Intel Core i7-8700K Review: The New Gaming King

[Steve]

I think it's funny that you're calling for consistency & claiming there are problems with different variables in the testing being applied to the different setups, when the site you claimed did it better (Techreport.com) does the same thing with their reviews (http://techreport.com/review/32642/intel-core-i7-8700k-cpu-reviewed/5):

• Just like in Steve's review, they keep the platforms as close as possible (although, I did notice that Techreport apparently changed the timings on their RAM, as the timings for the Ryzen tests were slightly faster than the Intel ones, something that Techspot didn't do)
• As far as making sure they had a large sample size, Steve didn't say how many times he ran the tests...but in prior testing, we've seen that Techspot reviewers run them multiple times & present the averages in their results (as opposed to just picking the best one). Techreport does the same thing, as they ran each test 3 times & used the averages
• Just like in Steve's review, all game tests for the CPUs were run with a GTX 1080TI set at 1080p resolution. I would imagine that they would give the same reason that Steve & all other Techspot reviewers give for using those settings, should you ask them.

And it's not like we don't already have multiple sites that show that, once you hit 1440p & 4K resolutions, that the gap in performance between CPUs shrinks down quite a bit (& depending on the game may even vanish):

• https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K/12.html
  
• https://www.anandtech.com/show/1185...lake-review-8700k-and-8400-initial-numbers/14
  
• https://www.anandtech.com/show/11697/the-amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-and-1920x-review/16
  
• https://www.pcworld.com/article/317...or-less-than-intels-cheapest-8-core-chip.html
  
• https://www.computerbase.de/2017-06/4k-gaming-cpu-gpu-benchmark/2/ (although in German, the in-browser translation from Chrome helps)

The concise conclusion, though, that you can make from this data is that the individual testing results may vary, but the general consensus is that benchmarking at 1440p & 4K resolutions is definitely GPU dependent.

Yep same timings and frequency on all platforms, DDR4-3200 CL14.
Each result is an average from three runs.
We've done so much testing at 1440p already, I was simply calling on that experience. Recently I did this for example but I've done way more tests over at Hardware Unboxed...

https://www.techspot.com/review/1490-ryzen-vs-core-i7-vega-64-geforce-1080/

 

[Charles Olson]

In the end, lets not forget that everything we see from Intel now is because AMD forced them to do so, with Ryzen lineup. I think AMD is worth the credit and the money, since now their products are not inferior from a performance/consumption standpoint compared to competition anymore.

Interesting logic since Intel's dominance forced AMD to finally release a product that cannot compete in performance with ST and gaming only on MT and price.

The above sentence is not my opinion but merely an attempt to show that rationalizing like yours really solves anything and means nothing.

The 8700k wasn't forced and I really think Intel would have released it anyway (albeit much later, not now).
But for the i5 and i3 lineup, AMD's influence can clearly be seen (and most likely be felt too once we have benchmarks). Intel really needs to deliver in that price range since they can't only just stay with the i7 8700k doing well.

I think he meant since this is a paper launch that Intel had to push the coffee lake cpus out early ( I mean in the last few weeks most sites show these coffee lake i7 8700 as out of stock ) and the amount of different mother boards are limited to the pricey ones ! But I guess the few hundreds or maybe a thousands that managed to get one are happy !

 

[LNCPapa]

I have both the 1950X and the 8700K and unless you have very heavy multithreaded workloads you'll get better performance from the 8700K. I can even game and record on the 8700K with better overall performance. I do run the 8700K @ 4.7 on all cores while the 1950X only ever ran up to 4.0. I had both machines paired with a 1080Ti and run at 2560x1440. The 1950X has 32GB of RAM @ 3200 MHz and the 8700K has 16GB at the same speed.

 

[Larsenex]

I migrated from 16gig ram, I5 3750K oc'd to 4.2 ghz, and gtx 970. My new rig built in February is I8700K OC'd to 4.7, 32 gig DDR4 (3200), GTX 1070 and M.2 250 for windows and evo 500 gig for my games.
I do believe the 8700 is a great processor. In my case I had a literal HUGE leap in performance. Graphix wise there was a good but not huge increase as the 970 and 1070 are both great cards.
Where I see the performance is is playing games that utilize multi threading, Galactic Civilizations Insane maps, Civ VI, Xcom 2. I play ESO and I believe its stuck as a single threaded game but it looks beautiful at 1440p on this machine.
Long ago I was an AMD fanboi, I have since moved and stayed with Intel. I am going to build my daughter a new computer and for her I am going to use AMD so I can have two separate real world rigs to see how they compare.