Liking the new 8350K, I may buy it instead of the 8600K. 4 cores is where it's still at.

S

Subzerok11

Gawd
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
550
I was going to buy a 8600K for sure but the prices maybe higher then what a I5 usually goes for, which is anywhere from $199 to 240. The 8600K maybe be closer to $275 this time around.

This article, which to be taken with a grain a salt benches a 8350K against the 7700K and beats the it in the single core benchmarks and comes close in the multithread tests. I'd rather save possibly $50-100. I my opinion 4 cores is just fine for what I need and from what I've seen 4 cores is plenty for the masses. I'm not buying into something I just don't need.

http://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lake-core-i3-8350k-cpu-benchmarks-leak/


PC world did a article testing how many cores you actually need for gaming and at the end they suggest 6600K basically a 4 core.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3039...es-you-really-need-for-directx-12-gaming.html
 
It certainly seems like the old i7 is the new i5.

'Bout time
 
I don't buy that WCCFTech article for a second. More credible sources have pegged the i7-8700k at roughly 150% the performance of the i7-7700k. So am I supposed to believe the entire 8th-gen product stack beats the 7th-gen's top performer, in spite of wildly different specs and price points?
 
The prices are not higher. Its the same prices as today for the SKU. 7600K is 242$, so will 8600K.

Do yourself a favour a get the better CPU. Think on how cheap it is in the long run. Your 2500K lasted how long? I would even consider the 8700K in your case and call it a day for the next 5 years.
 
Shintai said:
The prices are not higher. Its the same prices as today for the SKU. 7600K is 242$, so will 8600K.

Do yourself a favour a get the better CPU. Think on how cheap it is in the long run. Your 2500K lasted how long? I would even consider the 8700K in your case and call it a day for the next 5 years.
Click to expand...


Why in the hell would I spend that much money on an i7, I never spend more then $200 on a CPU give or take a little bit. And it's always worked out just fine 2500K it's actually still a good enough CPU. I just have the money to burn right now. Plus i7 are overkill for most people, especially that the i5 are going to have six cores now. I'm interested in the i3, seeing how they're the new i5 now.

Look up comparison videos on YouTube 2500K still a very capable performer I'm not saying it's good for 4K but everything else yes.
 
Last edited:
I made this mistake going from the 4790K to the 7600K. I figured, "Hey, this gen's i5 has got to be at least on par with such an old i7, right?"

Man, was I wrong.
 
Subzerok11 said:
Plus i7 are overkill for most people
Click to expand...

Hardforum isn't most people though. :cool:

Standard quads are good for what they are, absolutely. But you'll have a hard time trying to convince anyone here running hyperthreads to give them up. ;)

It's a bit like running a naturally aspirated car vs turbo, in the general sense.
 
rive22 said:
Hardforum isn't most people though. :cool:

Standard quads are good for what they are, absolutely. But you'll have a hard time trying to convince anyone here running hyperthreads to give them up. ;)

It's a bit like running a naturally aspirated car vs turbo, in the general sense.
Click to expand...


Your right
 
Hell, the i3-8350k has very similar specs to the 7700k.
Basically, just 4 threads instead of 8 and 2mb smaller L3.
 
Last edited:
Ranulfo said:
Yet, if I'd sprung for a 2600k instead of the 2500k way back in 2011, I doubt I would have even thought of upgrading until coffee lake.
Click to expand...

yeah right, people will do what they want with their money, but theirs tons of people who have Skylake's and Kabylake's that will upgrade to Coffeelake no doubt about it. Now those people do they really need to upgrade ?
 
Subzerok11 said:
yeah right, people will do what they want with their money, but theirs tons of people who have Skylake's and Kabylake's that will upgrade to Coffeelake no doubt about it. Now those people do they really need to upgrade ?
Click to expand...
2xxx to 7xxx, or any jump in between, is not that big a jump. 2xxx - 7xxx to 8xxx is. Two more physical cores is nothing to sneeze at.
 
I'm usually someone who upgrades every cycle just for something to play around with, but this time Intel pissed me off with the lack of Z270 support. If anything, I'm waiting for Ice Lake, screwing around with a $19 hex core X58 Xeon, or going to build another Ryzen setup.

The 8350K isn't anything special. In that slide, it even says 200 series PCH. It's probably just a tweaked 7600k with 1 extra stock multiplier.
 
I'm in same boat as OP. I am in process of building PC for my sister and planning to wait until October, if that is when they are released. Just need the CPU and motherboard right now to start putting it together. I'm debating on the i5-8600K or after reading the early hype the 8350k. My planned budget for her CPU is right around the $200 mark. They won't be overclocking at all, but with access to Microcenter for me, I'd rather get them the faster 'K' version as it seems they are usually $10-20 more than non-K version. I'm going to wait the reviews and benchmarks and is around the price point that is within her budget. At end of day, she is going to use it for email/web/crap and my nephew will be playing games.
 
Insomniator said:
If an 8350k is 'good enough' then so is an overclocked 2500k. Completely pointless to go from 4c/4t to 4c/4t in 2017.

I'd buy a used 2600k before spending money on an 8350k + mobo + ram.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion, didn't you read my link in the first post games don't need more then a 4 core cpu, in the article PC Gamer suggest getting 6600K a four core cpu. Well if the 8350K benched better then the 7700K in single core performance then it would be much much much better then the 2500K, do you imagine how good this chip at a budget price would be good for people who don't need 6 cores, which is probably most of the population. 8350K would be a great for emulators where most use only one core a couple that use two. You guys buy the cpu you want but I want to spend the least as possible but I also want the best bang for the buck. Then we will have to wait for official benchmarks though, these leaked benchmarks might be BS.
 
Subzerok11 said:
That's your opinion, didn't you read my link in the first post games don't need more then a 4 core cpu, in the article PC Gamer suggest getting 6600K a four core cpu. Well if the 8350K benched better then the 7700K in single core performance then it would be much much much better then the 2500K, do you imagine how good this chip at a budget price would be good for people who don't need 6 cores, which is probably most of the population. 8350K would be a great for emulators where most use only one core a couple that use two. You guys buy the cpu you want but I want to spend the least as possible but I also want the best bang for the buck. Then we will have to wait for official benchmarks though, these leaked benchmarks might be BS.
Click to expand...
As it's pertinent, I'll share. I just moved from a 7600k to a 7700k. Playing a lot of modded Skyrim SE lately.

Under the 7600k, performance was mostly good, (between 90 and 140fps) but in areas where there was heavy loading activity (new cells, large numbers of NPCs sandboxing, etc) I'd get ragged, jarring frame drops. The 7600k was clocked at 5ghz.

The 7700k, at stock clocks, does not suffer from the frame drops. I'm currently doing the Civil War quest line (lots of scripted events, tons of NPCs in combat) and was able to compare them both.

This is just one game, but I think it's a good example of an open-world sandbox style game. Forget cores, four threads was not enough. Eight is.

For what it's worth.
 
VanGoghComplex said:
As it's pertinent, I'll share. I just moved from a 7600k to a 7700k. Playing a lot of modded Skyrim SE lately.

Under the 7600k, performance was mostly good, (between 90 and 140fps) but in areas where there was heavy loading activity (new cells, large numbers of NPCs sandboxing, etc) I'd get ragged, jarring frame drops. The 7600k was clocked at 5ghz.

The 7700k, at stock clocks, does not suffer from the frame drops. I'm currently doing the Civil War quest line (lots of scripted events, tons of NPCs in combat) and was able to compare them both.

This is just one game, but I think it's a good example of an open-world sandbox style game. Forget cores, four threads was not enough. Eight is.

For what it's worth.
Click to expand...

Okay
 
Subzerok11 said:
Okay
Click to expand...
*shrug* Your money. I made a costly mistake with that i5 when I should have bought an i7. Over the course of the life of the processor, $100 is negligible... but I see you're not here to hear any opinions that don't align with yours. Carry on. =)
 
Subzerok11 said:
I was going to buy a 8600K for sure but the prices maybe higher then what a I5 usually goes for, which is anywhere from $199 to 240. The 8600K maybe be closer to $275 this time around.

This article, which to be taken with a grain a salt benches a 8350K against the 7700K and beats the it in the single core benchmarks and comes close in the multithread tests. I'd rather save possibly $50-100. I my opinion 4 cores is just fine for what I need and from what I've seen 4 cores is plenty for the masses. I'm not buying into something I just don't need.

http://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lake-core-i3-8350k-cpu-benchmarks-leak/


PC world did a article testing how many cores you actually need for gaming and at the end they suggest 6600K basically a 4 core.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3039...es-you-really-need-for-directx-12-gaming.html
Click to expand...
Whatever you use your computer for is what cpu you should get. Only games, highest ipc/OC to highest 4-6 core. If you use software that will use whatever threads you can throw at it, look into more cores.
Pretty simple stuff. This is [H]ardforum so overkill is just normal. I game and browse with my computer and it works fine.
 
VanGoghComplex said:
*shrug* Your money. I made a costly mistake with that i5 when I should have bought an i7. Over the course of the life of the processor, $100 is negligible... but I see you're not here to hear any opinions that don't align with yours. Carry on. =)
Click to expand...


No, okay meant that I found that info interesting, if you look at post 24 you'll see that I said I'll have to wait and see.
 
Subzerok11 said:
No, okay meant that I found that info interesting, if you look at post 24 you'll see that I said I'll have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
Oh! Well in that case I roundly apologize for being a dick! Hahaha

Glad my story was relevant. I was amazed at how much the lack of hyperthreading had hamstrung my system.
 
Subzerok11 said:
That's your opinion, didn't you read my link in the first post games don't need more then a 4 core cpu, in the article PC Gamer suggest getting 6600K a four core cpu. Well if the 8350K benched better then the 7700K in single core performance then it would be much much much better then the 2500K, do you imagine how good this chip at a budget price would be good for people who don't need 6 cores, which is probably most of the population. 8350K would be a great for emulators where most use only one core a couple that use two. You guys buy the cpu you want but I want to spend the least as possible but I also want the best bang for the buck. Then we will have to wait for official benchmarks though, these leaked benchmarks might be BS.
Click to expand...
Anyone that thinks 4 Cores is enough for every game now and going forward is a damn fool. I'm seeing 70 80 and even 90% utilization on my i7 at times in several newer games. In fact my CPU is fully pegging all 8 threads in parts of some games like Watch Dogs 2. Buying a 4 core CPU for higher end gaming at this point moving forward is laughably foolish. I've tested several games with hyperthreading off and my CPU spends a great deal of its time pegged in pretty much all newer games. In fact Mafia 3 is a stuttery freaking mess even though the actual frame rate may look okay with hyperthreading off. And just looking at the average frame rate is definitely where the problem is as you will make the wrong assumption that 4 Cores are plenty when in fact it's not. But hey go ahead and save $100 for a CPU that you're going to keep for four or five years and enjoy your occasional stuttery games.
 
Subzerok11 said:
Don't call me a fool, I'm just going by what they said here:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3039...es-you-really-need-for-directx-12-gaming.html
Click to expand...
If you would like some actual in game benchmarks and screenshot proof of my own testing than I can certainly do that for you when I get home late this evening. And not only that I will tell you the truth about how some games act when running only four cores despite the average frame rate looking okay. Already gave you an example such as Mafia 3 that runs perfectly fine on all eight threads but is a stuttering mess with hyper-threading disabled. My gosh even a few parts of Crysis 3 cannot even maintain 60fps when running only four cores where the frame rate is in the 80s with hyperthreading enabled though. I am telling you from experience and from testing games that yes you would be a fool to get four cores for higher end gaming at this point going forward. Again we're already seeing games that will use all eight threads of an i7 at points such as Watch Dogs 2. I drop below 60 FPS in that game in parts and my GPU usage drops with it while all eight threads of my i7 are pegged.
 
With how slow cpus advance and how long we keep them, I had enough sense to get the 4770k over the 4670k 3.5 years ago. I knew there would be cases where 4 cores would be tapped out as I was already seeing that with my oced 2500k at the time in parts of Crysis 3. No i5 can maintain 60 fps at certain parts of that game and it is quite old at this point. And I now have lots of games that will eat 4 cores for lunch when trying to push a 1080 ti or even the 1080 and 1070 I had before. Mafia is one game where the playability is certainly impacted.


FRAPS run in Mafia 3 at 2560x1440 with high settings with 1080 ti.


[email protected] with HT enabled

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
9789, 108688, 71, 304, 90.065


[email protected] with HT disabled

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
7685, 108516, 43, 239, 70.819


That is a whopping 65% increase in min fps with HT enabled. And although performance may still look ok with HT disabled, in reality its a stuttery mess. That is why it is stupid to only look at only avg fps numbers which is what most people do. Of course someone will just call any game I list unoptimized but that is the reality of modern gaming as not all games are optimized well.
 
misterbobby said:
With how slow cpus advance and how long we keep them, I had enough sense to get the 4770k over the 4670k 3.5 years ago. I knew there would be cases where 4 cores would be tapped out as I was already seeing that with my oced 2500k at the time in parts of Crysis 3. No i5 can maintain 60 fps at certain parts of that game and it is quite old at this point. And I now have lots of games that will eat 4 cores for lunch when trying to push a 1080 ti or even the 1080 and 1070 I had before. Mafia is one game where the playability is certainly impacted.


FRAPS run in Mafia 3 at 2560x1440 with high settings with 1080 ti.


[email protected] with HT enabled

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
9789, 108688, 71, 304, 90.065


[email protected] with HT disabled

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
7685, 108516, 43, 239, 70.819


That is a whopping 65% increase in min fps with HT enabled. And although performance may still look ok with HT disabled, in reality its a stuttery mess. That is why it is stupid to only look at only avg fps numbers which is what most people do. Of course someone will just call any game I list unoptimized but that is the reality of modern gaming as not all games are optimized well.
Click to expand...



Okay I believe you guys I'm pretty then I'll be looking at the 8600K at the very least. Thinking about I'll be able to sell my 2500K/rig for extra cash. Thanks
 
Subzerok11 said:
Okay I believe you guys I'm pretty then I'll be looking at the 8600K at the very least. Thinking about I'll be able to sell my 2500K/rig for extra cash. Thanks
Click to expand...
I just wanted to add that it used to be true that 4c/4t was plenty for gaming. But now that 6c+ is mainstream with ryzen games will surely be using more in the future. After 8 cores there is diminishing returns(6c/12t ~7.5 cores real world). I would agree with others that atleast get a 6c cpu at this time for future usage. I just couldnt see the 7700k worth it to me as an upgrade path considering the cost of memory/board. I will be selling off my 3570k which suits me just fine and going with either 8600k or 8700k(waiting to see temps)and plan to use it for 5yrs+ hopefully 10yrs
 
Last edited:
@subzero11, are you sure you read that article you linked correctly?

Here is the last 2 paragraphs of the conclusion, and it recommends an i7 as the sweet spot.


"What you should buy for DirectX 12
It’s really pretty early to make any solid recommendations based on one synthetic test, one beta, and one game. But that doesn’t matter, because you still want to know what to buy before the money burns a hole in your pocket.

I’d say for the vast majority of gamers, the sweet spot lies somewhere between a quad-core with Hyper-Threading and a six-core on the Intel side of the aisle. A Skylake Core i5-6600K will be fine for DirectX 11 games and probably the vast majority of the early DirectX 12 games, but the lack of Hyper-Threading will eventually hurt."
 
Yeah I read it right, it doesn't say i7 in your quote. All it says is i5-6600K and also said "but the lack of Hyper-Threading will eventually hurt." It doesn't matter I'll still probably get 8600K.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top