i5 8600k vs i7 8700k threads

[Daanthegreatersoverclocker]

The i5 has 6 threads the i7 has 12, Does it really matter? Will i be able to record/game/listening to music while gaming on the i5 8600k? Because it saves me about 100 euro. Any help would be appreciated.

[App4that]

The difference would kick in if you do a lot of streaming. 

[Daanthegreatersoverclocker]

Just now, App4that said:

The difference would kick in if you do a lot of streaming. 

I don't stream, atleast not heavy games just some fps shooters only. So i should be fine with an i5 8600k?

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, Daanthegreatersoverclocker said:

The i5 has 6 threads the i7 has 12, Does it really matter? Will i be able to record/game/listening to music while gaming on the i5 8600k? Because it saves me about 100 euro. Any help would be appreciated.

Yes but it won't be nearly as nice if an experience as it is with the 8700k. I mean the i5 is a good gpu don't get me wrong. But if you want a gpu that is really good at multitasking you want the i7 or maybe even ryzen.

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, Daanthegreatersoverclocker said:

I don't stream, atleast not heavy games just some fps shooters only. So i should be fine with an i5 8600k?

Personally as someone who's owned i5s and i7s, the i7 is worth the money if you can afford it. But the i5 is still a great CPU. 

[techetga]

i5 8600k is best for gaming. If you want to OC 8600k is better because you can probably hit a higher frequency than i7 which primarily games benefit from.

[Daanthegreatersoverclocker]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

Personally as someone who's owned i5s and i7s, the i7 is worth the money if you can afford it. But the i5 is still a great CPU. 

The thing is i wanna get it watercooled with the a240r kit, and with an i7 i can't use that kit. then i would need a 360 and it will be more expensive. so then i should GET the i5 since i can't the extra 200 or w/e it's going to be right?

 

[Daanthegreatersoverclocker]

4 minutes ago, techetga said:

i5 8600k is best for gaming. If you want to OC 8600k is better because you can probably hit a higher frequency than i7 which primarily games benefit from.

yes, don't go off topic please.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Daanthegreatersoverclocker said:

The thing is i wanna get it watercooled with the a240r kit, and with an i7 i can't use that kit. then i would need a 360 and it will be more expensive. so then i should GET the i5 since i can't the extra 200 or w/e it's going to be right?

 

Why can't you use that kit? What graphics card are you running with it? 

[Daanthegreatersoverclocker]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

Why can't you use that kit? What graphics card are you running with it? 

Vega 64

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, Daanthegreatersoverclocker said:

Vega 64

Honestly I'd go with the 360 regardless. I just picked up a 1080 even though I was looking at 64s because of how hot a 64 runs. Not picking on the 64 at all, just how it is. 

[Princess Luna]

Why would the i5 8600k be better at gaming? clock for clock they have the same single thread performance, if any of the chips should take lead is the i7 for its better cache.

 

Any ways, the i7 is worth it specially with a Vega 64 that while no 1080 Ti is still the kind of GPU to justify a powerful CPU, I'd buy the i7 8700K instead, or even as I have actually done go with the i7 8700 to do better money management, from my experience Hyper-Threading is worth it specially in the long run.

 

My i7 6700 didn't boost its clocks past 3.6ghz on all core loadsbut it still stayed on pair with a well 4.6 ghz / 4.7 ghz i5 6600k gaming performance thanks to how choking only 4threads were for modern gaming... and I won in multi-tasking so yeah...

[techetga]

 

6 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Why would the i5 8600k be better at gaming? clock for clock they have the same single thread performance, if any of the chips should take lead is the i7 for its better cache.

 

Any ways, the i7 is worth it specially with a Vega 64 that while no 1080 Ti is still the kind of GPU to justify a powerful CPU, I'd buy the i7 8700K instead, or even as I have actually done go with the i7 8700 to do better money management, from my experience Hyper-Threading is worth it specially in the long run.

 

My i7 6700 didn't boost its clocks past 3.6ghz on all core loadsbut it still stayed on pair with a well 4.6 ghz / 4.7 ghz i5 6600k gaming performance thanks to how choking only 4threads were for modern gaming... and I won in multi-tasking so yeah...

For gaming frequency is more important than cores. You can get an expensive xeon with 32 cores but it will be shit compared to i7 6700(k). Because you can OC an i5 8600k higher FPS will be better. HT is not beneficial for gaming.

[App4that]

6 minutes ago, techetga said:

 

For gaming frequency is more important than cores. You can get an expensive xeon with 32 cores but it will be shit compared to i7 6700(k). Because you can OC an i5 8600k higher FPS will be better. HT is not beneficial for gaming.

Depends on the game. Some games don't make use of HT, some do. So comes down to what you play. 

[Brooksie359]

7 minutes ago, techetga said:

 

For gaming frequency is more important than cores. You can get an expensive xeon with 32 cores but it will be shit compared to i7 6700(k). Because you can OC an i5 8600k higher FPS will be better. HT is not beneficial for gaming.

If that was the case then the i5 8400 wouldn't be basically on par if not better than the i5 7600k. Cores matter more than you think especially  now compared to a few years ago.

[techetga]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

Depends on the game. Some games don't make use of HT, some do. So comes down to what you play. 

 

2fps difference while streaming is not worth €100 more to me.

[techetga]

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

If that was the case then the i5 8400 wouldn't be basically on par if not better than the i5 7600k. Cores matter more than you think especially  now compared to a few years ago.

That's because one is 8th gen and the other 7th. That's not a fair comparison.

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, techetga said:

That's because one is 8th gen and the other 7th. That's not a fair comparison.

How is it not a fair comparison? The 7600k has a higher single threaded performance than the 8400 yet the 8400 often times performs better. It is literally the exact scenario that proves the whole single threaded performance argument wrong. 

[App4that]

13 minutes ago, techetga said:

2fps difference while streaming is not worth €100 more to me.

I love the Yes man, strong supporter so want to make you everyone knows I'm not taking anything away from what he said.

 

That said, try Fallout 4. Try any other game that makes use of threads and the 8700k pulls away. Then you have the multitasking and production/workstation improvements.

 

here's how I see it.

 

The i5 is a gaming only CPU, the i7 is a gaming CPU that handles multithreaded workloads well, the 2700X is a workstation CPU that handles gaming well. 

[Princess Luna]

49 minutes ago, techetga said:

For gaming frequency is more important than cores. You can get an expensive xeon with 32 cores but it will be shit compared to i7 6700(k). Because you can OC an i5 8600k higher FPS will be better. HT is not beneficial for gaming.

I don't think you understood what I wrote, where in my very lived personal experience I seen how much HT can be beneficial for gaming (even if indirectly), so... I'm not sure... honestly you just seem to wish people to say yes go ahead get the i5 8600K because of the money you'll save.

 

Truth be told unless you're getting the 1080 Ti you could pair any other GPU with the i5 8400 and hardly bottleneck any thing if at all.