8700k worth buying If I won't be overclocking?

[refmon]

Is the difference between a 8700 enough to justify buying it?

 

[genca]

Well, if TurboBoost is enabled, there is no big difference. K version is more expensive, and require better cooling. I dont really think it is worth buying if you are not planning to oc it.

 

[richiestang_78]

No, just buy a 8700 with a cheaper H370 or B360 motherboard. The 8700 will give you more then enough CPU power for pretty much any application.

 

[SkyNetRising]

Turbo boost speed is 4.6Ghz (i7-8700) vs 4.7Ghz (i7-8700k).
I'm not sure, if 100MHz difference is worth for you their price difference.

If you're not into overclocking, then probably not worth it.

 

[Finstar]

If you're not planning to overclock, then the R7 2700X will be better option than both i7s unless you use it to run Adobe software.

 

[mdd1963]

If you're not planning to overclock, then the R7 2700X will be better option than both i7s unless you use it to run Adobe software.

Well, other than lower framerates in all games other than Ashes, that is...

 

[refmon]

No, just buy a 8700 with a cheaper H370 or B360 motherboard. The 8700 will give you more then enough CPU power for pretty much any application.

That's what I was thinking as well. I could buy a cheaper motherboard if I picked up a 8700 instead.

 

[10tacle]

The key difference with the K vs. non-K 8700 is the base clock (base meaning speed on all 6 cores) of 3.7GHz vs. 3.2GHz. That can make a difference in application performance as well as game FPS if you are running 1080p resolution. The differences between the two running on 4, 2, and 1 core (turbo) are only by 100MHz each which is not going to be noticeable.

If your primary use is not going to be utilizing all 6 cores/12 threads in use, then it's not going to be worth it. Also keep in mind you'll have to buy an aftermarket cooler since Intel does not offer one with their K-series chips. I still recommend people spend more on a K-series chip even after Intel stopped putting stock coolers in them since Kaby Lake *if* their use for it warrants. It's like an overclock built in already without needing to spend more on a Z-series motherboard and high end air cooler. It's an effective 15.6% clock boost on all 6 cores, which in the overclocking world, is a good overclock itself.

So, it's up to you to decide if the increased chip cost and additional expense of an air cooler is worth it (you can buy a Cryorig H7 for $25 in the US market). But again, on all six cores, that .5GHz speed difference will be noticed in some applications and games. One more thought: future overclocking potential means that your chipset will last a lot longer as history since Intel's 2nd generation Sandy Bridge chips each new generation only shows about 5-8% performance boost over the preceding gen.

 

[cryoburner]

The key difference with the K vs. non-K 8700 is the base clock (base meaning speed on all 6 cores) of 3.7GHz vs. 3.2GHz. That can make a difference in application performance as well as game FPS if you are running 1080p resolution. The differences between the two running on 4, 2, and 1 core (turbo) are only by 100MHz each which is not going to be noticeable.

If your primary use is not going to be utilizing all 6 cores/12 threads in use, then it's not going to be worth it. Also keep in mind you'll have to buy an aftermarket cooler since Intel does not offer one with their K-series chips. I still recommend people spend more on a K-series chip even after Intel stopped putting stock coolers in them since Kaby Lake *if* their use for it warrants. It's like an overclock built in already without needing to spend more on a Z-series motherboard and high end air cooler. It's an effective 15.6% clock boost on all 6 cores, which in the overclocking world, is a good overclock itself.

So, it's up to you to decide if the increased chip cost and additional expense of an air cooler is worth it (you can buy a Cryorig H7 for $25 in the US market). But again, on all six cores, that .5GHz speed difference will be noticed in some applications and games. One more thought: future overclocking potential means that your chipset will last a lot longer as history since Intel's 2nd generation Sandy Bridge chips each new generation only shows about 5-8% performance boost over the preceding gen.

Except this isn't actually accurate. : P

Both CPUs boost to 4.3 GHz on all six cores, and with fewer cores active there's only a 0.1GHz difference...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_Lake#List_of_Coffee_Lake_processors

Really, there's no point in going with an 8700K over an 8700 if you don't have any intention to overclock. That works out to around a 2% difference in performance at most, and even less in things like games, where other components like the GPU will be what's limiting performance much of the time. The 8700's stock cooler will likely be inadequate to reliably get those boost clocks, but add a cheap tower cooler and you'll still be looking at a considerable savings, between the less expensive processor, and a potentially less expensive motherboard, if overclocking isn't on the table. Plus, you would likely need a much pricier high-end cooler to get any considerable overclock out of an 8700K.

 

[Supernova1138]

One thing to keep in mind is either way you will be buying an aftermarket cooler. The stock cooler included with the 8700 is not adequate for maintaining those high Turbo clocks and you will see thermal throttling if you use it. At that point, it's going to come down to how much the price difference actually is between the two and if that is worth it for an extra 100MHz of TurboBoost speed.

 

[The Original Ralph]

fwiw, i purchased an i7-4790(non-k) thinking as a number of the posters here have indicated. Since i've regretted not going with the K version, after seeing what performance gains i've seen overclocking the rig i use for video rendering (in my sig below), but i'm too lazy to sell the non-k and pickup a K

fwiw

 

[cryoburner]

fwiw, i purchased an i7-4790(non-k) thinking as a number of the posters here have indicated. Since i've regretted not going with the K version, after seeing what performance gains i've seen overclocking the rig i use for video rendering (in my sig below), but i'm too lazy to sell the non-k and pickup a K

This really depends a lot on the capabilities of the processor, and what you'll be using it for though. A 5960X comes with rather low stock clocks, with a lot of headroom for overclocking. It has a 3Ghz base clock, but only boosts up to 3.5GHz on a single core or 3.3GHz on all cores, while an overclock can bring it up around 4.5GHz, which is a massive 36% increase in clock rates over the stock all-core boost, or about a 29% increase over the single-core boost.

The 8700K, on the other hand, will boost up to a much higher 4.7GHz on a single core, down to 4.3GHz on all cores, while overclocking will typically only bring it up around 5Ghz or so, which is just a 16% increase over the stock all-core boost, or a 6% increase over the single-core boost. The 8700K has significantly less overclocking headroom than your 5960X, so a lot more of its potential performance is already available in it's stock configuration, and the same goes for the locked 8700 with it's similar stock clocks.

And back to your 4790, it can boost up to 4.0GHz on a single core, or 3.8GHz on all cores. A 4790K, on the other hand, boosts up to 4.4GHz on a single core and 4.2GHz on all cores, so that's around 10% higher clocks out of the box, even before one gets into overclocking. However, those clock rates are already relatively close to the safe overclocking limits of the processor, so again, there isn't a whole lot of room for overclocking compared to your 5960X. I believe the 4790K might typically get up around 4.6GHz or so at a safe voltage, which would only be around 10% higher than its stock multi-core boost, or 5% over it's single-core boost. So, much like the 8700K, there's much less room for overclocking compared to your 5960X. The big difference with the 4790 comes down to its 10% lower stock clocks compared to the 4790K, which doesn't carry over to this current generation, where there's only around a 2% difference in boost clocks between the locked and unlocked parts. Even if you compared your locked 4790 against an overclocked 4790k, there's only around a 15-20% difference in clocks though, which is still significantly less of an improvement than what you see when overclocking a 5960X.

Most higher-end processors won't overclock as much as what you're seeing with the 5960X, since they're generally clocked higher to begin with. Overclocking a 5960X is pretty much necessary to get the most out of it, but it's much less important for an 8700/8700K, which have a much larger portion of their potential performance available at stock settings. Moving from an 8700 to an 8700K overclocked to 5GHZ, you're looking at spending an extra $50 or so on the processor, an extra $50-$100 on the cooler (assuming you're also replacing the 8700's stock cooler with an inexpensive tower cooler), and an extra $30 or so on a Z-series motherboard. That's about an extra $130 or more, for up to 8% better performance in lightly-threaded workloads, and 16% in heavily threaded workloads, at best, assuming some other component isn't what's limiting performance in a particular application. In today's games, for example, even with an enthusiast-level graphics card, an 8700K overclocked to 5GHz will only get around 2-3% higher frame rates than an 8700 on average, which should be a completely imperceptible difference, and arguably not worth the costs associated with getting that bit of extra performance.

 

[The Original Ralph]

fwiw, i purchased an i7-4790(non-k) thinking as a number of the posters here have indicated. Since i've regretted not going with the K version, after seeing what performance gains i've seen overclocking the rig i use for video rendering (in my sig below), but i'm too lazy to sell the non-k and pickup a K

This really depends a lot on the capabilities of the processor, and what you'll be using it for though. A 5960X comes with rather low stock clocks, with a lot of headroom for overclocking. It has a 3Ghz base clock, but only boosts up to 3.5GHz on a single core or 3.3GHz on all cores, while an overclock can bring it up around 4.5GHz, which is a massive 36% increase in clock rates over the stock all-core boost, or about a 29% increase over the single-core boost.

The 8700K, on the other hand, will boost up to a much higher 4.7GHz on a single core, down to 4.3GHz on all cores, while overclocking will typically only bring it up around 5Ghz or so, which is just a 16% increase over the stock all-core boost, or a 6% increase over the single-core boost. The 8700K has significantly less overclocking headroom than your 5960X, so a lot more of its potential performance is already available in it's stock configuration, and the same goes for the locked 8700 with it's similar stock clocks.

And back to your 4790, it can boost up to 4.0GHz on a single core, or 3.8GHz on all cores. A 4790K, on the other hand, boosts up to 4.4GHz on a single core and 4.2GHz on all cores, so that's around 10% higher clocks out of the box, even before one gets into overclocking. However, those clock rates are already relatively close to the safe overclocking limits of the processor, so again, there isn't a whole lot of room for overclocking compared to your 5960X. I believe the 4790K might typically get up around 4.6GHz or so at a safe voltage, which would only be around 10% higher than its stock multi-core boost, or 5% over it's single-core boost. So, much like the 8700K, there's much less room for overclocking compared to your 5960X. The big difference with the 4790 comes down to its 10% lower stock clocks compared to the 4790K, which doesn't carry over to this current generation, where there's only around a 2% difference in boost clocks between the locked and unlocked parts. Even if you compared your locked 4790 against an overclocked 4790k, there's only around a 15-20% difference in clocks though, which is still significantly less of an improvement than what you see when overclocking a 5960X.

Most higher-end processors won't overclock as much as what you're seeing with the 5960X, since they're generally clocked higher to begin with. Overclocking a 5960X is pretty much necessary to get the most out of it, but it's much less important for an 8700/8700K, which have a much larger portion of their potential performance available at stock settings. Moving from an 8700 to an 8700K overclocked to 5GHZ, you're looking at spending an extra $50 or so on the processor, an extra $50-$100 on the cooler (assuming you're also replacing the 8700's stock cooler with an inexpensive tower cooler), and an extra $30 or so on a Z-series motherboard. That's about an extra $130 or more, for up to 8% better performance in lightly-threaded workloads, and 16% in heavily threaded workloads, at best, assuming some other component isn't what's limiting performance in a particular application. In today's games, for example, even with an enthusiast-level graphics card, an 8700K overclocked to 5GHz will only get around 2-3% higher frame rates than an 8700 on average, which should be a completely imperceptible difference, and arguably not worth the costs associated with getting that bit of extra performance.

while i don't contest your statistical analysis, i realize the 4790 vs 4790k represent a higher statistical difference in clock speed, i will inject i found a tweak to boost my 4790(non-k) from 4.0 to 4.091 MHz. When i compared the time difference to render a video file, i noted an almost 2 minute reduction in rendering time on a 55 minute job. I suspect a pure statistical analysis leaves something out of the equation

2ndly, there's the personal (emotional or emotive, whichever is more correct) value factor, ie after having lived with the 4790 for 2 years, i regretted not having gone with the "K" version - this was before i OC'd my 5960x

and your assertion that the 8700K will necessitate a $50-100 added expense for an upgraded cooler - do you really want to assume the OP will go with a low end cooler with the 8700? Especially if he's working that CPU gaming. I suspect the odds are stronger he will upgrade it to a quality cooler, given the number of cores either CPU has and the reduced footprint for heat transfer. The additional cost of the 390 mobo and additional cost of the K CPU are valid, but there's a reason the OP asked about the choice - subconsciously i suspect he'd like to justify it to himself.

As you stated it "...16% in heavily threaded workloads..." for the 8700k, actually that is exactly when a user would notice it most, and regret it if he didn't - again, that refers back to the personal inclination.

This is just an opinion, which is what the OP was asking for - they're free, it didn't cost me a penny to offer and a penny for the OP to consider

 

[nikoli707]

we need to know your intended use of the cpu to accurately determine what cpu would be best for you. dont discount ryzen either.

 

[refmon]

we need to know your intended use of the cpu to accurately determine what cpu would be best for you. dont discount ryzen either.

100% for gaming only

 

[jankerson]

With an I7 8700K on a Z370 motherboard you can enable MCE (Multi Core Enhancement) so it will boast to 4.7 GHz on all 6 cores.

That WILL make a difference over the 8700.

 

[DSzymborski]

Just to add on to the advice of others, even if you don't intend to overclock now, if you still have this CPU some years down the road when it's finally aging, you may feel a bit differently about the overclocking. Unless the budget additions for overclocking cause problems, I generally recommend getting unlocked i7s over locked ones, where possible, to at least preserve the possibility of overclocking down the road.

 

[rhoban]

Is the 400Mhz difference worth the extra money on the motherboard and CPU though?

 

[jankerson]

Is the 400Mhz difference worth the extra money on the motherboard and CPU though?

In the long run, yes defiantly.

And you can OC it down the road also for even more speed. (4.8 Ghz to 5.0 GHz depending)

And you don't have to spend a fortune on a MB either.

There are solid Z370 MB's that aren't that expensive.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Motherboard: Gigabyte - Z370 AORUS GAMING WIFI (rev. 1.0) ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($99.99 @ Newegg Business)
Total: $99.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-07-19 01:22 EDT-0400

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Motherboard: Gigabyte - Z370 AORUS Gaming 3 (rev. 1.0) ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($119.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $119.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-07-19 01:23 EDT-0400

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Motherboard: Asus - TUF Z370 Plus Gaming ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($119.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $119.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-07-19 01:23 EDT-0400

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Motherboard: Asus - Prime Z370-P ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($117.04 @ Amazon)
Total: $117.04
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-07-19 01:24 EDT-0400

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Motherboard: MSI - Z370 GAMING PLUS ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($107.08 @ Newegg Business)
Total: $107.08
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-07-19 01:25 EDT-0400

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Motherboard: MSI - Z370 KRAIT GAMING ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($129.99 @ B&H)
Total: $129.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-07-19 01:25 EDT-0400

 

[refmon]

Just to add on to the advice of others, even if you don't intend to overclock now, if you still have this CPU some years down the road when it's finally aging, you may feel a bit differently about the overclocking. Unless the budget additions for overclocking cause problems, I generally recommend getting unlocked i7s over locked ones, where possible, to at least preserve the possibility of overclocking down the road.

Very true, I might just do that then in case I ever decide to change my mind.

I have a Hyper 212 EVO cpu cooler from my recent build, would that be enough for the 8700k without overclocking it?

 

[jankerson]

Just to add on to the advice of others, even if you don't intend to overclock now, if you still have this CPU some years down the road when it's finally aging, you may feel a bit differently about the overclocking. Unless the budget additions for overclocking cause problems, I generally recommend getting unlocked i7s over locked ones, where possible, to at least preserve the possibility of overclocking down the road.

Very true, I might just do that then in case I ever decide to change my mind.

I have a Hyper 212 EVO cpu cooler from my recent build, would that be enough for the 8700k without overclocking it?

Just no, NO way.

Get a better cooler than that.

Like this one:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU Cooler: CRYORIG - H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($34.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $34.89
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-07-19 01:27 EDT-0400

Or even better, This one.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU Cooler: Noctua - NH-U14S 55.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($63.69 @ Newegg)
Total: $63.69
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-07-19 01:30 EDT-0400

 

[vMax]

Have to agree with Jankerson...do not cheap out on the cooler, especially for the 8700K, get something decent like suggested above as it will be better holding higher clocks for longer and cool better to keep the CPU lasting as long as possible....Do not disregard AIO's unles you absolutly hate them...

 

[RobCrezz]

WTF? The 212 evo is fine if hes not overclocking.

 

[vMax]

Just my thoughts on spending $300 + on a CPU that is by all accounts warmer than most and $25 on a CPU cooler which wont really give any room to play with especally under sustained loads, and taking into account case, room temp, global warming (joke) et all...I would rather spend a little more on something that cools a little better but hey thats me..He is the one who has to make tthe choice and no doubt whatever he chooses will be right for him..

 

[RobCrezz]

Just my thoughts on spending $300 + on a CPU that is by all accounts warmer than most and $25 on a CPU cooler which wont really give any room to play with especally under sustained loads, and taking into account case, room temp, global warming (joke) et all...I would rather spend a little more on something that cools a little better but hey thats me..He is the one who has to make tthe choice and no doubt whatever he chooses will be right for him..

He said he has no intention of overclocking. The 212 is plenty good enough.

Spending more on a better cooler is fine, and I would probably do the same, but no need to scaremonger the guy into buying a another cooler when the 212 will be sufficient.