8700 Seem to Sell out Faster Than 8700k

[IamODIN]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Indeed - but you're implying that the K model is a bad choice. It's not, if someone overclocks. Performance gains will heavily depend on usage. Some games will have minimal gains. Some will have large gains.

 

Other software will have significant gains.

i see where you getting at. 

2 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

You ask this in this thread when earlier you spoke about ANNUAL CPU upgrades?

some people claim to only buy k model for futureproofing but whats the point if you gonna buy k models every year? thats what i do not understand

[dalekphalm]

36 minutes ago, IamODIN said:

Whyyyyyyyyyyyy.. why go thru all the trouble? the k version is obviousl hotter and make u spend more on cooling. why not just settle for the non k and upgrade annually like they usually do

Wait what? You're advocating for annual CPU upgrades?

 

...

 

6 minutes ago, IamODIN said:

lets think about it this way.. there's good business decisions and bad. its up to how much you will benefit after you made the choice..

 

no mater how much money you have .. theres still good and bad choices 

If you follow your own advice above, you're making a bad business decision.

[porina]

1 minute ago, AshleyAshes said:

For sure, 'reasonable' overclocking.  Not razors edge getting ever last hert out of it to the point of making it explode.

I've dabbled with competitive overclocking. Nothing extreme (yet), in that I'm restricting myself so far to exclude sub-ambient. When I go above 1.5V on any CPU made within the last few years, I know that really isn't something you do for 24/7 operation. Ok to get a few benchmark scores, but I wouldn't run it like that for any amount of time. That would probably shorten lifespan to a measurable degree. But back off a few hundred MHz, you still get most of the clock at a sane voltage you can run 24/7 if you want.

 

1 minute ago, AshleyAshes said:

Frankly, unless does something extreme, YOU RARELY see stories about CPUs failing even.  Usually a motherboard will fail before anything else.  Or the PSU or something else failed and it blew up the CPU with it.  But CPUs failing on their own doesn't happen much.

Right now I'm running... around a dozen active desktop systems. I'm not even sure of the number. This is typical of me over the years, and I ditch them when they're too old to be worth running. Right now I draw the line around Sandy Bridge. Number of CPU failures ever: zero. The biggest two components that fail are HDs and PSUs. Also fans if you count them... even when PSUs die, it just stops the PC booting. No flames, or taking other things down with it. 

[flibberdipper]

33 minutes ago, IamODIN said:

yeah but a base 8700k is basically a base 8700 and if u overclock any k model cpu's you are shortening the lifespan of it anyways so future proofing is out of the way at that point 

And yet here I am on a G3258 I've had overclocked forwards and backwards running boderline unsafe-for-daily-voltage for ~3.5 years and it's perfectly fine and I have a pretty good feeling it will far outlive its usefulness.

[Bhav]

I upgrade my CPU a lot, but still its every 2-3 years, not every year lol.

 

And why would I not want to overclock or use custom cooling? Most of the appeal of self building is getting it as fast and cool as you can. 

 

Overclocking CPUs within safe parameters and reasonable voltage caps, and monitoring temperatures barely shortens their lifespan. There have been many such threads on overclocking forums asking if anyone that overclocks has ever had a CPU die, and its a categorical nope, it simply doesnt happen.

 

The reason stock speeds are so low is so that the CPUs can still work with minimal stock coolers for office or general computers, but once you start getting massive air coolers, AIOs or custom loops, you can so easily effortlessly, and SAFELY go beyond that. One thing I like to do is overclock as much as I can on stock volts for 24/7 use, and just overvolt for benchies. You still get a massive boost from a few hundred Mhz on stock volts and a decent cooler.

[RollinLower]

overclocking is a good thing. it is 'free' performance. the locked chips are actually the problem. imo every chip should come with a unlocked multiplier.

[Bhav]

3 minutes ago, tmcclelland455 said:

And yet here I am on a G3258 I've had overclocked forwards and backwards running boderline unsafe-for-daily-voltage for ~3.5 years and it's perfectly fine and I have a pretty good feeling it will far outlive its usefulness.

I really wanted one of those for my backup PC, but at the time it was EOL and mini motherboards were hard to come by for socket 1150, so I ended up going for a H170 and G4400. It cant be overclocked but serves a purpose when Im upgrading or something dies (most usually a HDD or MSI motherboard, wont ever buy the latter again).

[Crunchy Dragon]

For one, the 8700 has some of the best value out of anything off the Coffee Lake lineup. At stock, its performance is equal to that of an 8700K. The 8700K can only really pull ahead due to overclocking.

 

Also, who upgrades CPUs annually? That's not the best decision IMO, but whatever.

 

1 minute ago, RollinLower said:

overclocking is a good thing. it is 'free' performance. the locked chips are actually the problem. imo every chip should come with a unlocked multiplier.

AMD's chips all have unlocked multipliers to my knowledge.

[RollinLower]

1 minute ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

AMD's chips all have unlocked multipliers to my knowledge.

back in the good 'ol days you could literally overclock anything you wanted in your system. too bad lots of it is locked down now. shouldn' the one who bought the hardware decide what speeds he want it to run at? i mean, you arn't going to sell a car and tell people they can only drive 20Mph right? 

[Princess Luna]

I do want to point out that Sandy Bridge days are over, overclocking once was worth it in most ways you looked at it because the gains were real, that simple.

 

Nowadays though... eh... since Skylake getting the i7 6700 on a cheaper motherboard vs i5 6600k on expensive motherboard and cooling made great debates since we were hitting a time 4c/4t was simply not enough any more and indeed HT made greater good than raw frequency for the first time.

 

Now Coffee Lake is an awesome gen truth be told, for the first time the locked i7 is essentially the unlocked i7 at stock, it was the first time Intel didn't nerf the locked i7 a bit further, both have a default 4.3ghz all core turbo, and please 4.3ghz is a very high frequency already... spread on all 6 cores on latest IPC that is more raw power we have ever had.

 

So the locked i7 8700 is an excellent CPU, probably in the top 4 best all around CPUs in the market today... it has its positive points and its negative points.

 

Lets try making this as impartial as possible:

 

i7 8700 pros: low TDP of 65w allows it to be cool with any decent aftermarket cooler, I went with the 212X and it does the job perfectly, keeps the 4.3ghz steady at 65~68 Celsius Degrees all time, this means you can if you're not comfortable with it avoid delidding altogether while you'll be cheapening out on a cooler and every thing quite much... We all know the i7 8700k can throttle even at stock with low~mid end cooling.

 

It is still is realistically speaking one of the highest single thread performance in the market, equals the stock i7 7700k single thread performance with 100% stability.

 

Since you're not overclocking just about any motherboard suffices.

 

So the i7 8700 allows you to have near identical i7 8700k 5ghz performance for  A LOT CHEAPER and hassle free.... it really isn't a bad deal if you want to get the best value but remain with Intel and not go Ryzen.

 

Gaming wise, yes you will reach a GPU bottleneck at any resolution higher than 1080p most of the time where they perform identically, content creation numbers aren't that far off either if we go that route... getting the i7 8700 as stated would give better over all performance than the i5 8600k every time as multi-tasking and multi-threading gains headroom and even Adobe crap software which is all about single thread performance won't show significant gains.

 

Negative points: you can't overclock it.... that's it... really... sure lots of people see fun and enjoyment from it and wants/likes the hassle of overclocking along its higher costs... to these people there is nothing to debate get the i7 8700k... on HEDT also obviously overclocking is part of it as you should be getting all there is to get on HEDT...

 

I just ask people to understand things did change, the i7 8700 and i7 8700k are not the i7 2600 and i7 2600k, the gap in raw performance between a locked and an unlocked mainstream i7 have decreased severely, and the locked i7 8700 now has a huge value that should be respected by those who still favour the unlocked i7 8700k variant as a valid choice for purchase... truth to that is how OP shown the i7 8700 often is out of stock opposed to the i7 8700k its demand is high... here in Brazil it is the same thing the i7 8700 is out of stock on the 3 main retailers, the i7 8700k available on 2 of those.

 

Both CPUs are awesome, the difference is, locked = awesome performance for cheaper and hassle free, unlocked = the full enthusiastic solution, lots of hassle and costs but you get a bit more awesome performance.

 

I apologize if I have written too much, @M.Yurizaki and I were discussing this just the other day.

[DarthSmartt]

1 hour ago, IamODIN said:

Been searching around for my 8700 which im going to buy but for the past month i noticed the 8700 seem to be getting sold out more frequently than the 8700k.

 

i guess people are finally coming to terms that k models are a waste of time lol

 

i never understood why people are so bent on overclocking.. its not like non k models are going to slow u down. 

 

by the time the chip becomes slow that it can't handle new technology, there will already be 3 newer (or more) generations im sure most people who had the money to go run out and by the previously  GLORIFIED k model will rush to buy on release date.

 

 

whats your preference? really. k or non k

 

amazon, B&H and newegg dont have anymore 8700 but guess what? they have the 8700k.

I like the Ks.

 

PS this subforum is for non tech related content.

[Crunchy Dragon]

2 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Sandy Bridge days are over

My Core i5-2430M based laptop is doing just fine, I personally wouldn't go so far to say that.

 

Long Live Sandy Bridge.

[Princess Luna]

Just now, Crunchy Dragon said:

My Core i5-2430M based laptop is doing just fine, I personally wouldn't go so far to say that.

 

Long Live Sandy Bridge.

That is not what I meant though, Sandy Bridge was when the gap between the unlocked and lock variants of the same CPU were the highest, it started declining since as the locked and unlocked processors started performing more and more on pair with each other [:

[Mira Yurizaki]

To add to @Princess Cadence , let's put it this way. The i7-2600K had a stock turbo clock of 3.8 GHz, it could easily get to 4.8 GHz. That's an increase in 25% performance which is pretty significant. By the time i7-4790K came out, it had a stock turbo clock of 4.4GHz and most people could only still get to 4.8GHz. Maybe 5.0 GHz. Even in the best case scenario, this is around 12%. Now with the i7-8700K with a turbo boost up to 4.7GHz, overclocking to 5.0GHz is under 10%. Even compared to the locked i7-8700's 4.6GHz turbo, that's still 10% or less than what the i7-8700K can get at 5.0GHz.

 

So there's very little value in getting an unlocked processor since it can't overclock very much beyond stock anymore. And if you start spending money on getting cooling more effective, it's still unlikely you'll be pushing it far enough to make the amount of money you would have to pour into it to make it worth while. To put in perspective to get the same ~25% boost in performance on an i7-8700K that you could get on a Sandy Bridge overclock, you would need to overclock it to 6 GHz. The first Google hit on a "i7-8700K 6GHz" are liquid nitrogen cooling videos.

 

So yeah, it's no longer worth it to buy unlocked processors anymore. They're in the same league as buying say an EVGA Kingpin or Classified card.

Edited January 11, 2018 by M.Yurizaki

[bimmerman]

I bought an i7-950 new, when 'K' sku weren't really a thing. I left it bone stock for about 6 years. I then proceeded to experiment with overclocking, then bought a cheap Xeon, OC'd it, and here we are. These chips are from the era where you could easily get +35-45% OCs without resorting to fanciful nonsense like ln2 or enthusiast moneypits like custom watercooling. My i7-950 OC'd from 3 to 4.2 GHz (40%, on air), but I had serious doubts as to its long term longevity. My Xeon X5675 can reach 4.7 GHz stably (at lower volts than the 950), which is a 56% OC compared to its stock 3.06 GHz. On that chip OC is ridiculously worth it, on a 240mm AIO. It's not even running into thermal issues at that OC, I just don't want to push the volts higher.

 

My take: OC is a valid future proofing strategy when you don't plan on upgrading every year-- CPU technology changes so glacially that my OC'd 2009 era hardware keeps up well enough to be enjoyable in games still today, and dialing in an OC on a chip that OC'd like a champion managed to keep my rig relevant for a few more years (saving me money!).

 

If you're going to be upgrading every year or two for whatever reason, I don't see the easily OC'd chips as making much sense. You're spending more money for OC capable hardware that you aren't keeping long enough for the +300 MHz to be noticeable? Quick quiz: what's 5GHz OC vs 4.7 GHz stock? 6% gain. ermagerd such oc bro. Seems less than noticeable.

 

If you're planning on keeping the system for a few years, and are comfortable with OC'ing the hardware down the line, buy the K. If you're going to upgrade in a year or two anyway, or don't want to deal with the heat, instability, and headaches that come from OCing, why bother? It's not like you're going to notice 300MHz better performance or 5fps anyway, no matter how highly ranked in a videogame you are.

[DildorTheDecent]

Begone with your locked plebbery!

[Mira Yurizaki]

16 minutes ago, bimmerman said:

If you're planning on keeping the system for a few years, and are comfortable with OC'ing the hardware down the line, buy the K.

I don't even think it's a good strategy regardless. It appears we're approaching another frequency wall. If ~5.0 GHz is the limit, even with the best case cooling before you have to go phase change, then what's available at stock doesn't leave you with much head room.

 

Plus you also have to invest in a good motherboard. If not, you'll also only be able to push the CPU so far before the house keeping circuitry goes "Nope nope nope, and nope." And if you buy something beefy up front, you may as well just go ahead and push the CPU. I don't know. If you buy something with overclocking potential and don't use as much as the potential when you get it, why bother with that build in the first place? Even when you unleash that potential, what if you go "why didn't I do this before?"

 

Buy what you need now. Don't buy what you think you need in the future.

Edited January 11, 2018 by M.Yurizaki

[Energycore]

~Moved to CPUs, motherboards and memory

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Buy what you need now. Don't buy what you think you need in the future.

It is funny I use all your arguments above when arguing with the whole "Ryzen more future proof" deal as well... I don't understand why is it so appealing get a bad processor today, to upgrade it in 2 years keeping your motherboard when you could have had that end performance all along since beginning and then just like Ryzen 1 and 2 use it for the full 4 years when you can just upgrade altogether and stay ahead in performance for essentially same costs as you didn't have to replace your CPU.

[bimmerman]

9 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I don't even think it's a good strategy regardless. It appears we're approaching another frequency wall. If ~5.0 GHz is the limit, even with the best case cooling before you have to go phase change, then what's available at stock doesn't leave you with much head room.

 

Plus you also have to invest in a good motherboard. If not, you'll also only be able to push the CPU so far before the house keeping circuitry goes "Nope nope nope, and nope." And if you buy something beefy up front, you may as well just go ahead and push the CPU. I don't know. If you buy something with overclocking potential and don't use as much as the potential when you get it, why bother with that build in the first place? Even when you unleash that potential, what if you go "why didn't I do this before?"

 

Buy what you need now. Don't buy what you think you need in the future.

Excellent point on mobos needing to support the level of OC, as it's one I don't normally consider. I'll admit I lucked out with my motherboard-- it was one of Newegg's Super Egg bundles (case, mobo, air cooler, psu, ram, cpu, and I think hard drive maybe?) and I haven't changed anything aside from ram since I built the thing.

 

I think it comes down to price difference. If the $50 or $100 between OC-able and non-OC hardware isn't going to break the bank, and you intend on keeping the system for a while, then I see no issue with buying with intent to OC later (despite the aforementioned frequency wall and minimal gains). Hell, it's fun to tinker even if real-world performance is negligible. If the price difference IS going to be an issue, then that's the answer there-- don't OC.

[Mira Yurizaki]

4 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

I don't understand why is it so appealing get a bad processor today, to upgrade it in 2 years keeping your motherboard

Budget reasons. But even that's not a good reason, as you'll be losing out either way.

 

Like let's say you bought a Core i3-6100 for $120 with the intention of upgrading later. And let's say later is today and you buy an i7-7700K for $340 on NewEgg (assuming you bought a Z170 board with compatibility). Total you've spent about $460. If you just bought an i7-6700K from the start, you'd have practically the same performance for $350. And no, the i7-6700K isn't much cheaper today, it's $330 so you still would've lost out.

[Princess Luna]

4 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

.

Yes likein a past Ryzen 7 1800x vs i7 8700k thread I pointed out the i7 8700 I thought about it, you're spending pretty much the same money here, people still claimed Ryzen was better as you get the "future proof motherboard" but you'll only even up with the i7 8700 by Ryzen 2 and then you just get even... meaning that future proof in the end of the day is the same either ways you go... you get to save for all brand new which is more appealing than stick to a years old motherboard though with Intel... to me personally more appealing

[Ebony Falcon]

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

 

So the i7 8700 allows you to have near identical i7 8700k 5ghz performance for  A LOT CHEAPER and hassle free

Are you insane ? 700mhz difference and you think that performance would be identical ? 

 

From your own scores ur 8700 has the same multi score as a 1600 at 4ghz and beat the single core by 8 points 

 

would it then also be fair to say a 1600 at 4ghz is near identical performance to a 8700k at 5ghz I think not ...

 

your cpu is a great cpu and it's adequate for almost everyone who wants to game and mid workstation loads 

 

but it's not a magic cpu, 4.3 does not performs any where near identical to 5ghz on the same architecture 

 

I get it you love your cpu but u are getting a bit carried away with ur self here saying that 

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, Ebony Falcon said:

.

Please link me the video already so we get over with it :3

[Ebony Falcon]

Just now, Princess Cadence said:

Please link me the video already so we get over with it :3

That video is irelavent here although I think we can agree that whom ever stated this cpu Running  at 4.6 on all cores is not overclocking is delusional as ur running the locked cpu past it's tdp and specification 

 

however your statements about 4.3 being near identical to 5ghz are irelavent as they are just untrue