Why is the i7-8700k always sold out

[TechnicalDifficulty]

So I live overseas and I can't find an I7-8700k on Amazon or newegg. Why?

 

[Demonic Heart]

No, there is no rule. You aren't in trouble at all. What I was trying to say is that if you are posting on Tom's Hardware, then you must care and trust them. Meaning their reviews would trump all others. By sticking around and posting on their forums we basically agree that their reviews are correct. And as a long time reader before using the forums or becoming a mod I loved how open they are. I was reading a review another mod posted from a different site as we were talking about CPU power usage. He posted a link showing the 9590 using nearly 400W under load. But in reading the info I noticed they never said what they were measuring. Or how. Was this from a special board that read the power to the socket somehow? Or, what I suspect, a kill a watt measuring the power usage of the entire system. After pouring over the page 3 times I just gave up. The information I needed wasn't there. Unless the 7700K also uses nearly 300W under load I'm convinced it's just a kill a watt measuring the total system draw. But that's the awesome thing about Tom's. They are (usually) very clear about what they are doing and how.

So here is my issue. Anyone can start up a youtube channel or even a website. But what do they really know? There is an online personality that us mods love to bash in private. In their videos s/he does horrible things like pick up cards by the gold pins, just put a card in the machine and start benchmarking, and a host of other issues. How do you know they are remembering to make sure the ambient temps are the same between runs? Do you trust their house AC to do the job? Do you really think all these people on youtube reimage their OS and it's clean of other things? Most of the time they have so many icons on their task bar you have no way of knowing if any of that stuff is slowing their PC down. The 8400 might even be the new awesome sauce chip seeing as there aren't a lot of reviews on it yet. But as mentioned above why would Intel make it faster than the 8700? Or the 8600?

https://ark.intel.com/compare/97129,126687

Why would the 8400, which has nearly the same IPC performance as the 7700K seeing as the cores are nearly identical, be faster? It has two more real cores, with two less threads. It "can" turbo up to 4.0GHz if it has the power and thermal room. The 7700K STARTS at 4.2GHz and only goes up from there. As far as gaming goes I'd believe that the 8400 can come close to the 7700K. But beat it? As above, something fishy would be going on.

ok first of all. linustechtips is well known in the computer tech business and so is paul..so im not just getting results from anyone.

second i understand your loyalty and trust to this site and their reviews but sometimes its good to look elsewhere.
biased thinking can lead you a stray.

take a look at pcgamer.com review. a well known site http://www.pcgamer.com/intel-i5-8400-review-the-best-new-gaming-cpu-in-years/

i dont know if its the extra 2 cores that is helping the 8400 or what. but in multiple reviews the 8400 beats the 7700k on stock.. slighly

 

[Isokolon]

I respect LinusTechTips a great deal. And it's not like every Tom's review has been pure gold. There have been reviews that were somewhat..I don't wanna say biased but didn't include some crucial information imo. But anyway. Usually good reviews. Same with Linus. I too resent the absolute approach, I like these boards and most reviews and the way things are handled around here but I don't tremble in veneration
Haven't checked the Linus review yet, busy days

Just read the pcgamer's review but I gotta say I'm pretty disappointing. This reads like it was written by Intel's product manager and some things are stated as facts when they're merely an opinion without explanation. ("Given the choice between an overclocked i5-8600K and a stock i7-8700, in this case I'm going to point to the Core i7 as the better recommendation for nearly all users." -- why's that? There's no argument to support that in the review. And tbh I severely doubt that atm. 8700s turbo is pretty bad if more than 2 threads are loaded. Granted the 8600k's turbo is a joke and I'd discourage anyone from running it at stock speeds given the pricing compared to a 8400. But when applying an OC - for which a 8600k was made, I can see it beating the 8700 in single core performance dependant applications. Or maybe not. Who knows? That's something that needs to be tested not stated like a fact when it's mere speculation)
Also if you're running OC benchmarks of the 7700k why not include them in the chart?
"As good as the i5-8400 is, the unlocked Core i5-8600K is potentially even better." That's an odd thing to say considering in the tests there isn't a lot of room between the 8400 & 8700k (which could indicate that Windows/BIOS needs some updates in order to achieve the max out of the chip, just like with Ryzen in the beginning) neither is there a test of it. Does the reviewer want me to go to another website?
Some phrases just scream bias from a language perspective ("Core i5 has become increasingly difficult to recommend" -- so you continued recommending it? Or: "It's a bit sad to see Z270 and Kaby Lake come and go so quickly." -- you're sad about technological advances? It's not even that this would have any sentimental value unless you had a part in development)

At the benchmarks I noticed one curious thing: mass effect Andromeda shoes significant gains at higher clock speeds when you look at the 8400OC. Yet the 7700k is behind. Alright. But the game likes more cores. Shouldn't Ryzen fair better than?
How on earth is an i9-7960X getting that much more FPS that an i9-7980XE? And wouldn't the 7900X beat all of them with its superior boost speeds? Somehow I doubt that the game makes use of 16 cores....

Okay. Enough ranting. This review has been pretty disappointing and I think you all understand why I think so.

But that's the issue I have with a lot of these reviews I've seen (as said, haven't seen Linus' yet). They all seem somehow...idk. they got strange vibes to them. I don't want to accuse them of something but many of them that I've read so far sound a bit too.grateful towards Intel.
But you know, maybe the 8400 is all that that the reviews and benchmarks show. Would be great. However the 8700k is pretty underwhelming then. Maybe it is an issue with Windows and the optimisation at this point where windows tasks just fire up new threads unnecessarily and lowering the boost speed, maybe we'll see performance increases for the 8700(k) over the next months
But from a simple point of logics, I'm very critical towards these 8400 benchmarks atm. I simply don't believe Intel would sell the perfect 144 Hz chip for under 200$.

 

[Finstar]

I think Adoredtv did a pretty good video on the issues With Coffee lake
https://youtu.be/O98qP-FsIWo

What comes to Linus... he's paid by Intel and everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt.

As for OPs question, Coffee lake was a rushed out response to Ryzen and has no stock because of it.
And don't expect there to be much stock for at least a month from now