CPU choice with limited cooling

[Kroyer]

Greetings,

 

I'll be building a mini PC using a Fractal Design Node 202, so my CPU cooling options are limited (56mm clearance), so far I opted for a NOCTUA NH-L9i. 

 

So my first CPU of choice was the 7700k, I know I won't be able to OC with the small cooler and limited airflow, but I still want the maximum clockspeed and threads. After reading up a bit I'm considering going for the older 6700k, because so far 7700k really seems to be a silicon lottery and the garbage that Intel used as a thermal compound under the IHS makes it really hot under heavy load.

 

Do you guys think it's worth it going for the older and "safer" model that runs cooler and is more stable? From other stuff I read Kaby Lake seems to be always hotter as part of Intel's optimization, higher frequency with higher temps, but my cooling options are limited and I don't have the budget to get a delidded one.

 

Thank you for your answers.

[Princess Luna]

Overclocking mainstream CPUs really doesn't add that much to it that justifies costs, ever considered just going with the locked i7 7700 on a neat b250 board? I assure you'll have a bloody fast and capable CPU regardless while being much cheaper in comparison.

[Damascus]

I would get either an r7 1700/r5 1600 or a 6700/6700k.  Not worth it to get a 7700(k) imo unless you can delid and cool it properly. 

 

Or wait a bit for cofvefe lake.

[GER_T4IGA]

23 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Overclocking mainstream CPUs really doesn't add that much to it that justifies costs, ever considered just going with the locked i7 7700 on a neat b250 board? I assure you'll have a bloody fast and capable CPU regardless while being much cheaper in comparison.

But with a 7700k he could undervolt which is impossible with a 7700. Correct? So the absolute maximum would really be achievable with a 7700k though I agree this would not be worth the extra money spent and should only be done out of curiosity and OCD about the absolute max possible.

[Kroyer]

Thought about Ryzen but the AM4 compatible cooler height is an issue. I didn't really think about the 7700, looked a bit more about 7700k, it really isn't worth it with my cooling solution. So now I'm stuck between a 7700 and 6700k and apparently the Noctua L9i is similar to the Intel stock cooler. 

 

So is it worth going with higher temps for just a tiny little better performance with 6700k and possibility of future OC if I get a bigger case later (I'll be finishing studies in year and half, then I don't need a mini PC anymore) or a base 7700.

 

 

[Berfs1]

Consider waiting for 8th gen, as the i7-8700K may be worth your look. It will have 6C12T, 12MB L3 Cache, rumored 95W TDP, and rumored 4.3GHz turbo on six cores, all apparently at 95W. IF that reading is true, you may have yourself a really fast chip! If not, you can always go for the 8700 for 100MHz lower single core frequency (4.7 to 4.6) at 30W lower TDP (95W to 65W). All, with DDR4 2666 ram support (apparently only the i7s will support 2666, the i3s and i5s will support 2400 apparently). The reason I am not saying anything about Kaby Lake is because they aren't, in my view, recommended chips anymore; the i3 8350K will beat all of those single handedly with an overclock, at half the price of the 7700K.

[GER_T4IGA]

1 hour ago, Berfs1 said:

Consider waiting for 8th gen, as the i7-8700K may be worth your look. It will have 6C12T, 12MB L3 Cache, rumored 95W TDP, and rumored 4.3GHz turbo on six cores, all apparently at 95W. IF that reading is true, you may have yourself a really fast chip! If not, you can always go for the 8700 for 100MHz lower single core frequency (4.7 to 4.6) at 30W lower TDP (95W to 65W). All, with DDR4 2666 ram support (apparently only the i7s will support 2666, the i3s and i5s will support 2400 apparently). The reason I am not saying anything about Kaby Lake is because they aren't, in my view, recommended chips anymore; the i3 8350K will beat all of those single handedly with an overclock, at half the price of the 7700K.

Source? also that is scenario based power draw and if intel decides in favor of tooth paste again tdp will not be the real issue anyway

[Berfs1]

2 minutes ago, GER_T4IGA said:

Source? also that is scenario based power draw and if intel decides in favor of tooth paste again tdp will not be the real issue anyway

I have contacts within Intel. They all confirmed the CPU specs. For the i7s I know as a fact those will support 2666, but I am not quite sure about the i3s and i5s. Multiple leaks confirmed the i7 ram compatibility, but the i3 and i5 varied from 2400 and 2666. Also, the 8350K was leaked in two CPU z benchmarks, and proved slightly slower than the 7700K and 6700K due to lower clock speed. It is a hyperthreaded CPU however, and will feature 8MB cache. Think of it as a 7700K with turbo disabled (which doesnt matter because its overclockable anyways). lol they should use better thermal compound tho!

[Kroyer]

1 hour ago, Berfs1 said:

Consider waiting for 8th gen, as the i7-8700K may be worth your look. It will have 6C12T, 12MB L3 Cache, rumored 95W TDP, and rumored 4.3GHz turbo on six cores, all apparently at 95W. IF that reading is true, you may have yourself a really fast chip! If not, you can always go for the 8700 for 100MHz lower single core frequency (4.7 to 4.6) at 30W lower TDP (95W to 65W). All, with DDR4 2666 ram support (apparently only the i7s will support 2666, the i3s and i5s will support 2400 apparently). The reason I am not saying anything about Kaby Lake is because they aren't, in my view, recommended chips anymore; the i3 8350K will beat all of those single handedly with an overclock, at half the price of the 7700K.

4.3 GHz six core boost with 95W? If the temps there aren't high, Intel has done marvellous piece of engineering then. I still got till October so I guess, I'll just wait see what Coffee Lake has to offer. Rumours says it's gonna be released in October? Or perhaps even September?

 

6 core sounds nice, though I don't think I'll benefit too much from it. I'm mostly gonna do gaming and then programming/office work with 10 apps open and 15 tabs in Chrome. Do you think the extra 2 cores with lower base clock are worth it for that kind of stuff? I'm not gonna stream nor do editing work, though from experience I know the hyper threading with i7 is a must have for me, that's why I didn't choose the i5 7700. 

[Berfs1]

1 minute ago, Kroyer said:

4.3 GHz six core boost with 95W? If the temps there aren't high, Intel has done marvellous piece of engineering then. I still got till October so I guess, I'll just wait see what Coffee Lake has to offer. Rumours says it's gonna be released in October? Or perhaps even September?

 

6 core sounds nice, though I don't think I'll benefit too much from it. I'm mostly gonna do gaming and then programming/office work with 10 apps open and 15 tabs in Chrome. Do you think the extra 2 cores with lower base clock are worth it for that kind of stuff? I'm not gonna stream nor do editing work, though from experience I know the hyper threading with i7 is a must have for me, that's why I didn't choose the i5 7700. 

Yea, but those extra cores can help you out big time, you wont have to exit all your applications just to play a game! Also, there is no such thing as a i5 7700. Did you mean i7 7700 or i5 7600?

[Kroyer]

Thanks for the fast reply. I'm looking at the wiki now. I think I'll go for the 65W i7-8700. 65W is way better for my limited cooling solution.

[Berfs1]

3 minutes ago, Kroyer said:

Thanks for the fast reply. I'm looking at the wiki now. I think I'll go for the 65W i7-8700. 65W is way better for my limited cooling solution.

Ye, the 8700 is truly the most efficient CPU I have seen other than the R7 1800X.