Do you still think 8700k is relevant with ....?

T

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,743
So do you guys/gals think the 8700k is still a relative processor for gaming and productivity vs. price ratio given Zen2 is right around the corner? Seriously though for productivity I have a 2950x so I am not too worried there.

Is there anything Intel is going to do or have immediately following Zen 2 7nm in a few months?

I used to own one and sold it over a year ago, kind of miss it, but I understand the price is lower now than the 9700k and the 9700k is actually slower due to having less threads overall than the 8700k.

I was thinking of picking one up but not sure since Zen2 might be slightly to significantly faster being a brand new tech and process. I want to push my rtx2080ti to the limit and I dont think that the added expense of a 9700 or 9900k makes a difference at all.

Just a thread of curiosity and nothing more.

I am not up to speed on Intel in as much as some of you are as far as what is around the bend to be released.
 
Wait to see how Zen2 pans out and Intels response.

ps you mean relevant.
 
8700k is a great overall chip, and if I had to recommend an Intel chip to someone right now, that'd probably be it considering the price differences between it, the 9700k and 9900k.

That said, you're not 'missing out' on much realistically. As others have said, wait for Zen2 release and see how it goes. Intel will have to respond in some way I assume to that launch.
 
Piling in the crowd!

Golden rule of tech purchases: If you can wait, you should. A potentially nice product is coming soon at all times. And in this specific case, it's pretty soon - so I would absolutely sit tight for a while.

The 8700k is fine for everything today, and for years. But - you'd kick yourself if AMD does pull a rabbit out of a hat in a couple months.
 
PhaseNoise said:
Piling in the crowd!

Golden rule of tech purchases: If you can wait, you should. A potentially nice product is coming soon at all times. And in this specific case, it's pretty soon - so I would absolutely sit tight for a while.

The 8700k is fine for everything today, and for years. But - you'd kick yourself if AMD does pull a rabbit out of a hat in a couple months.
Click to expand...

True - well said. I can definitely wait then.
 
Absolutely. Hell, the 6700k/7700k are still relevant overall.

The 8700k is a bit overkill for gaming, and as others have mentioned will remain relevant for some time. Really until there's a paradigm shift of both significantly higher CPU requirements and significant progress toward game workload parallelization.

For desktop workloads, well, most run well on a potato. For consumer compute (mostly content creation), the 8700k will likely be outmoded quickly as core counts increase, but that's more of a time thing than the ability to do the work period.
 
Not to join the pissing match but my 22nm process 4.8GHz 4790k w/1080Ti is still relevant. This is the real problem with Intel no Tock's and all tick's. If I said to you 6 years ago we would all be hungry for a 9th gen Intel core six years from now everyone would laugh at me. It is a joke.
 
owcraftsman said:
Not to join the pissing match but my 22nm process 4.8GHz 4790k w/1080Ti is still relevant. This is the real problem with Intel no Tock's and all tick's. If I said to you 6 years ago we would all be hungry for a 9th gen Intel core six years from now everyone would laugh at me. It is a joke.
Click to expand...

4 core cpu's are only relevant for single player games, for MP they are done for.
 
The 8700k seems like a solid choice. The added price of the 9700k might be worth it if you can get the R0 stepping and it is only slower in a select few MT applications.
 
Lastan010 said:
4 core cpu's are only relevant for single player games, for MP they are done for.
Click to expand...

They're definitely slower, though ones with hyperthreading like owcraftsman's 4790K do quite a bit better when it comes down to it. Certainly not an issue if you're willing to dial back any settings that hit the CPU particularly hard, and try not to run anything particularly heavy in the background that might disrupt the main game threads.
 
I wrestled between the 8700k and 9700k for a few weeks and decided to roll with the 8700k. It’s easier to delid for lower temps and it’s performance is only a tad slower than the 9700k in most situations. In specific situations it’s a bit faster. It was marginally cheaper.

I’m mostly doing gaming with some side work. I came from a 6600k and I can feel the difference in daily usage. If you can wait though, it wouldn’t hurt.
 
There's a guy who did a YouTube video saying for gaming, the 8700k fits the bill more because the 9900k costs way too much to justify the speed gain, which is minimal at best when compared to the 8700k side by side. Of course if cost isn't a factor, go for the 9900k. But from a cost to value and speed perspective, 8700k is still the chip to get.
 
I'm running a 920 @3.8 and honestly it's still kicking pretty well. Then again i don't game much but still. My laptop i7 7600u is slower than my 10 year old desktop in terms of raw processing power.
 
I’m running the 8700K @ 4.8 with no AVX offset with average 1.32vcore and peak of 1.34. With peak spike temps during Prime95 at 85C on one core during my 20 hour run and it’s already delidded. Only using a Thermalright true spirit 140 though. I realize it represents a load my system will likely never see, but, prime has been my go to since the early 2000s. Damn thing wants 1.37 for 4.9. Temps during my maxed out GTA V session at 1440p maxed at 68C.

I seen several people report spikes to 95C+ at 1.3v not delidded so I’m glad I did.

It’s still a damn fine chip and I have no regrets nor do I assume I’m losing anything not pushing to 5.0 with it or using a negative AVX offset.
 
Meh. Glad I got in on the 7820x last year for $400. Won't need a upgrade for a long time.
 
Right now is a good time to check Microcenter's processor and mobo deals for the 8700k. When there is something new and shiny around the corner they often offer some really good discount promos.
As far as the 8700k is concerned, you can probably hit 4.5 GHz by changing the multiplier and literally doing nothing else. Most cap out around 4.8GHz (mine does), but that's still very easy to hit with a loop cooler and it's going to be damn quick for years to come.
 
Lastan010 said:
4 core cpu's are only relevant for single player games, for MP they are done for.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is that my i7 4770K & i7 8700 (non-K) both perform almost (give or take a few fps) identically with the same GPU for online multiplayer games. The only time they perform noticeably different is when using applications that make full use of multi-core CPU's where the 8700 performs much better due to the higher amount of cores/threads. The 4770K is clocked at 4.2GHz & the 8700 is clocked at 4.4GHz (through XMP settings for the RAM in BIOS due to the locked multiplier). If I had known that the performance would not have been as much as expected for the outlay of money (not been around the PC industry for a few years even though was there at the virtual start back in the early 90's), I would have just kept the 4770K machine running until it died (wife is using it now due to her laptop giving up) & just upgraded the GPU (from GTX970 to RTX2070) only. Maybe I was expecting way too much but the only thing I didn't "upgrade" was the SSD architecture with both running 2.5" SATA6GBs SSD's (840 Pro in 4770K & 860 Evo in 8700) and even though the 860 runs vNAND architecture the SATA interface is limiting it to the same maximum as the old drive. Maybe I will see the "boost" when I get round to changing it to a vNME M.2 drive in the relative near future? I am getting away from the topic though. The main performance jump is not there any more like it was in the days of Pentium3/4/Athlon & the rise of multi-core architecture & 64bit addressing. The only real differences nowadays between generations of CPU is that the die size is shrinking & cache sizes are increasing. The "core" realtime performance between equally clocked & core amount processors is nigh on nothing IMHO (speaking from my own personal experiences). The main changes in upgrading to a newer generation is the advent of newer I/O technologies such as M.2, USB type C, U.2 and larger RAM amount & type support.

If you done "blind" testing with the same GPU, SSD, PSU, etc and only changed the motherboard, CPU generation & RAM between "tests" (not synthetic benchmarks) with FPS counters etc all turned off, 99.9999% of people would not be able to tell the difference between 60fps & 160fps!
 
Quite honestly, in games, the CPU doesn't make all that much of a difference. Its a few FPS here and there unless you are talking about polar opposites of the spectrum such as low to high end CPU's. Games are generally GPU limited in any modern game being run from 1920x1080 and higher resolutions.
 
MyNameIsOliverQueen said:
Funny thing is that my i7 4770K & i7 8700 (non-K) both perform almost (give or take a few fps) identically with the same GPU for online multiplayer games. The only time they perform noticeably different is when using applications that make full use of multi-core CPU's where the 8700 performs much better due to the higher amount of cores/threads. The 4770K is clocked at 4.2GHz & the 8700 is clocked at 4.4GHz (through XMP settings for the RAM in BIOS due to the locked multiplier). If I had known that the performance would not have been as much as expected for the outlay of money (not been around the PC industry for a few years even though was there at the virtual start back in the early 90's), I would have just kept the 4770K machine running until it died (wife is using it now due to her laptop giving up) & just upgraded the GPU (from GTX970 to RTX2070) only. Maybe I was expecting way too much but the only thing I didn't "upgrade" was the SSD architecture with both running 2.5" SATA6GBs SSD's (840 Pro in 4770K & 860 Evo in 8700) and even though the 860 runs vNAND architecture the SATA interface is limiting it to the same maximum as the old drive. Maybe I will see the "boost" when I get round to changing it to a vNME M.2 drive in the relative near future? I am getting away from the topic though. The main performance jump is not there any more like it was in the days of Pentium3/4/Athlon & the rise of multi-core architecture & 64bit addressing. The only real differences nowadays between generations of CPU is that the die size is shrinking & cache sizes are increasing. The "core" realtime performance between equally clocked & core amount processors is nigh on nothing IMHO (speaking from my own personal experiences). The main changes in upgrading to a newer generation is the advent of newer I/O technologies such as M.2, USB type C, U.2 and larger RAM amount & type support.

If you done "blind" testing with the same GPU, SSD, PSU, etc and only changed the motherboard, CPU generation & RAM between "tests" (not synthetic benchmarks) with FPS counters etc all turned off, 99.9999% of people would not be able to tell the difference between 60fps & 160fps!
Click to expand...

you are out of your mind if you think 4770k and 8700 perform identical, I owned 4790k and inside a fully populated BF1 server the fps would tank from high 100's to low 70's, with the 8700k that I owned for a short time until 9900k it never went below 100fps.

you clearly don't have a clue what you're saying.
 
8700k is relevant to those who can define their priorities. If your daily tasks require the most IPC, then of course a 8700k is less valuable then a 9900k. Same thing with the poster above, if you define a poor gaming experience as anything below 100fps then of course a 4770k is terrible. However there are those who define that anything above 70 is great, and that works for them.

In terms of purchasing a 8700k, I`d wager whatever the response to the ZEN 3 launch upcoming is, the 8700k would have to drop in price or something else. the odds would be in your favor
 
Lastan010 said:
you are out of your mind if you think 4770k and 8700 perform identical, I owned 4790k and inside a fully populated BF1 server the fps would tank from high 100's to low 70's, with the 8700k that I owned for a short time until 9900k it never went below 100fps.

you clearly don't have a clue what you're saying.
Click to expand...

It's possible the person may not play the titles you seen a difference in.

I wouldn't state they have no idea what they're talking about. Its about persepctive.

Yes an 8700k is significantly faster than the 4th gens but in some software the user wouldn't see a difference.
 
Lastan010 said:
you are out of your mind if you think 4770k and 8700 perform identical, I owned 4790k and inside a fully populated BF1 server the fps would tank from high 100's to low 70's, with the 8700k that I owned for a short time until 9900k it never went below 100fps.

you clearly don't have a clue what you're saying.
Click to expand...

They would perform identically in that situation you describe with a 60 Hz monitor and v-sync on. Just sayin'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top