• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

First Intel Core i7 8700K review leaked

Timu

Member
I think anyone with 6700k and above should probably hold off another year or two to see the going back and forth between Intel and AMD. I hope the rumors of Intel's next mainstream generation going 8 core are true. These are exciting times. I think AMD bringing competition is going to finally start to give us more cores.
Yeah, I'm on a 6700k and will playing the waiting game. I do favor multi threaded performance since I do a lot of video editing/encoding so I'll see which will bring the best performance and value for 8+ core cpus.
 

ezodagrom

Member
I know the base clock but the bench was not running at base clock.

8700k: 4.3 - 4.7Ghz
7700k: 4.2 - 4.5Ghz

4.3Ghz was the minimum clock the CPU got when running the benchmark.
And I find that really hard to believe taking into consideration the results, and so, it's better to wait for proper release day reviews.
 

Sami+

Member
What's a recommended mobo for this? I'm on a Gigabyte... something, I forget lol. But it's DDR3 (which I just bought 16GB of two months ago because I'm a dummy 😪) and runs a 4690K. Open to recommendations.
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
I'm still on a 4.5 GHz Ivybridge 4 core. Still a CPU upgrade wouldn't do much for me. I'll probably get a new one primarily for chipset features a couple of years.
 

Mrbob

Member
The 8000 series prices were officially announced today: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1186...ation-coffee-lake-hex-core-desktop-processors

qp5c.png

$359, not bad. The 8600K for $257 is interesting too.
 

tim.mbp

Member
Is it me or does the i5 seem kind of pointless for gamers? Seems like i3 and Ryzen 5 kind of kill it at those prices.
 

Mrbob

Member
Really depends on how useful more threads become. If games start using 8 to 16 threads then the Ryzen line gets way more interesting. Or the 8700 and 8700k for Intel. The 8350K is interesting but at that price point the Ryzen 1600 isn't much more. We'll know soon with full benchmarks in about 10 days.

To be honest though need someone smarter than me on the topic to showcase how a game would compare on a 4 core 8 thread cpu verus a 6 core 6 thread cpu for a game that uses all 8 threads.
 

Broank

Member
geez kinda seems like the 7700K came out just yesterday. I'm still fully content with my 6700K, especially since I'm usually going for 60fps and 1440p-4k, so it's always going to be gpu being the bottleneck. Plus I'm not doing any intense rendering or productivity.
 

Hazaro

relies on auto-aim
$359, not bad. The 8600K for $257 is interesting too.
i3 pricing being true quadcore and i5's being hexcore is FAR FAR FAR more interesting to me.
Fucking finally AMD put something out so Intel could stop being assholes about cores/threads.
 

ZOONAMI

Junior Member
The main thing preventing me from upgrading a 1231v3 at 3.8ghz all cores is that it seems to do well in actual gaming benches even against ocd 6700ks (we're talking 5 frames at 4k) and I don't want to basically have to tear down and rebuild my pc with a new board and ram. It's about a $300-400 upgrade with a ryzen 5 or 7, and it just doesn't seem worth it, even less so with intel pricing out at like $500+ for an i7 with a board and ram.
 

thelastword

Banned
The main thing preventing me from upgrading a 1231v3 at 3.8ghz all cores is that it seems to do well in actual gaming benches even against ocd 6700ks (we're talking 5 frames at 4k) and I don't want to basically have to tear down and rebuild my pc with a new board and ram. It's about a $300-400 upgrade with a ryzen 5 or 7, and it just doesn't seem worth it, even less so with intel pricing out at like $500+ for an i7 with a board and ram.
If 8700k was on Z170, I would have upgraded to it for my intel build to max that out, but as it stands, I may just get a 7700k at around $250.00 when these new chips and mobos roll out...My Ryzen build is for another show....

pass for me. games need more clockspeed/ipc not cores and if i wanted productivity id just go ryzen
Don't be stuck in the past, that may very well change.....Crysis 3 seems to like Zen cores and a NV GPU, not that Cryiss is new but Crytek was always ahead of the PC pack in terms of tech. I can also see DX12 leveraging more cores easily in upcoming games. So I will not be surprised if games Like Rockstar's Red Dead 2 and GTA6 makes heavy use of multiple cores, but even before that, we have many DX12 and vulkan games coming later this year and the next...
 
If 8700k was on Z170, I would have upgraded to it for my intel build to max that out, but as it stands, I may just get a 7700k at around $250.00 when these new chips and mobos roll out...My Ryzen build is for another show....

Don't be stuck in the past, that may very well change.....Crysis 3 seems to like Zen cores and a NV GPU, not that Cryiss is new but Crytek was always ahead of the PC pack in terms of tech. I can also see DX12 leveraging more cores easily in upcoming games. So I will not be surprised if games Like Rockstar's Red Dead 2 and GTA6 makes heavy use of multiple cores, but even before that, we have many DX12 and vulkan games coming later this year and the next...

its not going to change while this cpu is still relevent
 
The shift to 10nm will probably give them what they need to maintain higher speeds across the board with the full 6 cores. I do wonder if there will be a mainstream octo-core or whether that rumour was bunk.
 
The shift to 10nm will probably give them what they need to maintain higher speeds across the board with the full 6 cores. I do wonder if there will be a mainstream octo-core or whether that rumour was bunk.

I think it'll happen but I wouldn't be surprised if H2 2018 became sometime in 2019. Kind of depends on what AMD does next year I suppose.
 
I'm calling it now. We will see a 8740K for 2066 motherboards that OCs like crazy.

My question is how will this perform compared to Intel's existing 6-core CPUs (like the i7-5820K)?

5820K never OC'd that well. The cinebench 15 score beats every score I could get on my old 5820K. I would say this is more comparable with the 6850K.
 

dr_rus

Member
The shift to 10nm will probably give them what they need to maintain higher speeds across the board with the full 6 cores. I do wonder if there will be a mainstream octo-core or whether that rumour was bunk.

I don't think that anything prevents them from releasing an 8C CFL down the road. It will still be a 14nm chip though and it will most definitely be limited by Z370/390 95W power envelope.

As for 10nm, that is some ways off because of its characteristics.


First gen 10nm is pretty obviously mobile only (Cannonlake) as it provides huge power savings but lower clocks than 14nm. It's possible that they'll use the 2nd gen 10nm in 2018 for CPUs which are actively power limited, like top Skylake-X chips on X299 HEDT. Should effectively allow them to clock such chips higher because right now they are mostly thermal/power limited. For mainstream chips which are running at 4.5+ GHz on 14nm though we'll probably have to wait for 10++ to get any kind of performance increase.

Well, there's a (slight) possibility of Icelake providing some increases due to architectural changes and in this case it may launch on 2nd gen 10nm in 2018. I wouldn't count on this though.
 

Lexxon

Member
Still rocking a 3770k with relative success, although I think some of my higher resolution attempts have been stopped short due to it. However, for the most part, as a 1070 owner, I've been happy sticking with Ivy.

I'm thinking I may consider a build on 9th gen, though, since it should be a completely new process.
 

Parsnip

Member
I'm mostly looking forward to i5 reviews, since those are more in my budget range.
Though maybe I should for once go for the higher end stuff. Either way more cores will be nice.
 

Mr_Moogle

Member
Still using a stock speed i5 4670 and wondering if I'll ever need to upgrade.

Might just wait it out another year or two for Icelake.
 
Second review leaked (Chinese should do something about them holes): https://videocardz.com/72986/intel-core-i7-8700k-and-i5-8600k-review-leaked

This time it also includes i5 8600K results.

Also there are some official performance numbers from Intel's review guide: https://videocardz.com/72976/intel-core-i7-8700k-official-performance
From the review - "The I7-8700K seems to be more than 10C hotter than 7700K."

That's really disappointing to see (though not really unexpected). I know we'll have to wait for more reviews, but that does not inspire confidence. My 7700k runs so hot as is.
 

daninthemix

Member
From the review - "The I7-8700K seems to be more than 10C hotter than 7700K."

That's really disappointing to see (though not really unexpected). I know we'll have to wait for more reviews, but that does not inspire confidence. My 7700k runs so hot as is.

The heck? And I heard the 7700k ran hot compared to 6700k.
 

hoserx

Member
CPU-intense Gaming (Arma, PUBG, Witcher) in general. Some light streaming.

Well the ipc improvements and higher core-count alone should help you with cpu intensive games. I have a sandy bridge 3820 myself and am considering an upgrade. It's a 4c/8t cpu that has run at 4.5ghz for me for years steadily. It's tough to move on when there's always something new around the corner. That being said, you wouldn't be making a mistake by deciding that now is the time to upgrade. There seem to be definite issues with heat, even worse than the 7700k based on this new information that came out, so that's a consideration you should have. Climate, your chassis airflow, and the cpu cooler you choose will have a lot to do with it, of course.
 

Mr Swine

Banned
8700k looks good but those temps are on fire (lol). The 8600k looks also good but I’m glad that the 1600x is on par or just a tad slower than it depending on game and software
 

elyetis

Member
CPU-intense Gaming (Arma, PUBG, Witcher) in general. Some light streaming.
I might want to check :

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2867-intel-i7-2600k-2017-benchmark-vs-7700k-1700-more/page-3

A OC @4.7 2600k seems to be constantly below a stock 7700k ( which from what we know should be close to what a 8700k will offer too ). Now it doesn't mean you have to make the upgrade, and I guess it would also depend on the monitor/refresh rate you play at, etc..

I'm very likely to upgrade my 2500k for that 8700k, but waiting for Icelake wouldn't be a bad option either.
 

Paragon

Member
Really depends on how useful more threads become. If games start using 8 to 16 threads then the Ryzen line gets way more interesting. Or the 8700 and 8700k for Intel. The 8350K is interesting but at that price point the Ryzen 1600 isn't much more. We'll know soon with full benchmarks in about 10 days.

To be honest though need someone smarter than me on the topic to showcase how a game would compare on a 4 core 8 thread cpu verus a 6 core 6 thread cpu for a game that uses all 8 threads.
I have yet to see a game which uses more than ~70% CPU usage on my R7-1700X, and even that is rare. Honestly, most games stay below 25% usage.
The best multi-threaded games spread the workload evenly, so you might see cores in a range of 60-75%, but most games end up with a single main thread that has much higher CPU usage than the rest - which is why per-core performance is often the main factor for game performance.

So that makes a pretty strong case for a 6c/12t CPU, if you're only using it for gaming.
Of course if you're wanting to record/stream video on the CPU, it means you have a whole 2c/4t that you could dedicate to that task, or any other kind of task that you might have running in the background without there being a noticeable impact on the game's performance.
Or if you're wanting something that is really good for other tasks that can take advantage of all 8c/16t, but is also good for gaming - if not the best.
From what I've seen, things like Cinebench scores for the i7-8700K are in the same ballpark as the R5-1600/X, so those two cores that the R7 CPUs have are still going to make a difference for heavier workloads.

Still rocking a i7-930@3.5ghz...lol It came out in 2010. Maybe I gotta upgrade soon. Can game acceptably on 1080P still with a 970. Insane this build has lasted 7 years.
If you monitor GPU usage, I would expect to see your 970 under-utilized in a lot of games, unless you are choosing video settings which are demanding enough that it would never be able to hit 60 FPS anyway.
With an i5-2500K at 4.5GHz, I was being CPU-limited when I had a GTX 960.

CPU-intense Gaming (Arma, PUBG, Witcher) in general. Some light streaming.
ARMA is not a CPU-intensive game. The issue is that it's practically single-threaded and doesn't utilize much of the CPU at all.
 
Seems like there's a decent boost for HITMAN, though the most impressive is with The Witcher 3.
But... with an i72600k at STOCK speeds, 16GB of DDR3 1600mhz RAM, and a GTX 1070, I get a locked 60fps in TW3 with all visuals maxed out, some tweaked to go beyond ultra settings, but hair works disabled for everything except Gerald's beard (because damn, that beard tech).

Can someone explain what's going on? Are we all supposed to be moving to 144hz monitors if we want to get value out of CPU upgrades these days? Is it because devs aren't properly using multiple cores in games yet, at which point an 8700k would scream ahead of previous gens? Is it something else entirely? It genuinely feels like if I'm happy with 60fps I could just upgrade my GPU forever and stick with this 2600k until the day it dies without missing a thing.
 

Papacheeks

Banned
The fact that the multi-core cinebench score is only 50-80 points different from a 200$ AMD 6c/12T is still hard pill to swallow for the price.

The IPC, overclock and heat is what I want to know on the 8700k.
 

ezodagrom

Member
The fact that the multi-core cinebench score is only 50-80 points different from a 200$ AMD 6c/12T is still hard pill to swallow for the price.
Some leaks have Cinebench multithreaded result for the 8700K in the 1200s, while other leaks, including Intel's reviewers guide leak, have that result in the 1400s.
What we have are official benchmark results directly from Intel's reviewers guide[...]
Cinebench* R15.038 – xCPU (score) - 1441
If the 1200s results are accurate, then that's rather disappointing, but if the 1400s results are the accurate ones, that's around 200~ish score difference between the 1600X and 8700K, and the 8700K would be trading blows with the 8c/16t Ryzen 7 1700 in this bench.

In the end, it's better to just wait for the launch day reviews.
 

dr_rus

Member
Some leaks have Cinebench multithreaded result for the 8700K in the 1200s, while other leaks, including Intel's reviewers guide leak, have that result in the 1400s.

If the 1200s results are accurate, then that's rather disappointing, but if the 1400s results are the accurate ones, that's around 200~ish score difference between the 1600X and 8700K, and the 8700K would be trading blows with the 8c/16t Ryzen 7 1700 in this bench.

In the end, it's better to just wait for the launch day reviews.

The second review has 8700K Cinebench R15 at 1500+ actually. These early leaks are rarely accurate as they are usually coming from pre-release BIOSes and whatnot.
 

StereoVsn

Member
From the review - "The I7-8700K seems to be more than 10C hotter than 7700K."

That's really disappointing to see (though not really unexpected). I know we'll have to wait for more reviews, but that does not inspire confidence. My 7700k runs so hot as is.
Well, I am out then if the other reviews confirm this. If Intel can't be buggered to get temps under control I am not going to bother with their CPUs.

I will take the potential FPS hit and go with Ryzen or just wait for Ryzen 2. Intel can take their substandard paste BS instead of proper TIM solder and shove it.
 
Top Bottom