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

krizby

Posts: 429   +284
TechSpot Elite
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.
9700K 8 Cores 8 Thread vs 8700K 6 Cores 12 Threads
The link I provided states this:



The top 17% bin can reach 5.2ghz and top 4% can reach 5.3Ghz, but those chip can also run 5.1Ghz don't they (hence 49+17+4 = 70%)
I can't exactly say "5.1Ghz and above" because only 21% of them can reach above 5.1ghz :)
For 9700K it's 38+9+1= 48% of chips can reach 5.1Ghz

So yeah 8700K has better overclocking headroom than 9700K and even the 10600K.
 

Bp968

Posts: 170   +116
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.
The 9700 is a better choice simply because its a straight 8 core with no HT. Since Intel's HT is a broken insecure mess you should probably disable your better off with 8 real core then 6c/12t CPUs.

Of course, the other option is 8c/16t without security failures, so there is that..

As much fun as it is to dump on Intel, this situation doesn't really benefit us gamers, at least not in the long term.

Best case scenario is AMD continues to gain marketshare until they have a solid 40-50% market share in x86. Then Intel leapfrogs them for *one* or two cycles, just long enough to no longer look like *****s, and then for both companies to roughly maintain parity.

That way we have a CPU market with solid competition and incentive for both companies to invest in R&D. I'd also like to see intel get their fabs to be competitive with TSMC again and then sell fab time to other companies so we have another solid western player in the fab space.

It's all well and good that we hold a solid lead in one side of the technology arena (software) but we (the west, USA/EU/UK) need to maintain/regain manufacturing parity at the very least.
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 397   +215
9700K 8 Cores 8 Thread vs 8700K 6 Cores 12 Threads
HT is totally useless in games (and in most applications).
I would prefer a 8C/8T CPU over a 6C/12T CPU every day.

The link I provided states this:



The top 17% bin can reach 5.2ghz and top 4% can reach 5.3Ghz, but those chip can also run 5.1Ghz don't they (hence 49+17+4 = 70%)
I can't exactly say "5.1Ghz and above" because only 21% of them can reach above 5.1ghz :)
For 9700K it's 38+9+1= 48% of chips can reach 5.1Ghz

So yeah 8700K has better overclocking headroom than 9700K and even the 10600K.
First:
I and the article was speaking about 5 GHz. I don’t know why you moved the bar to 5.1 GHz :(

Second: it doesn’t work like that !
The percentage of 8700K that reaches 5.1 GHZ is 49%. You don’t have to add the other numbers. The percentage of 8700K that reaches 5.2 GHz is 17%.
And this is based ONLY on the numbers collected by that website, far from being accurate (it doesn’t event reported how many CPUs were analyzed). It is just a shop.

Third: 9700K silicon is better than 8700K, and 10700K is better than 9700K. It is just how things works in Intel improving its 14nm node.

If the point of the article was the 8700K still is a good CPU (especially for gaming), that’s absolutely true. But there is no magic behind the 8700K. Newer CPUs are better, like usual. I would definitely buy a 10600K over a 8700K.
if you have an 8700K clearly you should keep it unless you are not going for a 10900K
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 397   +215
The 9700 is a better choice simply because its a straight 8 core with no HT. Since Intel's HT is a broken insecure mess you should probably disable your better off with 8 real core then 6c/12t CPUs.

Of course, the other option is 8c/16t without security failures, so there is that..

As much fun as it is to dump on Intel, this situation doesn't really benefit us gamers, at least not in the long term.

Best case scenario is AMD continues to gain marketshare until they have a solid 40-50% market share in x86. Then Intel leapfrogs them for *one* or two cycles, just long enough to no longer look like *****s, and then for both companies to roughly maintain parity.

That way we have a CPU market with solid competition and incentive for both companies to invest in R&D. I'd also like to see intel get their fabs to be competitive with TSMC again and then sell fab time to other companies so we have another solid western player in the fab space.

It's all well and good that we hold a solid lead in one side of the technology arena (software) but we (the west, USA/EU/UK) need to maintain/regain manufacturing parity at the very least.
It takes time.
look at the share now. It is roughly 18% even if Ryzen 3 are on the market since last year and they are way better.
big OEMs are still selling mostly intel CPUs because there are long term agreements.
Intel should stay behind for several years to lose 50% of the market.
 

krizby

Posts: 429   +284
TechSpot Elite
HT is totally useless in games (and in most applications).
I would prefer a 8C/8T CPU over a 6C/12T CPU every day.

First:
I and the article was speaking about 5 GHz. I don’t know why you moved the bar to 5.1 GHz :(

Second: it doesn’t work like that !
The percentage of 8700K that reaches 5.1 GHZ is 49%. You don’t have to add the other numbers. The percentage of 8700K that reaches 5.2 GHz is 17%.
And this is based ONLY on the numbers collected by that website, far from being accurate (it doesn’t event reported how many CPUs were analyzed). It is just a shop.

Third: 9700K silicon is better than 8700K, and 10700K is better than 9700K. It is just how things works in Intel improving its 14nm node.

If the point of the article was the 8700K still is a good CPU (especially for gaming), that’s absolutely true. But there is no magic behind the 8700K. Newer CPUs are better, like usual. I would definitely buy a 10600K over a 8700K.
if you have an 8700K clearly you should keep it unless you are not going for a 10900K
First: 8700K can be overclocked higher than 9700K/10600K. Most tech reviewers tested them at 5Ghz which is a little underselling.

Second: Siliconlottery pre-tested all CPU then sell the higher clocks ones at premium price, that's their business model. Their number should be the most accurate out there compare to any tech reviewer since their sample size is far bigger (1000s of chips are sold per model).

Third: the best die are usually reserved for the highest SKU, and those die can reach higher clocks regardless of cores count. For example the 10900K has higher clocks than 10700K even though it's 10 cores vs 8 cores, or 3950X vs 3900X. So the 9700K die are of worse quality than 8700K (9900KS --> 9900KF --> 9900K --> 9700K).
Most tech channel are saying their 10600K and 10700K cannot even reach 5.1Ghz, which made them worse choice than 8700K/8086K and 9900KF/9900KS. So the only Intel 10th gen CPU worth buying is 10900K if you want the absolute best FPS
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 397   +215
First: 8700K can be overclocked higher than 9700K/10600K. Most tech reviewers tested them at 5Ghz which is a little underselling.
this is a baseless assertion.

Second: Siliconlottery pre-tested all CPU then sell the higher clocks ones at premium price, that's their business model. Their number should be the most accurate out there compare to any tech reviewer since their sample size is far bigger (1000s of chips are sold per model).
They are just a seller, and not even one of the biggest on the market.
Still according to their limited numbers, 90% of the 9700K reaches 5 GHz vs 83% of the 8700K.
So your assertion is still false.
And even if you are lucky and you have a 8700K @ 5.1 GHz, an 9700K @ 5 GHz is a better CPU.

Third: the best die are usually reserved for the highest SKU, and those die can reach higher clocks regardless of cores count. For example the 10900K has higher clocks than 10700K even though it's 10 cores vs 8 cores, or 3950X vs 3900X. So the 9700K die are of worse quality than 8700K (9900KS --> 9900KF --> 9900K --> 9700K).
Most tech channel are saying their 10600K and 10700K cannot even reach 5.1Ghz, which made them worse choice than 8700K/8086K and 9900KF/9900KS. So the only Intel 10th gen CPU worth buying is 10900K if you want the absolute best FPS
Lol your vision is completely biased by the love for your CPU.
A 10700K at stock is still generally better than a 5 GHz 8700K, and almost every 10700K can be overclocked to 5 GHz.
Next generation’s games will be even more favorable to 8 cores architectures.
 

krizby

Posts: 429   +284
TechSpot Elite
this is a baseless assertion.

They are just a seller, and not even one of the biggest on the market.
Still according to their limited numbers, 90% of the 9700K reaches 5 GHz vs 83% of the 8700K.
So your assertion is still false.
And even if you are lucky and you have a 8700K @ 5.1 GHz, an 9700K @ 5 GHz is a better CPU.

Lol your vision is completely biased by the love for your CPU.
A 10700K at stock is still generally better than a 5 GHz 8700K, and almost every 10700K can be overclocked to 5 GHz.
Next generation’s games will be even more favorable to 8 cores architectures.
I only have love for high performance gaming CPU that worth upgrading, atm there is so such thing from an 8700K @ 5.1Ghz (which is easy to reach since I bought 3 8700K and all 3 can get that speed).

I have swapped GPU every gen because they are worth upgrading from a performance standpoint (R9 290X --> GTX 980 --> Titan X Maxwell --> 1080 Ti --> 2080 Ti). Meanwhile CPU performance has been standing still for 3 years.

If you think a 5Ghz 9700K is faster than 5.1Ghz 8700K, you are dead wrong. You can check out HUB 9700K review and see that 5.1ghz 9700K lose to 5.2ghz 8700K at all production workload (they didn't test gaming when both are overclocked)

As I said SiliconLottery pre-tested all of their CPU, other retailer just sell CPU as is. You can't find any overclocking stats elsewhere that has bigger sample size than SiliconLottery.
 
Last edited:

neeyik

Posts: 1,367   +1,486
Staff member
If you think a 5Ghz 9700K is faster than 5.1Ghz 8700K, you are dead wrong. You can check out HUB 9700K review and see that 5.1ghz 9700K lose to 5.2ghz 8700K at all production workload (they didn't test gaming when both are overclocked)
You can see the non-video version of the findings here:


The single thread Cinebench results are entirely in line with what one would expect for 1.96% difference in clock speeds (I.e. 225 vs 221 point is 1.81% better); however, the multithreaded results are somewhat interesting. Despite the 8700K having a 2% clock and 50% thread advantage, 1664 vs 1624 points is only 2.46% better. This is almost certainly due to the limitations of HT (as can be seen by looking at the 5.1 GHz 9900K score, where 2208 is only 36% better than the 9700K's result).

Games still tend to rely heavily on a handful of cores handling single threads as quickly as possible, which is why an overclocked 8700K still performs so well; even the likes of the 7700K isn't that far behind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: krizby

Strawman

Posts: 306   +181
HT is totally useless in games (and in most applications).
I would prefer a 8C/8T CPU over a 6C/12T CPU every day.
You are absolutely wrong on everything you said in the last 5 posts. Don't know where to even begin.

HT is useless for games? That is insanely wrong.A quick check at 7600k vs 7700k proves you wrong.Just like that.

Furthermore, there are games that are way slower on a 9700k vs the 8700k, exactly because of the lack of hyperthreading. You can check gamernexu's review on both the 9700k and the CPU performance on RDR2. There are a bunch of games (rdr 2 / farcry 5 / gtav and horizon zero dawn) where a non hyperthreaded CPU completely tanks on 1 and 0.1% lows and experience stuttering.

Long story short, 8700k > 9700k.
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 397   +215
You are absolutely wrong on everything you said in the last 5 posts. Don't know where to even begin.

HT is useless for games? That is insanely wrong.A quick check at 7600k vs 7700k proves you wrong.Just like that.

Furthermore, there are games that are way slower on a 9700k vs the 8700k, exactly because of the lack of hyperthreading. You can check gamernexu's review on both the 9700k and the CPU performance on RDR2. There are a bunch of games (rdr 2 / farcry 5 / gtav and horizon zero dawn) where a non hyperthreaded CPU completely tanks on 1 and 0.1% lows and experience stuttering.

Long story short, 8700k > 9700k.
Completely false.







you shouldn’t start if you don’t know the matter.
9700K -> 8700K
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs

MaxSmarties

Posts: 397   +215
Comparing 9700K with all core boost of 4.6Ghz vs 8700K's all core boost of 4.3Ghz at stock just show we are not on the same page.
If you want stock performance then don't buy a K- series Intel CPU.
You can overclock a 9700k as you can overclock an 8700K, so the results don’t change

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs

krizby

Posts: 429   +284
TechSpot Elite
You can overclock a 9700k as you can overclock an 8700K, so the results don’t change
Here is how Horizon Zero Dawn PC scale across CPU cores


8 cores 8 threads CPU would soon join the 6 cores 6 threads into oblivion before a 6 cores 12 thread CPU does...

 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 397   +215
Here is how Horizon Zero Dawn PC scale across CPU cores


8 cores 8 threads CPU would soon join the 6 cores 6 threads into oblivion before a 6 cores 12 thread CPU does...

Lol one single benchmark at 540P (!!!)
Not even speaking about the 8700K.

ok you are just a fanboy, I’ve wasted enough time.
I posted at least 4 benchmarks, and even the review from this website is showing how a 9700K is better than an 8700K.
But your beloved CPU is the best of the world.
 

Strawman

Posts: 306   +181
Completely false.







you shouldn’t start if you don’t know the matter.
9700K -> 8700K
You said completely false, and then you linked some AVERAGE fps....did you even read my post? The 9700k crumbles on the low's in certain games due to lack of hyperthreading, not on averages. So before you claim a post is wrong, READ it first.

Also, by your own link, see the difference between the 7600k and the 7700k? That's the hyperthreading which you claimed does absolutely nothing in games....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs

Strawman

Posts: 306   +181
Lol one single benchmark at 540P (!!!)
Not even speaking about the 8700K.

ok you are just a fanboy, I’ve wasted enough time.
I posted at least 4 benchmarks, and even the review from this website is showing how a 9700K is better than an 8700K.
But your beloved CPU is the best of the world.
I have a 10900k btw. Again, it's not one game. The same happens in FC5 , GTA v, RDR2 and zero dawn. Check out gamer's nexus reviews

Also the 9700 seems faster in reviews cause of the difference in clock speeds. With the same clock speeds the difference in average fps between 8700k and 9700k is basically margin of error
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 397   +215
You said completely false, and then you linked some AVERAGE fps....did you even read my post? The 9700k crumbles on the low's in certain games due to lack of hyperthreading, not on averages. So before you claim a post is wrong, READ it first.

Also, by your own link, see the difference between the 7600k and the 7700k? That's the hyperthreading which you claimed does absolutely nothing in games....
keep embarassing yourself.



minimum FPS: 9700K still better than 8700K
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs

MaxSmarties

Posts: 397   +215
I have a 10900k btw. Again, it's not one game. The same happens in FC5 , GTA v, RDR2 and zero dawn. Check out gamer's nexus reviews

Also the 9700 seems faster in reviews cause of the difference in clock speeds. With the same clock speeds the difference in average fps between 8700k and 9700k is basically margin of error
GTA V ?

Keep going...



I dont care what CPU you have (I have a 3900X). The 9700K still is better than an 8700K

The whole idea of Intel releasing a CPU worse than the previous model is ridiculous.
 

Strawman

Posts: 306   +181
Anandtech tests with a gtx 1080 dude. You know you are wrong, you are just acting like you are not by posting irrelevant graphs. Did you check gamer's nexus that actually tests with a modern graphics card?

If you are not going to respond to the actual point I'm making and instead argue with strawmans then sure, you beat me, I give up. You are too daft to argue with.

There you go.

The same happens to GTA v, farcry and zero dawn.
rdr2.jpg

Also you still haven't responded on why exactly, from your own graphs, does the 7700k beat the 7600k, since their only difference is the hyperthreading which doesn't do anything on games, according to you. I'm all ears...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs

krizby

Posts: 429   +284
TechSpot Elite
GTA V ?

Keep going...

I dont care what CPU you have (I have a 3900X). The 9700K still is better than an 8700K

The whole idea of Intel releasing a CPU worse than the previous model is ridiculous.
Please stop wasting time with stock clocks performance, obviously you don't know what K processor is for. That or you have nothing to show when both 9700K or 8700K are overclocked to 5Ghz and above.

Just keep playing on your 3900X and stay out of discussion that which you don't understand dude.
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 397   +215
Anandtech tests with a gtx 1080 dude. You know you are wrong, you are just acting like you are not by posting irrelevant graphs. Did you check gamer's nexus that actually tests with a modern graphics card?

If you are not going to respond to the actual point I'm making and instead argue with strawmans then sure, you beat me, I give up. You are too daft to argue with.

There you go.

The same happens to GTA v, farcry and zero dawn.
View attachment 86890

Also you still haven't responded on why exactly, from your own graphs, does the 7700k beat the 7600k, since their only difference is the hyperthreading which doesn't do anything on games, according to you. I'm all ears...
Lol keep embarrassing your self.

A 2080 Ti is modern enough for you ?









AND FINALLY, from the same review you pointed above, GTA V



Every benchmark showed: 9700K > 8700K
But you cherry picked the only test where situation was slightly different.
Ridiculous
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 397   +215
Please stop wasting time with stock clocks performance, obviously you don't know what K processor is for. That or you have nothing to show when both 9700K or 8700K are overclocked to 5Ghz and above.

Just keep playing on your 3900X and stay out of discussion that which you don't understand dude.
Lol you can overclock an 9700K the same way you can overclock a 8700K.

Even quoting the link YOU provided, 90% of the 9700K reaches 5 GHz while 83% of the 8700K reaches 5 GHz.

Keep trying to defend your beloved CPU, but it still is inferior to the 9700K.
Does it make sense to upgrade from a 8700K to a 9700K ? Nope, that’s for sure, but it still is a better CPU.
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 397   +215
Anandtech tests with a gtx 1080 dude. You know you are wrong, you are just acting like you are not by posting irrelevant graphs. Did you check gamer's nexus that actually tests with a modern graphics card?

If you are not going to respond to the actual point I'm making and instead argue with strawmans then sure, you beat me, I give up. You are too daft to argue with.

There you go.

The same happens to GTA v, farcry and zero dawn.
View attachment 86890

Also you still haven't responded on why exactly, from your own graphs, does the 7700k beat the 7600k, since their only difference is the hyperthreading which doesn't do anything on games, according to you. I'm all ears...
Oh, and I have the whole day, so I could keep going.
Is THIS website competent enough ?











AND FINALLY, ONCE AGAIN, RED DEAD REDEMPTION 2 :



Not even ONE of the benchmarks showed the 8700K to be superior to the 9700K, in both average and 1% FPS.
Not a single one.
 

neeyik

Posts: 1,367   +1,486
Staff member
Okay folks - that's enough for this line of discussion, thanks. Take it to private messages, if you wish to continue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs