WYP
News Guru
Intel Coffee Lake processors will now be assembled in China and Malaysia.
Read more about Intel's Coffee Lake CPU production.
Read more about Intel's Coffee Lake CPU production.
Last edited:
Intel has now boosted Coffee Lake Production with an additional assembly and testing
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Will be more supply but still same prices
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
I randomly checked the prices for the 8700K when suggesting to someone how much better value it was than the 1800X, but the 1800X is actually cheaper in some places! I can't believe how much Intel are asking for the 8700K! I thought it was supposed to be only slightly more than the 7700K, but €500 or more? Damn, son. That's more than the 5820K was three years ago.
TheF34RChannel
New member
Has the price risen that much? Darn that's sick! I paid way, way less! One of the few times where being an early adopter paid off.
AlienALX
Well-known member
Wanna know what's stupid?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B0...s=i7+8700k&dpPl=1&dpID=41W8zXFc-7L&ref=plSrch
LOL.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B0...s=i7+8700k&dpPl=1&dpID=41W8zXFc-7L&ref=plSrch
LOL.
MacLeod
New member
It's a whole lot cheaper here in the states. The 1800x can be had for $320 shipped while the 8700k is going for $420 and out of stock at most places. This is the first time I can remember the i7 being much over $300! 8600k at $300 looks to be the chip to have right now.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
For $300 you think the 8600K is the chip to have?
Unless I was purely a gamer and wanted the highest frame rate for my 1080p screen with my GTX 1070 or above, I would buy an R7 1700 or a 1700X. It's significantly faster in everything but gaming, comes with cheaper motherboards, and offers room to grow in the future. At $300 there is no competition, AMD owns that sector in everything but specific gaming demands. If you have $420 to spare and want the best gaming chip that also performs well in other tasks, the 8700K is definitely a solid enough purchase, but the 1800X is still cheaper. The 8600K needs to be $260 in my opinion. Even then with Ryzen's recent price drops I'd strongly consider a 1600X. The 8600K is €330 right now on Mind Factory, a site renowned for being the cheapest in Europe. That's the same price as what an i7 used to cost. A 1600X costs €210, a 1700 costs €289, and a 1700X costs €300. The 8600K is not even remotely competitive in anything but 1080p/144Hz/high-end GPU scenarios. That's the only sector Intel has covered right now, at least in Europe.
looz
Active member
Huh, gotta keep an eye on those as well then. I'm considering upgrading to 8700k next year, since Ryzen is actually a downgrade for my one true game(tm) which is CS:GO.
MacLeod
New member
For $300 you think the 8600K is the chip to have?
The 8600k is either faster or as fast as a R7 in pretty much everything and up to 20% faster in gaming. The 1700 is $270 and the 1800 is $320. So yeah, the $300 8600k is the chip to have if you're looking to buy in the $300 price range.
You're right about the 1600x tho. At $200 right now it's the best on the market dollar for dollar. My rig is in it's death throes right now and I'm about 80% sure I'll be buying a 1600x and Asus Strix mobo to refresh it. It peforms almost identically to the 1700 but at $100 less and it looks like the 1600x chips hit 4.0 more often as opposed to the 1700's that seem to be mostly topping out at 3.9. Not that 100 Mhz makes a big difference but 4.0 still looks better on CPU-Z.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
The 8600k is either faster or as fast as a R7 in pretty much everything and up to 20% faster in gaming. The 1700 is $270 and the 1800 is $320. So yeah, the $300 8600k is the chip to have if you're looking to buy in the $300 price range.
You're right about the 1600x tho. At $200 right now it's the best on the market dollar for dollar. My rig is in it's death throes right now and I'm about 80% sure I'll be buying a 1600x and Asus Strix mobo to refresh it. It peforms almost identically to the 1700 but at $100 less and it looks like the 1600x chips hit 4.0 more often as opposed to the 1700's that seem to be mostly topping out at 3.9. Not that 100 Mhz makes a big difference but 4.0 still looks better on CPU-Z.
You're way off base there. I've just looked back over the first review I clicked on (Guru3D) just to be sure, and in no multithreaded workload was the 8600K faster than the R7 1700. In fact, the 1600X often beats it, and even the 1600. The only times the 8600K is better is in tasks that do not benefit from more than one core, which are not as common as multi-threaded workloads. Also, the R5 1600X is not faster than the R7 1700 (except in single-threaded workloads).
As proof, starting from this page, keep clicking right. You'll find the 1600X matches or beats the 8600K in the majority of the tests. The R7 1700X is two steps ahead of that.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i5_8600k_processor_review,7.html
Even based on TPU's review, which uses tests that don't scale very well with more than one core, the consistency is the 8600K is faster in music production, Photoshop, Microsoft productivity, compressing, gaming, anything that requires high clock speeds and IPC. In anything mutli-threaded, the 1700X handily beats the 8600K. However despite TPU's choices of benchmarks, their performance summary near the end of the review shows the 1700X ahead of the 8600K.
Also take note that both their 1440p and 1080p graphs show the 8600K nowhere near 20% faster in games. At 1440p the 8600K is 2% faster than the 1600X and at 1080p it is 5-6% faster.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_8600K/5.html
Unfortunately I can't use OC3D as Tom hasn't reviewed the 8600K yet.
AlienALX
Well-known member
I think a lot of people who have not paid proper attention to Ryzen don't realise how fast it actually is. I think AMD making a statement saying (or a rumour?) that it had Broadwell E IPC was doing it a disservice, IMO. It is much faster than that. The SMT smashes HT too, especially on faster RAM.
I tell you what if AMD can get it up to 4.5ghz or so Intel are bang in trouble. Even their latest greatest CPUs won't be as fast, and the pricing from AMD will certainly start a massacre.
I tell you what if AMD can get it up to 4.5ghz or so Intel are bang in trouble. Even their latest greatest CPUs won't be as fast, and the pricing from AMD will certainly start a massacre.
MacLeod
New member
That Guru3d review doesn't make sense at least on the gaming benchmarks. Virtually every one shows zero difference between any CPU they have on there. The TPU review shows them pretty much a wash on with them trading wins on standard benchmarks but with the 8600k having a big lead in gaming. Yes once you get to 1440 they're about the same but that's because you're GPU limited. Look at the 720 resolutions where the GPU isn't the limiting factor and there are plenty of games where the i5 has a big lead by 10 to 20%. Gaming benchmarks where the GPU is hitting a wall is not a true measure of a CPU's performance. If you're playing at 4K with a 1070 then your CPU isn't going to matter much. But with me being at 1080/144 Hz and possibly upgrading to a 1080 or a Ti and wanting as close to 144 fps as I can get, CPU matters more.
Also I never said the 1600 was faster than a 1700, just that it seems to be more likely to overclock to an even 4.0 as opposed to the 1700 which usually seems to stick at 3.9.
The reviews I was using are the ones from Tom's Hardware and HardOCP. Those show what I was saying in that the i5 is as fast if not faster than Ryzen but considerably faster in gaming.
Look, I'm not saying one chip stomps on the other. They're both pretty close and trade blows often. But with the i5 having the edge in gaming and costing the same as the 1700x, I think the i5 is the better buy. All that is out the window now because the 1700x is down around $250. You can pick up one at Microcenter right now for $239 so that small gaming advantage the i5 has isn't worth it anymore.
I still think the 1600x is the best choice for a lot of people. Performs almost identical to the 1700x but it's down to $179 now at Microcenter.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
You guys don't remember the sweetspot for gaming CPUs being in the low $200 range? Only now are they finally jacking up the prices. And then ironically most media sites are like "this is the new chip to have"... um what? Spend more? F that! That's not budget nor the best price/perf. The 1600/x is still that king. Anything more is you wanting more than budget imo.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
But no one is playing at 720p, or 480p for that matter. That's like taking a Xeon 64 core server CPU and testing it with Dungeons and Dragons. It has no real value. The idea that 720p with a GTX 1080 is akin to a GTX 2080 (or whatever it'll be called) at 1080p a year from now is not a proven metric to go by. We don't know how multithreaded games will become by then, whether GPUs will be powerful enough to validate the claim, or whether it'll even matter. It's a benchmark that serves no purpose other than to offer an interesting perspective. It is not indicative of real world performance and in my opinion should not be used as the backbone for a decision.
Most people game with a GTX 970/1060 or RX 480/R9390 (or lower or higher by one or two leaps) with a 1080p 60hz panel. As far as we can tell, that is the largest demographic. 144Hz 1080p panels are probably the next most popular configuration, but they'll still be with midrange graphics cards. In those situations that 8600K will be around 2-10% faster than a 1600X for €100+ more money (and that's excluding the motherboard prices). If you think that's worth it, that's up to you. It's definitely worth it if the 8600K was €260, but not €330, not to me, not with the motherboard prices and room for upgrading later on. If you're playing CS:GO, the 8600K will offer significantly higher FPS, but you'll still easily be getting 144 FPS with a 1600X so why pay so much more? 240Hz panel? That's a tiny demographic. You'll see more 1440p/60hz or 4k panels than 240hz panels.
In my opinion, the main reason to buy an 8600K is if you are using a GTX 1080 or above and game at 1080p/144Hz, which is what you said you will be doing, or if you are in music production or regularly perform tasks that are single-threaded only. That's cool. You'll get your moneys worth if that's the case. But that's a relatively niche market—though it is expanding. To make the claim that the 8600K is the best CPU to get at €330 is ridiculous to me. It might be the better CPU for you or for your neighbour, but not for everyone.
And you're right; you never said the 1600X was faster than the 1700. You said "It performs almost identically to the 1700". That's still wrong in my opinion, but I'm nitpicking here so I'll drop it.
I just looked at the Tom's Hardware and HardOCP review, and I don't see the 8600K being better value than the R7 1700, and certainly not the R5 1600X. For Tom's Hardware, it's a solid win for the 8600K against the 1700. It seems to be a highly competitive CPU in their suite of benchmarks. But it's also competitive with the 8700K, or as fast as a 7600K. So if you're going by their benchmarks, as well as the gaming benchmarks by HardOCP, you may as well buy a 7600K for €210. The majority of Tom's benchmarks are single-threaded, something I don't believe to be a fair test for a CPU. Again, the 7600K is better value at €210 if that's your bag. But that's just me.
And apparently this dude as well:
Last edited:
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
To sum what I think up:
8600K needs to be €250-ish and the motherboards need to be €100 and upwards. If they were, it would be the best value for money gaming chip available. It would also be a good multitasking CPU.
The 8700K needs to be €370-ish. If it were, it would be the best all-round CPU to buy. It performs well in multi-threaded tasks as well as in single-threaded tasks. It's a beast and I would love one.
However currently the R7 1700 and 1700X are better all-round CPUs for the money as they come included with cheaper motherboards that won't be replaced by a new socket, and will have room to spare in the tank if tasks began to utilise the extra horsepower.
The R5 1600/X is the best value CPU to buy for the majority of users.
That's my 2c.
8600K needs to be €250-ish and the motherboards need to be €100 and upwards. If they were, it would be the best value for money gaming chip available. It would also be a good multitasking CPU.
The 8700K needs to be €370-ish. If it were, it would be the best all-round CPU to buy. It performs well in multi-threaded tasks as well as in single-threaded tasks. It's a beast and I would love one.
However currently the R7 1700 and 1700X are better all-round CPUs for the money as they come included with cheaper motherboards that won't be replaced by a new socket, and will have room to spare in the tank if tasks began to utilise the extra horsepower.
The R5 1600/X is the best value CPU to buy for the majority of users.
That's my 2c.
MacLeod
New member
Can't argue with that especially with the current price cuts on Ryzen. $240 for a 1700x is hard to beat regardless what you're doing with your PC. The 1600x is just about impossible to beat now that it's $180 if you're just gaming like I am. I'm pretty much dead seat that I'll be buying a 1600x in the next couple days.
AlienALX
Well-known member
Problem is most of the reviewers are being lied to fella. Especially over at B-T. They have reviewed a few of the latest Intel CPUs, given them good scores based on the prices Intel told them, then found out they cost way more.
Intel will pull every trick they can tbh.
looz
Active member
I don't disagree in general, since there are only a few games where the Intel IPC actually matters, but the motherboard price difference is partially offset by the more expensive memory Ryzen CPUs need to shine.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Intel scales well with higher speed memory too. Not as much as Ryzen, but 3000Mhz or above is still ideal for Intel if you're more CPU bound. If you need an Intel CPU to hit the performance you want, you also would likely benefit from 3000Mhz+ of memory speed.
Similar threads
