Would a Kraken x42 be suitable for i7 8700 non k

[JaayOCE]

I have a x42 and want to upgrade to an i7 8700 from an i5 6400, and I heard that the 8700 gets very hot. 

Will the temperatures be suitable enough?

My 6400 gets to 30c max under load on games.

[Skiiwee29]

should be fine since its a locked chip. Might see temps in the upper 60s low 70s at worse I would wager. 

[JaayOCE]

11 minutes ago, Skiiwee29 said:

should be fine since its a locked chip. Might see temps in the upper 60s low 70s at worse I would wager. 

Or do you reckon a i5 8400 would be better for the price

[Skiiwee29]

1 minute ago, JaayOCE said:

Or do you reckon a i5 8400 would be better for the price

get the best you can, the 8700 will give you the better overall experience. 

[GoldenLag]

8 minutes ago, JaayOCE said:

Or do you reckon a i5 8400 would be better for the price

At that point you buy an r5 2600. No point in buying the 8400 and barely some point in buying the 8700. 

 

Id suggest getting an r5 2600 and spending the surplus on a better GPU

[Turtle Rig]

Of course it will silly,  sorta a whack question hehe.

[Kenjo]

3 hours ago, JaayOCE said:

I have a x42 and want to upgrade to an i7 8700 from an i5 6400, and I heard that the 8700 gets very hot. 

Will the temperatures be suitable enough?

My 6400 gets to 30c max under load on games.

The X42 will cool the 8700 no problem.. i went from a R7 2700x 4.2ghz 1.37vcore to an i9 9900k and the temps are better actually on the i9 with my s36 fractal aio and thats even running the i9 at 5ghz so instead of this long answer the short answer is  YES 

[Kenjo]

3 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

At that point you buy an r5 2600. No point in buying the 8400 and barely some point in buying the 8700. 

 

Id suggest getting an r5 2600 and spending the surplus on a better GPU

To be fair price per performance statistics speaks in favour of the AMD cpu but having used the 2700x 4.2ghz vs the i9 9900k @ 5ghz i would definitly spend the extra cash on the cpu ... i ran wow @ maxxed out on the 2700x with 70-80fps and with the 9900k im 100+ at all times... major difference in performance 

If you have the cash to burn then go intel if you have 0 patience (like me) or you could hang out untill mid summer 2019 and see what the Ryzen 3000 is like....

[GoldenLag]

19 minutes ago, Kenjo said:

To be fair price per performance statistics speaks in favour of the AMD cpu but having used the 2700x 4.2ghz vs the i9 9900k @ 5ghz i would definitly spend the extra cash on the cpu ... i ran wow @ maxxed out on the 2700x with 70-80fps and with the 9900k im 100+ at all times... major difference in performance 

If you have the cash to burn then go intel if you have 0 patience (like me) or you could hang out untill mid summer 2019 and see what the Ryzen 3000 is like....

The issue ks wheb you trade CPU horses for GPU horses, because it is GPU horses most people should be looking for. 

 

Also youndont reaoly have to worry about cooling when buying Ryzen

[Kenjo]

30 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

The issue ks wheb you trade CPU horses for GPU horses, because it is GPU horses most people should be looking for. 

 

Also youndont reaoly have to worry about cooling when buying Ryzen

let me simplyfy what i was saying

Fractal S36 AiO used on 2700x 4.2ghz @ 40-45c idle and 80c load
i9 9900k@5ghz = 30c idle and 75c full load....

Simply stating the obvious fact ... if you dont mind having 20-30 fps lower performance in games then go Ryzen by all means as its cheaper 
IF you dont have issues with cash and want the best of the best regarding gaming performance then go 9900k and never look back...

As for aucustics... my AMD build was doing 50-60 DB my intel is doing 20db same cooler same case fans but less heat.... 

Also the fps difference is measured with a 1080 ti and a 2080 ti ... intel destroyed the ryzen we will see what happens with 3000 lineup

 

[GoldenLag]

5 minutes ago, Kenjo said:

let me simplyfy what i was saying

Fractal S36 AiO used on 2700x 4.2ghz @ 40-45c idle and 80c load
i9 9900k@5ghz = 30c idle and 75c full load....

Simply stating the obvious fact ... if you dont mind having 20-30 fps lower performance in games then go Ryzen by all means as its cheaper 
IF you dont have issues with cash and want the best of the best regarding gaming performance then go 9900k and never look back...

As for aucustics... my AMD build was doing 50-60 DB my intel is doing 20db same cooler same case fans but less heat.... 

Also the fps difference is measured with a 1080 ti and a 2080 ti ... intel destroyed the ryzen we will see what happens with 3000 lineup

 

I mean, nothing i said contradicted your statement about infinite cash.........

 

Cant speak about acustics. But in general the 2700x is more silent than the 9900k.

[Kenjo]

10 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

I mean, nothing i said contradicted your statement about infinite cash.........

 

Cant speak about acustics. But in general the 2700x is more silent than the 9900k.

on what basis do you claim this ? my 9900k @ 5ghz is far more silent than my 2700x .. both are quite good samples considering the Vcore

9900k 5ghz 1.29vcore 100% stable
2700x 4.2ghz 1.37vcore 100% stable 

Both are ALL core OC and not boost 

 

[GoldenLag]

5 minutes ago, Kenjo said:

on what basis do you claim this ? my 9900k @ 5ghz is far more silent than my 2700x .. both are quite good samples considering the Vcore

mostly based on power consumption at stock. then again, i dont have both to test with.

5 minutes ago, Kenjo said:

2700x 4.2ghz 1.37vcore 100% stable 

not fantastic Vcore. a buddy of mine has significantly better. that sems about average. 

5 minutes ago, Kenjo said:

Both are ALL core OC and not boost 

most notable difference between them is Vcore which will work out to be higher temps, but due to worse TIM and die it is generally speaking not as good. 

 

edit: also i dont know the testing methodoligy. 

edit: im just saying, the 9900k is notorious for terrible temps. 

[Kenjo]

Just now, GoldenLag said:

mostly based on power consumption at stock. then again, i dont have both to test with.

not fantastic Vcore. a buddy of mine has significantly better. that sems about average. 

most notable difference between them is Vcore which will work out to be higher temps, but due to worse TIM and die it is generally speaking not as good. 

Im comparing to "stock" vcore´s on both of them... 

The R7 2700x goes to 1.45-1.5 vcore to produce 4.35ghz on 2 cores which is absolutly insane when its not needed ! 
 

The 9900k i have no idea because i set it up changed boot settings to get my system up then i instantly set it to 5ghz with 1.29 havent actually tried lower tbh

 

[GoldenLag]

Just now, Kenjo said:

The R7 2700x goes to 1.45-1.5 vcore to produce 4.35ghz on 2 cores which is absolutly insane when its not needed !

completely normal and actually needed. not insane when thinking of it as variable boost where they can spike voltage quite a bit. 

 

2 minutes ago, Kenjo said:

The 9900k i have no idea because i set it up changed boot settings to get my system up then i instantly set it to 5ghz with 1.29 havent actually tried lower tbh

did you remember to let the cooling system run for a while untill it hits thermal equilibrium?

[Kenjo]

8 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

completely normal and actually needed. not insane when thinking of it as variable boost where they can spike voltage quite a bit. 

 

did you remember to let the cooling system run for a while untill it hits thermal equilibrium?

system ran 10 min + Aida64 stability test and has been running nonstop for 1 week atm and temp´s are maxing out at 75-77c on 1 core rest is 70-73 Under heavy load that is need to add that

[GoldenLag]

6 minutes ago, Kenjo said:

system ran 10 min + Aida64 stability test and has been running nonstop for 1 week atm and temp´s are maxing out at 75-77c on 1 core rest is 70-73 Under heavy load that is need to add that

10 min can be a bit short when dealing with a liquid solution. i will just put that out there. 10 min is about minimum for what i would do with an air cooler. 

 

with the AIO i have i took quite some time for it to reach equilibrium.

[Kenjo]

16 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

10 min can be a bit short when dealing with a liquid solution. i will just put that out there. 10 min is about minimum for what i would do with an air cooler. 

 

with the AIO i have i took quite some time for it to reach equilibrium.

read the full statement.. i ran aida 64 stress test for 10min full load and then its been running for a whole week

 

[GoldenLag]

Just now, Kenjo said:

read the full statement.. i ran aida 64 stress test for 10min full load and then its been running for a whole week

 

ah, i assumed it had been running idle for a full week.. dunno why you mentioned 10min in there for aida test. 

[Kenjo]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

ah, i assumed it had been running idle for a full week.. dunno why you mentioned 10min in there for aida test. 

10 min full stress test with 100% load on ALL cores is more than enough while 1 week of never shutting down doing gaming/streaming/paying bills and other everday tasks = 100% stable and a perfect measurment of temperature in real world usage

This is the cpu ID : 
 

[Kenjo]

1 hour ago, GoldenLag said:

ah, i assumed it had been running idle for a full week.. dunno why you mentioned 10min in there for aida test. 

Eh set 1.29 in bios and im a 100% sure about it but this is what HWinfo is reporting

And so Soz OP this is the last message hijacking ur thread me and goldenlag will discuss in PM´s