Those who got the 8700k

TheRealDarkphoX said:
To the OP's initial question, I just upgraded to an 8700K from an I7 920 system I built at the end of 2009. I probably won't build another system for another 5 years (or longer), which may put me in the minority around here. However, I could care less what comes out in 6 months. This was my time to upgrade, I'm enjoying it, and I'll be happy regardless when the next thing comes.
Click to expand...

Finally a post that is on topic.

Hint hint... cough J...and some others.

Youll be pleased with 8700k. I had one but returned it and got a 7820x instead.

I also have an 8600k and the thing is a beastly gaming processor.

Also QuickSync transcodes are pretty quick on the IGP esp. Oc'd. Not as high quality as NVenc which is not as high quality as just pure CPU transcoding.

But gaming on Coffee Lake is second to none the absolute best in desktop class. The extra two true cores reallt smooths things out.

I also am excited at the 8 core drop in later in the year. I want another 8700k but im happy with my i5 so I will wait and get the 8 core I7 when it drops.

I am unhappy with my Asus ITX board. It cant deliver enough power via the mosfets for 5 ghz at lower voltage.
 
Gideon said:
X64 is licensed from AMD by Intel and for the rest of us that is all that matters when it comes to 64 bit computing. Also Intel's / HP 64 bit solution was not for consumers it was strictly for business, they just hoped to spread it to the mainstream.
Click to expand...
​

I dont think X64 is under license anymore, its expired by now. AVX etc is still tho.
 
tangoseal said:
But gaming on Coffee Lake is second to none the absolute best in desktop class
Click to expand...

I've noticed a BIG difference, which is stating the obvious considering I come from an I7 920, but still nice to see from a new rig. Hi-def video encoding is a solid 5x faster. With gaming, my fps in DCS (flight sim) have gone up 50%, WoW is breaking 60fps at max settings (about a 30% fps increase and a bump in vis quality), and KSP no longer slows to a stuttering crawl with high part counts present.

My graphics card isn't even that modern anymore, it's an R9 290. Something on the old setup was definitely a bottleneck...not sure if it was all on the CPU or maybe memory played a part. Regardless, I am impressed with the 8700K so far. Beyond that, my mind is still blown by the speed of DDR4 memory and M2 SSDs.
 
Last edited:
TheRealDarkphoX said:
I've noticed a BIG difference, which is stating the obvious considering I come from an I7 920, but still nice to see from a new rig. Hi-def video encoding is a solid 5x faster. With gaming, my fps in DCS (flight sim) have gone up 50%, WoW is breaking 60fps at max settings (about a 30% fps increase and a bump in vis quality), and KSP no longer slows to a stuttering crawl with high part counts present.

My graphics card isn't even that modern anymore, it's an R9 290. Something on the old setup was definitely a bottleneck...not sure if it was all on the CPU or maybe memory played a part. Regardless, I am impressed with the 8700K so far. Beyond that, my mind is still blown by the speed of DDR4 memory and M2 SSDs.
Click to expand...

Well now your GPU is a serious bottle neck and is holding that CPU back.

On another note ...

I can never make my mind up. I am toying with the idea of getting a 7980xe and delidding it lol... but I want to see what is coming down the pipe in as far as x299 as I really haven't been reading. I already have a badass delidded low volt golden binned 7820x. But damn $2k for a cpu... I need a new Mountain bike as well so I have to choose wisely. My old carbon fiber trek is worn the hell out.

But at a minimum I am going to get an 8 core and sell my 6 core 8600k once I get one. But that is many months from now.

Si
 
Gideon said:
X64 is licensed from AMD by Intel and for the rest of us that is all that matters when it comes to 64 bit computing. Also Intel's / HP 64 bit solution was not for consumers it was strictly for business, they just hoped to spread it to the mainstream.
Click to expand...

While this is true, remember that AMD brought up x86-64 not as an innovation, as it wasn't, but because Intel declined to in favor of their IA64 VLIW solution. AMD's coup was not in the technology itself, but in getting Microsoft to support their 64bit extension of the x86 ISA. And the Athlon64's performance bump wasn't due to it being 64bit, because the only 64bit operating system available was an XP spin with a Server 2003 kernel that had more restrictive driver support- Athlon64 was faster because AMD moved the memory controller onto the CPU from the northbridge.

IIRC, mainstream 64bit uptake didn't happen until Vista shipped with a 64bit version, for which drivers were widely available, and by that time all shipping desktop-class CPUs from both companies shipped with full x86-64 support.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
While this is true, remember that AMD brought up x86-64 not as an innovation, as it wasn't, but because Intel declined to in favor of their IA64 VLIW solution. AMD's coup was not in the technology itself, but in getting Microsoft to support their 64bit extension of the x86 ISA. And the Athlon64's performance bump wasn't due to it being 64bit, because the only 64bit operating system available was an XP spin with a Server 2003 kernel that had more restrictive driver support- Athlon64 was faster because AMD moved the memory controller onto the CPU from the northbridge.

IIRC, mainstream 64bit uptake didn't happen until Vista shipped with a 64bit version, for which drivers were widely available, and by that time all shipping desktop-class CPUs from both companies shipped with full x86-64 support.
Click to expand...

It would of required a complete rewrite the operating system to use IA64 and Microsoft was not about to do that and AMD created what was needed so they went with the easy solution. It was innovation as Intel was not going to do it, just cause you dont like that fact does not make it so. Intel wanted IA64 to succeed just cause it would allow them to lock the market as they had no need to license it to anyone else, something they cant say on x86. As for the Athlon chip this isnt a thread about Athlon performance nor did I mention it. Both companies have done innovative things, it just get tiring to hear from the same people the other sides dont count.
 
Gideon said:
It would of required a complete rewrite the operating system to use IA64 and Microsoft was not about to do that and AMD created what was needed so they went with the easy solution. It was innovation as Intel was not going to do it, just cause you dont like that fact does not make it so. Intel wanted IA64 to succeed just cause it would allow them to lock the market as they had no need to license it to anyone else, something they cant say on x86. As for the Athlon chip this isnt a thread about Athlon performance nor did I mention it. Both companies have done innovative things, it just get tiring to hear from the same people the other sides dont count.
Click to expand...

Again, there's nothing 'innovative' about AMD64- it's not a 'like' or a 'dislike' about AMD doing it. They updated the ISA for 64bit registers. Woohoo, I'm actually happy they did, but the technical adjustment itself was no feat. Microsoft's support of it, was.

[and please don't bring in the 'sides' crap]
 
Gideon said:
It would of required a complete rewrite the operating system to use IA64 and Microsoft was not about to do that and AMD created what was needed so they went with the easy solution. It was innovation as Intel was not going to do it
Click to expand...

Thanks to that 'innovation' from AMD engineers, x86 is now one of worse ISAs in use: inefficient, bloated, non-scalable... Luckily, we heard rumors about Intel working in an improved version of x86-64 without the bloat that AMD did bring to us. Let us expect those rumors are true.

I find very funny that the two 'innovations' that you mentioned consist on a trivial moar-core approach and a trivial 64bit extension to an existent ISA. LOL
 
juanrga said:
Thanks to that 'innovation' from AMD engineers, x86 is now one of worse ISAs in use: inefficient, bloated, non-scalable... Luckily, we heard rumors about Intel working in an improved version of x86-64 without the bloat that AMD did bring to us. Let us expect those rumors are true.

I find very funny that the two 'innovations' that you mentioned consist on a trivial moar-core approach and a trivial 64bit extension to an existent ISA. LOL
Click to expand...

Two points of consideration:

1. While the x86 ISA is most certainly a mess, that mess is largely irrelevant: it's basically just an execution notation that processors then translate into whatever native RISC language that they use internally, said loosely.
2. While the implementation of x86-64 is itself arguably trivial, it's effect is not: without AMD releasing AMD64 CPUs and Microsoft deciding to release operating systems compiled for it, 64bit support, which is now almost necessary for day-to-day computing, may have been significantly slowed. The merits of IA64 can certainly be argued (and I'm not a detractor, I find the VLIW approach impressive!), but its eventual suitability for consumer desktop use always remained questionable, and Intel's decision to not push forward with x86-64 themselves ranks higher in mind in terms of their questionable decisions over the years than the decision to abandon the P6 for Netburst.
 
tangoseal said:
Finally a post that is on topic.

Hint hint... cough J...and some others.

Youll be pleased with 8700k. I had one but returned it and got a 7820x instead.

I also have an 8600k and the thing is a beastly gaming processor.

Also QuickSync transcodes are pretty quick on the IGP esp. Oc'd. Not as high quality as NVenc which is not as high quality as just pure CPU transcoding.

But gaming on Coffee Lake is second to none the absolute best in desktop class. The extra two true cores reallt smooths things out.

I also am excited at the 8 core drop in later in the year. I want another 8700k but im happy with my i5 so I will wait and get the 8 core I7 when it drops.

I am unhappy with my Asus ITX board. It cant deliver enough power via the mosfets for 5 ghz at lower voltage.
Click to expand...
Asus strix itx? Seems like that's the one I'll end up with if I want a deal, I was eyeing ASRock itx but missed out on my z370 update for now dammit
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Two points of consideration:

1. While the x86 ISA is most certainly a mess, that mess is largely irrelevant: it's basically just an execution notation that processors then translate into whatever native RISC language that they use internally, said loosely.
2. While the implementation of x86-64 is itself arguably trivial, it's effect is not: without AMD releasing AMD64 CPUs and Microsoft deciding to release operating systems compiled for it, 64bit support, which is now almost necessary for day-to-day computing, may have been significantly slowed. The merits of IA64 can certainly be argued (and I'm not a detractor, I find the VLIW approach impressive!), but its eventual suitability for consumer desktop use always remained questionable, and Intel's decision to not push forward with x86-64 themselves ranks higher in mind in terms of their questionable decisions over the years than the decision to abandon the P6 for Netburst.
Click to expand...

1. That mess affect everything, not only up to the decode phase. For instance the size of the microcode ROM needed to deal with the complexities of X64 can take up to 20% of the die space; the small number of architectural registers in x64 obligates to design more complex register structures and rename stages in the pipeline...

2. If AMD engineers had released AMD64 as a clean separate ISA the implementation had been simple. Even today we could have less bloated OSes supporting only 64bit mode.
 
Just upgraded from i5-2500k to i7-8700k. Cannot see any difference in every day tasks. PUBG now feels smoother but still cannot play on Ultra in some areas as FPS drops a lot. So playing on medium.

Overall I am happy with an upgrade as it probably will last me the same 7 years as 2500k lasted.

The only WOW during update was that Asus Prime Z370-A motherboard I use unexpectedly had a stripe of led lights integrated o_O that started to blink with all kind of rainbow effects the first time I started the system. I am getting old for this shit. I didn't expect they integrate these Christmas lights into motherboards nowdays.
 
almalino said:
Just upgraded from i5-2500k to i7-8700k. Cannot see any difference in every day tasks. PUBG now feels smoother but still cannot play on Ultra in some areas as FPS drops a lot. So playing on medium.

Overall I am happy with an upgrade as it probably will last me the same 7 years as 2500k lasted.

The only WOW during update was that Asus Prime Z370-A motherboard I use unexpectedly had a stripe of led lights integrated o_O that started to blink with all kind of rainbow effects the first time I started the system. I am getting old for this shit. I didn't expect they integrate these Christmas lights into motherboards nowdays.
Click to expand...
Did you upgrade your gpu as well?

You wont notice an performance bump unless you switch to windows 10 and have a solid state drive. Anything older and an upgrade isnt being allowed to run right. Its like buying a ferrarri and nwver being allowed to leave the school zone speed limit.
 
tangoseal said:
Did you upgrade your gpu as well?

You wont notice an performance bump unless you switch to windows 10 and have a solid state drive. Anything older and an upgrade isnt being allowed to run right. Its like buying a ferrarri and nwver being allowed to leave the school zone speed limit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I already had GTX 1080 and SSDs on 2500k system. So I only upgraded CPU / Mobo / RAM
 
I saw a very large bump for some of the games I play- the Battlefield series, BF4 and BF1, for example- but overall the biggest bump was in the smoothness of gaming.

In (good) benchmarks, you'll see this as lower maximum frametimes (higher instantaneous average minimum FPS).
 
Agreed the bump in performance has been fantastic. The one thing I did notice was a huge increase in power draw esp when overclocking. I was pleasantly surprised by the 8700k which I do not fully utilize it in some instances the system refresh has been welcomed even though not required. Fun times!

As an added note, I really wanted to go 7820x route, but the price of memory and the CPU wasn't really worth it. Regardless the 8700k is a beast of a processor and overclocks so easily.
 
System info.png
 
Last edited:
For the people waiting on the 9700k, are you mad that the 10700k is around the second corner or do you enjoy the thought of maybe owning the 9700k sometime in 2018 or 2019?

In other news, my 8700k was good last month, working excellent today, will be excellent next year and will continue to be awesome two years from now.
 
bandit390 said:
For the people waiting on the 9700k, are you mad that the 10700k is around the second corner or do you enjoy the thought of maybe owning the 9700k sometime in 2018 or 2019?

In other news, my 8700k was good last month, working excellent today, will be excellent next year and will continue to be awesome two years from now.
Click to expand...

I used to love to laugh at the Macrumors articles about the next Macbook Pro around the corner. No matter what's available, the next Intel CPU codename was going to be fucking magical. As soon as a new one would launch and people would figure out it was 7% faster than the last one that everyone though was obsolete, the new anticipation thread would begin for whatever was next.

There's ALWAYS something faster right around the corner. Of course you can argue the 8700k was an exception since it improved in a meaningful way, and it MIGHT be the same for the 9700k, but only time will tell.
 
Eh, I even upgraded my ultrabook this time- the i7-7500U in my XPS13 was fine for regular use but was a dog for editing photos on the go, and with the availability of quad-core i7-8550U-equipped ultrabooks, I decided to move forward.

Got a Zenbook this time, though, as Dell won't give you 16GB of RAM without also forcing you to take their high-res screen, and unfortunately they didn't do it the Apple Retina way and just double the best native resolution for the form factor, so you have some goofy scaling on top of things that don't scale. At least ASUS had the good sense to put a 1080p panel in theirs.


[also got a 2-in-1 folder, which I may or may not wind up finding convenient, but I figure I might put it to use at some point...]


But that's real value in the mobile space. You could already get a 6- or 7-series quad in the thicker laptops and in the 15" chassis, but at the ultrabook level where I'm working, this round has been as much of a revelation as the higher core count CPU releases on the desktop have been.


[further note- I was worried that the quad would wind up slower than the dual-core due to increased heat and thus a lower sustained clock ceiling, but it seems Intel has gotten that part pretty well worked out too- so far it's running pretty well!]
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I saw a very large bump for some of the games I play- the Battlefield series, BF4 and BF1, for example- but overall the biggest bump was in the smoothness of gaming.

In (good) benchmarks, you'll see this as lower maximum frametimes (higher instantaneous average minimum FPS).
Click to expand...

I saw the same going from a Sandy 2600K/GTX 670 SLI rig for so long to a 4790K/980TI .

From your standpoint perceived frames are not noticeable if taking a 7700K as the comparison.

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9SL1AvNzE2Mzg5L29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDAyLnBuZw==


but the frame times show something that makes it plausible to some extent.

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9SL1QvNzE2MzkzL29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDE0LnBuZw==

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9SL1MvNzE2MzkyL29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDA0LnBuZw==


I am still hesitant to believe that frame time is that telling as the average human can only perceive up to 13ms and none of the CPU's there seem to show anything remotely near what I would call stutter.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
I am still hesitant to believe that frame time is that telling as the average human can only perceive up to 13ms and none of the CPU's there seem to show anything remotely near what I would call stutter.
Click to expand...

The benchmark shows the delta- but keep in mind that benchmarks are designed to do that only; they cannot show how a game will run on a typical system with background applications/multi-tasking/etc, or how the game will run on your system specifically.

A simple way to interpret the results would be to expect the delta to be exacerbated mildly exponentially. Anywhere you see something doing worse, expect it to be even worse in real-world play.
 
tangoseal said:
Finally a post that is on topic.

Hint hint... cough J...and some others.

Youll be pleased with 8700k. I had one but returned it and got a 7820x instead.

I also have an 8600k and the thing is a beastly gaming processor.

Also QuickSync transcodes are pretty quick on the IGP esp. Oc'd. Not as high quality as NVenc which is not as high quality as just pure CPU transcoding.

But gaming on Coffee Lake is second to none the absolute best in desktop class. The extra two true cores reallt smooths things out.

I also am excited at the 8 core drop in later in the year. I want another 8700k but im happy with my i5 so I will wait and get the 8 core I7 when it drops.

I am unhappy with my Asus ITX board. It cant deliver enough power via the mosfets for 5 ghz at lower voltage.
Click to expand...


Could you give some input on why you chose the 7820?
Is this on more of a "multipurpose" rig than gaming machine?
 
demondrops said:
https://wccftech.com/intel-10nm-cannonlake-ice-lake-processors-spotted/

it probably is the worst possible timing to buy cpu now, depending what u already got i guess. i know i would feel a bit cheated if i buy 8700k and they release 8 core ice lakes for around same price in april let's just guess haha, and unsure if it goes in z370 motherboards. that would sting, but i have no idea.
Click to expand...

My ass old core 2 quad was not enough for divinity 2. My awesome coffee lake 6 core runs everything I their at it without a hitch. Definitely no regret here.
 
because u buy a new mobo and cpu for a possibly dead platform that is only marginally better for gaming then a 5820k wich is a product made 4 years ago? i guess it depend on where u coming from CPU wise :D no i would say 5820k was a great buy, coffin lake isnt :p it is something that probably was realistic to launch 5 years ago but. and the fact we know 8 core 10nm chips are coming in 1 year after coffin lake, and no one rly knows as far as i can tell if it will work with z370 chipset.
 
8700K ballooned over the 5820K's price, too. With the mobo price difference it evened out, but with DDR4 being cheaper pre-8700K, the 5820K platform was probably cheaper overall 2+ years before the 8700K even came out. The platform supports 8C chips, too (maybe even 10C+? Not sure). Intel's enthusiast tier chips really make a lot of sense when you look at them in the long run. Moreso for Haswell-E/Broadwell-E. We'll see about Skl-x.

Wish I did a 5820K build when they launched. I had my hands on two different X99 boards (free) and decided to sell them rather than build. Unfortunately, couldn't have predicted DDR4 prices and how mediocre the 8700K would be. We were supposed to be on 10nm by now.
 
Last edited:
well yes it's prety much so close pricewise i just looked at my old order. and ram were around half the price only thing that cost more was MB. funny enough they still sell the cpu for more then i bougth it for not by much but lol :p and ppl selling used x99 cpu's these prices, even more then the new x core counterparts. not realistic anyone with a clue will not buy them for these prices but. but then again selling used hardware for extortionist prices are prety common here in norway, or just unrealistic. i would guess same goes for retailers selling old x99 cpu's for old prices when x core counterparts cost half for most part :p
 
tangoseal said:
Gaming and productivity and I love the look of quad channel ram and more lanes of pcie since I run sli 1080ti even though the extra lanes make no diff
Click to expand...


Stupid question:
Do you have to run them on quad channel memory or will 2x8gb suffice? I realize that's one of the major advantages...

Also:
Do we anticipate another generation or two of processors working with the x299 platform?
 
demondrops said:
because u buy a new mobo and cpu for a possibly dead platform that is only marginally better for gaming then a 5820k wich is a product made 4 years ago? i guess it depend on where u coming from CPU wise :D no i would say 5820k was a great buy, coffin lake isnt :p it is something that probably was realistic to launch 5 years ago but. and the fact we know 8 core 10nm chips are coming in 1 year after coffin lake, and no one rly knows as far as i can tell if it will work with z370 chipset.
Click to expand...

All platforms are dead platforms.

The only exception is when someone buys something low-end and then intends to upgrade, and that's extremely rare in the full scheme of things. Otherwise, the CPU-Motherboard-Memory 'platform' lasts longer than any upgrades will be released, and once workloads encourage (or demand) an upgrade, the whole platform needs a refresh.

By the time my 8700k starts looking slow, I'll want a board with DDR5, PCIe 4.0 (or 5.0?), the latest HDMI and/or DP outputs, all USB-C with some Thunderbolt, more M.2 interfaces, the latest 802.11 and Bluetooth, and so on.
 
to my knowledge pcie 3.0 is still more then enough and will be for a good time? hdmi/dp that goes on graphics card, i cant see why u need a motherboard to support that, i cant remember in my time as a gamer ever plugging anything into motherboard.. M.2 im not sure the use of this yet, at best it is a few seconds faster then ssd, and games dont even come close to capping bandwitdth on normal ssd's still.. and price is over double. but your rigth, this 8700k will last a good while realistically. it seems it is not unrealistic to get 4-5 years of a cpu now depending a bit ofc. where before it took 2 and it was prety much toss it out the window. im old school so i prefer still the TP cabel lol :p and wireless isnt even on every motherboard today, even though it could be! and i hardly ever transfer much from my pc to any other physical device anymore really, so much not needed for me atleast. but i guess u are rigth for most part, but what if u would like to upgrade your cpu at some point without having to replace your motherboard. and most of the features that are on motherboards now have been there for a very long time now, most of these things u talk of have just recently been something to consider. but yeah x99 is a dead platform like u say, no meaningful upgrades for me there, only 6900k but i migth aswell buy new mobo and x cpu for prices these sell for. ofc i could change cpu and see some benefit. but going over to x299 for me wouldnt make any sense except for the change of cpu, as it doesnt bring anything meaningful in terms of motherboard perks for me. the 7820x would be a nice upgrade tho. no i really think amd with AM4 is more reasonable. but hey.. whatever. then u could buy a new mobo or whatever if u wanted these new features or upgrade your cpu.
 
Last edited:
IdiotInCharge said:
All platforms are dead platforms.

The only exception is when someone buys something low-end and then intends to upgrade, and that's extremely rare in the full scheme of things. Otherwise, the CPU-Motherboard-Memory 'platform' lasts longer than any upgrades will be released, and once workloads encourage (or demand) an upgrade, the whole platform needs a refresh.

By the time my 8700k starts looking slow, I'll want a board with DDR5, PCIe 4.0 (or 5.0?), the latest HDMI and/or DP outputs, all USB-C with some Thunderbolt, more M.2 interfaces, the latest 802.11 and Bluetooth, and so on.
Click to expand...

You will need a home loan to afford that DDR5, PCIe 4.0 is nice but not really needed as cards dont even max it out on 3.0. I have a Ryzen and I plan to upgrade when Zen 2 comes out , best part is all I have to do is unmount my waterblock and put the new cpu in and keep all my current hardware. For me Id rather have the option to upgrade then buy all new components.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top