Intel’s RYZEN-KILLER - Core i7 8700K

[ChrisCross]

Not a single launch video of Coffee Lake compared the 8700k directly against the 1800x which in price is its direct competitor when you account the increased motherboard cost of intel.

 

Also holy balls 5ghz is amazong for gaming.

[TVwazhere]

32 minutes ago, ChrisCross said:

Not a single launch video of Coffee Lake compared the 8700k directly against the 1800x which in price is its direct competitor when you account the increased motherboard cost of intel.

 

Also holy balls 5ghz is amazong for gaming.

*cough*

 

 

[Brainless906]

Why was the 1800x  Skipped? Thats the pricepoint that matches the 8700k.....

 

instead we got a 299 vs a 380 [not including the more expensive motherboards and intels lack of stock cooler]

 

Also god damn look at the value on that i5-8400

[loltsuka]

1080p CSGO benchmarks where for the 8600k and 8700k???

[RGBLEDCPU]

Unlike Ryzen, Coffee Lake has no dedicated lanes for M.2  I hope that eventually the Intel mainstream gets more PCIe lanes.

 

But the competition is heating up, and that's awesome  

[samcool55]

1 hour ago, 8KDPS said:

Something is wrong.

-snip-

Hmm, that's interesting. Seems to require further investigation tbh.

[Dogsparky]

1 hour ago, TVwazhere said:

Its because Paul's Hardware is the only channel that actually bothered to mentioned "Hey, the prices you see on screen are by the 1000 unit pricing, NOT off the shelf retail".... so to call the prices MSRP is misleading

That is nice to know, the pricing on that 8400 though doesn't seem TOO bad, i mean if you look at the 1600/x price it could still be a bit cheaper but certainly isn't the worst

[Brainless906]

4 minutes ago, Dogsparky said:

That is nice to know, the pricing on that 8400 though doesn't seem TOO bad, i mean if you look at the 1600/x price it could still be a bit cheaper but certainly isn't the worst

looks like amazon has them for 190.00 with prime shipping. Motherboards are in general a bit more expensive so you're likely looking at 30-40 dollars more than a 1600x setup.

That said i know i can OC 1600x to 4.0 on the stock cooler so i wonder how well the stock intel cooler will do with the i5.

Maybe we can get a 20 dollar drop in price for the 1600x now. that'd be cool.

[Alpha297]

Maybe I'm just confused, but if it's same socket but not backwards compatible.. what's the difference between that and just a new socket?

[Shreyas1]

why so early in the morning

[DoctorWho1975]

2 minutes ago, Alpha297 said:

Maybe I'm just confused, but if it's same socket but not backwards compatible.. what's the difference between that and just a new socket?

 

Something something power delivery mainly something something buy more motherboards you fucks.

[Matapatapa]

2 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

AMD fanbois: Ryzen is the new king and intel better be afraid

Intel:Guys here's our new top dog that's MSRP is cheaper and has two less cores

AMD fanbois:Thats cute but its still cant touch ry....

Intel:here are the benchmarks...*8700k crushes charts and i5 price to performance is through the roof*

AMD fanbois:...

Intel:....

AMD fanbois: Yeah well all that matters is Zen 2

You been spending time on WCCFtech or something? That level of fanboyism is really only over there. 

 

AMD did it a year ago, for roughly the same price. That's what matters. 

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

AMD fanbois: Ryzen is the new king and intel better be afraid

Intel:Guys here's our new top dog that's MSRP is cheaper and has two less cores

AMD fanbois:Thats cute but its still cant touch ry....

Intel:here are the benchmarks...*8700k crushes charts and i5 price to performance is through the roof*

AMD fanbois:...

Intel:....

AMD fanbois: Yeah well all that matters is Zen 2

Considering that we're comparing it to 8 months old cpus that are 3/4ths as expensive, I don't think ryzen is really a loser here... the i5 also gets pretty much crushed by the ryzen 5 lineup in many situations. The 1800x was never really a great value options if that's what you're referring to. I'm also pretty sure that this launch will lead to price cuts from AMD (which is nice). Plus, given the discrepancy of numbers between these tests and those from other outlets so there may be more to it than what LMG was able to test.

[mynameisjuan]

30 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Considering that we're comparing it to 8 months old cpus that are 3/4ths as expensive

Ok and the same argument was made when ryzen was released. "wow look how much ryzen stomps on these last years chips!!". And that will be said on the next release and the one after that. Its an endless cycle fighting back and forth.

 

Also the 1800x is still in the equation here because its top dog vs top dog. You cant say ignore it because its price is already stupid. 

 

This is all just a flame war. 

[Ezio Auditore]

3 hours ago, TVwazhere said:

Its because Paul's Hardware is the only channel that actually bothered to mentioned "Hey, the prices you see on screen are by the 1000 unit pricing, NOT off the shelf retail".... so to call the prices MSRP is misleading

What does it mean?

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Ok and the same argument was made when ryzen was released. "wow look how much ryzen stomps on these last years chips!!". And that will be said on the next release and the one after that. Its an endless cycle fighting back and forth.

 

Also the 1800x is still in the equation here because its top dog vs top dog. You cant say ignore it because its price is already stupid. 

 

This is all just a flame war. 

Ryzen stomped intel's offerings at all price ranges and by a large margin, which is not what is happening here. The time of release was also much closer. And I'm not sure what your point is with the 1800x... are you looking for the best value, or just to "score a point" in favour of your favourite brand? I'll be the first to say the 1800x is a bad value, that doesn't mean ryzen as a whole is automatically bad...

 

Nobody is flaming here, you're the only one who seems to want to make this a brand vs brand fight. All I did was point out that this release is not nearly the downfall of ryzen chips such as the 1700 and 1600 as they still hold their own really well in their price range. And I also wanted to point out that this does not subtract anything from how game changing ryzen was when it launched, 8 months ago.

5 minutes ago, Ezio Auditore said:

What does it mean?

Bulk prices are lower because they don't factor in the reseller's margin and retail taxes. Those are the prices you get when buying directly from Intel, but Intel only sells in large crates.

[TVwazhere]

8 minutes ago, Ezio Auditore said:

What does it mean?

It's basically bulk pricing. Buying things in huge quantities to get a per-unit discount. Thats how stores like Costco and websites like Massdrop work, and are able to offer discounted prices 

[porina]

Based on Skylake scaling, I'd expect around 1450 on Cinebench R15, which is bang in the middle of the low results from guru3D and Anandtech, and the higher results of LTT and GN. This will be fun to figure out. I have a 8350k due to arrive tomorrow, but no HT on that so it can't give the whole story.

[havok0159]

I don't understand how using the same socket only modified to prevent backwards compatibility and the same chipset as previous gen can be called "technological advance". All I can see is a weird money grab. 

[IAmAndre]

Just now, havok0159 said:

I don't understand how using the same socket only modified to prevent backwards compatibility and the same chipset as previous gen can be called "technological advance". All I can see is a weird money grab. 

Is there going to be cheaper motherboards with this chipset? Otherwise getting an R5 1600 with a $100 motherboard might be a better deal than getting an i5 8400 with a $150 motherboard.

[JCHelios]

4 hours ago, IAmAndre said:

I'm surprised how expensive the compatible motherboard are. Are there going to be cheaper options are aroun $100 for non-overclockers?

 

According to Tom's Hardware: 

Quote

And in a clear indication that Intel really hurried its launch schedule, less expensive B- or H-series chipsets won't be ready until next year. Paying a premium for Z-class core logic isn't much of a surprise for enthusiasts, who need the higher-end chipset to support unlocked multipliers. But it's a little bit overkill for everyone else.

 

[IAmAndre]

Just now, JCHelios said:

 

According to Tom's Hardware: 

 

The good news is I can save money until then.

[SanityAgathion]

Yay competition! Intel finally pulled head out of its rear and brought some really nice CPUs. I already built Ryzen rig for myself, but I am all for advancing tech forward.

 

What worries me though are temperatures. From Ars Technica review, they were barely able to hold CPU under 90 degrees Celsius with 280mm AIO, full load not OC. That's a bit concerning. While some coolers may perform worse, some better, would enthusiasts need to add 30 more dollars for delid kit if they want to keep temperatures at bay?

[HimymCZe]

I wouldn't say "It a MAJOR win for consumers." at all.

Yes, after 11 long LONG years we finally get more cores, but in 2017...

... it is OBVIOUS we are only HALFWAY where we should have been, and Intel doesn't care as long as their are milking us...

[Dash Lambda]

The Cinebench score for the 1700X is a tad suspect. My chip gets around 1520-1530 stock, never below 1500 -How'd they get 1440?

I don't mean to say the benchmarks are falsified and all that, CB is the only one I have stock scores for and I just noticed it's oddly low.

 

Those are promising results, though. I can't see myself getting another Intel chip in the foreseeable future, but a well improved product is always a good thing.