I think i7 8700K isn't worth it, what do you think?

[SecretX]

Considering a gaming PC equipped with a GTX 1080 and @1080p 144Hz monitor, how much extra life can be extracted from the i7 8700k compared to non-k version? Number-wise and all-core turbo boost, the i7-K runs @4.3GHz default, with most OCers pushing it to @5.0GHz to have a good balance between lifespan and performance. On the other hand, the i7 non-K will run just fine @4.3GHz too, and if you turn on MCE your motherboard will push it @4.7GHz with sufficient cooling. And @4.7GHz appears to be the sweet spot because from that point on, the diminishing returns makes every 100MHz that you get from OC worth less in overall performance (I saw that a while ago but I don't remember what page was that).

 

What do you guys think it?

[dizmo]

I'd just get an 8600k.

[pcshme33]

IMO not worth it 

[Princess Luna]

I have been one to always defend the locked i7 above the unlocked i5 but that was back we only had 4 cores to play with, now that 6 I do think a 5ghz i5 8600k looks better than hyper-threading, but the i7 8700k has it all and is a dream CPU right now.

 

Regardless my skylake has me cover until 10nm.

[tp95112]

For high refreshrate gaming, i7 is still preferred and overclocking for better lows. I rather have the ability to push more out of my system and later on when my system starts to get sluggish, it helps.

[SecretX]

34 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

I have been one to always defend the locked i7 above the unlocked i5 but that was back we only had 4 cores to play with, now that 6 I do think a 5ghz i5 8600k looks better than hyper-threading, but the i7 8700k has it all and is a dream CPU right now.

 

Regardless my skylake has me cover until 10nm.

I7 locked + MCE would not be better than a 5.0GHz i5 8600k? Because hyperthreading + 4.7GHz at all 6 cores.

 

And for stream and play @144Hz, the Ryzen 7 1700 (4GHz) wouldn't perform better than locked i7?

[DarkSmith2]

i7 8700 (nonk) is Boost 4.2 and 4.6 with MCE 

 

On 11/3/2017 at 3:37 PM, SecretX said:

And for stream and play @144Hz, the Ryzen 7 1700 (5GHz) wouldn't perform better than locked i7?

In which dimension or universe you live where a r7 1700 can be clocked to 5GHz? In the world of free LN2?

[SecretX]

4 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

In which dimension or universe you live where a r7 1700 can be clocked to 5GHz? In the world of free LN2?

Typo, I mean 4GHz.

[Jon Jon]

30 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

In which dimension or universe you live where a r7 1700 can be clocked to 5GHz? In the world of free LN2?

I wish....

26 minutes ago, SecretX said:

Typo, I mean 4GHz.

Most R7 1700s do not hit that high.

Most R7 1700s typically hard stop around 3.8 or so, based on stats I saw on Reddit not too long ago.

 

I know I can hit 4ghz, but that's with 1.45v, and I've never tested it long enough to determine true stability.

[DarkSmith2]

To answer the question, a 5GHz 8700k comes close enough to a 4GHz R7 in Multithreaded Tasks to obliterate any questions while having in mind to build a gaming+streaming rig.

 

Not that it would matter because you are still in a Limit of CPU power where as both options arent sufficient enough for more then 720p "quality" streaming for every gametitle on Twitch. Which also can be done by a 1600 / 1600x / 8600k or 7700k / any other i7 since 2nd gen (sandybridge). The reason to choose the 8700k is to obtain more ingame FPS.

 

The next 10nm 8core Intel CPU might come closer to a point, if its able to push the core clocks high enough, to make a change in this game, atleast if it comes close enough to the Multihreading performance of a stock 7900x. (which is doubtful)

[TahoeDust]

8600k > 8700 for gaming.

[SecretX]

What is better for streaming + gaming @144Hz: I7 8700 (non k) + GTX 1070 ti or R7 1700 + GTX 1080?

[Jon Jon]

3 hours ago, TahoeDust said:

8600k > 8700 for gaming.

Exactly!

 

I feel like a lot of people around here are just regurgitating what they've heard in the past on the subject.

 

With 6 true cores, you don't need to worry about background processes interfering with gaming workloads, which is really the only reason why the i7 argument in the past made sense.

 

2 hours ago, SecretX said:

What is better for streaming + gaming @144Hz: I7 8700 (non k) + GTX 1070 ti or R7 1700 + GTX 1080?

I would argue that it depends on your streaming settings.

 

I would love to see people actually test this, as streaming is just core reliant.

 

Faster cores are great, but more cores is typically better, and you do not want this type of processing clocking up your CPU resources for gaming.

 

I know I have zero problems with my R7 1700, but we are limited to the FPS maximums capable on Ryzen here.

 

It's not a resource bottleneck, it's an architecture one.

 

I really want to see how the 8700K handles different streaming workloads so we can give people an accurate recommendation.

 

Are there any 8700K owners willing to do this?

 

Maybe Linus should do a video on this?!

[DarkSmith2]

25 minutes ago, Jon Jon said:

I would argue that it depends on your streaming settings.

 

I would love to see people actually test this, as streaming is just core reliant.

 

Faster cores are great, but more cores is typically better, and you do not want this type of processing clocking up your CPU resources for gaming.

 

I know I have zero problems with my R7 1700, but we are limited to the FPS maximums capable on Ryzen here.

 

It's not a resource bottleneck, it's an architecture one.

 

I really want to see how the 8700K handles different streaming workloads so we can give people an accurate recommendation.

 

Are there any 8700K owners willing to do this?

 

Maybe Linus should do a video on this?!

We have this already. Answer is as follows: 

 

i7 8700k delivers more FPS on your side of things while under heavy "stream benchmark" enviroment the 1700 drops less frames to the stream (ofc more cores=beneficial). In a stock to stock comparisson. Used under "normal" more or less "not benchmark" but still unrealistic scenarios there streaming/capturing performance is within ~5% difference at most. And both dropped 35%-36% of its ingame FPS while streaming.

 

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3076-intel-i7-8700k-review-vs-ryzen-streaming-gaming-overclocking/page-4

 

So, you cant give accurate recommendations, if you dont know the exact "field of use". Streaming can mean anything. But since 144hz gaming while streaming is mentioned. You can forget about that using Ryzen even without streaming, sooo.. yeah.

 

Real 144hz gaming requires the strongest hardware possible. Meaning: 8700k OC+ high speed DDR4 (4000+) + capable GPU (for some games maybe even SLI and also for higher then 1080p). 

[Jon Jon]

13 hours ago, DarkSmith2 said:

We have this already. Answer is as follows: 

 

i7 8700k delivers more FPS on your side of things while under heavy "stream benchmark" enviroment the 1700 drops less frames to the stream (ofc more cores=beneficial). In a stock to stock comparisson. Used under "normal" more or less "not benchmark" but still unrealistic scenarios there streaming/capturing performance is within ~5% difference at most. And both dropped 35%-36% of its ingame FPS while streaming.

 

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3076-intel-i7-8700k-review-vs-ryzen-streaming-gaming-overclocking/page-4

 

So, you cant give accurate recommendations, if you dont know the exact "field of use". Streaming can mean anything. But since 144hz gaming while streaming is mentioned. You can forget about that using Ryzen even without streaming, sooo.. yeah.

 

Real 144hz gaming requires the strongest hardware possible. Meaning: 8700k OC+ high speed DDR4 (4000+) + capable GPU (for some games maybe even SLI and also for higher then 1080p). 

Now that is a great article!

 

The only thing I cannot find is whether or not the 8700K has MCE enabled on the motherboard.

 

If so, this is comparing an R7 1700 at stock to a nearly max overclocked 8700K (4.7ghz).

 

So even with a 3.2ghz (wiith XFR), I would argue that the R7 is better overall if you care about your stream, but we are talking about 144hz performance, so if streaming is just a fun hobby (and not a source of income), the 8700K will be fine, as local performance is what you ultimately care about.

 

Though, tbh, if the OP cares about both that much, then I would just have a separate streaming PC all together.

[SecretX]

4 hours ago, Jon Jon said:

Now that is a great article!

 

The only thing I cannot find is whether or not the 8700K has MCE enabled on the motherboard.

 

If so, this is comparing an R7 1700 at stock to a nearly max overclocked 8700K (4.7ghz).

 

So even with a 3.2ghz (wiith XFR), I would argue that the R7 is better overall if you care about your stream, but we are talking about 144hz performance, so if streaming is just a fun hobby (and not a source of income), the 8700K will be fine, as local performance is what you ultimately care about.

 

Though, tbh, if the OP cares about both that much, then I would just have a separate streaming PC all together.

I'm really considering go with the R5 1600 + GTX 1080ti, set the encode to x264 NVENC cranked up and have fun, I guess. Stream for me is just fun (at least for now), it has nothing to do with income.

 

Even if the R5 1600 (@3.8GHz) doesn't use 100% of the 1080ti or I can't play @144fps, this bottleneck won't affect overall performance (I hope so) and I'll have a wider margin before have to upgrade. Furthermore, I can upgrade the processor in the future, when Ryzen 2 comes if it's worth it .

[DarkSmith2]

1 hour ago, Jon Jon said:

Now that is a great article!

 

The only thing I cannot find is whether or not the 8700K has MCE enabled on the motherboard.

 

If so, this is comparing an R7 1700 at stock to a nearly max overclocked 8700K (4.7ghz).

 

So even with a 3.2ghz (wiith XFR), I would argue that the R7 is better overall if you care about your stream, but we are talking about 144hz performance, so if streaming is just a fun hobby (and not a source of income), the 8700K will be fine, as local performance is what you ultimately care about.

 

Though, tbh, if the OP cares about both that much, then I would just have a separate streaming PC all together.

I agree. But if the goal is just to stream regardless of quality both CPUs are more then capable and Nvenc is always still an option. 

 

I guess MCE is turned on. Just from seeing the cinebench results on the first page.

But to be honest i dont think that this doesnt change that much. The scenarios benched are so unrealistic that it shouldn't matter all that much, i mean you wont stream with any of this CPUs losing about 50% frames encoded.

 

In the first series of streaming tests Steve showed that optimization is much more important then raw encoding power at his "Benchmark"

Thats the reason why the 7700k stock with changed process priority can hold up to every other CPU tested in regards of encoded frames. (45% more frames encoded)

 

So actually his attempt to Benchmark this stuff is done wrong, because its not helpful for people streaming on twitch nor is it scientifically acurate because of his choice of games / preset and resolution. Its nice to have such articles but you could also just compare Multithreaded cinebench scores instead to evaluate which one is better for streaming which is also inacurate but basically the same stuff he does. But nice to see some ingame FPS while streaming though, even if its an unrealistic scenario and for games nobody plays.

[DarkSmith2]

27 minutes ago, SecretX said:

I'm really considering go with the R5 1600 + GTX 1080ti, set the encode to x264 NVENC cranked up and have fun, I guess. Stream is just fun (at least for now), it has nothing to do with income.

 

Even if the R5 1600 (@3.8GHz) doesn't use 100% of the 1080ti or I can't play @144fps, this bottleneck won't affect overall performance (I hope so) and I'll have a wider margin before have to upgrade. Furthermore, I can upgrade the processor in the future, when Ryzen 2 comes if it's worth it .

On which plattform are you planning to stream? I mean Nvenc uses less gaming dedicated ressources, but will you also net to higher requirement in the upload department. If you wanna stream on Twitch.tv and stream in 720p60fps every Mainstream CPU will net you the same outcome. You can stream in the highest possible image quality and fidelity for every game using 0,1 Bits per Pixel, enabling more of the x264 feature set by going slower then Very Fast wont affect your image quality noticably while at 0,1 BPP. 

 

If you plan to stream in 900p or 1080p in 60FPS depending on your game you are more then limited by twitch.tv's 6000kbps upload cap where horsepower matters since you can achieve comparable image quality and fidelity results in 900p if you put in the max kbps and encode on "slow". But you would need atleast a 7900x to make it happen on the same machine you are playing on. And 144hz isnt even considered aswell.

[SecretX]

3 hours ago, DarkSmith2 said:

On which plattform are you planning to stream? I mean Nvenc uses less gaming dedicated ressources, but will you also net to higher requirement in the upload department. If you wanna stream on Twitch.tv and stream in 720p60fps every Mainstream CPU will net you the same outcome. You can stream in the highest possible image quality and fidelity for every game using 0,1 Bits per Pixel, enabling more of the x264 feature set by going slower then Very Fast wont affect your image quality noticably while at 0,1 BPP. 

 

If you plan to stream in 900p or 1080p in 60FPS depending on your game you are more then limited by twitch.tv's 6000kbps upload cap where horsepower matters since you can achieve comparable image quality and fidelity results in 900p if you put in the max kbps and encode on "slow". But you would need atleast a 7900x to make it happen on the same machine you are playing on. And 144hz isnt even considered aswell.

Platform? Twitch, the ideia is stream at 720p@60fps or 900p and play I will play at 1080p 144fps (at same time). My upload speed is about 5 mbps (Twitch Test Server tool told me that I can stream up to 5000 kbps) but I'll upgrade soon to a 25mbps.

 

Using that logic, if I stream at 1080p (1920x1080) and multiply it by 0,1 (1920*1080*0,1=207,360 bits) and converting it to kbps would give us the value of 207.36kbps which doesn't seems correct. Should I multiply this value by the framerate too?

 

• 1080p = 207.36 kbps
• 900p = 144.00 kbps
• 864p =  132.71kbps
• 720p = 92.16 kbps

[Jon Jon]

22 minutes ago, SecretX said:

Platform? Twitch, the ideia is stream at 720p@60fps or 900p and play I will play at 1080p 144fps (at same time). My upload speed is about 5 mbps (Twitch Test Server tool told me that I can stream up to 5000 kbps) but I'll upgrade soon to a 25mbps.

 

Using that logic, if I stream at 1080p (1920x1080) and multiply it by 0,1 (1920*1080*0,1=207,360 bits) and converting it to kbps would give us the value of 207.36kbps which doesn't seems correct. Should I multiply this value by the framerate too?

 

• 1080p = 207.36 kbps
• 900p = 144.00 kbps
• 864p =  132.71kbps
• 720p = 92.16 kbps

If 720P60 is your goal, then I don't see there being an issue on either platform.

 

The 8700K will be the best bet, just because it nets you the higher local frame rate.

 

When I stream 720P60 from my R7 1700 (stock or overclocked), it only leverages around 5% CPU as per OBS with 0% dropped frames.

 

It's just not utilizing enough resources to matter.

 

Get the 8700K!

[SecretX]

2 hours ago, Jon Jon said:

If 720P60 is your goal, then I don't see there being an issue on either platform.

 

The 8700K will be the best bet, just because it nets you the higher local frame rate.

 

When I stream 720P60 from my R7 1700 (stock or overclocked), it only leverages around 5% CPU as per OBS with 0% dropped frames.

 

It's just not utilizing enough resources to matter.

 

Get the 8700K!

I'm considering the i5 8600K, what do you think? It's better just for gaming and I guess it could stream (720p@60) without dropping almost any frame.

[DarkSmith2]

15 hours ago, SecretX said:

Platform? Twitch, the ideia is stream at 720p@60fps or 900p and play I will play at 1080p 144fps (at same time). My upload speed is about 5 mbps (Twitch Test Server tool told me that I can stream up to 5000 kbps) but I'll upgrade soon to a 25mbps.

 

Using that logic, if I stream at 1080p (1920x1080) and multiply it by 0,1 (1920*1080*0,1=207,360 bits) and converting it to kbps would give us the value of 207.36kbps which doesn't seems correct. Should I multiply this value by the framerate too?

 

• 1080p = 207.36 kbps
• 900p = 144.00 kbps
• 864p =  132.71kbps
• 720p = 92.16 kbps

yes you also have to consider framerate.

 

its (bitrate * 1000) / (width * height * fps) = BPP

or (pixel width * pixel height * frames-per-second * desired fidelity) / 1,000

 

1080p = (1920*1080*60*0.1) / 1000 = 12441,6 kbps

720p = (1280*720*60*0.1) / 1000 = 5529,6 kbps

 

Ive also made a Spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lOracDvvwZ2T7O9SK0sX75jj1U_y93No0Ad_PJLQv54/edit?usp=sharing

 

Here is a guide:

 

 

[Zeitec]

I went with the 8700 for pure gaming over r the 8600k because I believe the 6 threads of the 8600k will become a limitation before the clockspeeds of the 8700 will. 

[Jon Jon]

15 hours ago, SecretX said:

I'm considering the i5 8600K, what do you think? It's better just for gaming and I guess it could stream (720p@60) without dropping almost any frame.

I would suggest spending the extra on the i7 8700K.

 

As you tinker more, learn more, and overall want to do more, you will want the extra threads.

 

I say max out the platform and go with the i7 8700K.

 

EDIT: To further clarify, you want threads dedicated to OS, Antivirus, Discord, etc.

 

Other tasks that will run in the background while you are gaming, where the additional threads will compensate for that without potentially impacting your gaming experience or streams.

 

the i5 8600K is a GREAT CPU for gaming today, especially since most games use 2-4 cores, so you have 2 additional real cores for the types of tasks mentioned above.

 

The moment you through more heavy tasks that you want to do at the same time, you reduce that value. You want to make sure your stream and gaming performance do not get impacted in the slightest, and will not have that potential in the future.

 

That's why I suggest the i7 8700K, as you will get that extra oomph for the more thread heavy tasks.

[alphaproject]

I7-8700 looks nice.... I may finally make a gaming/editing computer and still use my trusty I5-2500K for just every day tasks and leave it to composing music.

 

I honestly don't want to make a build with Win 10 but I'm sure at this point I will have to.

 

If I could dual boot Win 7 and use Win 10 I would but sounds like a hassle at this point.

 

I wonder how many people bother with dual booting Win 10 at this point?