Leaked Review of i7-8700K.

[thorhammerz]

4 minutes ago, Techhog said:

You need a delid to use Multicore Enhancement. Don't even bother getting RAM faster than 2666MHz if this runs THAT FREAKING HOT at stock.

 

It used to be that delidding was needed to push Intel CPUs to the limit. Now it's just plan needed...

Perhaps I should clarify the context of "interesting" in the sense of "how quickly the thing thermal throttles when you sync all cores to the frequency multiplier, while running XMP" .

Spoiler

Oh, I feel the pain (7700k delidded under air; still hits 85C on RealBench with 5GHz & 3200MHz RAM... and vCore is at just 1.28v) quite well already.

 

[Techhog]

1 minute ago, thorhammerz said:

Perhaps I should clarify the context of "interesting" in the sense of "how quickly the thing thermal throttles when you sync all cores to the frequency multiplier" .

  Hide contents

Oh, I feel the pain (7700k delidded under air; still hits 85C on RealBench with 5GHz & 3200MHz RAM... and vCore is at just 1.28v) quite well already.

 

Uh... Something is wrong with your chip (or your motherboard is actually pushing way more voltage than that in there). What did you replace the TIM with?

 

Either way, Intel just lost a customer for life. No thank you! Pigeon poo is not a good TIM.

[dizmo]

Interesting. Hopefully that's true, I guess we only have a week and a half until we have answers.

I'm still torn between going with a new chip, or finding a 6700k/7700k and delidding it. The latter sounds like a funner project.

8 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

I know I sound like a broken record but I don't care: This chip is useless vs the 8600k at 6 cores: Hyperthreading isn't going to justify the 400 price tag.

What about for those who want to edit? I imagine it'd have some improvements there. Yes, Ryzen exists, but if it does notably worse in games Intel still makes sense. Priorities are different from person to person.

8 hours ago, MageTank said:

-snip-
Granted, 6 threads should be plenty for applications that could take advantage of more than 4, but your average consumer tends to go with the higher number regardless of whether or not it helps.

I personally think the 8400 at $182 is the true deal here. 6 threads on a board with enhanced turbo, running 4ghz for that price? Very compelling deal. 

Hahaha, that's totally me. I also buy the K chip and then never overclock it. At least I could if I wanted? *shrugs*

I can't wait to see some reviews on the 8400. Interesting chip. Sadly I think it'll take a while, as the initial ones will all be 8700k reviews.

[thorhammerz]

29 minutes ago, Techhog said:

Uh... Something is wrong with your chip (or your motherboard is actually pushing way more voltage than that in there). What did you replace the TIM with?

 

Either way, Intel just lost a customer for life. No thank you! Pigeon poo is not a good TIM.

Spoiler

 

It was like this even before delidding... I straight out thermal throttled at 5.0 GHz before on just Cinebench, so it's already 20-25C lower. I used TG Conductonaut under the die, and have had the similar (~5C variance) result both with and without re-gluing the IHS back.

 

This is my 2nd ASUS z270-e motherboard (RMA'ed the first one) with the same results (PLL voltage is 1.1v, for both boards, from what I can tell in HWInfo64), so unless both mobos (and/or their latest BIOS) are bad (I find that somewhat unlikely), it's probably just this chip just trying to immolate itself.

 

 

Can't wait for that rumored 8c/16t icelake processor on Pidgeon poo..... a piece of ice in flames will be quite interesting to watch.

[Taf the Ghost]

47 minutes ago, wcreek said:

Well how I see it is that AMD has something with way better value and when more games optimize for multithreaded workload it will benefit both current 4c/8t i7 owners and future coffee lake i5 and i7 owners but I can see it benefiting AMD R5 and R7 owners even more. Just because R5 for most people is very affordable and the boards aren't crap and are pretty affordable.

Oh, I'd still normally recommend people get a Ryzen 5 1600 on a good B350 board with 3000 Ram. It's still the best value option for 85% of the "build your own system" people. Which is part of the reason the Ryzen lineup is so popular.

 

But, Intel does offer some pure "pay more and get more" option, while it is going to take some serious cooling for the 8600k or 8700k to handle those high OC situations. Still, the 8700k at 5 Ghz is going to last you for gaming for the next 5 years of GPUs. If not longer. 

[Taf the Ghost]

45 minutes ago, thorhammerz said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

It was like this even before delidding... I straight out thermal throttled at 5.0 GHz before on just Cinebench, so it's already 20-25C lower. I used TG Conductonaut under the die, and have had the similar (~5C variance) result both with and without re-gluing the IHS back.

 

This is my 2nd ASUS z270-e motherboard (RMA'ed the first one) with the same results (PLL voltage is 1.1v, for both boards, from what I can tell in HWInfo64), so unless both mobos (and/or their latest BIOS) are bad (I find that somewhat unlikely), it's probably just this chip just trying to immolate itself.

 

 

Can't wait for that rumored 8c/16t icelake processor on Pidgeon poo..... a piece of ice in flames will be quite interesting to watch.

I know we got the leak, but I'm still not sure I believe we'll get a Desktop 8c with Icelake. Or at least not for under 500USD. Unless Icelake is looking for a Perf/Watt improvement that's massive, the Intel design doesn't really favor going up to 8c in this type of package. See the power usage under load of the i7-7820X if you want to see my point.

[thorhammerz]

23 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

I know we got the leak, but I'm still not sure I believe we'll get a Desktop 8c with Icelake. Or at least not for under 500USD. Unless Icelake is looking for a Perf/Watt improvement that's massive, the Intel design doesn't really favor going up to 8c in this type of package. See the power usage under load of the i7-7820X if you want to see my point.

 

If Intel is willing to MSRP 6c/12t at ~$360 USD after years of 4c/8t, I wouldn't be overly surprised to see 8c/16t MSRP'ed for <$400 in a couple years. Keep in mind the leak also specified a z390 (and extrapolating from that, a z490) chipset to go along with it (in other words, deceptively more money from the consumer's pocket ).

 

Of course, that is assuming that AMD / Ryzen (2/3/etc...) continues to apply sufficient market pressure... or say hello to the Skylake refresh-refresh-refresh-refresh 10th generation processor in Q2 2019 .

[Taf the Ghost]

54 minutes ago, thorhammerz said:

 

If Intel is willing to MSRP 6c/12t at ~$360 USD after years of 4c/8t, I wouldn't be overly surprised to see 8c/16t MSRP'ed for <$400 in a couple years. Keep in mind the leak also specified a z390 (and extrapolating from that, a z490) chipset to go along with it (in other words, deceptively more money from the consumer's pocket ).

 

Of course, that is assuming that AMD / Ryzen (2/3/etc...) continues to apply sufficient market pressure... or say hello to the Skylake refresh-refresh-refresh-refresh 10th generation processor in Q2 2019 .

Icelake is their 10nm+ with new uArch. So it will be Icelake Cores for a few years after that. In theory, it should be the first big IPC jump in a while. 

[Cookybiscuit]

6 hours ago, Techhog said:

Uh

 

 

You know what? I'm good with what I have.

12C hotter than 7700K is going to be toasty, but obviously not all chips are the same and some run hotter than other. Regardless, I hope 8700K is hot enough to throttle at stock clocks, and I hope the backlash is big enough to force Intel to not use toothpaste TIM anymore.

[laminutederire]

14 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Impressive performance! Especially if you consider that it costs the same as the 7700K.

You'd have to factor in that the only overclock they put on the 7700k is just puttibg every core at 4.5GHz while we all know you can push it more. When you compare at stock, marginal difference, and when you compare OC, the huge gap isn't a huge gap if you push the old one closer to it's limit. Lots of them go to 4.8-5GHz, which would yield 0 gaming benefit..

[Misanthrope]

8 hours ago, dizmo said:

What about for those who want to edit? I imagine it'd have some improvements there. Yes, Ryzen exists, but if it does notably worse in games Intel still makes sense. Priorities are different from person to person.

"Notably worse" is an overstatement: For the one editor that absolutely needs more cores for rendering but also needs to play CS:GO competitive at over 200hz (or other similarly high refresh rates) then yes he might be better off with the 8700k but otherwise you can't dismiss Ryzen as "it exists" when it offers 2 more cores, 4 more threads, a lower price point and sufficient performance for even AAA games in all scenarios (Yes: Even high refresh rates. It just won't go as high as intel but it will maintain 120 on almost all games and 144 on enough of the competitive ones)

 

Sorry but Hyperthreading won't make up for 2 physical cores for video editors, you're cherry picking a very fringe case scenario to justify the 8700k. How about people pressure intel instead to drop their bullshit practices and stop putting hyperthreading and overclocking behind paywalls? That's what they should be doing instead of offering pre-emptive rationalizations from people who gotta have 20% higher frame rates because anything below 120FPS is apparently just fucking shit.

[Cookybiscuit]

12 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

"Notably worse" is an overstatement: For the one editor that absolutely needs more cores for rendering but also needs to play CS:GO competitive at over 200hz (or other similarly high refresh rates) then yes he might be better off with the 8700k but otherwise you can't dismiss Ryzen as "it exists" when it offers 2 more cores, 4 more threads, a lower price point and sufficient performance for even AAA games in all scenarios (Yes: Even high refresh rates. It just won't go as high as intel but it will maintain 120 on almost all games and 144 on enough of the competitive ones)

 

Sorry but Hyperthreading won't make up for 2 physical cores for video editors, you're cherry picking a very fringe case scenario to justify the 8700k. How about people pressure intel instead to drop their bullshit practices and stop putting hyperthreading and overclocking behind paywalls? That's what they should be doing instead of offering pre-emptive rationalizations from people who gotta have 20% higher frame rates because anything below 120FPS is apparently just fucking shit.

Why do you get so upset that some people don't care much for price to performance and just want the best gaming chip they can get?

[EOZ]

i7-8700k clearly is better than 7800X but how far it will overclock with good air cooling ? My guess ~ 4.7/4.8ghz on all cores

[Misanthrope]

4 hours ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Why do you get so upset that some people don't care much for price to performance and just want the best gaming chip they can get?

1) I don't so don't change the subject to something personal

2) I want to see in how many games (and by how much) the 8700k will be better than the 8600k. Again from what we can see today the answer will be almost none at all: Hyperthreading just doesn't matters if physical cores are available and with 6 of them is back to being useless for gaming.

[Terryv]

Has Intel confirmed if they're using ring bus or mesh for the 8000 series?

 

For their sales I hope it's a ring bus. I wouldn't put it past them to repackage a 7800x to a consumer chipset. They took consumer chips to HEDT, why not go the other way.

[TheOriginalHero]

On 25/09/2017 at 9:00 PM, MageTank said:

I don't believe the impact of HT will be as pronounced as it was before, due to the reasons you mentioned. We have 2 additional cores, with identical IPC and overclocks (a delidded 8600k will hit 5ghz, mark my words, even quote me on it in the future). On top of that, every person I have ever spoken to with detailed insight into CFL, tells me of an even more refined IMC (not on the 8350k, that is legit a rebranded 7600k) so even more potential gains in that department when heavily I/O bound by the CPU. HT, for most, won't be worth the 40% price difference for 10% (give or take) higher minimum framerates under best case scenarios. This 10% number is assuming it scales similarly to how the quad cores scaled with HT in that regard, which I highly doubt.

 

As for the 8400 against Ryzen, Ryzen still has a few hurdles to overcome. Yes, it has the thread advantage, but you also need binned memory and a decent board to use overclocked ram which adds a slightly higher cost to the platform. On Intel, the cheapest $80 Z-Series board can OC any ram to 3000mhz with relative ease. That's not to say the 1600X isn't the better buy at that price point (i personally think it is, due to the extra lifting power), it just won't be a bad idea to get the 8400 if you are looking for a gaming CPU for a comparable price. 

 

Hopefully Intel learns a thing or two from AMD, and unlocks their entire product stack. That would be far more impressive than X299, or any other recent release they've done. 

Im running 3000mhz corsair ddr4 on the msi pc mate. The kit isnt even on the memory list. Needless to say ryzen ram issues arent that bad anymore. So no, you dont need a good board for ram compatability. Just the latest bios

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, TheOriginalHero said:

Im running 3000mhz corsair ddr4 on the msi pc mate. The kit isnt even on the memory list. Needless to say ryzen ram issues arent that bad anymore. So no, you dont need a good board for ram compatability. Just the latest bios

You do need a good board for memory overclocking, as trace topology is very important for overclocking your ram. Sure, you can get 3000mhz to work on almost any board available, but can you do so while getting your primary and tertiary timings as tight as you can on a good board? Ryzen's infinity fabric may scale entirely on frequency, but timings do still impact it's performance to a fair degree. May I ask what exact kit you are using, and what timings (primary) you are currently using to make 3000 work? A lot of Hynix kits have trouble reaching 3000, and often settle for 2933 unless you make serious compromises on timings. I have actually tested on the ASUS B350 Plus, and this was proven to be the case even with the AGESA 1.0.0.6 update. 

 

If you would like to compare the kinds of memory overclocks you can achieve on your cheap Ryzen board, I'll go out and get a cheap Z170/Z270 board to show you how much easier (and faster) it is on Intel. As far as I am concerned, there exists only a few Ryzen boards capable of pushing DDR4 3200+ at tight timings. The C6H, Taichi, and I believe MSI's Pro Carbon are all capable of doing so, but even they suffer when 2DPC and multi-rank DIMMs are used. Regardless, board choice and IC choice are still important when using Ryzen, as it's IMC is extremely picky. 

[Potato*Salad]

On 25/09/2017 at 6:12 PM, Techhog said:

No, it's a completely different die and doesn't have the mesh bus. What they did was slap two more cores on a 7700K.

"glued"

[DarkBlade2117]

On 9/25/2017 at 1:07 PM, PCGuy_5960 said:

Impressive performance! Especially if you consider that it costs the same as the 7700K.

The same? The $359 price shown in Intel's slide is the bulk price, the actual price is $400 USD. "same" my ass

[TahoeDust]

11 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

The same? The $359 price shown in Intel's slide is the bulk price, the actual price is $400 USD. "same" my ass

This is BS....I don't know who makes this shit up.  RCP (USD 1k) pricing has been and will also be the release day retail pricing.  Look at the Sky-X material....same thing.

 

 

 

 

[dizmo]

9 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

"Notably worse" is an overstatement: For the one editor that absolutely needs more cores for rendering but also needs to play CS:GO competitive at over 200hz (or other similarly high refresh rates) then yes he might be better off with the 8700k but otherwise you can't dismiss Ryzen as "it exists" when it offers 2 more cores, 4 more threads, a lower price point and sufficient performance for even AAA games in all scenarios (Yes: Even high refresh rates. It just won't go as high as intel but it will maintain 120 on almost all games and 144 on enough of the competitive ones)

 

Sorry but Hyperthreading won't make up for 2 physical cores for video editors, you're cherry picking a very fringe case scenario to justify the 8700k. How about people pressure intel instead to drop their bullshit practices and stop putting hyperthreading and overclocking behind paywalls? That's what they should be doing instead of offering pre-emptive rationalizations from people who gotta have 20% higher frame rates because anything below 120FPS is apparently just fucking shit.

And yet, some want that performance. Funny that. You can't just disregard those who want the best of everything, as they are, in fact, a market.

[Misanthrope]

6 minutes ago, dizmo said:

And yet, some want that performance. Funny that. You can't just disregard those who want the best of everything, as they are, in fact, a market.

No doubt: HEDT exists and it's not just for workstation: I'd like to see numbers but I suspect a good chunk of Threadripper and X299 are just gamers who want overkill.

[done12many2]

1 hour ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

The same? The $359 price shown in Intel's slide is the bulk price, the actual price is $400 USD. "same" my ass

 

 

Such a committed statement.  I'll be glad to here that you and "your ass" are wrong upon release of the chip.

 

 

 

https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/Intel-Announces-8th-Gen-Core-Architecture-Coffee-Lake?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

Quote

Prices range from $117 to $359 USD, as seen in the slide, above. They launch on October 5th.

 

https://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/3065-final-coffee-lake-specs-8700k-8600k-8350k

 

Quote

The pricing here, assuming it does land at around $360 USD in North America, could prove reasonable for the CL CPUs. We’ll find out in testing, and will reach a verdict for the review. In the meantime, though, it seems that the rumored $400+ pricing may not come to fruition.

 

 

[MageTank]

1 hour ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

The same? The $359 price shown in Intel's slide is the bulk price, the actual price is $400 USD. "same" my ass

No, it's their MSRP price. The price can be set higher or lower by the retailers themselves. MSRP for the 7700k is $350, yet Microcenter often sells it at $300. Newegg has it listed as $349.99 (currently marked down to $310 on sale). Just because a retailer takes advantage of a hyped product launch, does not mean the actual price of the product is higher. Don't want to pay that absurd price? Wait for supply and demand to stabilize. The price is exactly what I predicted it would be months ago, and there was zero reason for it to be any higher, lest they truly wanted to invalidate X299 even further. 

[DarkBlade2117]

36 minutes ago, MageTank said:

No, it's their MSRP price. The price can be set higher or lower by the retailers themselves. MSRP for the 7700k is $350, yet Microcenter often sells it at $300. Newegg has it listed as $349.99 (currently marked down to $310 on sale). Just because a retailer takes advantage of a hyped product launch, does not mean the actual price of the product is higher. Don't want to pay that absurd price? Wait for supply and demand to stabilize. The price is exactly what I predicted it would be months ago, and there was zero reason for it to be any higher, lest they truly wanted to invalidate X299 even further. 

I hope it's wrong, though I'm just going to delid my 6700k and OC it to 4.8 (I know it can hit it). I'll sit out of a CPU upgrade until Zen+/9th gen (Ice lake?) I am getting a 1080 or 1080Ti though