1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Review: Intel Core i7 8700K processor

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Oct 5, 2017.

  1. Robbo9999

    Robbo9999 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,318
    Likes Received:
    220
    GPU:
    GTX1070 @2050Mhz
    That's a silly statement in my eyes "no enthusiast worth his salt would allow their $700 GPU to go to waste by playing with a CPU bottleneck" - that's just silly talk, if you're playing a competetive online multiplayer fps then you want a stable non-fluctuating high framerate ideally, this by definition means you're not using the full potential of the GPU all of the time, and to say that these people are not enthusiasts is just silly. This is one reason why CPU bound testing is interesting/important.
     
  2. tfam26

    tfam26 Active Member

    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    14
    GPU:
    Gaming X GTX 1080ti
    4790k still going strong @4.9ghz with no issues running modern games @1440p/144hz whatsoever.

    Until I see something released along the lines of 50%+ performance that runs a lot cooler than all these recent chips, I'll continue to upgrade my GPU regularly instead.
     
  3. Ryu5uzaku

    Ryu5uzaku Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,770
    Likes Received:
    107
    GPU:
    5700 XT UV 1950~
    Tbh for most competitive games you can pretty much choose any cpu from current lineup from either company and get your desired fps unless it is 240hz range then there will be difference.
     
    schmidtbag likes this.
  4. geogan

    geogan Master Guru

    Messages:
    402
    Likes Received:
    21
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX 1070
    They are obviously showing over-clocked benchmark. See the tab in this review for Overclocking and you'll see the 8700k here getting over 1500.

    On a related note, does anyone know, does a score A of 3000 in Cinebench R15 compared to score B of 1500 mean that A is twice as fast as B? I tried to search for answer to this but can't see anything on Maxon site. For all we know maybe the scores are not linear (logarithmic maybe like hurricane power) and A is 5 times as fast as B ?!? Anyone know?
     

  5. Robbo9999

    Robbo9999 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,318
    Likes Received:
    220
    GPU:
    GTX1070 @2050Mhz
    I haven't specifically measured it, but when I was gradually increasing my CPU overclock & running CB15 it seemed linear at least.
     
    geogan likes this.
  6. Andrew LB

    Andrew LB Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    133
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 1080@2,025
    Too expensive based on a subjective price/performance comparison which uses a single synthetic benchmark (cinebench) that greatly favors AMDs high core count.

    What I don't understand is if HH is going to take the time to put together that chart, why not make a second price/performance chart using a synthetic gaming benchmark like Firestrike since i'd wager the vast majority of potential buyers of this processor, especially those of us who frequent this website will be using it primarily for gaming. Not doing so could easily be seen as bias for one particular brand of processor over another when objectivity should be a primary concern when reviewing such products.

    Just for the heck of it i went back to take a look at previous CPU reviews like that of the i5-7600k, A10 7800, and even the Ryzen 5 review, and it seems HH just now started using this cinebench price/performance comparison. I'm not one make accusations without knowing all the facts but it does lead one to wonder if this was added just to give AMD a "win". Much like how so many people came up with similar things back in the day when it was ATi vs nVidia where nVidia would win dominate in performance except they'd throw in a performance/watt chart, something nobody had ever used previously.
     
  7. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,427
    Likes Received:
    1,358
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    You say that as though Intel does poorly (and they certainly don't), or that Cinebench was bribed by AMD. I do agree that a synthetic test isn't exactly the best way to measure performance, but it would just be too much work for anyone to get a performance-per-dollar value for every CPU and every test. Gotta pick something, and Cinebench seems to have a healthy mix of many modern hardware demands. Meanwhile to counter your point, HH also uses just TimeSpy for the GPU shootout, which seems to greatly favor Nvidia.
    Seeing as you seem to favor Intel and want tests that are more un-biased, why would you want that? Firestrike favors AMD (and cheaper Intel products, for that matter) even more than Cinebench for PP$. For example, the 1600X (vs the 8700K) is only 11% slower in Firestrike, but is at least 33% cheaper.

    To clarify, I agree that it would be great to have more performance-per-dollar tests, at least of varying categories. For example, maybe there could be one set of numbers for "productivity", another for "gaming", another for "synthetics", and a last one for "overall". But Firestrike doesn't bode well with PP$ for the 8700K.

    I would also like to see performance-per-watt tests.
    He started using it because it's a useful metric that other websites are starting to use. Again, I agree that a different test may be better. The fact of matter is, even in tests where AMD doesn't fare that well, they're still going to be better or on-par with Intel in terms of PP$, so I'm not sure what your point is. The only times Intel's PP$ is [probably] better is if you're getting low-end stuff (like i3 or worse), AVX benchmarks, or when overclocking. If you look at Linux benchmarks, Intel also tends to win out for things like Java.

    The fact of the matter is, plenty of people aren't petty and don't care about buying "the best". Plenty of people want what is the most practical and suitable to their budget, so things like PP$ or PPW are very useful.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2017
  8. kapu

    kapu Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,743
    Likes Received:
    6
    GPU:
    MSI Geforce 1060 6gb
    i5 8400 review coming up ? looks like a monster for the buck. Currrently cheaper than 7600k with 2 cores more....
     
    airbud7 likes this.
  9. airbud7

    airbud7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,423
    Likes Received:
    4,055
    GPU:
    pny gtx 1060 xlr8
    I found this....
    [​IMG]


    agree the price of 8400 looks good
     
  10. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,089
    Likes Received:
    5,128
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
    Actually that chart was requested by you guys a while ago, forum readers.

    So yeah, sorry for listening to you guys. I decided to insert it so that people have a bit of insight as to how relevant performance is in terms of revenue (while clearly indicating in the articles that it is a bit of a subjective measurement), much like the 720p results I've been running all weekend in my free time which will be inserted in future reviews. Not because it is needed nor would provide a more objective overview (contrary), but because a small group of people really want to check it and continuously give me total crap about it.

    So maybe you are over analyzing things? By implication, you willingly made a subtle accusation. It is so easy to to throw crap at me like, if he does that oh then he must be BIAS to brand A or B, again soooo easy. Your claim that Cinebench is working out better for AMD is just laughable really.

    After all these years, it still amazes me how personal people make this. So ungrateful. Some of the remarks in this thread are just downright shameful, including yours.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2017
    Aura89, schmidtbag, Denial and 2 others like this.

  11. yasamoka

    yasamoka Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,723
    Likes Received:
    177
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 1080Ti SC
    It astounds me as to what degree some (long-time) members here will go.

    Cinebench is a benchmark that has been a staple for as long as I can remember but which recently became more popular among users reading reviews as AMD released their capable Ryzen processors and demonstrated that they, too, can pull off compute workloads, like Intel.

    You're literally on Hilbert's forums, "suspecting" Hilbert of adding a benchmark to add a "win" for AMD. What sort of audacity would that require, I wonder?

    If I were you, I wouldn't comment at all with that sort of nonsense.
     
  12. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,427
    Likes Received:
    1,358
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    The i5 8400 is a great value, for a "layman". It's the kind of CPU you'd pick for a PC you'd build for someone who wants to do PC gaming but doesn't have the knowledge, budget, or interest to OC. For such a person, it is a better choice than the Ryzen 1500X or 1600. Otherwise, I think people who are amazed by it need to be aware of why it's so much cheaper than the 7600K.
     
  13. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,427
    Likes Received:
    1,358
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    The fact you're doing SLI could very well be why you sometimes struggle to reach 144FPS. The maximum frame rate takes a pretty big hit when doing multi-GPU (meanwhile the minimum frame rate increases).
     
  14. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,630
    Likes Received:
    898
    GPU:
    -
    No thanks. I have a 1440p144hz monitor, 1080 ti, and ryzen processor, and do just fine with getting 144fps+.

    So i'm not sure where this "bottom line" is that you speak of.
     
  15. RavenMaster

    RavenMaster Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,060
    Likes Received:
    87
    GPU:
    1x RTX 2080Ti FE
    Well, after seeing the results i guess i will not be upgrading until the next CPU's are released. My i7 6850K still holds its own against the 8700K and has more cache to boot. Try harder Intel.
     

  16. Agent-A01

    Agent-A01 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,360
    Likes Received:
    896
    GPU:
    1080Ti H20
    In what? Tetris?

    Lol jk

    It's just a fact, games that have highly attianble HIGH fps Ryzen falls behind.

    I like to have minimum FPS >100
     
  17. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,356
    Likes Received:
    835
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    LOL wut?!?!?!?! Sorry bro but you got that all kinds of wrong. I can tell you have never used multi-GPU. With SLI most of the time you get about an extra 60% of performance in max frame rate, of the base card sometimes more, some times less (depends on the SLI profile). A lot of the time the minimum (or 99th percentile) does not change compared to single GPU (especially when its and CPU caused dip).
     
  18. S V S

    S V S Member

    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    11
    GPU:
    Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti
    Hi Hilbert,

    I wanted to thank you for adding the 720p results. It is another important data point that I find valuable for judging the relative performance of a CPU at gaming. I realize these results don't magically appear from nothing and that collecting this additional data does equate to real time (a lot of it, especially up front). This is just another example of why your site is always my first stop for reviews/benchmarking.

    I hope you didn't feel I was being ungrateful in my earlier posts. I made it a point to thank you for the time you put into your reviews. I definitely don't think you exhibit any extraordinary bias. I didn't for a second think you were intentionally running the gaming benchmarks using a methodology that supported one "brand" over another. I just wanted you to know that I'd find the extra information helpful for my decision making purposes, and the current charts were not helpful (for me).

    Again, thank you!
     
  19. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,427
    Likes Received:
    1,358
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Actually, bro, I have done multi-GPU rigs multiple times, and I currently have a rig involving 4 GPUs. Apparently, you don't understand what I meant by maximum frame rate. In the event you're playing a game where the GPU is not the bottleneck, it is easily possible that a 2nd GPU can actually slow you down, because you're increasing latency communicating to both GPUs, and, you waste time on having the GPUs synchronize once they're done rendering their frame. We're talking 144FPS+ here, where we're reaching points where the CPUs and GPUs are working as fast as they can and communication between all the hardware becomes the new bottleneck.

    Frankly, I shouldn't have to explain this to you, if you really knew better. You've got a lot of learning to do, including how to not jump to conclusions and talking crap as if you know better. Look up Amdahl's Law before you respond.
     
  20. yasamoka

    yasamoka Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,723
    Likes Received:
    177
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 1080Ti SC
    You have no idea what you're talking about. What you just described is negative scaling and no, Amdahl's Law isn't related here when the entire workload related to the framerate (frame rendering) is parallelizable due to Alternate Frame Rendering. The CPU has to only be fast enough to dish out the frames, and you don't increase latency in communicating to both GPUs, since you're never sending out frames to be rendered to both GPUs at the same time. That would generate runt frames and defeat the purpose of any multi-GPU setup, since you now have pretty much identical sets of frames being displayed by the GPUs, in succession, on a single display surface (no additional motion information conveyed).
     
    Loophole35 likes this.

Share This Page