8700k vs 1600

[ImNotThere]

simple question, most people will say the 8700k is worth the 2x price jump over the 1600 but i can only see benchmarks that show the 1600 performing only marginably slower than the 8700k at 1080p, is there any benchmarks that show a huge difference?

[Princess Luna]

Quite frankly I always see it as a matter of what you're comfortable affording, if you have the money spare to spend get the i7 8700 / 8700k if you want to save the buck but still have a good computer Ryzen is waiting for you.

 

[Tom Cat]

8700k hands down.

[ImNotThere]

1 minute ago, Douglas The Duck said:

8700k hands down.

are there any benchmarks to show the hands down part at 1080p?

11 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Quite frankly I always see it as a matter of what you're comfortable affording, if you have the money spare to spend get the i7 8700 / 8700k if you want to save the buck but still have a good computer Ryzen is waiting for you.

 

i get this, i personally own a 1600 rig, got it before coffee lake, but is there any reason really to dish out extra cash?

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, ImNotThere said:

are there any benchmarks to show the hands down part at 1080p?

i get this, i personally own a 1600 rig, got it before coffee lake, but is there any reason really to dish out extra cash?

Not to upgrade from a Ryzen 5 1600 -> i7 8700k personally speaking unless you manage to sell it for as minimal loss as possible, but for a building a system now if you can, as I said, comfortably afford the i7 go with it for sure, it is snappier, faster, more power efficient, better supported... well basically you get what you're paying extra for.

 

I go as far as advising the locked i7 8700 for savings, you can get a cheaper board and cheaper cooling and not delid it and still have a CPU that will perform as good as an overclocked i7 7700k single thread wise while with the ryzen 7 1700 multi thread.

 

All win win.

[Sakkura]

A lot of gaming benchmarks will be partially or fully GPU bottlenecked, so you won't see the real performance difference between the CPUs. That said, in pure value for money the 1600 beats the 8700K. But if you can afford the 8700K it is a better CPU in almost every way.

[TVwazhere]

22 minutes ago, ImNotThere said:

simple question, most people will say the 8700k is worth the 2x price jump over the 1600 but i can only see benchmarks that show the 1600 performing only marginably slower than the 8700k at 1080p, is there any benchmarks that show a huge difference?

I think this depends on, A the GPU and B, the game. With a powerful GPU and a single thread optimized game, the 8700K will be able to leverage more of the GPU's power than the 1600 would. If oyu're only running a 1050ti, you probably wouldnt see a big difference in gaming. a 1080ti on the otherhand, would benefit from a faster CPU. 

[Renton577]

I agree with Cadence but it also depends on use case. If you are just sticking with gaming and running at 1080P then I would personally stay with the 1600, especially if your gaming at 60FPS and even up to 120.

[hconverse02]

If you can afford it, the 8700k performs better, but not much better price/performance for the $400 price tag.  If you are maxing out your budget and going for a balls to the wall build, then get the 8700k, but if not and you need to save some money on one part in order to spend more on another, go ryzen.

[i_build_nanosuits]

20 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

A lot of gaming benchmarks will be partially or fully GPU bottlenecked, so you won't see the real performance difference between the CPUs. That said, in pure value for money the 1600 beats the 8700K. But if you can afford the 8700K it is a better CPU in almost every way.

this^^ in a couple years from now when GPU's gets more and more powerful and games gets more and more advanced and demanding you'll see that performance difference a lot more. 1600 ain't bad...8700K is amazing.

[CrippledROBOT]

1 hour ago, ImNotThere said:

simple question, most people will say the 8700k is worth the 2x price jump over the 1600 but i can only see benchmarks that show the 1600 performing only marginably slower than the 8700k at 1080p, is there any benchmarks that show a huge difference?

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3076-intel-i7-8700k-review-vs-ryzen-streaming-gaming-overclocking/page-5

 

The i7 8700k beats the R5 1600 handily in gaming tasks, even at 1080p. HOWEVER, if you don't even plan on utilizing all of the i7's power (high refresh rate and high resolution gaming, rendering, streaming, etc), then I'd save yourself some money and get the R5 1600. At something like 1080p 60hz, the R5 1600 will perform exactly the same (when paired with an appropriate GPU, both CPUs will EASILY push 60fps on your 60hz panel). 

[xg32]

if u game above 120hz go intel. if you are on a budget, go 1600 and use stock cooler

[ImNotThere]

4 hours ago, CrippledROBOT said:

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3076-intel-i7-8700k-review-vs-ryzen-streaming-gaming-overclocking/page-5

 

The i7 8700k beats the R5 1600 handily in gaming tasks, even at 1080p. HOWEVER, if you don't even plan on utilizing all of the i7's power (high refresh rate and high resolution gaming, rendering, streaming, etc), then I'd save yourself some money and get the R5 1600. At something like 1080p 60hz, the R5 1600 will perform exactly the same (when paired with an appropriate GPU, both CPUs will EASILY push 60fps on your 60hz panel). 

thankyou, this is what i was looking for

i game at 3440x1440 100 hz but i was wondering if i was missing out big time or not

[Zeitec]

5 hours ago, ImNotThere said:

simple question, most people will say the 8700k is worth the 2x price jump over the 1600 but i can only see benchmarks that show the 1600 performing only marginably slower than the 8700k at 1080p, is there any benchmarks that show a huge difference?

depends on the graphics card and framerates  you're aiming for. If you want 144fps with a 1080 or 1080ti at 1080p, then you're not going to do that with a Ryzen. Period. Not for AAA games. However anything below 100hz (100hz, 75hz, 60hz) the Ryzen chip is just fine. 

[tyrage]

17 hours ago, Zeitec said:

depends on the graphics card and framerates  you're aiming for. If you want 144fps with a 1080 or 1080ti at 1080p, then you're not going to do that with a Ryzen. Period. Not for AAA games. However anything below 100hz (100hz, 75hz, 60hz) the Ryzen chip is just fine. 

i have a 144hz monitor, wich cpu should i get for games at 1080p, i have a gtx 1080 video card and a ryzen 1700 atm

[JoostinOnline]

I'd say get an 8600k if you can. Otherwise a used 6700k. Of course this is strictly if you're only gaming. 

[tyrage]

9 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

I'd say get an 8600k if you can. Otherwise a used 6700k. Of course this is strictly if you're only gaming. 

8600k > 8700k for gaming at 144hz 1080p?

[JoostinOnline]

15 minutes ago, tyrage said:

8600k > 8700k for gaming at 144hz 1080p?

In price to performance it does.

[tyrage]

3 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

In price to performance it does.

diference in fps? around 20-30 fps?

[JoostinOnline]

1 hour ago, tyrage said:

diference in fps? around 20-30 fps?

No, not that much. Check these benchmarks:

Keep in mind that those are designed to put all the stress on the CPU, so in real life the difference won't be that big. 

[xg32]

1 hour ago, tyrage said:

diference in fps? around 20-30 fps?

the 8700k is 5% faster in gaming. There are numerous programs that make the 8600k run at 100% load easily.

[Zeitec]

8 hours ago, tyrage said:

i have a 144hz monitor, wich cpu should i get for games at 1080p, i have a gtx 1080 video card and a ryzen 1700 atm

If you have Ryzen 7 1700 don't upgrade. Not remotely worth it. You'll spend like $800 for little to no benifit because assuming you're at 1080p ultra you're not getting above 100fps anyways. Wait for Zen 2 or Ice Lake.

[Maxxtraxx]

8600K will be your best Gaming performer(8700k will work just as well but cost more)

1600 will work at a lower price but not offer much in the way of an FPS per dollar improvement

 

Toms Hardware quoted pictures

 

FYI: the R5 1600 had a price drop after this article was posted so the dot for the 1600 will simply drop to the $200 line and thusly improves it's value but not its performance.

 

First pic: 

 

FPS vs Cost: the closer the processor is to the bottom right the better it's performance and value(overclocked the 8600k is a very good value, better than the 1600)

 

The 8600K fairs slightly worse in the whole system cost category due to motherboard prices but is still a good value, possibly the best.

Again the bottom right corner is the best and represents system cost per fps

 

Some 1080p tests with 8600k vs 1600

 

GTA5: 8600k shows over 20fps(minimum) increase

 

Hitman 1080p: shows a 28fps increase vs 1600

Project Cars: shows a 23fps increase over the 1600

Tomb Raider: shows a 24fps increase over 1600

 

Warhammer: shows a 28fps increase over the 1600

 

There are also many games that are bound more by other limiting factors such as Battlefield 1, Civilization 5 and others that you can look at further in the article if you wish.

 

Article found HERE

 

SOOO.... IMO, for purely GAMING. The 8600k will be your best performer for the dollar spent

 

IF you need more thread capacity for other tasks, the 8700k will help alleviate that while providing the same gaming performance

[Stefan Payne]

On 21.12.2017 at 3:15 PM, ImNotThere said:

simple question, most people will say the 8700k is worth the 2x price jump over the 1600 but i can only see benchmarks that show the 1600 performing only marginably slower than the 8700k at 1080p, is there any benchmarks that show a huge difference?

Get the ryzen and high performance memory.

If you have the money, get the 1700 or 1700X and spend the rest on the graphics card.

 

Now you have the chance to not get the Intel...

 

 

I really don't understand why you have to get the Intel, when you have the choice...