Core i7-8700K Review: Coffee Lake Brews A Great Gaming CPU

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

I have an i5-3470 and no plan to upgrade until Ryzen 2 or Ice Lake as the i5 is still plenty good enough for 99% of what I need to throw at it.
 


For the average gamer the quad-core i5's are still good enough. But you get in to high refresh rate gaming the i7 has more recently gained the upper hand over the i5 in CPU intensive games. With 8th-gen the differences will come back down with some wins possibly even going to the i5-8600K over the 8700K in gaming.
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
But they could have named it 1151-v3 :D

 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

For the 'average' gamer, even an i3 or SMT Pentium is going to be good enough for a fair while longer as there is no point in obsessing about frame rates well beyond 60Hz when most 'average' people have monitors only capable of 60Hz. None of my monitors can do more than 60Hz and I have no plan to buy a new monitor until affordable 26-30" QHD HDR OLEDs become available. (And the bulk of those will likely still be only 60Hz.)
 

DerekA_C

Prominent
Mar 1, 2017
177
0
690
1
Hey you guys don't forget Ryzen is Amd's first 14nm and first SMT or Hyper Thread build and first real memory controller to support DDR4 not to shaby on all those first fronts for AMD. But lets not forget that AMD was able to achieve 4.7ghz on all 8 cores base clocks back in 2013 FX-9590, with a boost to 5ghz. This is going to happen again you wait and see. Probably by Ryzen 2 but I see 4.1- 4.3ghz on all 8 cores on this Refresh that comes in February, with a more mature SMT and Memory Controller that will probably support up to 4.2ghz DDR4 if not more.
 
You're right, i3 and Pentium w/ SMT is good enough for the average gamer.

I used to not think 100+fps was any better than 60fps (when I only played 1080p) until I played a first-person shooter (CoD: WWI Beta) on a 4K monitor at 60fps. Total crap compared to 1080p 144Hz 144fps.

But if you don't know the difference from first hand experience you're probably not missing much.

*Also would like to mention on the subject, Battlefield 1 was the turning point for the i5 no longer being enough for me. The newest K series i5 was enough, but I had an i5-4690 that couldn't keep my GTX 1060 6GB at over 60fps in 64-player multiplayer matches. I was used to playing the Open Beta at 70+ fps, but then the actual game came out with the different maps and I could really notice it dropping to 45fps on occasion. That's why I went to an i7.
 

Papacheeks

Reputable
Nov 12, 2015
5
0
4,510
0
QUOTE:Looks like it might be time for AMD to lower prices.

AMD really has shaken Intel up, never would I have dreamed (before this year) I'd see Intels best gaming cpu (especially a K model) release at $360.

AMD is already cheaper by a long mile either it be a six core or 8 core cpu, especially when you look at motherboard options.

Then know that what ever refresh AMD has for 2018 will work with your current AM4 board.

I'm sick of Intel's tax and hold on the market, I'll go AMD for the forseeable future until they stop building on ryzen.
 

kinggremlin

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
574
41
19,010
0


I'm guessing that being a user of Intel's HEDT platform for the past few years has distorted my view of what constitutes a budget friendly platform. When I looked at Z370 motherboards on Newegg, I was genuinely surprised by how cheap they were. Only 7 out of 36 were over $200, and 12 (1/3rd) were under $150, going as low as $120. All of them in stock. Price wise, what is the top cutoff to be considered budget friendly?
 


Less than $80 is more like the average cost of a B350 (AM4) mobo for budget builds.
 

kinggremlin

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
574
41
19,010
0


What? Intel's best gaming CPU hasn't been over $350 in years and it has always been a K model. Best CPU before today was the 7700k which was $350. 6700k was $340. Going back to 2014, the 4790k which was $340.
 

kinggremlin

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
574
41
19,010
0


Yikes. Unless that's for a micro atx board, that sounds like a $10 haircut to me. No thanks, I'll pay the extra just for peace of mind.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator


It depends on the process. From what has been running around the mill though their next Process is a "12nm" process but everything I can find points to it just being an enhanced 14nm LPP. They might gain some clocks but unless there is a miracle I doubt they will gain enough to match Intel.

That also pushes 7nm off from 2018 to at least 2019 with Intel launching 10nm next year. Guess we shall see though.

The CPU is not bad but I will wait it out. If Intel decided to move back to solder and possibly push an 8 core to mainstream it will be more interesting of a competition.
 

kinggremlin

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
574
41
19,010
0


Nowhere in the multiple references to a need for a new motherboard in the conclusion is that context mentioned, so you can't say that now unless you plan to add that to the article itself. Time will tell whether that will actually be real advantage. It's been a decade since we've had consecutive CPU releases that had performance increases worthy of an upgrade. There is no real reason to believe anything is going to change there.
 

PaulAlcorn

Senior Editor
Editor
Feb 24, 2015
771
137
11,160
0


It's in there. Page 2.

The changes mean upgrading to Z370 is a technical necessity, rather than planned obsolescence. Regardless, though, AMD's planned support for Socket AM4 through 2020 makes Intel's Z370 chipset requirement appear all the more painful.
We've also dove into that restriction and the difference between the two approaches in many articles, including this one.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-coffee-lake-z270-z370-motherboard,35554.html

 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

There hasn't been any major breakthroughs in per-thread IPC since the original Core i-series, which means not much gain beyond the clock frequency bumps unless the software is leveraging the extra threads. That's why plenty of people who aren't obsessed with benchmarks and FPS games are still quite happy with their Sandy/Ivy computers too.
 
From all the reviews I've check out it looks like the i5-8600k performs great in games. Most games are in 1~3 FPS and may be more deserving of the best gaming CPU. Is Intel facing game developer thread limits or optimization on the i7?
 


Yes this is what I meant by we're back to the "i5 is all you need for gaming". It's so close to the 8700K that the extra money spent is near useless in gaming.
 
Paul Alcorn said:
Pros:
-Lower price-per-thread than competition
Lower price-per-thread compared to what competition? You can get a 12-thread Ryzen 1600 for around $200 now, which includes an overclocking-capable cooler, and can be paired with a $60 overclocking-capable motherboard for around $260 total. The 8700K offers the same number of threads, but is at least $360 without a cooler, and requires a $120 motherboard at minimum, bringing the total with a capable cooler to over $500, or nearly double the cost of a Ryzen processor and motherboard with the same number of threads. Or you could get the Ryzen 1700 with 16 threads and a cooler for under $300, or around $360 with a motherboard, and overclock that up to 1800X levels.

Certainly the 8700K will outperform those CPUs in many scenarios, but referring specifically to price-per-thread, it doesn't come anywhere remotely close to AMD's current offerings. If you're referring to Intel's own 7700K and 7800X, then the cost per thread is certainly better, but I would hardly consider that "the competition", seeing as they are other offerings from the same company. You might want to change how that's worded. Otherwise the review seemed rather good. I did notice one other place in the conclusion where you appeared to make a mistake related to price though...

Paul Alcorn said:
Of course, adding a Z370 motherboard and competent cooler knocks you over the $400 mark, so be ready to pay for that privilege.
Shouldn't that be "over the $500 mark"?
 

samer.forums

Notable
BANNED
Sep 30, 2017
662
0
1,160
68


When Xbox Scorpio games start rolling , things will change alot.

Remember it is an 8 cores CPU console and most games will be ported from it to PC. more Games will take advantage of 8 threads soon within 1 year .
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

The XBO and PS4 brought octo-core CPUs to the console world back in 2014 and three years later, it is still only a small number of PC ports that make proper use of more than four threads. There won't be much change in a mere year.

Also, between their lower IPC and much lower clock frequencies, the cores in console SoCs are less than half as fast as modern desktop CPUs', which means that even Scorpio has less CPU-power than an i5-7600 and proper ports should have no trouble running those games on half as many cores.
 

kinggremlin

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
574
41
19,010
0


Somehow missed this gem before now. 50% of gamers are on Skylake and Kaby Lake currently? Would love to see your data backing up that claim. Don't just make stats up and use them as evidence your opinion is right.

The rest of your post is just making up excuses to justify your dislike for Intel. Why a new motherboard is required for Intel or AMD is irrelevant when the end result is that you will have to buy one for either side. Any user currently running a Kaby Lake or Skylake system and planning an upgrade to a Coffee Lake for a few percentage pts improvement is obviously not short on money, and I feel zero sympathy for them having to shell out for another motherboard.
 

Krazie_Ivan

Honorable
Aug 22, 2012
102
0
10,680
0
the launch today was solely intended by Intel to pump the brakes on AMD's increasing market-share...

- there's almost no supply of K-chips & won't be till late Q1 of 2018 -nearly a paper-launch.
- production binning means they can cut-down the majority of early-run silicon to sell as lower-tier products.
- only Z370 mobo's avail (no B/H) cause they wanted to ensure mfgs prioritized for the most reviewed chips, the K-series.
- the only people who will have them (those who can afford the mark-up due to scarcity) are the hardest of endowed Intel fans, who will sing it's praises in forums.
- anyone on the fence will see favorable reviews & hold-off while Intel can ramp-up production, instead of buying Ryzen over the coming months (holiday shopping season).
- Intel knows Coffee will eat Kaby sales, & Ryzen has already been steadily munching, so Intel decided to take losses sooner to retain mindshare.
- those who ponder a new build while waiting for 8700k/8600k stock, will hear rumors of 8c/16t on Z390 in H2'18 - which is also an obvious scheme to buy more time.

Intel really wasn't sandbagging all these years, they got caught with their pants down & are in full panic-mode - strategizing how to BS their way through a slump again, like '01-'06. amazing. (ask me about con-trails! lol)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS