Opinions on cpu.

[BlackHat2000]

So I've been looking at 8700k or a 1700x. I do want to do more co ntent creation which is havin me lean towards the 1700x, but at the same time 8700k kills in gaming. I want to capture the 1080p 60fps of course and was thinking a 1700x with an hd60 pro from elgato. Thoughts?

[H20Burner]

You don't need a capture card to record content btw.

[BlackHat2000]

3 minutes ago, H20Burner said:

You don't need a capture card to record content btw.

Im aware.

[DeadlyTitan]

 

 

Watch It, i had very similar problem a few months ago and this video helped me solve it. A few months ago i was deciding on r7 1700 or i7 8700. 

TLDL - If you are going to overclock and money isint an issue and want the best performance you can currently get, then clearly go for i7 8700k. It kills in both daily casual usage and gaming and other tasks. 

[Ansger]

<Edited> Post above gave better answer.

Edited December 29, 2017 by Ansger

[BlackHat2000]

2 hours ago, DeadlyTitan said:

 

 

Watch It, i had very similar problem a few months ago and this video helped me solve it. A few months ago i was deciding on r7 1700 or i7 8700. 

TLDL - If you are going to overclock and money isint an issue and want the best performance you can currently get, then clearly go for i7 8700k. It kills in both daily casual usage and gaming and other tasks. 

The price difference is what's keeping me from pulling the trigger

[DeadlyTitan]

10 minutes ago, BlackHat2000 said:

The price difference is what's keeping me from pulling the trigger

i personally went for a non k and a cheap Z370 board (well technically still waiting for the parts to arrive). The K chip costs $100 more where i live and personally i can live with the performance of non K chip which is in the middle of r7 1700 and i7 8700k knowing i am getting exactly what i paid and not getting depressed after setting up some expensive hardware and then loosing the silicon lottery. I just cant deal with that stuff.  

 

The i7 8700 is good enough multitasking and good enough gaming. sorta middle ground without spending too much. I am an application developer by the way and i use some heavy applications and need good multitasking for my work. 

[DarkSmith2]

1 hour ago, DeadlyTitan said:

i personally went for a non k and a cheap Z370 board (well technically still waiting for the parts to arrive). The K chip costs $100 more where i live and personally i can live with the performance of non K chip which is in the middle of r7 1700 and i7 8700k knowing i am getting exactly what i paid and not getting depressed after setting up some expensive hardware and then loosing the silicon lottery. I just cant deal with that stuff.  

 

The i7 8700 is good enough multitasking and good enough gaming. sorta middle ground without spending too much. I am an application developer by the way and i use some heavy applications and need good multitasking for my work. 

Well yeah, but its not like it isnt worth to buy the K version. Non-K versions are enough for NOW, but what is in 5years? Having the possibility to overclock can eventually increase the time your CPU is comfortable usable for your needs. Im on a Sandybridge i know what im talking about, if i couldnt overclock i might had upgraded my system atleast one maybe even two years ago, in gaming with OC its still mostly faster then Ryzen now, without OC it isnt.

 

Its all about how long you want it to last without the need of upgrading, atleast if nothing breaks. If someone is the kind of person buying a new rig every 3years anyway then yea maybe it doesnt matter for that kind of person, elsewise you are paying for a performance headroom that makes your CPU stay relevant longer.

[BlackHat2000]

Well I was thinking ryzen since AMD said they were gonna be supporting it for quite a while as they did with the FX chips. The appeal for the 8700k to me is the overclocking, raw power and performance. AMD on the other hand seems like if I was heavy video editing and such? I'm just tryna clear the water lol

[DeadlyTitan]

17 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

Well yeah, but its not like it isnt worth to buy the K version. Non-K versions are enough for NOW, but what is in 5years? Having the possibility to overclock can eventually increase the time your CPU is comfortable usable for your needs. Im on a Sandybridge i know what im talking about, if i couldnt overclock i might had upgraded my system atleast one maybe even two years ago, in gaming with OC its still mostly faster then Ryzen now, without OC it isnt.

 

Its all about how long you want it to last without the need of upgrading, atleast if nothing breaks.

i never said the K chips are not worth it, i just said that its just my personal thing being not able to deal with loosing the silicon lottery. Also where i live buying a Non K chip for overclocking will set you back well over $300 ~ $400 ( 100 for CPU, 200 for cooler and a 100 more for good OC capable board with good power delivery and features i want, yes i know prices really suck where i live and i gotta just suck it up.)  so its not worth for me to spend $400 extra for 6% ~ 12% Gain in performance. 

 

Also personally if i had an i7 3770(non K) then i would have held off this upgrade as well and just wait for 9th or 10th gen intel CPU's. 

[DeadlyTitan]

12 minutes ago, BlackHat2000 said:

Well I was thinking ryzen since AMD said they were gonna be supporting it for quite a while as they did with the FX chips. The appeal for the 8700k to me is the overclocking, raw power and performance. AMD on the other hand seems like if I was heavy video editing and such? I'm just tryna clear the water lol

Rumors says that Zen 2 is going to be 12 core 24 thread, but that wont be until q4 2018 or Q1 2019, so i say its a good decision .

 

Expect the same thing with intel. Intel's next i7 is going to have 8 core 16 threads while i5 is going to be equal to current coffee lake i7 8700 with 6 cores and 12 threads while i3 will be a 4 core 8 thread equal to i7 7700

 

Too bad i just cant wait and desperately need a new system cause i currently have no usable system for my workload. 

[DeadlyTitan]

 

[DarkSmith2]

1 minute ago, BlackHat2000 said:

Well I was thinking ryzen since AMD said they were gonna be supporting it for quite a while as they did with the FX chips. The appeal for the 8700k to me is the overclocking, raw power and performance. AMD on the other hand seems like if I was heavy video editing and such? I'm just tryna clear the water lol

As the guy in the video said, the Intel makes overall a faster machine in everyday use, where the AMD is marginally better in stuff like video editing but also noteworthy slower in gaming. If you want to keep the option of high refreshrate gaming and such i definitely wouldnt go with the AMD, even if i like em. 

 

In my eyes if you buy a platform that needs to be upgraded within 3years its the wrong stuff, because i think if you take money for buying hardware or specifically a CPU which doesnt hardly evolve performancewise within a timespan of 3years since 2010 anymore you are just burning money. Im pretty sure that Ryzen will last longer then its support from AMD so i just place this to be a marketing strategy, i mean how much faster can it get on the same plattform? 10%,15% 20%? Still not worth to upgrade to in my opinion. The most appealing buy argument for ryzen in regards of plattform support is that compatible motherboards will be available a long time and if yours break you can easily get a new one for replacement.

[DarkSmith2]

34 minutes ago, DeadlyTitan said:

i never said the K chips are not worth it, i just said that its just my personal thing being not able to deal with loosing the silicon lottery. Also where i live buying a Non K chip for overclocking will set you back well over $300 ~ $400 ( 100 for CPU, 200 for cooler and a 100 more for good OC capable board with good power delivery and features i want, yes i know prices really suck where i live and i gotta just suck it up.)  so its not worth for me to spend $400 extra for 6% ~ 12% Gain in performance. 

 

Also personally if i had an i7 3770(non K) then i would have held off this upgrade as well and just wait for 9th or 10th gen intel CPU's. 

i see where you are coming from. But for me as a "semi" enthusiast i would want that OC capable long lasting monster board anyway, im not saying that i can afford it but i want it. I want just something durable, longlasting and just kind of quality type of board. I mean whats the least you could possibly go with to be satisfied? I would go atleast with an Asus Hero or Asrock Taichi anyway - which are both capable of 5GhZ OC, things like the Strix and Prime are much to expansive for the parts build on them (but they can go to 4,9/5GHZ easily too). I just Wouldnt cheapout on the board anymore since its the only component slowly dying in my current rig. On the CPU cooler side it wouldnt also change that much. Will be a 360AiO atleast or maybe im building a cheap custom loop myself. Something like using alphacool eisbaer pump with a different rad and stuff frankenstein Customloop. Wouldnt be more expansive then $200, and has no limits in Rad size, could go with 560mm

 

28 minutes ago, DeadlyTitan said:

Expect the same thing with intel. Intel's next i7 is going to have 8 core 16 threads while i5 is going to be equal to current coffee lake i7 8700 with 6 cores and 12 threads while i3 will be a 4 core 8 thread equal to i7 7700

i would expect that they call the 8core 16thread mainstream CPU i9.

[BlackHat2000]

This is such a hard decision lol

[Princess Luna]

2 hours ago, BlackHat2000 said:

The price difference is what's keeping me from pulling the trigger

You can always do what I did, cheap up by going with the locked i7 8700 instead, as you could see from the benchmarks of that video the i7 8700k at stock (which is identical to the locked i7 8700 this time around) is still miles ahead of Ryzen 7 1700x, over all a superior chip and then you can save bunch of money going with a cheaper motherboard, cheaper CPU, cheaper coling solution as even the 212X as I seen will do greatly and silent... no delid required....

 

You save yourself from all the hassle really and the cheapest z370 chipset board you find is still justified for memory overclocking which does give more of a boost. I made a cute mATX system with no regrets but buying from G.Skill and needing to RMA

[DarkSmith2]

1 minute ago, BlackHat2000 said:

This is such a hard decision lol

actually its not, The Intel can do anything the AMD can but is faster in gaming and everyday use. You just take the AMD if you wanna try to save some bucks or want to support AMD for being a great company. Sounds sad but thats how i see it.

[BlackHat2000]

2 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

actually its not, The Intel can do anything the AMD can but is faster in gaming and everyday use. You just take the AMD if you wanna try to save some bucks or want to support AMD for being a great company. Sounds sad but thats how i see it.

That sounded so sad ?

[BlackHat2000]

3 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

 

Isn't the clock speed different on the k and non k?

[DarkSmith2]

6 minutes ago, BlackHat2000 said:

Isn't the clock speed different on the k and non k?

a little 100mhz difference in turboclock.

 

6 minutes ago, BlackHat2000 said:

That sounded so sad

well for me it is, i would wish AMD to be a stronger competition, with better products because they always tried to innovate to bring tech further and they are also not really on the greedy side of companies. Its sad that they are doing so much stuff wrong and being behind in performance while trying to make the hardwareworld a better place.

 

Intel is the Darkside xD..

[Princess Luna]

9 minutes ago, BlackHat2000 said:

Isn't the clock speed different on the k and non k?

Nope both have stock all core turbo of 4.3ghz at stock settings which is really all that matter.

 

Wanna see something cool? Coffee Lake like Kaby Lake suffers from thermals on the K chips due to high TDP of 95w and all 6 cores, crappy toothpaste on IHS... meaning this processor requires really fancy high end cooling solutions often needs delid to keep cool.

 

Why keep it cool? well performance greatly depends on it since if the chip becomes to hot thermal throttling occurs, limiting its speed, the locked version on the other hand carries a much lower 65w TDP and works on lower voltages.

 

Why does this matter? well by the locked i7 8700 keeping a much superior cool temperature it can sustain high clocks longer when fully stressed resulting in greater results to of an i7 8700k with inappropriate cheaper cooling solution to where it throttles and you see stuff like here where the locked one beats the unlocked one:

Besides overclocking to 5ghz doesn't make a difference in 1440p even with a 1080 Ti... it is time for GPUs to catch up.

[DarkSmith2]

23 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Wanna see something cool? Coffee Lake like Kaby Lake suffers from thermals on the K chips due to high TDP of 95w and all 6 cores, crappy toothpaste on IHS... meaning this processor requires really fancy high end cooling solutions often needs delid to keep cool.

ive seen that before, but its new to me that its due to thermals. I know early bios versions of some boards had bugs preventing from turbo boosting the 8700k. Not saying you are wrong just never heard it to be caused by overheating since it has what? a 100°C TJmax? Well if its due to thermals im pretty sure they tried to cool it with one of the older Intel stock coolers  The i7 2600k i still have today didnt run with the stock cooler included without throttling and this guy is soldered

[DeadlyTitan]

Like i suggested, go for the i7 8700 for overall performance and you wont regret it, Its what i went for my work and gaming rig. But yea go for Ryzen if you want to support them. At this point in time these are all rumors that Zen 2 is going to have 12 cores and 24 threads and next intel is going to be have 8 core 16 thread cpu. it'll be interesting to see what the future beholds, but for now if you want the best performing chip that is currently available without burning a hole in your pocket go for i7 8700. 

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, DarkSmith2 said:

The i7 2600k

Yes and stock coolers are even worse nowadays, no more copper base, all aluminum, I find the 212X valid investment to keep the i7 8700 cool on the mid 60's very silently works like a charm.

 

Now the i7 8700k indeed goes hot I have seen quite a few topic here at the forums towards the subject and most reviewers have brought up attention to it.

 

Not the processor you should be buying if you'll cheap up on cooling, I believe a 240mm AiO is minimum for it... or obviously some beast air cooler like ht NHD15 or more exotic like a Cooler Master V8 GTS hehehe.

 

I wish Intel wouldn't cheap on their thermal compounds, they aim to be the luxury alternative but cuts costs on every corner, AMD at least tries, their stock cooler is miles better and that does say something.

[DeadlyTitan]

1 minute ago, Princess Cadence said:

Cooler Master V8 GTS

tried that, not worth it.. really fancy looking but medicore performance. But gotta say it have killing looks.