Am I better off overclocking a 8600K to its full potential or just buying an 8700? (Gaming)

[LoganTNZ]

Yeah

 

Basically, i just want to make a pc dedicated to gaming. Of course...when gpu prices get more stable and go down (still clinging on hope)

 

My initial plan was to buy the ryzen 1700x and watercooler to overclock (then i realised ryzens dont overclock much)

 

So i changed to 8600k and watercooler, bit i fear that im just being stupid and acting on impulse. Plus ive never overclocked or used a watercooler before  (im going to look so stupid now)

 

(Dont worry, i always get a cheap air cooler to check if ive got a crappy cpu or not)

 

Thanks

[mrchow19910319]

if it is for me, I would buy the 8700 k straight up. 

 

cos I dont know and too lazy to overclock. 

I just buy one and make it last long for me. 

[LoganTNZ]

2 minutes ago, mrchow19910319 said:

if it is for me, I would buy the 8700 k straight up. 

 

cos I dont know and too lazy to overclock. 

I just buy one and make it last long for me. 

Oh, i meant the 8700. Lol

[mrchow19910319]

Just now, LoganTNZ said:

Oh, i meamt the 8700. Lol

yes. even the 8700. 

[Jurrunio]

8600k is better. Hyperthreading is particularly useful on workstation uses like video editing (to a point where my 2600k can go head-on against a 7600k in that regard). In games, hyperthreading rarely helps. Single core performance is still the major factor.

[LoganTNZ]

3 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

8600k is better. Hyperthreading is particularly useful on workstation uses like video editing (to a point where my 2600k can go head-on against a 7600k in that regard). In games, hyperthreading rarely helps. Single core performance is still the major factor.

I mean, how much cooling does the 8600k require at 5ghz? Is the coolermaster masterliquid 280pro an overkill?

[ExplosiveSloths]

Really depends on the use case, gaming you might find it better to get the 8600k as some games likes clock speed.

Though some use lots of cores/threads so yeah.

 

I think Civilization is one of those games and it really does show, as it took around a minute or so to complete each turn with an ivy bridge i5 and with my current 8600k it takes 20-25 seconds. Though I'm not sure if that's due to the extra cores or clock speed.

 

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, LoganTNZ said:

I mean, how much cooling does the 8600k require at 5ghz? Is the coolermaster masterliquid 280pro an overkill?

Using the master liquid lite, as it was the only cooler that was available in store @ the time.

Runs at 50c @ 4.9 @ 1.365v

 

Edit: I'm an idiot and made some mistakes. Corrected them and will proof-read from now on.

Thanks for the funny comments though.

 

[LoganTNZ]

2 hours ago, ExplosiveSloths said:

Really depends on the use case, gaming you might find it better to get the 8600k as some games likes clock speed.

Though some use lots of cores/threads so yeah.

 

I think Civilization is one of those games and it really does show, as it took around a minute or so to complete each turn with an ivy bridge i5 and with my current 8660k it takes 20-25 seconds. Though I'm not sure if that's due to the extra cores or clock speed.

Im going to get a cougar panzer case. Really spacious for only 99AUD. Im going to add some rgb extras though haha

 

Relating to civilisation, it depends on the game. A standard game for me takes at max 10-15 seconds for each turn (with a q6600 lmao)

 

2 hours ago, ExplosiveSloths said:

Using the master liquid lite, as it was the only cooler that was available in store @ the time.

Runs at 50c @ 4.9 @ 3.365v

I dont really like the look of it tbh. Ive seen a cool cooler named the Deepcool(?) Captain ex 240. Its usually 80 AUD without RGB, but to be accepted in 2018, gotta spend that 20 extra for rgb haha

 

EDIT: nevermind price went up to 130 standard

[Jurrunio]

33 minutes ago, LoganTNZ said:

I mean, how much cooling does the 8600k require at 5ghz? Is the coolermaster masterliquid 280pro an overkill?

Big air coolers or 240mm (or longer) rad liquid coolers for sure.

 

30 minutes ago, ExplosiveSloths said:

Runs at 50c @ 4.9 @ 3.365v

Cook with Intel eh?

[LoganTNZ]

1 minute ago, Jurrunio said:

Big air coolers or 240mm (or longer) rad liquid coolers for sure.

For sure, as in overkill? Or acceptable range?

[ExplosiveSloths]

1 hour ago, Jurrunio said:

Big air coolers or 240mm (or longer) rad liquid coolers for sure.

 

Cook with Intel eh?

I think it's fine though I'm still tuning it, as I built it 2 days ago.

 

1 hour ago, LoganTNZ said:

For sure, as in overkill? Or acceptable range?

Really depends on the 240mm radiator, as some like the one I have is probably closer to a mid/high end air cooler.

[Drak3]

47 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

8600k is better. Hyperthreading is particularly useful on workstation uses like video editing (to a point where my 2600k can go head-on against a 7600k in that regard). In games, hyperthreading rarely helps. Single core performance is still the major factor.

In most newer games, hyperthreaded CPUs tend to push better minimums than non hyperthreaded counterparts. Coffee hasn't been out long enough to see how that'll hold up, but it's definitely better to go for the 8700 moving forward. Especially when the 8700 boosts to 4.6GHz, which is beyond ROI as far as overclocking in gaming is concerned.

[Jurrunio]

42 minutes ago, LoganTNZ said:

For sure, as in overkill? Or acceptable range?

Unless you use super powerful fans, that's pretty much mandatory for overclocked 8600k and 8700k. Of course that's excluding badly built ones.

 

42 minutes ago, ExplosiveSloths said:

I think it's fine though I'm still tuning it, as I built it 2 days ago.

LOL I'm just reminding you to stop sending 3.3V to your CPU. It's not a grill.

 

34 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

In most newer games, hyperthreaded CPUs tend to push better minimums than non hyperthreaded counterparts. Coffee hasn't been out long enough to see how that'll hold up, but it's definitely better to go for the 8700 moving forward. Especially when the 8700 boosts to 4.6GHz, which is beyond ROI as far as overclocking in gaming is concerned.

Single core 4.6GHz yes, but 'only' 4.3GHz on all cores. Games using hyperthreading are just low in numbers, not to mention the 8700 is quite a bit more expensive than the 8600k... by 22% in fact.

[DarkSmith2]

50 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

Single core 4.6GHz yes, but 'only' 4.3GHz on all cores. Games using hyperthreading are just low in numbers, not to mention the 8700 is quite a bit more expensive than the 8600k... by 22% in fact.

how much is the 8700 vs 8700k in AUD?

[Nocte]

1 hour ago, ExplosiveSloths said:

I think it's fine though I'm still tuning it, as I built it 2 days ago.

I hope you mean 1.3v and not 3.3v.

[Taja]

I would get the 8700. The 8700k is overkill anyway, people just get it because they like to OC and they think every bit of performance is a must.

 

With the 8700 you can get a cheaper cooler + mobo and have AMAZING performance.

[Drak3]

54 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

Single core 4.6GHz yes, but 'only' 4.3GHz on all cores. Games using hyperthreading are just low in numbers, not to mention the 8700 is quite a bit more expensive than the 8600k... by 22% in fact.

That's still to the point where real world gains diminish.

Games themselves may not use multithreading heavily, but most of them do benefit from more than just 4 or 6 threads, just due to how desktop operating systems schedule and run background tasks.

 

And IMO, the 8600K, and every other K SKU i5, is stupid.

[Jurrunio]

1 hour ago, DarkSmith2 said:

how much is the 8700 vs 8700k in AUD?

8700 is $444, 8700k is $519, btw 8600k is $364

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

That's still to the point where real world gains diminish.

Games themselves may not use multithreading heavily, but most of them do benefit from more than just 4 or 6 threads, just due to how desktop operating systems schedule and run background tasks.

 

And IMO, the 8600K, and every other K SKU i5, is stupid.

Exactly. i7s give you less for your money than i5s when it comes to games for the reason you give. You cant play games without the OS can you?

 

Haha, not buying i5s is your decision. Not everyone gets enough money to use a previous gen X platform.

 

 

[Drak3]

7 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

Exactly. i7s give you less for your money than i5s when it comes to games for the reason you give. You cant play games without the OS can you?

No, the opposite in fact. The i7 will perform better up front and last longer before one feels the need to upgrade.

Locked i5 SKUs are great for their price, but the K SKU i5 is stupid, it won't realistically meet the wants and needs of a user for as long as a lower clocked i7 will.

[Jurrunio]

34 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, the opposite in fact. The i7 will perform better up front and last longer before one feels the need to upgrade.

Locked i5 SKUs are great for their price, but the K SKU i5 is stupid, it won't realistically meet the wants and needs of a user for as long as a lower clocked i7 will.

in the past with 4 cores probably. Now they have 6. also, they always have the single core performance of an i7, which helps a lot in games.

 

If steady frame rates and good minimums are what you like, 7820X or even 7900X is the best choice. Keep in mind that cores are better than threads, so 8 core or above Skylake X will be the better choice. Keep in mind to increase their Mesh frequency and use high frequency RAM as well

[xg32]

the 8700 is better, u can also run the bclk at 102 for a slight overclock. i have both the 8600k and the 8700k and the lack of HT on the 8600k is quite crippling in some games. I'd rather have HT than the extra 700mhz.

 

if i had to choose between a 4.4 8700 vs a 5.1 avx 8600k, i'd go with the 8700 for everything period.

[daimonie]

10 hours ago, LoganTNZ said:

Yeah

 

Basically, i just want to make a pc dedicated to gaming. Of course...when gpu prices get more stable and go down (still clinging on hope)

 

My initial plan was to buy the ryzen 1700x and watercooler to overclock (then i realised ryzens dont overclock much)

 

So i changed to 8600k and watercooler, bit i fear that im just being stupid and acting on impulse. Plus ive never overclocked or used a watercooler before  (im going to look so stupid now)

 

(Dont worry, i always get a cheap air cooler to check if ive got a crappy cpu or not)

 

Thanks

Here's the question you probably should ask yourself. First, what do you get for the money? What games do you play in this gaming dedicated PC? What is the value you're getting?

Here's an example. I would guess that Rise of the Tomb Raider is reasonable for the kind of games I play. What I want to get out of my computer is, for example, FPS.
In the attachment, I give you some benchmark of that game on those CPUs (source: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/10/intel-coffee-lake-8700k-review/2/). It doesn't contain the 8600K, but in a different review (https://us.hardware.info/reviews/7602/20/intel-core-i7-8700k--i5-8600k--i5-8400-coffee-lake-review-affordable-six-cores-gaming-benchmarks-gtx-1080-ti-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-dx12) we can see that the 8th gen i5 and i7  are very similar for this particular game.

All of these are stock. In MY region: The i7 has a price of ~360 eur, the i5 is at 250 eur and the ryzen 1700X is at 280 eur. Divide what you get by what you pay. 
The i7  has a value of .38, the i5 is at .56 and the ryzen is at 0.38. The i5 is a clear winner (for this game), while the ryzen and i7 tie - which means the Ryzen wins, due to its lower absolute pricing. Mind you, this is surprising me as well - Jurrunio was the person to point out the i5 is ridiculously cheap around here. 

So, that's value. Overclicking changes those numbers, but keep in mind you need to buy the cooling as well. 

If it's pure gaming, the i5 seems king. If you're combining it with some workloads, the Ryzen's larger core count and hyperthreading (under a different name) can really make its value skyrocket, but its single clock is hurting it for gaming. 

 

 

9 hours ago, ExplosiveSloths said:

Really depends on the use case, gaming you might find it better to get the 8600k as some games likes clock speed.

Though some use lots of cores/threads so yeah.

 

I think Civilization is one of those games and it really does show, as it took around a minute or so to complete each turn with an ivy bridge i5 and with my current 8660k it takes 20-25 seconds. Though I'm not sure if that's due to the extra cores or clock speed.

 

 

 

 

 

Using the master liquid lite, as it was the only cooler that was available in store @ the time.

Runs at 50c @ 4.9 @ 3.365v

 

I'm guessing you're focusing on the wrong upgrade regarding Civ. On Civ 6, which is the only one I tested for, AI turns became annoyingly long. Then, everything changed when I reinstalled the PC to a small, super cheap SATA SSD (rest of system: i5-4430, GTX 1060 ). 

And became even better when I tried it on my new laptop - NVMe SSD (i7-7500U). I'm pretty sure the SSDs are driving the change. Also, disable barbarians.


 

[ExplosiveSloths]

46 minutes ago, daimonie said:

Here's the question you probably should ask yourself. First, what do you get for the money? What games do you play in this gaming dedicated PC? What is the value you're getting?

Here's an example. I would guess that Rise of the Tomb Raider is reasonable for the kind of games I play. What I want to get out of my computer is, for example, FPS.
In the attachment, I give you some benchmark of that game on those CPUs (source: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/10/intel-coffee-lake-8700k-review/2/). It doesn't contain the 8600K, but in a different review (https://us.hardware.info/reviews/7602/20/intel-core-i7-8700k--i5-8600k--i5-8400-coffee-lake-review-affordable-six-cores-gaming-benchmarks-gtx-1080-ti-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-dx12) we can see that the 8th gen i5 and i7  are very similar for this particular game.

All of these are stock. In MY region: The i7 has a price of ~360 eur, the i5 is at 250 eur and the ryzen 1700X is at 280 eur. Divide what you get by what you pay. 
The i7  has a value of .38, the i5 is at .56 and the ryzen is at 0.38. The i5 is a clear winner (for this game), while the ryzen and i7 tie - which means the Ryzen wins, due to its lower absolute pricing. Mind you, this is surprising me as well - Jurrunio was the person to point out the i5 is ridiculously cheap around here. 

So, that's value. Overclicking changes those numbers, but keep in mind you need to buy the cooling as well. 

If it's pure gaming, the i5 seems king. If you're combining it with some workloads, the Ryzen's larger core count and hyperthreading (under a different name) can really make its value skyrocket, but its single clock is hurting it for gaming. 

 

 

I'm guessing you're focusing on the wrong upgrade regarding Civ. On Civ 6, which is the only one I tested for, AI turns became annoyingly long. Then, everything changed when I reinstalled the PC to a small, super cheap SATA SSD (rest of system: i5-4430, GTX 1060 ). 

And became even better when I tried it on my new laptop - NVMe SSD (i7-7500U). I'm pretty sure the SSDs are driving the change. Also, disable barbarians.


 

Thanks for the advice! I'm using a 250GB samsung evo alongside a WD 1TB.

Guess I'll install it on the SSD, as I tend to keep my games on the hard drive.

 

[LoganTNZ]

2 hours ago, daimonie said:

Here's the question you probably should ask yourself. First, what do you get for the money? What games do you play in this gaming dedicated PC? What is the value you're getting?

Here's an example. I would guess that Rise of the Tomb Raider is reasonable for the kind of games I play. What I want to get out of my computer is, for example, FPS.
In the attachment, I give you some benchmark of that game on those CPUs (source: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/10/intel-coffee-lake-8700k-review/2/). It doesn't contain the 8600K, but in a different review (https://us.hardware.info/reviews/7602/20/intel-core-i7-8700k--i5-8600k--i5-8400-coffee-lake-review-affordable-six-cores-gaming-benchmarks-gtx-1080-ti-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-dx12) we can see that the 8th gen i5 and i7  are very similar for this particular game.

All of these are stock. In MY region: The i7 has a price of ~360 eur, the i5 is at 250 eur and the ryzen 1700X is at 280 eur. Divide what you get by what you pay. 
The i7  has a value of .38, the i5 is at .56 and the ryzen is at 0.38. The i5 is a clear winner (for this game), while the ryzen and i7 tie - which means the Ryzen wins, due to its lower absolute pricing. Mind you, this is surprising me as well - Jurrunio was the person to point out the i5 is ridiculously cheap around here. 

So, that's value. Overclicking changes those numbers, but keep in mind you need to buy the cooling as well. 

If it's pure gaming, the i5 seems king. If you're combining it with some workloads, the Ryzen's larger core count and hyperthreading (under a different name) can really make its value skyrocket, but its single clock is hurting it for gaming. 

 

 

I'm guessing you're focusing on the wrong upgrade regarding Civ. On Civ 6, which is the only one I tested for, AI turns became annoyingly long. Then, everything changed when I reinstalled the PC to a small, super cheap SATA SSD (rest of system: i5-4430, GTX 1060 ). 

And became even better when I tried it on my new laptop - NVMe SSD (i7-7500U). I'm pretty sure the SSDs are driving the change. Also, disable barbarians.


 

Strange. In many other reviews, the 8600k is on par, or even better, than the 7700k?

[xg32]

1 hour ago, LoganTNZ said:

Strange. In many other reviews, the 8600k is on par, or even better, than the 7700k?

the 8600k is better than the 7700k, though in some games they are the same.