Support NeoGAF

[dr_rus]

First review of Intel Core i7-8700K leaks out

More or less the same in gaming as 7700K (this heavily depends on the benchmarks used though), 10-40% faster than 7700K in productivity and synthetic benchmarks. (Also about 5% faster than Intel's own 7800X Skylake-X.)

 

[Alexious]

Seems like there's a decent boost for HITMAN, though the most impressive is with The Witcher 3.

 

[ethomaz]

Looks like there are a near 10% increase in performance at the same clock (4.5Ghz).

It is weird to see this advantage not showing with stock clocks (4.2-4.5Ghz vs 4.3-4.7Ghz)... that means both CPU are running close to the same clock when using the stock config.

 

[Deathknell]

Witcher 3 performance boost is huge though..

 

[Majine]

...and 7700K and 6700K (mine) are pretty much equal, right?

 

[ethomaz]

Witcher 3 performance boost is huge though..

Games with CPU bound scenarios will see more performance boost than GPU bound scenarios.

That is why you drop resolution to the minimum when testing a CPU... 1920x1080 is too high to test only CPU.

 

[dr_rus]

Witcher 3 performance boost is huge though..

When all CPUs are at 4.5GHz yeah. But at stock it's ~10% over 7700K.

 

[ethomaz]

When all CPUs are at 4.5GHz yeah. But at stock it's ~10% over 7700K.

That is really something weird because...

7700K stock = 4.2-4.5Ghz
8700K stock = 4.3-4.7Ghz

That means the first is working near the best while the second near the worst... while it is possible I guess there are something wrong with the turbo clock management here.

 

[ezodagrom]

Looks like there are a near 10% increase in performance at the same clock (4.5Ghz).

It is weird to see this advantage not showing with stock clocks (4.2-4.5Ghz vs 4.3-4.7Ghz)... that means both CPU are running close to the same clock when using the stock config.

Base clock for the 8700K is 3.7GHz, even though 6 core turbo is 4.3GHz, maybe at stock settings it's not hitting that due to power limitations? Or there could be turbo issues due to current BIOS not being fully ready yet?
We'll see how it goes once it launches next week I guess.

 

[JWiLL]

Seems like there's a decent boost for HITMAN, though the most impressive is with The Witcher 3.

That Witcher 3 bench on the 7700k seems off. I get close to those frames on my 1080 with a 6700k...and if I recall correctly, 1080ti benchmarks (which typically used 7700ks) usually had TW3 at around 140fps.

So basically the same as the 8700k.

I'm also not expecting much of a performance boost for most games anyway. The 8700k will be great for people who want to build a single computer for gaming/streaming. Until Ryzen came around you had to shell out for Intel's premium line to do that.

 

[YuriLowell]

Maybe this is finally the chip to convince me to upgrade from my 2500k.

 

[hoserx]

That Witcher 3 bench on the 7700k seems off. I get close to those frames on my 1080 with a 6700k...and if I recall correctly, 1080ti benchmarks (which typically used 7700ks) usually had TW3 at around 140fps.

So basically the same as the 8700k.

I'm also not expecting much of a performance boost for most games anyway. The 8700k will be great for people who want to build a single computer for gaming/streaming. Until Ryzen came around you had to shell out for Intel's premium line to do that.

Who knows what segment of the game they benchmarked. You can't say "hardware x + hardware x = framerate y" in a certain game because of that. It got that score in that specific benchmarked segment of the game.

 

[jediyoshi]

That Witcher 3 bench on the 7700k seems off. I get close to those frames on my 1080 with a 6700k

That's not surprising. 6700k -> 7700k & 6600k -> 7600k are well known to be negligible improvements if any.

 

[diehard]

Skylake to Kaby Lake is basically no IPC improvement, just clock speeds.

 

[Jarnet87]

Where's the temps, I need to see them temps

 

[ZOONAMI]

Is the 8700k a six core chip? I guess I would still rather get a ryzen 1700 if I was going to upgrade. 65w is also amazing on 1700.

 

[ethomaz]

Base clock for the 8700K is 3.7GHz, even though 6 core turbo is 4.3GHz, maybe at stock settings it's not hitting that due to power limitations? Or there could be turbo issues due to current BIOS not being fully ready yet?
We'll see how it goes once it launches next week I guess.

Well the bench shows it at 4.3-4.7Ghz.

 

[dr_rus]

That is really something weird because...

7700K stock = 4.2-4.5Ghz
8700K stock = 4.3-4.7Ghz

That means the first is working near the best while the second near the worst... while it is possible I guess there are something wrong with the turbo clock management here.

My guess would be that 7700K runs at 4.4GHz all the time while 8700K downclocks to ~4.3 or even less under all 6C load. This is exactly what Intel decided to hide for CFL - how its clocks are scaling under different loads. 7700K for example never runs at less than 4.4GHz unless there's some AVX thrown into the mix.

Is the 8700k a six core chip? I guess I would still rather get a ryzen 1700 if I was going to upgrade. 65w is also amazing on 1700.

Yes. 8700-non-K will be a 65W CPU.

 

[ezodagrom]

Well the bench shows it at 4.3-4.7Ghz.

Base clock has officially been confirmed to be 3.7GHz, the performance drop in some of the benchs when comparing 4.5GHz to stock is too high for the stock benches to be at 4.3GHz+. For example, Cinebench multithreading, at stock the 8700K is doing worse than the 4.0GHz 7800X, even though it does better when they're both clocked at 4.5GHz.

 

[JimJamJones]

As a gamer, I don't really see the point in upgrading from my 4770k right now.

As someone in video production, I'm definitely interested in these new ones.

 

[ethomaz]

My guess would be that 7700K runs at 4.4GHz all the time while 8700K downclocks to ~4.3 or even less under all 6C load. This is exactly what Intel decided to hide for CFL - how its clocks are scaling under different loads. 7700K for example never runs at less than 4.4GHz unless there's some AVX thrown into the mix.

Base clock has officially been confirmed to be 3.7GHz, the performance drop in some of the benchs when comparing 4.5GHz to stock is too high for the stock benches to be at 4.3GHz+. For example, Cinebench multithreading, at stock the 8700K is doing worse than the 4.0GHz 7800X, even though it does better when they're both clocked at 4.5GHz.

The site is in Chinese but from what I understood the 8700K never goes below 4.3Ghz in their test... they tracked minimum and max clock for both CPUs.

While it is possible to 7700K be more constant at 4.4Ghz (or even 4.5Ghz) than 8700K it is still weird because both minimum and max of 8700K are considerable higher than 7700K.

It is even more weird because at fixed clocks (4.5Ghz) 8700K shows a minimum 10% increase over 7700K in games... that means 8700K can run at 4.1-4.2Ghz and still match 7700K performance in these same games.

 

[ChazGW7]

Still not worth upgrading my 4790k it seems. Maybe next gen.

 

[DUFFMCWALIN]

I feel good about getting a 6700k and sticking with that for a few more years now.

 

[Vlaphor]

Still not worth upgrading my 4790k it seems. Maybe next gen.

Same here, and that CPU came out in June of 2014.

 

[hoserx]

Still not worth upgrading my 4790k it seems. Maybe next gen.

Yeah, I'm torn on upgrading my x79 i7 3820. I could probably wait another round.

 

[tootsi666]

My i5-3570 is on its last legs so I'm really hoping for good gaming performance.

 

[DSN2K]

a bit underwhelming for me, but its rushed so yeah it is certainly an improvement multi-threaded but I kind of expected more from Intel's Cores. Ryzen has very much levelled the playing field.

 

[CSJ]

Same here, and that CPU came out in June of 2014.

That's how I'm feeling as well, the cost vs actual gains where putting that money toward a better GPU would do.

 

[Skyr]

Still not worth upgrading my 4790k it seems. Maybe next gen.

Yep, same here.

Icelake with 8cores 10nm will prolly be my next upgrade.
Well but lets see first if games will properly utilize that 8 cores until then.

 

[prag16]

Eh, my 2550k hasn't really hurt me yet. Can probably hold out until at least Icelake; by then I'll be due for a full rebuild anyway.

 

[ezodagrom]

The site is in Chinese but from what I understood the 8700K never goes below 4.3Ghz in their test... they tracked minimum and max clock for both CPUs.

While it is possible to 7700K be more constant at 4.4Ghz (or even 4.5Ghz) than 8700K it is still weird because both minimum and max of 8700K are considerable higher than 7700K.

It is even more weird because at fixed clocks (4.5Ghz) 8700K shows a minimum 10% increase over 7700K in games... that means 8700K can run at 4.1-4.2Ghz and still match 7700K performance in these same games.

I guess I'll just wait for reviews from other outlets (release day ones) before judging it.

 

[curi0usBystander]

My i5-3570 is on its last legs so I'm really hoping for good gaming performance.

I'm on the same situation. I'm tempted to upgrade to Coffee lake but i'll wait for more benchmarks.

 

[StereoVsn]

Well, this is somewhat disappointing performance. I wonder how power and temperature profiles go if you set all cores at say 4.5 and if you OC to 4.7 or so (if that's even possible).

Otherwise I think I will prod along with my 4790K for another year (got an awesome deal on chip/board early this year to go from 3570 so not in any hurry).

 

[KdotIX]

As a 2500k user, would upgrading to an 8700k be worth it for gaming and occasional video production/streaming? Or should I hold out another year or so for Icelake?

 

[Mr Swine]

As a 2500k user, would upgrading to an 8700k be worth it for gaming and occasional video production/streaming? Or should I hold out another year or so for Icelake?

Why not Ryzen? They are solid CPU’s despite them lacking the IPC needed to best Intel in ST stuff but excell in MT stuff.

I think the 8700k will be a somewhat lukewarm upgrade from 7700k depending on what you do. I’m more interested to see the 8600k fare against the 1600x since it doesn’t have any HT. I do wonder if it can go against the 7700k

 

[kraspkibble]

So i should just keep my 6700K?

 

[hoserx]

So i should just keep my 6700K?

There was never really an indication that this would be a huge jump other than core-count. You definitely should unless you just want to upgrade for fun. (which is fun. haha)

 

[kraspkibble]

There was never really an indication that this would be a huge jump other than core-count. You definitely should unless you just want to upgrade for fun. (which is fun. haha)

I guess I'll just wait for 8 core 10nm icelake then.

 

[hoserx]

I guess I'll just wait for 8 core 10nm icelake then.

Probably a good move. Depending on what you do with your 6700k, an upgrade may not even be logical then.

 

[Theonik]

That is really something weird because...

7700K stock = 4.2-4.5Ghz
8700K stock = 4.3-4.7Ghz

That means the first is working near the best while the second near the worst... while it is possible I guess there are something wrong with the turbo clock management here.

The 8700K has 2 extra cores that increase the heat and lower the performance.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

Naw, Im good with my 1600X.

Considering the 8700K alone cost almost as much as my Ryzen 1600X, Asrock motherboard and 16GB RAM Im good.

 

[DSN2K]

I have 4790K, I wont be upgrading for at least a year maybe more depends on how cross-platform PS4 Pro/XBOx games play come the end of 2018.

 

[Maxim726X]

So, is Ryzen the better choice for gaming...?

Does it have better single core performance?

 

[Crimsonclaw111]

So, is Ryzen the better choice for gaming...?

Does it have better single core performance?

Wait until every other site has their reviews as well.

 

[LelouchZero]

The performance looks nice so far, I'm looking forward to seeing more reviews!

 

[JWiLL]

That's not surprising. 6700k -> 7700k & 6600k -> 7600k are well known to be negligible improvements if any.

I'm aware, but they're using a 1080ti and I have a regular 1080.

It could just be due to the area being tested, but I find it odd that the 8700k benchmark of TW3 shown is exactly what most 7700k's were testing at when the 1080ti launched, yet the 7700k here is 20 frames lower.

 

[ezodagrom]

The 8700K has 2 extra cores that increase the heat and lower the performance.

Yet in the tests with all CPUs set at 4.5GHz, the 8700K is doing pretty well.

 

[hoserx]

So, is Ryzen the better choice for gaming...?

Does it have better single core performance?

Ryzen definitely does not have better single core performance.

 

[hoserx]

Yet in the tests with all CPUs set at 4.5GHz, the 8700K is doing pretty well.

He's saying that w/ the extra two cores, higher temperatures could possibly limit the frequencies that the boost clock hits regularly.

 

[JWiLL]

So, is Ryzen the better choice for gaming...?

Does it have better single core performance?

Doubtful it has better single core, but for around the same price you can get an 8 core Ryzen if you really need multi-threaded performance.