 Gen1 (5 Gbps) through the chipset
Idle power
Single core boost to 4.7GHz - usesful for lots of single thread programs/games


So CPU has 16 lanes and Z370 chipset has "up to 24 PCIe 3.0 lanes". So does that mean a typical Z370 board will have 40 lanes available or not?

Thoughts.
My current first/second generation Gulftown i7-970 has a single core Cinebench score of 86, and this brand new 8th generation nearly fastest single core CPU is still only 194, so only slightly over twice as fast - not really much of an improvement in that many years and generations of Intel CPU is it? You'd think it should be 500+ at this stage...

Multi-core Cinebench is just as bad with mine being 703 and this being only 1296

OK, it looks OK, although hard to compare to 7700K as this is missing from many of the graphs. I will check prices combined for cpu/motherboard and see how AMD compare before deciding which to go for.

£360 pre-order from UK scan.

 

5 Reviews at the same time ? You are crazy Hilbert !

 

Looking at 1440p results - " One Zen+ Please. Thank you Sir. "

 

It is exactly what we expected isn't it ?

 

Seems like a good CPU if you don't mind spending the money. As long as AMD's CPUs refuse to clock higher, Intel will keep the high fps crown. All in all I can't really say these results would have produced any wow effects, though.

Since I'm running an i5, I obviously wouldn't spend the money, but people have different preferences, needs, and reasons.

 

i feel like the i5's are gonna be monsters as well, zen+/zen2 when? time to replace this ol 3570K

 

Well if I was building a new pc...or recommending a gaming pc to anyone...I would tell them to buy this cpu.

But nothing about it's performance increase makes me excited as a 6700k owner.

At least this bodes well for the future. My next pc is destined to be an 8 core cpu....not because 6 isn't enough but because in 2 years time when I upgrade my cpu that's what will be available. Hopefully with an absurd amount of m.2 slots, pci 4.0 and usb 3.2.


Interim upgrades are for the birds. I'm done with frequent cpu and phone upgrades etc. I'll keep what I can an upgrade what matters, and for a skylake owner that isn't this.

 

Seems like the first Intel CPU in years that has a decent price to performance ratio.

The 1600X may be more similar in terms of total thread count, but I think the 1700X is a more direct competitor when you consider the differences in clock speed and price.

 

You can compare a CPU two ways: price, or core count. HH chose core count, it's not wrong and is very informative. Before making a purchase decision though, I'll look at a price comparison first.

 

overclockers.co.uk have pre-binned 5Ghz versions for £500, 5.1Ghz for £600 or 5.2Ghz for £800 in-stock. Normal ones are £360, but, pre-order only.

 

Nice review.

The 8700K is about what I expected, no real surprises. It's a stellar overclocker and perfect for gamers who want more multithreading performance.

Nope. Out of stock on Newegg.

 

It's for a "special" market where money has no correlation to brains lol.

 

In Portugal people are reporting reservations only and at 405.90€. No stock has arrived yet.

 

I want one of those!!!

 

I disagree. The best ways to directly compare CPUs can be any of the following:
* Overall performance-per-watt
* Overall performance-per-<your currency> (which is seen in the article)
* Specifically single-threaded and multi-threaded variations of the first 2
Note this is when just comparing two CPUs; this isn't how you determine whether a CPU is the best fit for a job or the best value. Knowing Hilbert, he doesn't judge products based on price, but their overall capability, which is perfectly fine. He does point out value, but he doesn't seem to prioritize that for his final judgment - he's strictly interested in telling us what the best is, regardless of price. In other words, he caters to the interests of enthusiasts (who tend to buy things regardless of price, and are the main demographic of this site).

Measuring based on strictly numbers like core/thread count or frequency are unreliable and alone don't mean very much, as products like Bulldozer or Pentium 4 have proven. Since Ryzen's IPC is so similar to Coffee Lake, the huge frequency difference alone in the 8700K vs the 1600X doesn't make them directly comparable. If the 1600X could reach the same speeds as the 8700K, it would be a better comparison, but the price difference would still be an issue.

I'm not upset that the 1600X was the main comparison, because it was still very interesting to look at. I'm just saying the 1700X makes for a more accurate comparison. It's not really a big deal to me. I'm merely posting this for clarification.

 

Newegg has it listed for $379.99 and backordered. That is too much. 8600k is listed at $249.99 that is more reasonable.