8700k or 8600k

[Hydrograd]

Hello,

I'm planning to build a new rig, just for casual stuff, not going to OC anything, i just want something good enough to not worry about upgrade anytime soon.

 

So i don't know what to get, an 8700k with stock cooler and normal ram, or 8600k with watercooler and a ram with heatsink.

 

GPU will prob be an 1060 6gb dual.

PS: I'm from Brazil, so it's hot af, so that's why i'm worried about the heat.

 

Cheers!

[Skiiwee29]

if just pure gaming, the 8600k will be 100% sufficient for many years to come. 

[Airdragonz]

8600k with at least a good air cooler should work well for you. 8700k will need a better cooler, and there's no "stock" cooler for any unlocked Intel processors. (any cpu that ends with k)

[Princess Luna]

Neither, go with the i7 8700 which offers you over all better price to performance specially given the desire not to overclock.

 

This way you can buy the cheapest motherboard possible as power phases and VRMs does not matter, and the simple fact the locked processor has a significant lower TDP of 65w means cooling it will be much easier and cheaper as well, the i7 8700k even at stock settings tends to show much higher temperatures.

 

Furthermore with the i7 8700 you'll get identical performance of the i7 8700k at stock settings while consuming less energy, producing less heat and being cheaper, at 4.3ghz all core turbo you don't have to worry about high refresh rate in gaming or most single thread bond software as it boosts to 4.5ghz quite easily and with all 6 cores and 12 threads it'll prove a beast at multi-threading.

 

[Jurrunio]

3 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Neither, go with the i7 8700 which offers you over all better price to performance specially given the desire not to overclock.

 

This way you can buy the cheapest motherboard possible as power phases and VRMs does not matter, and the simple fact the locked processor has a significant lower TDP of 65w means cooling it will be much easier and cheaper as well, the i7 8700k even at stock settings tends to show much higher temperatures.

 

Furthermore with the i7 8700 you'll get identical performance of the i7 8700k at stock settings while consuming less energy, producing less heat and being cheaper, at 4.3ghz all core turbo you don't have to worry about high refresh rate in gaming or most single thread bond software as it boosts to 4.5ghz quite easily and with all 6 cores and 12 threads it'll prove a beast at multi-threading.

 

how? shouldnt they act in the exact same way and use similar power under identical settings? He's a casual user, so I dont think he needs a beast either.

[coconuthead212]

eaiii Hydrograd, blz? massa ver um BR no forum

 

dependendo dos jogos que costuma jogar, se o teu objetivo não é OC, até um i5 8400 pode ser uma boa pegada. aqui no BR tá com um preço bom

--

depending on the games you play, since you're not planning OC, a i5 8400 could be a good deal. It's at a good price here in Brasil

 

[thelordofwarr]

1 hour ago, Jurrunio said:

how? shouldnt they act in the exact same way and use similar power under identical settings? He's a casual user, so I dont think he needs a beast either.

The 8700 clocks 200mhz Lower than the 8700k so it requires less power, but in gaming your not going to really notice that 200mhz difference at all, but you can get a cheaper cooler and motherboard as @Princess Cadence already said

[Princess Luna]

8 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

how? shouldnt they act in the exact same way and use similar power under identical settings? He's a casual user, so I dont think he needs a beast either.

He said to have means to afford the i7 8700k altogether, lets be real the i7 8700 is the perfect processor for someone looking into something good and reliable that can be used for many years as OP stated the wish not to upgrade any time soon after this.

 

As usual Hyper-Threading is over all a better investment than the unlocked multiplier of the highest end i5, overclocking helps but doesn't solve any thing while hyper-threading not only ensures your chip retains better value in the used market it does gives it more breath of life specially in our world of constant improvements towards multi-threading.

 

We have seen this for a while already, the i7 4770k and i7 4790k are usually the to-go chips to those in need to stick with their old ddr3 modules, the i7 6700 is more looked after than the i5 6600k as it is choking in many games while the Skylake i7 still has some breath life on it.

 

The i5 7600k became a "dead" processor as soon as coffee lake came out as it is comparable to the i3 8350k while hyper-threading of the i7 7700k / i7 7700 still keeps it more in pair with the 6 cores i5 8400 and so on... there are a lot of examples why Hyper-Threading is meaningful enough to be looked after, even more on his case where overclocking is not part of the plan.

 

The reason why the power consumption is not the same falls under the TDP, to keep its ratings the i7 8700 never goes beyond 1.25v while the i7 8700k left in auto voltage which is the usual case to most not overclocking will be around the 1.3v 1.35v area as its TDP allows a higher voltage.

 

So to short it up, he might not need it but he can afford it and the return for his investment is over all worth it as being a casual the i7 8700 will be all he needs for 5 to even more years to come while still being a more desirable processor in the second hand market.

 

Price wise, specially here in Brazil something I'm well aware the savings he can potentially have in motherboard and cooling will make the cost of the chips rather the same as well.

[AngryBeaver]

29 minutes ago, Hydrograd said:

Hello,

I'm planning to build a new rig, just for casual stuff, not going to OC anything, i just want something good enough to not worry about upgrade anytime soon.

 

So i don't know what to get, an 8700k with stock cooler and normal ram, or 8600k with watercooler and a ram with heatsink.

 

GPU will prob be an 1060 6gb dual.

PS: I'm from Brazil, so it's hot af, so that's why i'm worried about the heat.

 

Cheers!

If you do not plan to overclock you might be better off skipping a K designated chip, but then again you can do all core boosting on a K chip.. So there is that to consider.

 

A lot of which is best depends on what you are going to be doing with the pc. If you use adds where multi-threading is king (stuff like rendering, opening lots of windows at once, running several processes simultaneously, etc) then the 8700k will be the best bet due to hyperthreading (doubles your logical core count)

 

If you are only going to be doing casual surfing of the web, watching videos, playing games, etc. Then the 8600k would be your best bet as you don't need the addition hyperthreading capabilities.

 

The nice thing about the 8 series is they went to 6 cores, so hyper-threading will be less important than before for most casual tasks as 6 core full cores will out perform the old 4 core 8 threads of the 7 series. 

 

Now if you are wanting to avoid overclocking, but take advantage of being able to boost to max turbo speed on ALL cores at the same time... then the K chips will be the way to go. Also you might change your stance in a few years and decide to push that chip harder, which would make the K chip come in handy.

 

The biggest thing you will lose by going with say a 8600 or 8700 (non k) will be a few hundred megahertz of speed on turbo and also the ability to use MCE (boost all cores to their max instead of 1 to max or 2 to max, but then reduced turbo speed when 3+ cores are used).

 

As to a cooler, you will want something mid/high range in the air cooling department. If you are have the room and are interested pretty much any 240mm or bigger AIO will work. I personally lean towards AIO for any build I do for someone these days, just because of my personal preference and the pro's vs cons of them.

 

Once you decide on the chip you want to go with, let us know and I am sure people will be more than happy to give you good cooler options.

[Hydrograd]

Well, i guess i came to the right place, so many help in just half hour.

 

Thank you all for the help, really, specially @Princess Cadence and @AngryBeaver for the insights.

[BluJay614]

14 minutes ago, Hydrograd said:

just for casual stuff, not going to OC anything

 

49 minutes ago, Hydrograd said:

So i don't know what to get, an 8700k with stock cooler and normal ram, or 8600k with watercooler and a ram with heatsink.

Okay, so if we don't ever plan on OC, then the extra money to get the "k" version is kinda a waste of money, not to mention that the "k" versions do not come with a stock cooler.

If you don't plan to OC, I would honestly stick to air cooling.

For the RAM, almost all you will find has a heatsink on it, and they don't really produce enough heat to need it. This makes it more of an aestetic choice.

If you genuinely think you may need the extra threads, I'd go with an 8700. However, since you're just doing casual stuff, I'm guessing the most intensive thing you will do is game, I'd stick to an i5. Unfortunately, there is no 8600(non-k) so you would be left choosing between an 8400 or a higher clocked, but much hotter 8600k.

 

Personally, I would agree with @Princess Cadence and get the i7 8700(non-k) if you have the means to meet the end.

[AngryBeaver]

15 minutes ago, BluJay614 said:

 

Okay, so if we don't ever plan on OC, then the extra money to get the "k" version is kinda a waste of money, not to mention that the "k" versions do not come with a stock cooler.

If you don't plan to OC, I would honestly stick to air cooling.

For the RAM, almost all you will find has a heatsink on it, and they don't really produce enough heat to need it. This makes it more of an aestetic choice.

If you genuinely think you may need the extra threads, I'd go with an 8700. However, since you're just doing casual stuff, I'm guessing the most intensive thing you will do is game, I'd stick to an i5. Unfortunately, there is no 8600(non-k) so you would be left choosing between an 8400 or a higher clocked, but much hotter 8600k.

 

Personally, I would agree with @Princess Cadence and get the i7 8700(non-k) if you have the means to meet the end.

 

The thing is with the K chips you also get MCE. Which means you can boost to say 4.7 on ALL cores with the 8700k... where as the 8700 would boost to 4.7k on one core, 4.6k on two cores, or 4.2k on all cores. So that does make a difference on performance even if you are not overclocking.

 

The stock air cooler isn't going to be something he would want to use anyways mind you. It would cause thermal levels to be high and would also lead to throttling under head loads. Best to keep a chip cool and happy.

 

Also he mentioned he wanted a pc to last for a while. So in that event the hyper-threading will give him more longevity of the system.

 

You are correct that most ram comes with a heat spreader and on ddr4 heat shouldn't be an issue regardless unless your case has no flow.

 

Also a note to OP, there is no stock heatsink for the 8700k. All of the K series come without a heatsink. Also I know you are trying to work on a specific budget, but maybe you should consider waiting another 1-2 weeks and then picking up a good AIO for the 8700k. It makes no sense to invest all the money in a better chip only to skimp on giving it the cooling it needs.

[BluJay614]

2 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

MCE

MCE is overclocking.

[AngryBeaver]

1 minute ago, BluJay614 said:

MCE is overclocking.

MCE is "Multi-core Enhancement"

 

It does not actually over clock the chip. You are not playing with voltages or changing the maximum boost. What it does is allow all cores to boost to the maximum (4.7ghz on a 8700k). So since we are operating within the 4.7ghz turbo range on this chip, we are not actually overclocking anything... on top of that this feature is normally enabled by default on most motherboards and only actually does anything on a K designated chip. Either way it does provide a significant performance boost in situations where 3 or more cores are being used.

[BluJay614]

1 minute ago, AngryBeaver said:

MCE is "Multi-core Enhancement"

 

It does not actually over clock the chip. You are not playing with voltages or changing the maximum boost. What it does is allow all cores to boost to the maximum (4.7ghz on a 8700k). So since we are operating within the 4.7ghz turbo range on this chip, we are not actually overclocking anything... on top of that this feature is normally enabled by default on most motherboards and only actually does anything on a K designated chip. Either way it does provide a significant performance boost in situations where 3 or more cores are being used.

It's your motherboard automaticly OVERCLOCKING your CPU. Jayztwocents did a video on this. It's not something new, but it is a form of overclocking.

[AngryBeaver]

37 minutes ago, BluJay614 said:

It's your motherboard automaticly OVERCLOCKING your CPU. Jayztwocents did a video on this. It's not something new, but it is a form of overclocking.

In prior series this was just the turbo clock multiplier which you could enforce on all cores. This is also something that comes on by default on most motherboards and isn't a setting a user would need to change in most circumstances.

 

There is lots of misinformation on the web, and this is a similar scenario. 

 

First off Intel no longer publishes the overall turbo boost when all cores are in use. That is because it now varies per chip depending on different factors. Second overclocking is defined as taking steps to raise the frequency of your CPU. MCE does not do that, it just ensures you are getting your turbo boost on all cores instead of just a few. It isn't actually increasing the frequency on these cores beyond what is safe or even their advertised speed. It isn't a feature that will void your warranty or damage your chip. It doesn't require any input on the users behalf to operate... and most people are using this feature without even knowing it on there K designated chips.

 

So for all intents and purposed just consider this a feature that is enabled when using a K designated chip. It allows those chips to not only have a 200-300 mhz advantage in speed over their non K variants, but also allows them to boost to their maximum on all cores.

 

In general when a user says they do not plan to ever overclock.. they are generally referring to playing with voltages, frequency, LLC levels, voltage modes, and multipliers. They are generally not talking about a feature that is enabled by default on most motherboards and gives them a free performance boost just for using a compatible chip.

 

The only time someone WOULD disable MCE is in the event their cooling solution could not handle the additional heat it can cause (which isn't a lot and is only really present in synthetic benchmarks and stability tests).

 

So if MCE is overclocking is your only argument for why he should go with an 8700, then you are operating on a pretty thin argument. Also note there is a $20-30 dollar difference in price for them. So for 30 bucks at most the 10-20% performance boost potential is worth it.

 

Looking at the normal frequencies you will also see the k version is 500mhz faster (which could be your lowest multicore speed WITHOUT MCE being considered)

 

You wouldn't get a included cooler with the K version, but the 8700 would be throttling a good deal of the time on the stock cooler... so it isn't exactly an option for it either.

[Jurrunio]

59 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

MCE is "Multi-core Enhancement"

 

It does not actually over clock the chip. You are not playing with voltages or changing the maximum boost. What it does is allow all cores to boost to the maximum (4.7ghz on a 8700k). So since we are operating within the 4.7ghz turbo range on this chip, we are not actually overclocking anything... on top of that this feature is normally enabled by default on most motherboards and only actually does anything on a K designated chip. Either way it does provide a significant performance boost in situations where 3 or more cores are being used.

'Overclock' does NOT ONLY mean you increased the clock speed yourself. It refers to the CPU running faster than what Intel's factory specs. MCE isn't provided by Intel, but mobo manufacturer's as a selling point (bullshit to those who knows their stuff, but whatever), which means it still voids the warranty (that is, since Intel cannot prove that, overclockers still keep their warranty as long as they dont tell Intel they overclocked the CPU).

 

38 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

In prior series this was just the turbo clock multiplier which you could enforce on all cores. This is also something that comes on by default on most motherboards and isn't a setting a user would need to change in most circumstances.

 

There is lots of misinformation on the web, and this is a similar scenario. 

 

First off Intel published the overall turbo boost when all cores are in use. That is because it now varies per chip depending on different factors. Second overclocking is defined as taking steps to raise the frequency of your CPU. MCE does not do that, it just ensures you are getting your turbo boost on all cores instead of just a few. It isn't actually increasing the frequency on these cores beyond what is safe or even their advertised speed. It isn't a feature that will void your warranty or damage your chip. It doesn't require any input on the users behalf to operate... and most people are using this feature without even knowing it on there K designated chips.

 

So for all intents and purposed just consider this a feature that is enabled when using a K designated chip. It allows those chips to not only have a 200-300 mhz advantage in speed over their non K variants, but also allows them to boost to their maximum on all cores.

 

In general when a user says they do not play to ever overclock.. they are generally referring to playing with voltages, frequency, LLC levels, voltage modes, and multipliers. They are generally not talking about a feature that is enabled by default on most motherboards and gives them a free performance boost just for using a compatible chip.

 

The only time someone WOULD disable MCE is in the event their cooling solution could not handle the additional heat it can cause (which isn't a lot and is only really present in synthetic benchmarks and stability tests).

 

So if MCE is overclocking is your only argument for why he should go with an 8700, then you are operating on a pretty thin argument. Also note there is a $20-30 dollar difference in price for them. So for 30 bucks at most the 10-20% performance boost potential is worth it.

 

Looking at the normal frequencies you will also see the k version is 500mhz faster (which could be your lowest multicore speed WITHOUT MCE being considered)

 

You wouldn't get a included cooler with the K version, but the 8700 would be throttling a good deal of the time on the stock cooler... so it isn't exactly an option for it either.

What makes MCE an overclock is that you speed up the CPU. It was 4.3GHz on all cores, now you make it 4.7. Saying that max turbo clock remains the same means it's not an overclock is simply wrong and misinformation.

 

Again, MCE is from motherboard manufacturers, neither from Intel nor the chipset. Also, oc doesnt need touching the voltage, LLC etc in all cases. Just raise the multiplier is enough as long as you dont go far.

 

Stock cooler is fine, as long as you bear with the noise level. Undervolting helps here.

[AngryBeaver]

20 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

'Overclock' does NOT ONLY mean you increased the clock speed yourself. It refers to the CPU running faster than what Intel's factory specs. MCE isn't provided by Intel, but mobo manufacturer's as a selling point (bullshit to those who knows their stuff, but whatever), which means it still voids the warranty (that is, since Intel cannot prove that, overclockers still keep their warranty as long as they dont tell Intel they overclocked the CPU).

 

What makes MCE an overclock is that you speed up the CPU. It was 4.3GHz on all cores, now you make it 4.7. Saying that max turbo clock remains the same means it's not an overclock is simply wrong and misinformation.

 

Again, MCE is from motherboard manufacturers, neither from Intel nor the chipset. Also, oc doesnt need touching the voltage, LLC etc in all cases. Just raise the multiplier is enough as long as you dont go far.

 

Stock cooler is fine, as long as you bear with the noise level. Undervolting helps here.

Overclocking is configuration of computer hardware components to operate faster than certified by the original manufacturer, with "faster" specified as clock frequency in megahertz (MHz) or gigahertz (GHz).

 

Each individual core is able to run at 4.7ghz. As the boost doesn't apply to just a specific core. So we aren't pushing individuals cores past what they are able to withstand. The VID on these chips is already requesting way more voltage than MCE would require and honestly you could undervolt the VID by an offset of .015-.020 on most machines and still be stable and also use MCE. So we aren't asking for any more voltage from what is already being requested by the chip.

 

This IS a motherboard level feature that is true. It is handled like all other 3rd party settings from Intel's point of view. It does not, however void your warranty. It is also enabled by default on most motherboards that support these chips. 

 

This is a marketing ploy and something that has always been available for I series chips, but with various names or ways of doing it over the years, but even then this has normally been a feature that was enabled.

 

There are also other things worth noting on K processors. By default K processors do not run a multiplier offset when an AVX instruction set is present. The non K processors actually underclock themselves by default when these AVX instructions are present. Now on a K chip, you do have the option of going in to your motherboard and setting a underclock offset for these, but most don't outside of overclockers trying to dial in a more stable system, but unable to do so because of how AVX instruction affect the cpu heat/power usage.

 

So the question is now when the OP says no overclocking... does he mean he basically wants to disable all K series enhancements that come enabled by default... or does he mean he doesn't want to do any tinkering with overclocking and or worried about hurting his chip. If he is going to take the time to disable all of these things, then yes he might as well go with the 8700. However, if he isn't going to turn any of these off... then the performance gains he will see over the 8700 will be far worth the $20-$30 increase in cost from the two chips.

 

If we are talking a system that will be relevant longer then the choice is clear.

 

 

*Edit* Also a little extra background about me. I am in a line of work where I need to be pretty anonymous with my forum activity now. That being said I am a pretty big member of the Intel community. I actually have moderator permissions there and was a major runner in the 7700k temp spike controversy that was going on. So the information I provide is not false, it is not here to mislead. It is from someone who has a lot of information and experience on these issues... I also have a communication path to actual Intel developers I can use in the event I needed to. So you can continue to doubt or attempt to discredit me, but in the end I CAN support the information I am giving.

[geo3]

Why do so many people buy K sku chips and then say "Oh I don't do overclocking"?