Intel Coffee Lake Gaming Results: i7-8700K Cheat Sheet

Status
Not open for further replies.

berezini.2013

Prominent
Sep 25, 2017
51
0
630
0
sounds like soon to be the time to look for all the z270 platforms to be phased out which means price drops! good time to replace that backup pc in case your main one goes down.
 

acosta.87

Prominent
Sep 23, 2017
16
0
520
1


There's barely any difference in performance between all different processors at 1440p so it's got nothing to do with it being 2017 or whatever.
 
^ yeah, 2k and 4k testing makes sense only in gpu testing where the load on gpu increases with res. That's not the case in cpu. So a 1080p review where we can see the max bottleneck is good.

Also, this hasn't been pointed out, the min fps in most of the games is more when compared to 7700k. This was also one of the traits that ryzen exhibited when it was compared. So kudos to those 2 extra cores?

And finally, the best pc build competition would have been more interesting if it was conducted next month :(
 

velocityg4

Illustrious


It would be nice for some perspective.People are left with the perception that there will be a huge difference in gaming between these CPU. While there will be if you are using a GTX 1080 Ti at 1920x1080 and have a 165hz monitor.

In most scenarios. Such extremes won't be met. Like they'll have a GTX 1060 or be playing at 2560x1440 or 4K.
 
Yeah but that's not a proper benchmark. A proper benchmark for CPUs should be at full HD or lower. I want to see which CPU performs best.

Of course they could do 4k Benchmarks with a Rx580 as well. This would then show that an i3, heck even a Fx6300 is just as powerful as an i7. This defies the meaning of benchmarks.

These are CPU benchmarks. It's the power of the CPU that should be shown not the bottleneck of the GPU. This is showing you how many frames your CPU can calculate.

If someone wants to know which CPU to pair with his GPU, he should look up how many frames his GPU can deliver and pick the CPU accordingly or - and yes that's a thing - look up some gaming tests, where they test several tiered hardware systems for a specific game.

You wanna know how many frames a CPU can calculate @1440p when it's able to output 140fps @1080p? Answer is around 140fps.
No sense in showing this kind of nonesense, just makes the review seem unprofessional
 

lonewoofe

Prominent
Sep 27, 2017
5
0
510
0
I don't understand why ANY reviewer would say "try it" when everyone and their little brother knows this was merely a paper launch and there are not items available to try. I get it, it is a business. Intel is not our friend. Neither is AMD. But at least the reviewers and websites how claim to do these articles and rely on viewership (to an extent) ought to PRETEND to be our friends and be frank. Try it! BUT you can't try it yet!!
 

antonio.cue.gervas

Prominent
Oct 7, 2017
1
0
510
0
There are benchmark that provide data, then there are benchmarks that provide information. Journalists should know the difference. If you want benchmarks at 640x480 be my guest, but it's irrelevant data to me.

The absence of the ryzen 1700 from the price/performance charts doesnt help.
 

velocityg4

Illustrious


The problem is. I know what I'm reading and you know what your reading. We know how to interpret the data. That is great for the knowledgeable user. The techie if you will.

Most people don't understand this. If Toms was a trade journal just read by techies. Simply knowing the full capabilities sans bottlenecks would be great. However, Toms is also for your average Joe to know what to buy. They simply don't understand what they are reading. Many can end up wasting money on a CPU they don't need when it would be better spent on a superior GPU. Thinking it will improve performance. When they simply didn't properly comprehend what they read. Without realizing their mistaken impression.

While more detailed articles attempt to explain this. For the average person. They may as well be written in Greek. As they say. A picture is worth a thousand words. A few bar graphs listing QHD and 4K will have more impact than a 100-page explanation.

Sure, in the long run the better CPU will ultimately give a longer useful life. That doesn't help them when they just want the best gaming experience they can get on their new QHD or 4K monitor.

I'm not suggesting every CPU + GPU combo possible. As the standard for reviewing a GPU is to pair different GPU makes and models with the same base Rig. Then list benchmarks at 4K, QHD and HD. Do the same with the CPU. Keep everything as close to the same as possible RAM, GPU, SSD, &c. Just change up the CPU and motherboard. That way users could visually see that at 1920x1080 there is a big difference, at QHD there is very little difference and at 4K there is virtually none.
 


I get what you're saying, but people who have not a single clue don't read a very technical article anyway.
especially in times of today, that's what the boards are for.
if you don't understand that a 60Hz display won't display more than 60fps so it doesn't matter if you're on a Ryzen 1600 or on a 7700k@5GHz, then it won't help showing 4k or 1440p benchmarks either, especially in a CPU review.
this is the way urban myths are started like "you'll need a stronger CPU when upgrading to 4k -- look at these benchmarks"

and as for reviews, if people who don't really know much about this stuff would go by reviews like that, noone would buy a EVGA 600b. But it's one of the most sold units. Because people who don't know anything don't read reviews. any review about this unit would claim that it's not a good unit for a midlevel/highend gaming rig. any review would claim you don't need 600W for an entry level build with a Pentium & a 1050Ti.
but people buy it. it's one of the most popular units.
so I don't see a point in reducing credibility by including redundant benchmarks that give non-tech-savy people a false sense of the CPU's power. The 8700k would do 140fps @4k as well, it's not Intel's fault neither NVIDIA nor AMD can produce a GPU that can at this point.

TL; DR: you can't make some statistic for people who don't know how to read statistics.
 


I knew there would be a complainer about 1080p gaming tests. New to CPU hardware reviews? Look back 15 or more years on CPU reviews and you'll see game resolution settings at 800x600 instead of 1600x1200, the highest consumer-level resolution CRT monitor at the time. That was back when 1280x1024 CRT monitors were the main stream (today's 1080p). Higher resolution gaming beyond HD is mostly on the GPU, not CPU. This is especially the case in maximum quality settings with several layers of AA as well.

Oh by the way: I assume you've heard of 144Hz/165Hz 1080p Freesync and G-sync monitors. 2017 indeed. Also, I'd suggest you look at the latest Steam hardware survey and what resolution gamers are using (clue: the largest percentage use 1080p). I am never enough amazed at how many people do not understand this basic concept of how to CPU hardware test.
 

LeeRains

Reputable
Oct 22, 2016
26
2
4,530
0
Well, these tests maleness the 8700K look like the smallest “upgrade” seen yet from Intel between chip generations. It’s about 4-5% faster than the 7700K? And it requires a new motherboard? F— that nonsense.

I’m guessing the 8700K is faster in scenarios where it’s two extra (slower) cores can be used, but in that type of multicore scenario, I’d rather go with one of AMD’s 10-core CPU’s. Intel are a bunch lazy, greedy bastards.
 
^ contrary to that, for those ppl who wish to stream their games at 144hz, the 8700k makes perfect sense. The ryzen still isn't cut out for 144hz imo (which we got to know in the 1080p testing, not in 2k or 4k) and like I said before, there is a huge improvement in min fps. For those ppl who still have a 4th gen, 8700k might be a sensible upgrade rather than a 7700k.
 

thrakazog

Distinguished
Aug 16, 2011
182
0
18,690
4
I'm surprised at the amount of disdain that arises when people ask for 1440p gaming results. They are not asking for 1440p INSTEAD of 1080p. They just want gaming results in the resolutions people are gaming at. That would make sense for an article about gaming results.

This wasn't supposed to be cpu raw power results, or cpu bottleneck results. Everyone who wanted to know those things should go the the 8700k review Tom's posted. Gaming results suggests it's about game performance with the cpus.

The problem is, at 1440p, all the cpus will provide the same game performance. That would completely upend the gaming price efficiency chart, with the 1600x providing the same game performance as the 8700k.

But since people game at 1440p, I don't think they are wrong for asking for those gaming results. The omission of test data doesn't make an article professional.
 

DerekA_C

Prominent
Mar 1, 2017
177
0
690
1
@Thrakazog I agree with you totally., Also I feel that some of us just may want to wait until February to see what amd's refresh brings since a 4790k @ 4.8ghz can get me by until then for better price wars. I also feel that people aren't upgrading to 1440p as rapidly is because of price for a decent 2k monitor hasn't dropped in 2 years now that most people are aware of the more hz more fps the smoother the gameplay any one that is competitive that is.
 

yeeeeman

Distinguished
Jul 2, 2011
24
2
18,515
0
Yeah, I think most reviewers push this gaming advantage too much when recommending Intel CPUs. I mean, Intel CPUs have an edge (but not very big) over AMDs, but reviews answer questions for everyone, not only for hardcore gamers. Normal/casual gamers, which are much more than hardcore ones usually do want very good performance but they also look for bang for buck. I think reviews should emphasize this more than actual maximum performance.
Sure, if you pay more money you will probably get more performance, but in the general sense, competition is what brings us "more than enough performance for affordable prices". And that is what AMD does and has. I really don't think that the majority of gamers will notice the slightest difference while gaming with a R5 1600 or with a 8700K, but the money in the pocket, that they will notice.
So please, try to be more objective and put more emphasize of what is the limit of diminishing returns in gaming performance vs money spent, because these new 8th series is indeed better than AMD in absolute terms, but the difference is not worth the money.
 

karma77police

Commendable
Sep 27, 2017
22
0
1,510
0
Comparing 1600 to 8700k cannot be done. AMD lacks with 1600 compared to 8700k on all fronts. As soon as we get better GPUs a gap in gaming performance between 8700k and the rest of Ryzen family will get greater and it will creep into 2k and 4k gaming.
 


really depends on what you're looking for.
first off, an 8700k+board is...around 250$ more than a Ryzen 1600+board? of course there's a difference between them.
and yes, for 60Hz gaming it makes literally no sense not going for the Ryzen 1600.
but if you buy a 144, 165, 180Hz screen, Ryzen can't really keep up.
can't really blame the review for people being morons and buying an i7 + a 1080Ti for their 120$ 22" 1080p 60Hz screen
 

Integr8d

Distinguished
May 28, 2011
95
11
18,635
0


Do the largest percentage of gamers also use top-end Core i7's?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS