8700 Seem to Sell out Faster Than 8700k

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, Ebony Falcon said:

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

It is so beautiful how you have no idea how software and actual bottlenecking functions to where you can not read past a raw frequency number, and really no video? I thought it was a tradition already.

 

Cheers, have fun at the thread.

[IamODIN]

1 hour ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

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.

 

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

if its so safe to the "overclocked" speed. why don't intel just set it as the base clock to avoid people from having to do stuff for more performance.. 

[Ebony Falcon]

2 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

It is so beautiful how you have no idea how software and actual bottlenecking functions to where you can not read past a raw frequency number, and really no video? I thought it was a tradition already.

 

Cheers, have fun at the thread.

Iv posted that video twice to shut down some inte fans as you can see I have like a totally of about 70 posts ? 

 

Yes if the bottleneck isnt  the cpu then the 5ghz is irrelevant doesn't take a genius to work that out 

 

show some proof that 4.3 performs the same as 5ghz on the same architecture in cpu workloads 

[Ebony Falcon]

1 minute ago, IamODIN said:

if its so safe to the "overclocked" speed. why don't intel just set it as the base clock to avoid people from having to do stuff for more performance.. 

Because If a locked cpu only boosts to for example 4.3 for 2 seconds then drops back down to 3.6 at the rated tdp 

that cpu has met the specifications 

 

but you won't here that from any of the Intel fans on here even tho it's the truth 

[IamODIN]

14 minutes ago, Ebony Falcon said:

Because If a locked cpu only boosts to for example 4.3 for 2 seconds then drops back down to 3.6 at the rated tdp 

that cpu has met the specifications 

 

but you won't here that from any of the Intel fans on here even tho it's the truth 

 

only difference is the 8700k have really slight base boost which is .5hz and .1 by turbo.

 

base boost dont mean much if both gonna turbo to almost identical frequencies. and the only difference is .1 

 

/quick maths

[Ebony Falcon]

2 minutes ago, IamODIN said:

 

only difference is the 8700k have really slight base boost which is .5hz and .1 by turbo.

 

base boost dont mean much if both gonna turbo to almost identical frequencies. and the only difference is .1 

 

 

base is 3.2 compared to 3.7

and it does matter as they don't hold there boost clocks on all boards 

 

there is a market for thoes cpus out side of us enthusiasts  so not everyone is running a midrange and upwards board and the fact is if u get a crapped out silicon chip, it can boost for a short amount of time then drop to that 3.2 base speed and it's met the specifacations and you could end up gaming at 3.2

[Mira Yurizaki]

5 minutes ago, Ebony Falcon said:

there is a market for thoes cpus out side of us enthusiasts  so not everyone is running a midrange and upwards board and the fact is if u get a crapped out silicon chip, it can boost for a short amount of time then drop to that 3.2 base speed and it's met the specifacations and you could end up gaming at 3.2

And if you get a crappy unlocked processor, it won't overclock very well or hold those frequencies for long either. Such tidbits are irrelevant to the argument at hand unless you assume both sides have the same problem and are applying it.

[dalekphalm]

31 minutes ago, IamODIN said:

if its so safe to the "overclocked" speed. why don't intel just set it as the base clock to avoid people from having to do stuff for more performance.. 

That's easy. Money.

 

The same reason that an i7-8700K and an i5-8600K are literally the same silicon, Intel simply used Microcode to disable HT and lasered off some cache.

 

It's cheaper for Intel to manufacture the same silicon chip die, and "artificially" segment it into different product segments, then it is to actually manufacture a different die that cannot do Hyperthreading.

 

Also, often lower core parts are just higher core parts with cores disabled.

[Ebony Falcon]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

And if you get a crappy unlocked processor, it won't overclock very well or hold those frequencies for long either. Such tidbits are irrelevant to the argument at hand unless you assume both sides have the same problem and are applying it.

Yes true but I answered the question why are the rated with a low base clock if they run at boot all the time and the answer is because not all of them do 

and it goes for both sides 

atleast on unlocked cpus u can increase vcore to stabilise higher clocks 

[Princess Luna]

6 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Intel simply used Microcode to disable HT and lasered off some cache.

A good amount of time these processors were unable to sustain HT due to silicon impurities and such, they do identically to how AMD also tries making all Ryzen processors 1800x's just repurpose the slightly defective ones the lower tires, because as you said it is the cheaper way.

 

It is how the business work, so I fail to understand your point here.

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

18 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

That's easy. Money.

 

The same reason that an i7-8700K and an i5-8600K are literally the same silicon, Intel simply used Microcode to disable HT and lasered off some cache.

 

It's cheaper for Intel to manufacture the same silicon chip die, and "artificially" segment it into different product segments, then it is to actually manufacture a different die that cannot do Hyperthreading.

 

Also, often lower core parts are just higher core parts with cores disabled.

I'm having a hard time believing this is deliberate. As in "We have perfectly good candidate for an i7-8700K. Let's neuter it into an i5-8400".

Edited January 12, 2018 by M.Yurizaki

[xg32]

This gen actually is fairly simple, if you don't have a tight budget, go with the 8700k, spend on cooling, motherboard, done.

 

If you are on a budget, look at either the 1600 or 8700 depending on your budget. you absolutely are not required to get the k version.

 

as for the difference between overclocks, i've noticed past 4.5ghz the real world difference is negligible in games, but there is a difference.

 

As for futureproofing, i understand the concept, but the actual practice really sucks. the 8700k will suck compared to the next gen with 8 cores and hopefully meltdown fixed, such as the 1080 ti vs the next gen.

 

But what happened this gen was that modern games basically requires intel cpus to play at 120-144hz, and AAA titles using 6 cores easily, leaving the 8700 and 8700k as the only option for some people, futureproofed or not.

 

 

[dalekphalm]

47 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

A good amount of time these processors were unable to sustain HT due to silicon impurities and such, they do identically to how AMD also tries making all Ryzen processors 1800x's just repurpose the slightly defective ones the lower tires, because as you said it is the cheaper way.

 

It is how the business work, so I fail to understand your point here.

 

I'm sorry, did you quote the wrong person? We agree.

37 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I'm having a hard time believing this is deliberate. As in "We have perfectly good candidate for an i7-8700K. Let's neuter it into an i5-8400".

Because they need to sell i5-8400's. What if there simply aren't enough defective dies to fulfill the i5 needs?

 

Some of it is deliberate, and some of it is defective parts that are still "good enough" for the i5 series.

 

But I simply cannot believe that there are enough defective parts to completely fulfill the lower tier.

[IamODIN]

1 hour ago, Ebony Falcon said:

base is 3.2 compared to 3.7

and it does matter as they don't hold there boost clocks on all boards 

 

there is a market for thoes cpus out side of us enthusiasts  so not everyone is running a midrange and upwards board and the fact is if u get a crapped out silicon chip, it can boost for a short amount of time then drop to that 3.2 base speed and it's met the specifacations and you could end up gaming at 3.2

its nothing.. under heavy load both performs the same  stock

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, IamODIN said:

its nothing.. under heavy load both performs the same  stock

show him this, an actual good prebuild with the i7 8700 that doens't throttle and keeps its turbo

[Ebony Falcon]

14 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

show him this, an actual good prebuild with the i7 8700 that doens't throttle and keeps its turbo

There is a reason the base is 3.2 and that's because the bad silicon chips will drop down to and ty at that speed 

otherwise Intel would list it as a 4.3ghz cpu 

 

you can't argue with that its fact

and it's only at 65w tdp when it's at base speed at turbo speeds it's pulling more 

[DarkSmith2]

whelp at my location i7 8700 is 360€, i7 8700k is 375€. I would be pretty dumb to buy the i7 8700.

[Bhav]

16 minutes ago, Ebony Falcon said:

There is a reason the base is 3.2 and that's because the bad silicon chips will drop down to and ty at that speed 

otherwise Intel would list it as a 4.3ghz cpu 

 

you can't argue with that its fact

and it's only at 65w tdp when it's at base speed at turbo speeds it's pulling more 

Yes, people dont realize this. Stock speeds of chips of the same type / cores are based on chip binning. 

[IamODIN]

22 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

whelp at my location i7 8700 is 360€, i7 8700k is 375€. I would be pretty dumb to buy the i7 8700.

the 8700 is at high demand so the prince will increase

[DarkSmith2]

18 minutes ago, IamODIN said:

the 8700 is at high demand so the prince will increase

it always has been this way since Sandybridge, K-Series where about 10-25€ more expansive then non-k at my location. 

[dcgreen2k]

3 hours ago, IamODIN said:

if its so safe to the "overclocked" speed. why don't intel just set it as the base clock to avoid people from having to do stuff for more performance.. 

Because all businesses want money?

 

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Because they need to sell i5-8400's. What if there simply aren't enough defective dies to fulfill the i5 needs?

Wasn't this the reason there were a few 8 core Ryzen 5 1600s, or were those chips found to fakes?

[flibberdipper]

4 hours ago, Bhav said:

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).

I'm with ya on the MSI thing. I had a refurb 960 ARMOR for a whole 24 hours before I came to the conclusion it was totally fucked. Like sure, it was a refurb but come on. 24 hours? My 7950 has been trying to die for over a year now and it's just a shitty XFX model with a reference PCB...

[Bhav]

12 minutes ago, tmcclelland455 said:

I'm with ya on the MSI thing. I had a refurb 960 ARMOR for a whole 24 hours before I came to the conclusion it was totally fucked. Like sure, it was a refurb but come on. 24 hours? My 7950 has been trying to die for over a year now and it's just a shitty XFX model with a reference PCB...

I had a £415 Godlike Gaming die within a few months with some error code shown on the LEDs. No one at MSI support knew what the error code meant. I got the same error code on my replacement so thought it must have been something else. Changed out every other component, still getting the error code. Bought a much more expensive Asus RV10E instead and it worked.

 

Got the Godlike Gaming refunded by the retailer under UK laws that if a replacement is also faulty, you get a full refund. Also all that time I searched the MSI forums for the same error code. It was rampant across all their Z170 and X99 boards at the time with loads of their motherboards dying fast with the same code, and still MSI support had no idea what it was.

 

I also got a refund for my 5820k out of it though cos after having the error on two boards and my second set of ram, I thought it must be the CPU, which was bought from Amazon who refunded it without testing. Got a new 6850k ... error code still persisted. Worst PC experience ever thanks to MSI.

 

I think I had a huge thread about it here with most people blaming the retailer for sending me another faulty board, but really that would be MSI's fault for making so many faulty boards around that time.

 

Really just gonna stick to Asus boards forever now as I've never had suck serious issues with them, other than minor things like an LED and onboard wifi not working for which I simply get an RMA in 2 years time to sell and upgrade as I am doing now.

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Because they need to sell i5-8400's. What if there simply aren't enough defective dies to fulfill the i5 needs?

 

Some of it is deliberate, and some of it is defective parts that are still "good enough" for the i5 series.

 

But I simply cannot believe that there are enough defective parts to completely fulfill the lower tier.

That's understandable, but I'm still skeptical.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

That's understandable, but I'm still skeptical.

Why?

 

As much as they would love to sell every die as an 8700K, the cheaper SKU's are likely sold in higher volumes.