8700k vs 8600k

[iCruze]

Hey all I'm currently in the process of building a new PC over the next couple months and I'm not exactly sure which one to get. I just purchased the Gigabyte AORUS gaming 7 motherboard so next on the docket is the CPU for me or RAM whichever comes on sale next week. I'll be using a Corsair H115i Pro with stock fans (i'll probably upgrade) but I don't do anything that would require the extra threads but I would like to try and overclock this time around so here are a few of my questions:

1. How high are people overcloking the 8600k?
2. I had initially planned on getting the 8700k and going for the 5ghz overclock but is it worth trying for a more mid-range OC for day-to-day use like 4.3-4.5ghz?
3. Does overclocking your processor void your warranty?
4. Would you keep your 8700k OC'd at 5.0ghz stable on a 24/7 machine?

Thanks in advance!

 

[looz]

If it's a gaming rig and you aren't planning to stream using CPU, 8700k is mostly waste of money.

1. Seems like most will do 4.8.
2. It isn't a guarantee, for example mine is a lemon and stops at 4.9GHz with reasonable (<1.4V) volts. I'm not sure why your daily OC should be that low if volts are fine.
3. Technically yes, but Intel's approach has been "don't ask, don't tell" historically... Also, if you're keeping voltages in check, there's no reason to expect shortened lifespan.
4. If the chip can do it with reasonable volts and you have adequate cooling, of course.

But keep in mind that 5GHz is just a nice looking number, 4.8GHz is only 4% behind. Something to keep note of on Coffee Lake is that at least Asus has insane voltages if you leave them on Auto, and you have to set at least VCORE, VCCIO, VCCSA and RAM voltage manually. It's a good practice even if your board is more sensible, can't comment on that Gigabyte.

 

[AlienALX]

If it's a gaming rig and you aren't planning to stream using CPU, 8700k is mostly waste of money.

Today? as in as I type this? sure. However, don't hazard bets on whether that will still ring true a year from now. Remember - the only reason we were stuck on 4 cores only mattering in games for so long was because of Intel. AMD were not competitive, so the devs would look toward the most popular Intel units as use those as a guide. However, that has now been tipped on its head and you can expect Intel to have an 8 core 16 thread CPU in a consumer socket before long.

They now have very stiff competition from AMD, who were taken very seriously even at 3.8-4ghz with IPC similar to Broadwell E. That is set to change too, so Intel will react.

I can't remember who did the video (I think it was Digital Foundry) but there are already several games where a quad core suffers savage frame rate drops. Even in Crysis 3 in certain scenes the Ryzen 1600 completely demolishes the Kaby I5 quad core.

I said for a long time that the day we would get massive core support would be when Intel have massively cored CPUs available and not until. Intel dictate this, not AMD. And they already do and there are rumours floating around that their next desktop I7 will be 8/16.

The way we are heading (because the war will continue on quickly now that AMD can actually do something) I reckon within three years we will all have at least 8 cores at our disposal. Which is fantastic for so many reasons, gaming included. The more resources a system has at its disposal makes for a happier PC.

 

[looz]

Supporting more threads isn't a matter of flicking a switch to enable support for them now that we have CPUs with the capability.

As of now you're paying £100 for HyperThreading which may or may not become useful before the platform is obsolete altogether. Any gains made by the i7 in gaming are due to the higher stock clock speed which can be fixed by overclocking the i5.

Found the video for you. If there's a single game which can saturate four cores now, I don't expect six cores to become a limiting factor any time soon.

I think the best argument for the i7 is the fact that z370 platform is already dead on arrival and there won't be any later CPUs for it. As such, why not get the best available since upgrading later on isn't really feasible - used i7s don't drop much in price, or at least haven't in the past.

 

[tinytomlogan]

This might help:

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu...tion_core_i3_8350k_and_core_i5_8600k_review/1

 

[AlienALX]

Supporting more threads isn't a matter of flicking a switch to enable support for them now that we have CPUs with the capability.

It's not that hard, either. It is simply adding some code that once done will work on that engine for any game coded for it.

Look how many people thought a quad core I5 k would be good for a few years, only recently. Now? yeah now things are changing and I expect them to continue to do so.

Intel haven't just released two more cores. They have had an enema across the entire range and now instead of a 10 core £1000 CPU we have a 18/36. Within a year of AMD releasing Ryzen they are now selling a 6/12 for desktop PCs (not HEDT) and if Ryzen + ups the clocks (because it's already got the cores) then they will be forced to release an 8/16.

This won't happen over several years. The competition has only just started, and we are the winners. Also, when a game engine does call for more cores and they are not there? the results are catastrophic. Look at the review of the CPUs Tom posted and note that a DC+HT won't even get on the charts. The same happens to a quad core too, and Intel can't just release a 6 core and say done any more.

This is all just evidence of how Intel starved the crap out of the market for years. They had some seriously beefy CPUs going all the way back to Sandy and never released any of them. Not even to the HEDT markets. So 12/24 Ivys would have been no problem but of course that means actually giving you something for your hard earned beans instead of a waffer thin mint substrate, tiny dual core die and some thermal paste.

 

[russler]

Id say go for a 8700 non k, my 8600k died after about 3 weeks even though voltages were low but because it was overclocked no warranty technically. ive seen the 8700 for as little as £233 new. If i wasnt waiting on a 8600k replacement id of bought that in a heartbeat they boost to like 4.6 which is plenty, i only reasons i didnt go for a 8700k in the first place were, I only play games and when overclocked the i7 creates loads of heat.

 

[looz]

Don't they only boost high in non-sustained load on a couple of cores, and if there's sustained load on all the cores they can stay as low as 3.2? Either way in terms of gaming it's worst choice in the bunch.

It's unlucky that your i5 died but CPUs don't fail often.

 

[russler]

once you watch the gamers nexus 8600k at 5ghz vs stock video and realise theres bugger all in it then you really need to look at the 8700k stock and minus 100mhz



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJGJ0RzPyL0