cpu Is a "K" Version i7 8700 Worth it?

[JoostinOnline]

34 minutes ago, Clarkles said:

Since overclocking voids warranty do you think it is worth delidding to help with cooler temperatures? If I am already voiding warranty why not do that as well.

They don't have a way to prove you overclocked it, so you're only sort of voiding the warranty by overclocking lol. Delidding can be something to do down the line.

 

Take a look at the link in my signature.

[dizmo]

13 hours ago, TopWargamer said:

It's not rude at all. Stuff like this is easy to find. Did I not do the searching for him and linked him relative articles?

Yes, but honestly the same could be said about any topic. Google it, and it can lead you to another forum with the answer.

What you did is actually against the CoC.

[d3adc3II]

17 hours ago, Clarkles said:

Hi, for my new build I'm stuck between getting the i7 8700 and 8700k. I don't plan on overclocking in the near future but I guess it would be nice to have that feature if I ever changed my mind down the line. Will the 8700k get me more fps running at base speeds compared to the 8700? Also what would the difference in heat be? I understand that if you overclock it will get hotter but what about running at base speeds? Will the 8700k run hotter than the 8700? So all in all, is the AU$100 upgrade worth it for the extra features or should I save that money for other components/games? Thanks in advance

Let me put this straight: This is the best time for overclocking a Intel CPU. It's easy to get a stable 5GHz 1.3v for daily usage.

 

If you play game, it gains about 10-15 fps more for those games I play.

 

8700, 8700K are hot, very hot. You should probably delid it, even with 8700.

[TopWargamer]

9 hours ago, dizmo said:

Yes, but honestly the same could be said about any topic. Google it, and it can lead you to another forum with the answer.

What you did is actually against the CoC.

*Yawn*

No it's not. Report me.

[dizmo]

1 hour ago, TopWargamer said:

*Yawn*

No it's not. Report me.

No spam

• ‘LMGTFY’ links

[Mira Yurizaki]

Even if you plan on overclocking it, the most I've seen people get it to is 5.0GHz, which is a measily 8% or so over the stock turbo boost. Otherwise, the performance gap between the locked and unlocked versions theoretically is no more than about 8%-10%. Though in practice, it's usually almost no appreciable difference.

 

So I find little reason to get the unlocked version unless you want bragging rights.

[TopWargamer]

13 minutes ago, dizmo said:

No spam

• ‘LMGTFY’ links

*Yawn*

That's not what I did. Go ahead, still report me.

[maartendc]

On 6/4/2018 at 10:21 AM, Clarkles said:

How beneficial is overclocking. I know it will be different in every scenario but does it really make a big enough difference to comprehend spending that extra couple hundred?

In most cases, you are better off spending the $100 on something else. Overclocking mostly gives you around 5-10% improvement in performance. Not really noticeable unless you are benchmarking.

[DarkSmith2]

3 hours ago, maartendc said:

In most cases, you are better off spending the $100 on something else. Overclocking mostly gives you around 5-10% improvement in performance. Not really noticeable unless you are benchmarking.

Man the price difference in the states/AUD is so huge.. in Germany its 20-40€ for K vs nonK

[Zeitec]

As a matter of fact the non k isn't worth it. The 8700 won't run on the stock cooler without throttling under intense workloads, so you'll need to buy a cooler. That puts it at the same price and gaming performance as the 2700x, except the 2700x has more cores, more threads, and better performance in everything non gaming.

[thelightninja]

5 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Even if you plan on overclocking it, the most I've seen people get it to is 5.0GHz, which is a measily 8% or so over the stock turbo boost. Otherwise, the performance gap between the locked and unlocked versions theoretically is no more than about 8%-10%. Though in practice, it's usually almost no appreciable difference.

 

So I find little reason to get the unlocked version unless you want bragging rights.

Bragging rights? Hell, i'll run a i3 if it did what I wanted it to do. To each his own, but for me, i'll fork over the extra $50 when getting an i7 for 10% performance increase. It's fun, and worth it! To me bragging is getting a threadripper or EPYC. Basically it all comes down to what you want, and NEED. If you are the type, like me, who loves EXPERIENCING the performance increase (yes, 10% to me is noticeable) then it's worth it. If you don't care, then of course save money and get the non 'k' version.

[Princess Luna]

1 hour ago, DarkSmith2 said:

Man the price difference in the states/AUD is so huge.. in Germany its 20-40€ for K vs nonK

In Brazil it is as high as around 90$ dollars.

 

Any ways reasons why I defend the i7 8700 locked as always:

 

Cheaper all in all, you can save on motherboard and cooling (not to mention the chip itself) and still have the identical performance of the i7 8700K at stock

 

Easier to resell, actually true it's a myth that the unlocked holds better value for resell purposes, if any thing it loses as people will be concerned with overclocking, besides since the locked one is cheaper by default and more appropriated to the majority of places and people it's actually easier to resell, I have had plenty of experience in this my old i7 6700 locked was sold to a church needing a budget video editing build.

 

Performance is better than ever before, indeed this is the very first time ever Intel has made the frequency of the locked and unlocked identical, both have all cores boost of 4.3ghz, if you have any z370 you can stretch it to 4.4ghz on the locked on... so have an Intel 6c/12t clocked at 4.3ghz all cores out of the box is by all means amazing... its the stock single thread performance of the i7 7700K with multi-threading of a Ryzen 7 1700.

 

You'll be GPU bottleneck either ways for the most part, if you get an i7 it's likely you'll pair it with a 1070 Ti ~ 1080 Ti and even so unless you're playing at 1080p you'll get GPU bottleneck with either the locked or unlocked variants as both are sufficient to drive even the nVidia's flagship.

[DarkSmith2]

45 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

In Brazil it is as high as around 90$ dollars.

 

Any ways reasons why I defend the i7 8700 locked as always:

 

Cheaper all in all, you can save on motherboard and cooling (not to mention the chip itself) and still have the identical performance of the i7 8700K at stock

 

Easier to resell, actually true it's a myth that the unlocked holds better value for resell purposes, if any thing it loses as people will be concerned with overclocking, besides since the locked one is cheaper by default and more appropriated to the majority of places and people it's actually easier to resell, I have had plenty of experience in this my old i7 6700 locked was sold to a church needing a budget video editing build.

 

Performance is better than ever before, indeed this is the very first time ever Intel has made the frequency of the locked and unlocked identical, both have all cores boost of 4.3ghz, if you have any z370 you can stretch it to 4.4ghz on the locked on... so have an Intel 6c/12t clocked at 4.3ghz all cores out of the box is by all means amazing... its the stock single thread performance of the i7 7700K with multi-threading of a Ryzen 7 1700.

 

You'll be GPU bottleneck either ways for the most part, if you get an i7 it's likely you'll pair it with a 1070 Ti ~ 1080 Ti and even so unless you're playing at 1080p you'll get GPU bottleneck with either the locked or unlocked variants as both are sufficient to drive even the nVidia's flagship.

yea if the price difference is so huge the 8700 non-k is a considerable good deal.

 

But i think overall especially with 6c/12t overclocking gives a more than reasonable bump in multithreading performance when needed. Most played game is currently Cinebench Kappa, if you compare those scores having 250pts (@5GHz) or 350pts (@5.2GHz) more is something very desirable over the Non-K version, especially for people that want to stream or do other stuff where multithreading performance matters. You can potentially get the Multithreading performance of a 4GHz 1700 instead of a stock one when buying the K instead of the non-k

 

When it comes only to gaming, there is a lot that has to go hand in hand to offer really a big advantage in using a K version. F.e. playing on a relativly low resolution (1080P or even below), the wish to play on high refreshrates (165-240hz), also buying a faster GPU and ram for those purposes and so on. Right now you'll probably get the same performance out of a 1080ti even at 1080p, but what when you plan to upgrade your GPU at a later time and want to buy big, something like a 1180TI. There is a difference and it will grow over time while new GPUs gonna be released, making the K variant stay relevant a bit longer. At some point you'll have to ask yourself, whats next? do i want highrefreshrate gaming or do i want to play on higher resolutions with my rig in the future.

[maartendc]

On 6/5/2018 at 4:08 PM, DarkSmith2 said:

Man the price difference in the states/AUD is so huge.. in Germany its 20-40€ for K vs nonK

The price difference is actually only $50: $349 vs $299, but people tend to factor in the extra cost of a Z-series motherboard. If not getting the K version, you are better off getting a cheaper motherboard as well.

 

That, plus the extra cost of a beefy cooler, and the difference is actually bigger than $100 for overclocking.

 

With AMD, the picture is totally different as:

- All their CPU's are unlocked

- All AM4 motherboards allow overclocking if I am not mistaken

- The AMD boxed coolers are actually not terrible, so you could perhaps even get a modest OC out of them.

[DarkSmith2]

35 minutes ago, maartendc said:

The price difference is actually only $50: $349 vs $299, but people tend to factor in the extra cost of a Z-series motherboard. If not getting the K version, you are better off getting a cheaper motherboard as well.

 

That, plus the extra cost of a beefy cooler, and the difference is actually bigger than $100 for overclocking.

 

With AMD, the picture is totally different as:

- All their CPU's are unlocked

- All AM4 motherboards allow overclocking if I am not mistaken

- The AMD boxed coolers are actually not terrible, so you could perhaps even get a modest OC out of them.

yea but if i have a hobby and pay for something and want it to last long im not getting the cheapest crap. F.e. i wouldnt take a 2700x on a b350 board either.

And i wouldnt buy anything less than a z370 prime-A for a non-K 8700 either.

 

I prefer having a good powerdelivery and VRM cooling even if i cant overclock the CPU. It will either affect features or longevity if i choose a b360/h370 board. I mean there is a strix board with good stuff, but its as pricy as the Prime-A and lacks features of it for litteraly the same cost.

 

Same goes for the cooler, i wouldnt use the boxed cooler of the r7 2700x. Good to have these options but i personally wouldnt choose to for long term usage. 

Had already 3 or 4 boards dying within the last 20years of pc building because ive chosen to buy really cheap. Not going to make that mistake over and over again.

[George64]

I had had the some problem few days ago, but I decided to buy non-k i7-8700 because I don`t have enough money to buy cooler for it and to spend money for z370 motherboard.

 

For me, it`s all about money. If I had enough I would go for K, but I don`t have it now.

 

I have to buy OS, software for video editing... I am not sure which GPU to buy and how much they are important for video editing since I will not work in Adobe. I have to buy in two months.

 

If I could delay that buying I would buy K, Noctua Nh D 15, Z370 motherboard but I cannot delay it.

sorry for writing mistakes, I am tired.