Intel Core i5-8600K Review: Coffee Lake's Jolting Value

[none12345]

For people on a budget---and lets face it, thats most people---you can pair an i5/z370 with a 1060/580 for the same price as you can pair a r5 1600/b350 on a 1070. And for gaming, a r5+1070 is going to stomp a i5+1060.

Right now, with the i5 over the r5, you have to buy a mobo that is $50+ more, you need to buy a cooler that is $30+(a 30 cooler really is no where near enough to get a good overclock, realistically i should say 50+ for a cooler, and if you want the max, 90+ for top end air, or with water then thats 110 minimum), and you are buying a chip that is $80+(ive seen the 1600 go for 169, which is 90 less). An extra $160 to spend on a gpu is going to win against the minor cpu difference in every game.

And if you figure on water, for a good overclock, then thats an extra $240 to spend on a gpu....that gets you a 1080 instead of a 1060.

The 8600k is a good gaming chip....but the r5s are way more budget friendly, they allow a higher tier of gaming on the same budget.

 

[stockolicious]

CL is "Vapor" its like hitting the lottery getting those CPU's and they almost give you the same gaming of their own 7700. Intel marketing hard at work here - do a paper launch and have no chips to sell while the brand loyalists crow about an extra 15 frames per second while the chip is clocked to lava temps. Availability of CL CPUs in volume will be just about the time of the Ryzen 12nm release. CL is Kaby lake with 2 more cores - which is good but its not the second coming.

 

[logainofhades]

The 1600 also has better multi-threaded support than an i5, which is important to me. That's why I bought a 6700k over a 6600k, when I last did a CPU upgrade. 1440p gaming, even with the same GPU, the gaming performance differences would be minor. With a much faster GPU, it wouldn't even be a contest.

Because once again Intel cheaped out on TIM, you need more expensive cooling with Coffee Lake, than you do with Ryzen, if you want to push your overclock as much as safely possible, voltage wise. I miss the days of Sandy Bridge, and soldered IHS.

 

[ern88]

Not worth the extra money to upgrade from my i5 6600k. Plus having to buy a new motherboard. No thanks.

 

[cryoburner]

Since the chart shows the i5-8600k and the i5-8600K@4.9GHz at the same $260, I presume that means you achieved the overclock with the stock cooler.

Not sure if you were being sarcastic, but the 8600K doesn't have a stock cooler.

There are two different sets of graphs, one that looks at CPU only costs and the other that considers CPU, mobo, and cooler costs. In the latter, the 8600K at 4.9GHz is clearly shown to cost more.

Those graphs are a complete mess though. Why are the actual street prices not reflected at all? The only places I've seen that are willing to sell the processor to you online have the 8600K listed as $280, not under $260, and with an expected ship date of a month and a half from now. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 1700 is readily available with a cooler for $300, and can be overclocked on far less expensive motherboards, yet it appears starting at $330 in the charts. In the ones that do reflect the additional platform costs, the 1700's price should appear below that of the 8600K, not above. What's the point in including price comparison charts at all when they don't come close to reflecting the actual prices that the products are selling for? I could maybe see putting the 8600K at its supposed "launch price" of around $260 if this were a launch day review, when availability and retail pricing weren't well known, but the CPU has been out for nearly two weeks now, and that information is readily available.

And while I like the idea that platform costs are taken into account for some of the graphs, it's probably futile to quantify that price difference to any specific fixed value. If we're looking at the lowest priced overclocking-capable motherboards for Ryzen and Coffee Lake right now, the price difference can be far more than just $20. You can find some B350 MicroATX motherboards for Ryzen starting around $60, while for Coffee Lake, the lowest priced motherboards currently start around $120. And while you might need a third-party cooler to take Ryzen to its maximum overclock, you can get pretty close on just the stock cooler, something that's not indicated well by a graph with a single point for overclocked performance like this. I also question how likely it is to get some of these CPUs up to the overclocks reflected by the chart on a $25 cooler, particularly when the benchmark data comes from running them on an extremely expensive liquid cooling system. And on that note, on the charts that reflect platform costs, why are the overclocked and stock 8600K not at the same price level? You need to buy both a cooler and a higher-priced Z370 motherboard to run the 8600K at all, at least until the lower-end chipsets launch some months down the line. There are simply too many variables being roughly estimated for the positions of the points on those graphs, making them feel very inaccurate.

In addition, those price to performance graphs are not particularly easy to visually navigate either. I'd like to see at least some color coding being done on them to be able to visually distinguish where each processor lies in its stock and overclocked states, rather than sifting through a cloud of points and tags searching for them. It would also be good to better differentiate which graphs include the platform costs, rather than just swapping one word with another similar looking one in the subheading of their title.

Aside from those terrible price charts though, the review was rather good! : P

 

[ibjeepr]

I wish the 7700k was on all of the graphs.
"The -8600K does, however, deliver more performance in most games. It even matches the Core i7-7700K"
"Core i5-8600K often provides similar gaming frame rates as the previous-gen Core i7-7700K, and it's incredibly competitive in productivity workloads."

...but it's not in the graphs.

 

[Martell1977]

Gotta love competition, seems like AMD lit a fire under Intel's rear. I know CPU's have a long development cycle, but just seems like too much of a coincidence. With the short life of Kaby, just seems like this was rushed because AMD did such a good job.

Now we need see if AMD can get Ryzen 2 out before CannonLake and make it extremely competitive. Let's hope this keeps going. My next upgrade if probably going to be about Q3 2018, so I am looking forward to have a real decision to make regarding what CPU and GPU to get.

 

[elbert]

Actually i5-8600k beats the i7-7700 and is 1~3FPS of the i7=8700k in most games. Compare the 8700k review with the 8600k review. They use the same hardware. The stock i7-8700 gets the same fps in both these graphs.

 

[samer.forums]

Great CPU, but the overall platform cost is a bit of a turn off, for me. I'd rather get a 1600, and a B350 board, to allow for a better GPU, if buying new. As stated in the review, even a 1700, with a less expensive board, is a very compelling option.

I think for the Price/performance the i3 8350K will slaughter the 1700

 

[samer.forums]

Not worth the extra money to upgrade from my i5 6600k. Plus having to buy a new motherboard. No thanks.

Not all people are upgrading . Actually you dont need to upgrade at all within 3-4 CPU Generations period.

 

[Plumboby]

still on a Sandybridge i5 on 8gig ram still goes as good as any new intel processor out. Just waiting for the new Rysen 2 chips before i build my next build. Am an intel fan its funny how they open all there cores on coffee lake, first in a long time a bit rushed to liitle to late. Just waiting for testing & any bugs between the new Amd & intel platforms before i decide what in am building next. Atm intel has lost it as always need a new board where Amd can carry over a board with a new CPU & features & freedom intel has lost. Just hope the next gen Rysen 2 chips exceed there expectations to intel would like to build a decent reliable Gaming & workhorse where i got the power where i need it & processes if i decide to record while gaming & things like that. Intel needs to drop there prices & stick with 1 series of motherboards to make me go intel but boost friendly cpu extra cores & sticking with 1 series of motherboards gets my eyes looking for a Rysen build.

 

[usgroup1]

It's funny there are many many people in tech forums reporting all kind of stability problems with Ryzen overclock on cheap B350 motherboards yet many reviewers like this one still recommend something like Ryzen 1700 and a cheap B350 board based on platform cost lol.

 

[mossberg]

It's funny there are many many people in tech forums reporting all kind of stability problems with Ryzen overclock on cheap B350 motherboards yet many reviewers like this one still recommend something like Ryzen 1700 and a cheap B350 board based on platform cost lol.

That is probably because the vast majority of those people don't have a clue, as to what they are doing.

 

[YoAndy]

The Intel i5 8700K or any other intel's rated K processor,.. they are not for the average people trying to save money, they are for enthusiasts and overclockers...

You can be an enthusiast and still value performance per dollar when making a purchase...

If you want a CPU that comes with heatsink and fan included or trying to save some money... you should be looking at the 6 core i5 8400 is only 187 (actually cheaper than your Ryzen 6) and it has a turbo clock of 4GHz.. spoiler (still beats Ryzen at gaming).. Any more questions or concerns lol?
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-8400-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/3939vs3919

Ugh, why do people insist on using that site. Try this instead: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_8400/18.html
I'm looking at the values for the 1600X, because the 1600 can be overclocked to the same performance with basically no extra cost. The 1600X performs 5% worse at 1080p, 0.6% worse at 1440p, and 2.6% better at CPU tasks. In reality, the performance deficits in gaming would probably be a little less (and the performance advantage in CPU tasks a little greater) for an OC'd 1600, as you can most likely OC it beyond stock 1600X levels. And it'd probably still be cheaper, given that you currently have to pair an 8400 with a more expensive Z370 mobo. Seems pretty competitive to me

Ugh,,Because that site shows benchmarks of thousands of real users, Like you and me. Unlike techpowerup or reviewers, they use only one CPU ar a time.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Spoiler

The Intel i5 8700K or any other intel's rated K processor,.. they are not for the average people trying to save money, they are for enthusiasts and overclockers...

You can be an enthusiast and still value performance per dollar when making a purchase...

If you want a CPU that comes with heatsink and fan included or trying to save some money... you should be looking at the 6 core i5 8400 is only 187 (actually cheaper than your Ryzen 6) and it has a turbo clock of 4GHz.. spoiler (still beats Ryzen at gaming).. Any more questions or concerns lol?
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-8400-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/3939vs3919

Ugh, why do people insist on using that site. Try this instead: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_8400/18.html
I'm looking at the values for the 1600X, because the 1600 can be overclocked to the same performance with basically no extra cost. The 1600X performs 5% worse at 1080p, 0.6% worse at 1440p, and 2.6% better at CPU tasks. In reality, the performance deficits in gaming would probably be a little less (and the performance advantage in CPU tasks a little greater) for an OC'd 1600, as you can most likely OC it beyond stock 1600X levels. And it'd probably still be cheaper, given that you currently have to pair an 8400 with a more expensive Z370 mobo. Seems pretty competitive to me

Ugh,,Because that site shows benchmarks of thousands of real users, Like you and me. Unlike techpowerup or reviewers, they use only one CPU ar a time.

Userbenchmark uses a bunch of vague, proprietary, synthetic benchmarks to rate your CPU performance in various areas. It then combines those scores in an arbitrary way to come up an "effective speed" number, which may or may not reflect real world performance. The results don't control for whether or not the CPU is overlclocked, what RAM you have, etc.

If you want to know a CPU performs in games, you should look at gaming benchmarks. If you want to know how a CPU performs in work/productivity applications, you should look at work/productivity application benchmarks. Which is exactly what Techpowerup (and many other review sites) do. I just chose TPU because they have succinct performance summary graphs. And what does it matter if they only use one CPU? Performance from one CPU to another doesn't really vary, other than overclocking potential for unlocked CPUs.

 

[mlee 2500]

I'm still waiting for my Five Year Old Sandy Bridge i7-3770K to get long in the tooth....

Still waiting. I throw a new high-end graphics card into it every two or three years (also added an M.2 EVO), and it stays on the high-end of capability relative to whatever is new at the time.

In fact, after HALF A DECADE, the single core performance of my i7-3770K is only about 1/3rd less then the LATEST i7-8700K Coffee Lake CPU, and we're ANOTHER half decade out from any games being released that assume or demand that additional performance boost provided by today's fastest CPU's.

It kills me too, because I REALLY want to build myself a new PC. I certainly have the $$. But I just can't justify it. It won't make any meaningful difference in my gaming experience (I mostly play strategy games like Total War or XCOM, not allot of FPS), and it probably won't be worthwhile for another two or three years.

Gawd knows I don't need anything faster for web browsers or word documents, and I'm yet to get a game I can't run with high or very high graphical settings provided my GPU stays current.

 

[samer.forums]

Where is the 8 cores for this platform ? why only 6 cores intel ?

 

[TJ Hooker]

Where is the 8 cores for this platform ? why only 6 cores intel ?

There are no 8 core CPUs for this platform (X370). If you're asking why they aren't including results for Skylake-X CPUs (X299), then it's because they're only comparing CPUs from Intel and AMD's mainstream platforms (LGA 1151 and AM4).

 

[elbert]

Where is the 8 cores for this platform ? why only 6 cores intel ?

I think late next years Intel cannonlake brings 8 cores to the plateform.
https://hothardware.com/news/intel-shows-10nm-cannon-lake-wafer-9th-generation-core-processors

 

[YoAndy]

Spoiler

The Intel i5 8700K or any other intel's rated K processor,.. they are not for the average people trying to save money, they are for enthusiasts and overclockers...

You can be an enthusiast and still value performance per dollar when making a purchase...

If you want a CPU that comes with heatsink and fan included or trying to save some money... you should be looking at the 6 core i5 8400 is only 187 (actually cheaper than your Ryzen 6) and it has a turbo clock of 4GHz.. spoiler (still beats Ryzen at gaming).. Any more questions or concerns lol?
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-8400-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/3939vs3919

Ugh, why do people insist on using that site. Try this instead: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_8400/18.html
I'm looking at the values for the 1600X, because the 1600 can be overclocked to the same performance with basically no extra cost. The 1600X performs 5% worse at 1080p, 0.6% worse at 1440p, and 2.6% better at CPU tasks. In reality, the performance deficits in gaming would probably be a little less (and the performance advantage in CPU tasks a little greater) for an OC'd 1600, as you can most likely OC it beyond stock 1600X levels. And it'd probably still be cheaper, given that you currently have to pair an 8400 with a more expensive Z370 mobo. Seems pretty competitive to me

Ugh,,Because that site shows benchmarks of thousands of real users, Like you and me. Unlike techpowerup or reviewers, they use only one CPU ar a time.

Userbenchmark uses a bunch of vague, proprietary, synthetic benchmarks to rate your CPU performance in various areas. It then combines those scores in an arbitrary way to come up an "effective speed" number, which may or may not reflect real world performance. The results don't control for whether or not the CPU is overlclocked, what RAM you have, etc.

If you want to know a CPU performs in games, you should look at gaming benchmarks. If you want to know how a CPU performs in work/productivity applications, you should look at work/productivity application benchmarks. Which is exactly what Techpowerup (and many other review sites) do. I just chose TPU because they have succinct performance summary graphs. And what does it matter if they only use one CPU? Performance from one CPU to another doesn't really vary, other than overclocking potential for unlocked CPUs.

Their tests are pretty good, you should try and benchmark your system, find out by yourself.

 

[SBSExtensions]

You provide one of the best all around CPU test/benchmark results, specifically the Workstation, 3D rendering and Computational ones - i.e. SolidWorks benchmarks.
A question:
Q: Will you ever do a TR 1900X test as well, to see how it compares to Ryzen 1800X?
Thanks.

 

[cmi86]

"Intel would never sand bag it's tech and price gouge it's customers" "Intel is giving us the best they have" Fanboi's justifying Intel's stagnant development and price gouging ever since Sandy Bridge... Wonder what those same folks will have to say about their beloved blue team dropping 5Ghz capable 6 core i5's mere months after finally being pressured by AMD again... Nah none of that was in the pipe line lol...

 

[AgentLozen]

Everything he said

I think a lot of people have felt like Intel has really stagnated in the last 5 years. In 2012, Ivy Bridge was a huge disappointment (I have one at home). I think the title that Tomshardware used for their Haswell review was "...Enthusiasts Yawn". Broadwell was only interesting because of it's greatly improved graphics system. Skylake was a disappointment. The changes made by Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake should have been what Skylake was in the first place.

What happened to those leaps and bounds in performance from the late 90's and mid 2000's? In 1997 we had 233MHz and by 1998 the speed had nearly doubled. The Pentium 4 NetBurst architecture was mostly inferior to AMD's, but it still saw big improvements every year. Remember the transition to the Core architecture in 2006? HUGE improvement in a short time.

I've been saying this a lot in the last few months, but I'm really glad we have some competition back. I want to see those exciting jumps in technology like we used to get.

 

[Tanyac]

If I understand it correctly, AMD does not support SGX. And if you are serious about 4K work and Blu-ray playback then AMD is totally out of the picture. Owners of HEDT systems are also out of luck it seems, on both AMD and Intel systems.

Shame really... I really really want to dump Intel and go AMD...

 

[samer.forums]

If I understand it correctly, AMD does not support SGX. And if you are serious about 4K work and Blu-ray playback then AMD is totally out of the picture. Owners of HEDT systems are also out of luck it seems, on both AMD and Intel systems.

Shame really... I really really want to dump Intel and go AMD...

SGX ?