No 8600k's in stock, wait it out or jump on a 7700k?

[Connor Price]

In the UK and Ireland, I can't find a single 8600k or even an 8700k in stock. Amazon don't even have them listed. I've just seen that I'd be able to build a 7700k system for cheaper than I would be able to build an 8600k system. Do you think it's worth the month or two wait to see if they start coming into stock, or should I just get a 7700k now? I'd be coming from Ivy Bridge so either way I'd need a whole new mobo and DDR4. I was set on an R5 1600 before the 8600k was announced, so that is still an option. But the higher gaming performance is swaying me towards Intel despite being a big fan of Ryzen. Thoughts? 

[Guest]

R5 1600 is still a great and inexpensive alternative. 

[Jurrunio]

Wait for Coffee Lake. It's 2 extra cores is definitely worth waiting. Besides, you can start buying other stuff first, most importantly the RAM because they are getting more and more expensive.

[Connor Price]

Just now, Jurrunio said:

Wait for Coffee Lake. It's 2 extra cores is definitely worth waiting. Besides, you can start buying other stuff first, most importantly the RAM because they are getting more and more expensive.

Yeah that's a good point. I'll be needing DDR4 either way, so might as well get that first. In terms of coolers, do you think I'd get away with a Cryorig H7 for either the 7700k or the 8600k? I know it'll suffice for Ryzen even at 3.9/4Ghz, but was unsure whether it'd be good for the Intel CPU's whilst overclocked. 

[Alpha_Krk]

the 1600 has 6c/12t way batter than the new coffe lake i5 (dont let me start about the great cheap mobos)

[Haeking]

5 minutes ago, Alpha_Krk said:

the 1600 has 6c/12t way batter than the new coffe lake i5 (dont let me start about the great cheap mobos)

r5 1600 or here is something in simple, when you slap the street sign to cross the road what does it say..... wait (monotone voice)

[Jurrunio]

15 minutes ago, Connor Price said:

Yeah that's a good point. I'll be needing DDR4 either way, so might as well get that first. In terms of coolers, do you think I'd get away with a Cryorig H7 for either the 7700k or the 8600k? I know it'll suffice for Ryzen even at 3.9/4Ghz, but was unsure whether it'd be good for the Intel CPU's whilst overclocked. 

It's fine, just not overclocking very far. Even 240mm AIO liquid coolers ran into 5.2GHz wall because thermal throttling kicks in. With an H7, expect about 4.6~4.8GHz.

16 minutes ago, Alpha_Krk said:

the 1600 has 6c/12t way batter than the new coffe lake i5 (dont let me start about the great cheap mobos)

There's also clock speed and instructions per clock to consider. i5 is better for games.

[WereCat]

Coffee Lake is a paper launch, you may be waiting till the end of December for availability.

[Connor Price]

Just now, WereCat said:

Coffee Lake is a paper launch, you may be waiting till the end of December for availability.

Damn, if that's the case then I'll probably go with a 7700k or an R5. My current setup is struggling and my motherboard has definitely seen better days. Getting blue screens and all sorts of issues. 

[Gaurav S Rao]

21 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

Wait for Coffee Lake. It's 2 extra cores is definitely worth waiting. Besides, you can start buying other stuff first, most importantly the RAM because they are getting more and more expensive.

A i7 has hyperthreading,a i5 does have 2 cores no hyperthreading,which is less compared to the 8 cores of the i7 (4 cores + 4 virtual cores) though if it is a 8700k,then it would definately be worth it.For gaming i'd consider both,though you don't need more than 4 cores for gaming,heck i dont know a game that takes advantage of more than 4 cores.

[Connor Price]

Just now, Gaurav S Rao said:

A i7 has hyperthreading,a i5 does have 2 cores no hyperthreading,which is less compared to the 8 cores of the i7 (4 cores + 4 virtual cores) though if it is a 8700k,then it would definately be worth it.For gaming i'd consider both,though you don't need more than 4 cores for gaming,heck i dont know a game that takes advantage of more than 4 cores.

I know a few. BF1 is a game that definitely likes cores. The difference between even something like a 2500k and a 2600k in that game is quite substantial. I'd definitely not want to go with 4 cores and 4 threads for a new build. The 6/6 of the 8600k is pretty much the minimum I'd want. Especially since I like playing BF1. 

[Jurrunio]

2 minutes ago, Gaurav S Rao said:

A i7 has hyperthreading,a i5 does have 2 cores no hyperthreading,which is less compared to the 8 cores of the i7 (4 cores + 4 virtual cores) though if it is a 8700k,then it would definately be worth it.For gaming i'd consider both,though you don't need more than 4 cores for gaming,heck i dont know a game that takes advantage of more than 4 cores.

It's 2 virtual cores vs 2 real cores. Real cores always win.

[Gaurav S Rao]

Just now, Connor Price said:

I know a few. BF1 is a game that definitely likes cores. The difference between even something like a 2500k and a 2600k in that game is quite substantial. I'd definitely not want to go with 4 cores and 4 threads for a new build. The 6/6 of the 8600k is pretty much the minimum I'd want. Especially since I like playing BF1. 

 

2 minutes ago, Gaurav S Rao said:

A i7 has hyperthreading,a i5 does have 2 cores no hyperthreading,which is less compared to the 8 cores of the i7 (4 cores + 4 virtual cores) though if it is a 8700k,then it would definately be worth it.

 

[Gaurav S Rao]

1 minute ago, Jurrunio said:

It's 2 virtual cores vs 2 real cores. Real cores always win.

Yes,but you were a bit wrong there.... a i7 is 4 virtual and 4 real cores,not 2 virtual cores and 2 real cores... and i didn't understand what you meant by "vs" since both are the part of the same CPU.

[Jurrunio]

3 minutes ago, Gaurav S Rao said:

Yes,but you were a bit wrong there.... a i7 is 4 virtual and 4 real cores,not 2 virtual cores and 2 real cores... and i didn't understand what you meant by "vs" since both are the part of the same CPU.

Let's compare these two to a 7600k, a 4c/4t CPU. 8600k has 2 more cores, so it also has 2 more threads, being 6c/6t. 7700k has hyperthreading, so it's 4c/8t. Therefore I say it's 2 real cores versus 2 virtual cores.

[Gaurav S Rao]

Just now, Jurrunio said:

Let's compare these two to a 7600k, a 4c/4t CPU. 8600k has 2 more cores, so it also has 2 more threads, being 6c/6t. 7700k has hyperthreading, so it's 4c/8t. Therefore I say it's 2 real cores versus 2 virtual cores.

ok.but i5 has 2 less cores doesnt matter real/or virtual.

[Jurrunio]

2 minutes ago, Gaurav S Rao said:

ok.but i5 has 2 less cores doesnt matter real/or virtual.

Go do some more research. Virtual cores are only 0-50% as powerful as real cores. Therefore at best, 7700k matches 8600k. At worst, 8600k beats 7700k by 50%. In general virtual cores are 30% of real cores, so 7700k still loses. That's with Coffee Lakes greater overclocking potential out of consideration.

[Gaurav S Rao]

Just now, Jurrunio said:

Go do some more research. Virtual cores are only 0-50% as powerful as real cores. Therefore at best, 7700k matches 8600k. At worst, 8600k beats 7700k by 50%. In general virtual cores are 30% of real cores, so 7700k still loses. That's with Coffee Lakes greater overclocking potential out of consideration.

ok

[AncientNerd]

1 hour ago, Connor Price said:

Damn, if that's the case then I'll probably go with a 7700k or an R5. My current setup is struggling and my motherboard has definitely seen better days. Getting blue screens and all sorts of issues. 

My question here is if you are planning on spending $300+ on a CPU (i.e., the 7700k) why not look at the R7 1700? It is faster than an R5 and handles any multi-threaded workloads better than an 8700k so if you are already looking at Intel high end why not look at AMD high end?  I understand that the R5 is a better value...but if you are looking for performance (which it looks like you are) then the R7 may be a better comparison to the x700k processors.

[Connor Price]

8 hours ago, AncientNerd said:

My question here is if you are planning on spending $300+ on a CPU (i.e., the 7700k) why not look at the R7 1700? It is faster than an R5 and handles any multi-threaded workloads better than an 8700k so if you are already looking at Intel high end why not look at AMD high end?  I understand that the R5 is a better value...but if you are looking for performance (which it looks like you are) then the R7 may be a better comparison to the x700k processors.

I did think about the 1700 actually. However, it's gaming performance is pretty similar to the 1600 (about 5 fps usually) so I wouldn't be gaining a huge amount for my money as the cores aren't really a big deal due to my lack of multi-threaded work loads. If I was needing a high core count, I'd 100% be buying a 1700. 

[JoostinOnline]

11 hours ago, Alpha_Krk said:

the 1600 has 6c/12t way batter than the new coffe lake i5 (dont let me start about the great cheap mobos)

It's nowhere near as good as the 8600K.  I don't know where you're getting your info.  The 1600 is still good, but don't try to say it's better than the CL i5.

[Carbongrip]

3 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

It's nowhere near as good as the 8600K.  I don't know where you're getting your info.  The 1600 is still good, but don't try to say it's better than the CL i5.

I agree, @Alpha_Krk is delusional thinking that a r5 1600 is "way better" than coffee lake.

 

Almost every benchmark the 8600K beats the r5 1600, especially in Adobe Premier and gaming.

 

The only reason these AMD fanboys say these things is because they like cheap. Well cheap isn't always the best, save a bit more money then buy. At this point the IPC of Ryzen is really reminding me more and more of the FX line against Intel. Watch Ryzen refresh next year just be factory overclocked chips making new base clocks.

[Connor Price]

7 hours ago, Carbongrip said:

I agree, @Alpha_Krk is delusional thinking that a r5 1600 is "way better" than coffee lake.

 

Almost every benchmark the 8600K beats the r5 1600, especially in Adobe Premier and gaming.

 

The only reason these AMD fanboys say these things is because they like cheap. Well cheap isn't always the best, save a bit more money then buy. At this point the IPC of Ryzen is really reminding me more and more of the FX line against Intel. Watch Ryzen refresh next year just be factory overclocked chips making new base clocks.

Some people are just blind towards certain brands. I'm an AMD fan, but it's pretty obvious the 8600k is far superior than the 1600 in pretty much every way. The 1600 does have the fact it's only £180 in the UK where as the 8600k is £260 but that's it in terms of a comparison between the two. 

[Nocte]

8 hours ago, Carbongrip said:

I agree, @Alpha_Krk is delusional thinking that a r5 1600 is "way better" than coffee lake.

 

Almost every benchmark the 8600K beats the r5 1600, especially in Adobe Premier and gaming.

 

The only reason these AMD fanboys say these things is because they like cheap. Well cheap isn't always the best, save a bit more money then buy. At this point the IPC of Ryzen is really reminding me more and more of the FX line against Intel. Watch Ryzen refresh next year just be factory overclocked chips making new base clocks.

That’s because you are comparing two CPUs that are aimed at two different consumer segments. 

 

You shouldn’t compare the 8600k to the 1600 just because they both have “5” in their name. When comparing, you should think of value per dollar, so at the price. 

 

The Ryzen 5 1400 cost is similar to the one of the i3 8100, to put things into perspective (not considering the big clst difference of Z370 vs B350 motherboards). So I would never compare the i3 8100 with Ryzen 3 1200. 

 

It is obvious that Intel’s IPC is much better than Ryzen’s, and won’t probably change with Zen+, but accusing AMD customers to “like cheap”, is a bit of an over-statement. 

 

I personally never bought AMD before Ryzen, but did so because of the insane amount of value you get for the money with AM4 processors. 

 

AMD fanboyism is bad, but so is Intel’s. Let’s just keep the fanboyism out of here, and give honest comparisons. 

[AncientNerd]

9 hours ago, Carbongrip said:

I agree, @Alpha_Krk is delusional thinking that a r5 1600 is "way better" than coffee lake.

 

Almost every benchmark the 8600K beats the r5 1600, especially in Adobe Premier and gaming.

 

The only reason these AMD fanboys say these things is because they like cheap. Well cheap isn't always the best, save a bit more money then buy. At this point the IPC of Ryzen is really reminding me more and more of the FX line against Intel. Watch Ryzen refresh next year just be factory overclocked chips making new base clocks.

Right, the issue is that the isn't comparing the coffee parts to the ryzen parts. Due to the fact that he wants to build now and the coffee parts are not available now he is comparing the kaby parts. So comparing the 7600k the the r5 1600 or the r7 7700k and you have a different story, which is what he is looking at - because those are the parts that are actually available right now for reasonable prices. You might be able to find a 8700k for ~$400 USD if you are in the right country, or a 8400 for ~$200 USD but from what I have seen the overclockable i5 chips are both overpriced and unavailable. 

 

Okay I take that back I see one source in the US for ~$280, don't know about other countries...but still is the 8600k really $80 better than the 1600? Maybe, depending on what you are doing, is it better than the 1700 which is $10 more? I actually don't think so, but it is close and depends on what exactly you are doing. For gaming yes the 8600k is better, for general use, I would tend to go for the 1700 myself but that's just my opinion and can understand others making other choices.