I7-8700 or 8700k

[Scruffmanmills]

Morning all,

 

I was wondering if for £12 is it worth going for the K version of the i7, it means having to get a Z board so overall ends up being more expensive.

 

I plan to get an IPS 1440p 120hz G-Sync monitor, running a EVGA 1070ti.

 

Thoughts? 

[Jurrunio]

Not really. 8700 clock speed is already high, no need for the absolute best unless you've got money to blow.

[userzero]

I would say yes because of how little the difference is, you get an unlocked chip that you can overclock in the future to keep it modern etc

[FloRolf]

So you build a PC with 300£ CPU, 500£ GPU, 500£ Display and then end up saving 12£ for the K? 

Definitely get the K as you'll want to OC later and it has better resell value. 

[DarkSmith2]

21 minutes ago, Scruffmanmills said:

Morning all,

 

I was wondering if for £12 is it worth going for the K version of the i7

absolutely.

[JoostinOnline]

23 minutes ago, Scruffmanmills said:

Morning all,

 

I was wondering if for £12 is it worth going for the K version of the i7, it means having to get a Z board so overall ends up being more expensive.

 

I plan to get an IPS 1440p 120hz G-Sync monitor, running a EVGA 1070ti.

 

Thoughts? 

100% yes.  Even if you don't want to overclock now, it will essentially add several years of relevance to your CPU.

[Princess Luna]

It's not, overclocking makes little difference nowadays because the locked chip already boosts so high, specially with a 1070 Ti you can achieve this GPU full potential with the locked one.

 

I also had to decide for myself and the savings I did going locked were not only real they also made no difference at the end of the day performance wise, this is the first locked i7 that has identical specs to the unlocked one at stock so it's awesome, 65w tdp means you can cheap on boards and cooling as well.

 

Overclocking does little to no difference nowadays as the CPU boosts to almost its maximum by default already, even so those few extra mhz not only will make no difference in the great scheme of things, certainly won't add any years to it truth be told.

 

Did being able to overclock the i7 7700K made any difference against the i7 7700? not really both were murder by the i5 8400, and now as said the clocks are way tighter together, days of the i7 2600k where overclocking was needed to extract the maximum performance of a chip are over.

 

Overclocking nowadays is just an expensive hobby with little impact in the final performance you're getting. (Intel obviously, AMD still requires it).

[r3loAded]

1 minute ago, Princess Cadence said:

I also had to decide for myself and the savings I did going locked were not only real they also made no difference at the end of the day performance wise, this is the first locked i7 that has identical specs to the unlocked one at stock so it's awesome, 65w tdp means you can cheap on boards and cooling as well.

In different scenarios I would totally agree. But as @FloRolf said, when buying that kind of hardware, why cheaping out to £12. And with the mobo the same. Why not having more features you might need them in future. I'm not saying to go and buy the best mobo out there but a decent one so you can have a harmony between components

[JoostinOnline]

30 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Did being able to overclock the i7 7700K made any difference against the i7 7700? not really both were murder by the i5 8400, and now as said the clocks are way tighter together, days of the i7 2600k where overclocking was needed to extract the maximum performance of a chip are over.

That's not really a fair comparison, because it has an additional two cores.  A 6700k is way better than a 7700.  You can also boost the 8700k WAY above the 8700.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

9 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

That's not really a fair comparison, because it has an additional two cores.  A 6700k is way better than a 7700.

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[epsilon84]

42 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

It's not, overclocking makes little difference nowadays because the locked chip already boosts so high, specially with a 1070 Ti you can achieve this GPU full potential with the locked one.

 

I also had to decide for myself and the savings I did going locked were not only real they also made no difference at the end of the day performance wise, this is the first locked i7 that has identical specs to the unlocked one at stock so it's awesome, 65w tdp means you can cheap on boards and cooling as well.

 

Overclocking does little to no difference nowadays as the CPU boosts to almost its maximum by default already, even so those few extra mhz not only will make no difference in the great scheme of things, certainly won't add any years to it truth be told.

 

Did being able to overclock the i7 7700K made any difference against the i7 7700? not really both were murder by the i5 8400, and now as said the clocks are way tighter together, days of the i7 2600k where overclocking was needed to extract the maximum performance of a chip are over.

 

Overclocking nowadays is just an expensive hobby with little impact in the final performance you're getting. (Intel obviously, AMD still requires it).

As someone with a 5GHz air-cooled 8700K, I would have to respectfully disagree. 

 

A 16% overclock may not be noticeable, especially in gaming, but free performance is free performance no matter how you spin it.

 

And when the next gen of GPUs hit, I will be glad that I have a 8700K rather than a 8700. It's not that a 8700 is slow, the 8700K is simply faster.

 

And for a 12 pound difference like the OP mentioned, then it's a no brainer for me.

 

Even if he doesn't overclock today, there may come a day in the future when the OP needs additional CPU performance. 

 

This actually happened to my cousin who built a 2500K system back in 2011. Up until last year, he ran it at stock as it performed well enough for his uses. But then he needed extra performance for his Photoshop work, so I told him to get an inexpensive HSF (he was running the tiny stock Intel HSF until then) and told him the basic steps of overclocking. He is now running at 4.3GHz and in his own words, Photoshop is more responsive.

[Princess Luna]

9 minutes ago, epsilon84 said:

but free performance is free performance no matter how you spin it.

Free performance where? you paid for it.

 

56 minutes ago, r3loAded said:

.

Yah but the thing is my system is perfect harmony and it was much cheaper than getting a ROG Strix-G a 240mm AiO and the K chip... performance wise I am still within the 10% of the 5ghz chip so yeah... different points of view.

 

And no my i7 8700 boosting all cores to 4.4ghz does not bottleneck my 1080 Ti, it didn't bottleneck even the TITAN V at gaming.

 

30 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

That's not really a fair comparison, because it has an additional two cores.  A 6700k is way better than a 7700.  You can also boost the 8700k WAY above the 8700.

It actually is, you see the argument is that overclocking can by some miracle extend its relevancy for years, my point is that it didn't given even 1 extra year in this scenario as the changes will still occur, you can't really sell that as absolute truth, besides the 7700 performs the same as the 6700k, so no it's not "way better" overclocking is what gives it the lead and even so... this lead is shrinking down more and more since the 2000 series.

 

I'm not here to buy an argue with who likes overclocking, I'm just giving the valid point that overclock in coffee lake is nowhere near as a requirement as it once was.

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 hour ago, Scruffmanmills said:

Morning all,

 

I was wondering if for £12 is it worth going for the K version of the i7, it means having to get a Z board so overall ends up being more expensive.

 

I plan to get an IPS 1440p 120hz G-Sync monitor, running a EVGA 1070ti.

 

Thoughts? 

£12? really? wow...for that kind of money then yeah sure i would do it...sure...

Also Z370 boards there are some cheaper options there too...and they can run faster memory as well...so if the price difference between the CPU is that little then yes i would go for it...usually the K version sell for around 50$US more at least...so yeah

[epsilon84]

2 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Free performance where? you paid for it.

 

Yah but the thing is my system is perfect harmony and it was much cheaper than getting a ROG Strix-G a 240mm AiO and the K chip... performance wise I am still within the 10% of the 5ghz chip so yeah... different points of view.

 

And no my i7 8700 boosting all cores to 4.4ghz does not bottleneck my 1080 Ti, it didn't bottleneck even the TITAN V at gaming.

 

It actually is, you see the argument is that overclocking can by some miracle extend its relevancy for years, my point is that it didn't given even 1 extra year in this scenario as the changes will still occur, you can't really sell that as absolute truth, besides the 7700 performs the same as the 6700k, so no it's not "way better" overclocking is what gives it the lead and even so.. this lead is shrinking down more and more since the 2000 series.

 

I'm not here to buy an argue with who likes overclocking, I'm just giving the valid point that overclock in coffee lake is nowhere near as a requirement as it once was.

I have an entry level Asus Z370-P motherboard and a Hyper 212 that I reused from my previous system. So please don't be one of those people that claims you can't overclock a 8700K without a high end motherboard or an AIO cooler - I am proof that is totally not the case. My motherboard has average VRMs at best, and the Hyper 212 isn't even a high end HSF, you can buy one for about $25. And no, I don't have a golden sample 8700K, it could be considered an 'average' one that requires 1.36V for stable 5.0GHz non AVX workloads. 

 

Yes, it is 'free' performance because why should I settle for 4.3GHz if my chip is capable of 5.0GHz? As I said, whether that difference is noticeable or not depends entirely on your usage case - for gaming, not likely, for rendering or productivity apps that scale well with frequency? Your tasks will complete ~16% faster. This could be useful in the real world.

 

I gave you a real life example of how overclocking can extend the life of a system - I told my cousin he could purchase a used 3770/3770K, or overclock. The overclocking option was much cheaper ($20 HSF vs $100 - $150 for a used CPU) and he ended up with a 20% performance gain for $20 spent - 7 years after his initial purchase. I would say that is money well spent. Yes, an overclocked 2500K is still no match for todays CPUs, of course, but it is much faster than a STOCK 2500K, which is my whole point. Free (or cheap) additional performance - either today, or in the future. Why would you turn that down for the sake of saving 12 quid?!

 

Granted, I do agree with you that overclocking doesn't gain you as as much as in days past, as the headroom seems to be shrinking - we used to get 25 - 50% overclocks, now the 8700K can get at most ~20% with a 5.1GHz overclock. AMD has even less headroom if you get the 2600X/2700X, I would agree that for those chips overclocking probably isn't really worth it.

[Scruffmanmills]

Over all I have enough in the budget for the OC versions but won't actually be OC'ing till maybe 3 years down the line. Just wondering how much extra it will cost me overall not just the £12 difference with regads the other parts, Cooler, MB, RAM etc.

 

Toughts? 

[Princess Luna]

Just now, Scruffmanmills said:

toughts?

why don't you post your PCPP list so we have a full idea of your build? that helps assisting. Also if you do decide to overclock there is no reason to leave it to do here in 3 years, you can get the 8700K at 5ghz with relative easy and the chip will still survive far more than 5 years which is the time you'll likely to want to replace it either ways.

 

I just mean if you do get the unlocked enjoy its full potential since start it's the more logical decision and I'm sure @epsilon84 here would agree on this point.

 

[epsilon84]

1 minute ago, Scruffmanmills said:

Over all I have enough in the budget for the OC versions but won't actually be OC'ing till maybe 3 years down the line. Just wondering how much extra it will cost me overall not just the £12 difference with regads the other parts, Cooler, MB, RAM etc.

 

Toughts? 

I would get aftermarket cooling for even the 8700, as the stock Intel HSF is woefully underpowered to cool it - there have been tests showing that you will get thermal throttling with the 8700 using the stock HSF. So from that point, you don't really save anything on the cost of cooling.

 

Motherboard and RAM can be the same for both configurations, it's not like you need a special motherboard or RAM to overclock.

 

Have a read above about my own 8700K experience, I own an entry level Z370 motherboard, with a modest $25 HSF, and I am reusing RAM from my previous 6700K build, which is actually DDR4-2666 but I've overclocked it to DDR4-3400 speeds. Yes, I overclock everything

 

[JoostinOnline]

2 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

besides the 7700 performs the same as the 6700k,

Whoever told you that was very wrong.

 

My 4790k also significantly outperformed my friend's 6700 (which he upgraded to a 6700k for much better performance).

[Scruffmanmills]

Here's my kinda final build: @JoostinOnline @epsilon84 @Princess Cadence @i_build_nanosuits @r3loAded

 

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/VGkQD2

 

Have £1500 so would ultimately like £400 for a IPS 1440p GSYNC 120hz Monitor, so need to save somewhere.

 

Thoughts?

[epsilon84]

Possibly the motherboard and HSF are the obvious areas where you can go a bit cheaper and still get a good overclock and decent gaming system.

 

As I said earlier, I myself use an Asus Z370-P and Hyper 212, which only costs about 20 pounds I believe. Not saying you have to get this particular HSF, but if you are spending that much on a HSF you are entering AIO price territory... and there are plenty of cheaper motherboards available where you can maybe save another 30 pounds or so.

[r3loAded]

9 minutes ago, Scruffmanmills said:

Here's my kinda final build: @JoostinOnline @epsilon84 @Princess Cadence @i_build_nanosuits @r3loAded

 

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/VGkQD2

 

Have £1500 so would ultimately like £400 for a IPS 1440p GSYNC 120hz Monitor, so need to save somewhere.

 

Thoughts?

That looks good to me. If necessary you could go for non LED ram and might shave another £10-£15. Otherwise that looks solid and well balanced. At least in my opinion.

[Princess Luna]

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i7-8700 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor  (£248.39 @ Aria PC)
CPU Cooler: Noctua - NH-L9i 33.8 CFM CPU Cooler  (£35.13 @ Ebuyer)
Motherboard: Asus - PRIME B360M-A Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  (£71.98 @ Ebuyer)
Memory: Crucial - Sport LT 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR4-2666 Memory  (£78.39 @ YoYoTech)
Memory: Crucial - Sport LT 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR4-2666 Memory  (£78.39 @ YoYoTech)
Storage: Crucial - MX500 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  (£58.97 @ Amazon UK)
Storage: Western Digital - Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  (£34.79 @ Aria PC)
Video Card: EVGA - GeForce GTX 1070 Ti 8GB SC GAMING ACX 3.0 Black Edition Video Card  (£408.69 @ Amazon UK)
Case: Cooler Master - MasterBox Lite 3.1 MicroATX Mid Tower Case  (£33.95 @ Amazon UK)
Power Supply: SeaSonic - FOCUS Plus Gold 550W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply  (£76.00 @ Aria PC)
Monitor: Acer - Predator XB271HUA 27.0" 2560x1440 165Hz Monitor  (£467.47 @ Amazon UK)
Total: £1592.15
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-05-03 14:14 BST+0100

 

Best I can do to get you the 1440p g-sync monitor is this... still goes over by 92 pounds, the thing is if we cut any where else you'll no longer be capable of using the monitor to its full potential.

 

 

[JoostinOnline]

16 minutes ago, Scruffmanmills said:

Here's my kinda final build: @JoostinOnline @epsilon84 @Princess Cadence @i_build_nanosuits @r3loAded

 

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/VGkQD2

 

Have £1500 so would ultimately like £400 for a IPS 1440p GSYNC 120hz Monitor, so need to save somewhere.

 

Thoughts?

Definitely swap out the hard drive with a WD one.

[DarkSmith2]

easy,

K version - 12£ more

dont have to change anything else, stock 8700k is already so much better than the 8700. Also you get the money back later on if your are selling it. facts

@Princess Cadence is just trying to justify the own odd buy.

[Scruffmanmills]

9 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i7-8700 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor  (£248.39 @ Aria PC)
CPU Cooler: Noctua - NH-L9i 33.8 CFM CPU Cooler  (£35.13 @ Ebuyer)
Motherboard: Asus - PRIME B360M-A Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  (£71.98 @ Ebuyer)
Memory: Crucial - Sport LT 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR4-2666 Memory  (£78.39 @ YoYoTech)
Memory: Crucial - Sport LT 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR4-2666 Memory  (£78.39 @ YoYoTech)
Storage: Crucial - MX500 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  (£58.97 @ Amazon UK)
Storage: Western Digital - Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  (£34.79 @ Aria PC)
Video Card: EVGA - GeForce GTX 1070 Ti 8GB SC GAMING ACX 3.0 Black Edition Video Card  (£408.69 @ Amazon UK)
Case: Cooler Master - MasterBox Lite 3.1 MicroATX Mid Tower Case  (£33.95 @ Amazon UK)
Power Supply: SeaSonic - FOCUS Plus Gold 550W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply  (£76.00 @ Aria PC)
Monitor: Acer - Predator XB271HUA 27.0" 2560x1440 165Hz Monitor  (£467.47 @ Amazon UK)
Total: £1592.15
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-05-03 14:14 BST+0100

 

Best I can do to get you the 1440p g-sync monitor is this... still goes over by 92 pounds, the thing is if we cut any where else you'll no longer be capable of using the monitor to its full potential.

 

 

Hmm, I might increase the budget to £2,000, over 5 years that £300 ntb. Would this be better or overkill, I'd say £150 for accessories like floating screen mount and wire management.

 

Much speed difference between 2666-3200?

 

Thoughts