The Old King of Gaming: Intel Core i7-8700K Revisited

[Daniele 00]

This topic wasnt done to make a comparison between intel and amd cpu, but to show the strong point of the 8700k nowdays. In the past Techspot has done comparisons between amd and intel cpu. For example they also show both 1080p and 1440p result. At 1440p the performance between amd and intel at gaming are similiar because the bottle neck becomes the video card and not the cpu. In most of the real life scenarios, in videogames... it is always the video card to be bottle neck.

 

[Evernessince]

Part of me is happy I don't need to upgrade my 8700K but part of me is not happy I don't get to play with new toy yet
Just waiting for Ryzen 4000 to drop the bomb on Intel's laziness.

You made a wise choice to wait. You'd be extremely hard pressed to notice a difference in gaming performance between the 8700K and any of Intel's newer processors. Heck if you have a modest overclock of 5 GHz there really isn't a difference at all.

Certain people on Intel / AMD threads love to tout an extremely small FPS difference as complete domination but the reality of the situation is gaming performance has not improved much regardless of brand.

 

[Strawman]

It isn't comparable at all my friend. What Intel did was way worse and unexpected.

Intel launched the 8700k, 6 months after the 7700k. The 8700k is a 6 cores/12 threads almost same price and better turbo frequency against a 4 cores/8 threads one, no options to upgrade unless you buy a new mobo. AMD launch the Zen+ series a year after Zen launch (something everyone knew it would happen) and the performance was decent but nothing crazy, you could also just reuse the same mobo and just buy the new CPU.

Intel just launched something to compete against Ryzen, disrespecting their consumers at the same time.

Oh yeah, you are right. How much would the total cost be for someone that bought 7700k + mobo and then sold both to get 8700k + mobo compared to doing the same on Ryzen 1st to 2nd gen minus the mobo part?

Let's say 150 euros for each mobo, just to be consistent. So 500 for the 1800x + 150 for mobo + 300 for the 2700x, that's 950€.On the other hand, going the Intel route was 350 per CPU and 150 per mobo, meaning 1k. Taking into account the resale value of Intel which is better than AMD and the fact that you can also sell your z270 motherboard, you paid LESS on Intel and you ended up with a higher performance gain, or at least thats what your post suggested. So yeah, facts are facts

 

[Ludak021]

No the i5's are bad for gaming @144hz since they no longer support hyperthreading. If you have a 144hz monitor the CPU can not keep up in some games that demand more cores. Like Far Cry and Battlefield. Get an i7 or go Ryzen.They start to get awful frametimes even tho the FPS may be over 150fps.

well, this article is my answer to you: you are wrong.

PS. I5 don't have hyperthreading, never have.

 

[Ludak021]

I do wonder how did you come to that conclusion. Even the data shown here tells otherwise, so maybe you have a different source, or perhaps personal experience?

~3% of a difference isn't rally a difference after 4 years. If you are going to chase 3-6 fps on top of a 100, go ahead, it's your money.

as for7 zip and other stuff, really? You care about that? I don't. I don't have a single archived file bigger than 50mb. Never will. Everything else is just as fast on any of the CPUs, and I know most of you people didn't pay $1000 for adobe anything so don't start please.

 

[pit1209]

Oh yeah, you are right. How much would the total cost be for someone that bought 7700k + mobo and then sold both to get 8700k + mobo compared to doing the same on Ryzen 1st to 2nd gen minus the mobo part?

Let's say 150 euros for each mobo, just to be consistent. So 500 for the 1800x + 150 for mobo + 300 for the 2700x, that's 950€.On the other hand, going the Intel route was 350 per CPU and 150 per mobo, meaning 1k. Taking into account the resale value of Intel which is better than AMD and the fact that you can also sell your z270 motherboard, you paid LESS on Intel and you ended up with a higher performance gain, or at least thats what your post suggested. So yeah, facts are facts

So now we are also taking into account resale value? Something that has nothing to do with Intel or its roadmap.

The fact that there are people ignorant enough to pay top dollar for used Intel processors when Intel has already launched counterparts with better performance or better value and are basically also ignoring the other fact about AMD offering better options for their money cannot be taken into consideration when we are talking about a corporation like Intel that obviously is not valuing their customers at the same level as they value that brand.

 

[Ludak021]

Better according to you, and your values. Corporation "like Intel" ? You think AMD is better? smh... are you not getting tik tok from AMD past 3 years?

there are people ignorant enough to value the CPU based on benchmarks of applications they have never used or will never use, even when they are slower or on par with something on 14nm lithography from past era in applications that they WILL use.

see? we can all play this game.

PS. I can pick a ~$140 (AMD or Intel) CPU that will work just as same in your everyday PC activities as your current one does. It could be AMD or Intel, it doesn't matter. The only place where it would matter would be high fps gaming on 2080Ti. And for that, I would pick that old 14nm dusty Intel every day, and overclock it past (game performance wise) every Ryzen out there.

 

[Strawman]

So now we are also taking into account resale value? Something that has nothing to do with Intel or its roadmap.

The fact that there are people ignorant enough to pay top dollar for used Intel processors when Intel has already launched counterparts with better performance or better value and are basically also ignoring the other fact about AMD offering better options for their money cannot be taken into consideration when we are talking about a corporation like Intel that obviously is not valuing their customers at the same level as they value that brand.

Well even if you don't take resale into account going from the top 1st gen ryzen CPU to the top 2nd gen ryzen costs as much as going from the top kaby to the top coffeelake. So if Intel doesn't value its customers, how does AMD ?

 

[Irata]

Well even if you don't take resale into account going from the top 1st gen ryzen CPU to the top 2nd gen ryzen costs as much as going from the top kaby to the top coffeelake. So if Intel doesn't value its customers, how does AMD ?

That is assuming you buy the top CPU when it's released. If you are willing to wait a little bit, great deals can be had for Ryzen.

My entry into the AM4 eco system was in the beginning of this year. I got my 2700x - the previous gen's top model - for €150 including the HSF, taxes, shipping and Borderlands 3. The CPU gives me strong multitasking performance which is what I care about at an unbeatable price.

When I decide to upgrade (when there is another sale), I don't need to get much for the CPU to break even since I get to keep the game. So break even would be €100. And I don't need to replace the board, so no additional cost or hassle.

Can you get similar deals on Intel's last gen CPU ?

 

[Lounds]

So when I built my latest system at the end of 2017 the choice for the money I wanted to spend was Ryzen 5 1600 or the i5 8400 (which tbf was still about £50 more and intel motherboards were double the B350) and I think I made the right choice 12 threads Vs 6, I knew someone a few months before me bought the i7 7700k, although the i7 is still reasonable at performance and gaming still, in a few years time it will be punching above its weight as a lot of games will be built around being multi threaded and if you want to run multiple background tasks then a quad core chip is sufficient even now.

 

[Strawman]

That is assuming you buy the top CPU when it's released. If you are willing to wait a little bit, great deals can be had for Ryzen.

My entry into the AM4 eco system was in the beginning of this year. I got my 2700x - the previous gen's top model - for €150 including the HSF, taxes, shipping and Borderlands 3. The CPU gives me strong multitasking performance which is what I care about at an unbeatable price.

When I decide to upgrade (when there is another sale), I don't need to get much for the CPU to break even since I get to keep the game. So break even would be €100. And I don't need to replace the board, so no additional cost or hassle.

Can you get similar deals on Intel's last gen CPU ?

Yes, if you waited 6 months after the release of the 7700k you could buy the 8700k for the same money. Or you could buy a similar CPU (8600k) for 100€ less.

 

[Irata]

Yes, if you waited 6 months after the release of the 7700k you could buy the 8700k for the same money. Or you could buy a similar CPU (8600k) for 100€ less.

Could you buy the 7700k for less or can you buy an 8700k / 9900k for less now though. That was my point.

 

[pit1209]

Yes, if you waited 6 months after the release of the 7700k you could buy the 8700k for the same money. Or you could buy a similar CPU (8600k) for 100€ less.

Let me remind you that anyone who bought a x4xx board or even a x3xx can easily update their CPU from a 1600 to a 3950x or even Ryzen 3 in a couple of months while retaining everything except changing the new CPU. That's way cheaper and a much bigger upgrade pathway than anything Intel has launched.

Don't think that because I'm replying this pro-AMD comments I'm an AMD chill or something, I'm just stating facts and when AMD decide to do the same as Intel and the competition makes the right decisions I will be here bashing them if I have to.

 

[Bp968]

I had the 8700k delided with a 1080ti until I swapped it for a 10900k.Biggest mistake of my life.

If that's your lifes biggest mistake you've had a very good life.

 

[MaxSmarties]

Well, the benchmark with the CPU overclocked at 5 GHz is quite misleading.
There is no magic here: the i7-8700K is quite similar to the i5-9600K and a little slower than an i7-9700K.
It still is a good CPU. A very good CPU for gaming, but a 9600K and a 9700K could reach 5 GHz too (quite easily) and they will perform in a similar way (the 9700K will be better).

 

[Bp968]

Well, the benchmark with the CPU overclocked at 5 GHz is quite misleading.
There is no magic here: the i7-8700K is quite similar to the i5-9600K and a little slower than an i7-9700K.
It still is a good CPU. A very good CPU for gaming, but a 9600K and a 9700K could reach 5 GHz too (quite easily) and they will perform in a similar way (the 9700K will be better).

I don't think the article is trying to sell someone on the 8700k over the newer options though. Its just pointing out the fractional differences between it and the newer options. Upgrading from an 8700k to anything in the same bracket would be silly in the extreme.

Buying any CPU today is a foolish thing to do anyway. With the new zen on the way you'll either be able to get the newer faster CPU for current prices or get the older ones for a cheaper price. Not to mention the most glaring difference (imo) on the intel side, the lack of PCIe 4.0. I'm happy with my 8700k but when I upgrade my wifes 3570k later this year it *won't* be an intel CPU. Since she isn't playing high refresh games with a 2080ti at 1080p intels "advantage" is pointless and loses to AMDs core count advantage and seemingly lower probability of security issues.

And no, I'm no AMD shill. I haven't had a AMD system since the original Athlon 64 and I own stock in both companies (intel will recover, and AMD is performing wonderfully).

 

[Aryassen]

~3% of a difference isn't rally a difference after 4 years. If you are going to chase 3-6 fps on top of a 100, go ahead, it's your money.

as for7 zip and other stuff, really? You care about that? I don't. I don't have a single archived file bigger than 50mb. Never will. Everything else is just as fast on any of the CPUs, and I know most of you people didn't pay $1000 for adobe anything so don't start please.

Errrr, there must be a misunderstanding somewhere...I asked you why do you think a 4/8 Intel CPU is better for gaming than almost anything AMD has to offer...what has that got to do with the percentage differences you mentioned above, or with 7zip performance?

 

[loki1944]

Great revisit.
I would suggest adding 1 more CPU.
Right before 8700k was released, there was significant price reductions and good offers for CPUs 6800k and 6850k. I bought a 6850k and x99 Taichi for 510 Euros total in mid 2017 as I wanted an upgrade path (to Xeons or 6900k / 6950x) once the platform gets older and cheaper. It has been a great purchase since it costed less than a similar quality setup with 8700k and provided me with 40 PCI lanes and a decent 4.3 GHz overclock I am still rocking the 6850k. I think intel pretty much brought this chip from HEDT to regular platforms. Any chance to have it tested? Right now 6850k goes as cheap as 125-150 Euros in second hand market and X99 boards are around 100-150 Euros. So for a total of 225 - 300ish Euros (and in the US probably for same amount with USD) it is possible to get it. It of course maybe makes less sense with Ryzen 3600 in the market BUT I think even 6850k provides more FPS in games although I might be wrong since I have never seen a benchmark.

I'm using a 6850K@4.5Ghz with a 2080Ti @3440x1440 resolution runs fantastic and pretty even with my i7 7800X@4.8Ghz which is roughly equivalent to an 8700K.

 

[loki1944]

If that's your lifes biggest mistake you've had a very good life.

LOL. Awesome response sir.

 

[MaxSmarties]

I don't think the article is trying to sell someone on the 8700k over the newer options though. Its just pointing out the fractional differences between it and the newer options. Upgrading from an 8700k to anything in the same bracket would be silly in the extreme.

Buying any CPU today is a foolish thing to do anyway. With the new zen on the way you'll either be able to get the newer faster CPU for current prices or get the older ones for a cheaper price. Not to mention the most glaring difference (imo) on the intel side, the lack of PCIe 4.0. I'm happy with my 8700k but when I upgrade my wifes 3570k later this year it *won't* be an intel CPU. Since she isn't playing high refresh games with a 2080ti at 1080p intels "advantage" is pointless and loses to AMDs core count advantage and seemingly lower probability of security issues.

And no, I'm no AMD shill. I haven't had a AMD system since the original Athlon 64 and I own stock in both companies (intel will recover, and AMD is performing wonderfully).

I understood you point. I recently upgraded from a 9600K to a Ryzen 9 3900X but I’m not really expecting any performance improvement, especially in gaming. I was just curious to try AMD platform (my last was an Athlon 64) and an insane 12C/24T setup.

My point was just that the 8700K was put in a too good light in the article, because of an overclock you can apply also to several others.

 

[MaxSmarties]

In the meanwhile, from the release notes of latest AMD drivers:

RS-338, Testing by AMD Performance Labs as of July 28, 2020 using a test system configured with an Intel Core i9-9900K CPU (3.6GHz), 16GB DDR4-3200MHz memory, a Radeon™ RX 5700 XT graphics card and Windows 10 x64 with Radeon Software Adrenalin 2020 Edition 20.8.1, and a similarly configured system with Software Adrenalin 2020 Edition 20.7.2, to test driver over driver FPS performance using the game Grounded at 1920x1080 resolution. Performance may vary.

They are using the 5700XT with an i9-9900K for internal testing... seriously.

 

[Bp968]

Errrr, there must be a misunderstanding somewhere...I asked you why do you think a 4/8 Intel CPU is better for gaming than almost anything AMD has to offer...what has that got to do with the percentage differences you mentioned above, or with 7zip performance?

He also misunderstands the 7zip test. The 7zip test isn't just to test how good the CPU is with 7zip specifically but how well it performs handling compression/decompression work. He might not have any large zip files but I strongly suspect he has some piece of software that makes use of compression on its own files (like most games).

 

[Irata]

He also misunderstands the 7zip test. The 7zip test isn't just to test how good the CPU is with 7zip specifically but how well it performs handling compression/decompression work. He might not have any large zip files but I strongly suspect he has some piece of software that makes use of compression on its own files (like most games).

It‘s the same as with some other tests. Sure, most of us probably won‘t run Cinebench but it should be a good indicator of multitasking performance when all threads are loaded, although I‘d still prefer an actual multitasking test.

 

[krizby]

Well, the benchmark with the CPU overclocked at 5 GHz is quite misleading.
There is no magic here: the i7-8700K is quite similar to the i5-9600K and a little slower than an i7-9700K.
It still is a good CPU. A very good CPU for gaming, but a 9600K and a 9700K could reach 5 GHz too (quite easily) and they will perform in a similar way (the 9700K will be better).

Most 8700K can be overclocked to 5.1ghz (like 70% of them), while about 50% of 9700K can reach 5.1ghz and like 5% of 9900K can reach 5.1ghz.
HUB tested 10 retail samples and 7 of them can reach 5.1ghz
My 8700K can reach 5.2Ghz too.
So yeah 8700K at 5Ghz is kiddie play...

 

[MaxSmarties]

Most 8700K can be overclocked to 5.1ghz (like 70% of them), while about 50% of 9700K can reach 5.1ghz and like 5% of 9900K can reach 5.1ghz.
HUB tested 10 retail samples and 7 of them can reach 5.1ghz
My 8700K can reach 5.2Ghz too.
So yeah 8700K at 5Ghz is kiddie play...

the link you provided is saying a different thing...

BTW the 9th gen is an improvement over the 8th gen, on the same node, and the 9700K has 8 cores vs 8700K 6 cores.