Intel 8th Gen Specs and Pricing

[Marcsus]

https://i.redd.it/1dk81uoz5ynz.jpg

Now we wait for benchmarks.

Sent from my FRD-L04 using Tapatalk

[AOD_DukeCLR]

I am so happy that there is a CPU war going on. I personally want to see how the 8700K overclocks, If it's good I may just buy one, rip the lid off and OC the crap out of it, lol.

[Marcsus]

I am so happy that there is a CPU war going on. I personally want to see how the 8700K overclocks, If it's good I may just buy one, rip the lid off and OC the crap out of it, lol.

Agreed, good to see some decent competition this time around. Finally pushing to higher core counts.

Sent from my FRD-L04 using Tapatalk

[KaosC57]

I am so happy that there is a CPU war going on. I personally want to see how the 8700K overclocks, If it's good I may just buy one, rip the lid off and OC the crap out of it, lol.

I wouldn't touch Coffeelake with a 100 foot pole. Sure, it might overclock well, but it isn't going to overtake the high-end Ryzen SKU's in multithreading, and it also will REQUIRE you to get a Z370 Motherboard (Yes this is confirmed). Whereas with Ryzen, you can keep your B350 or X370 Motherboard most likely until the Zen 3 architecture.

[ShadowStorm42]

What socket is used for the 8th gen CPUs?


Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[KaosC57]

What socket is used for the 8th gen CPUs?


Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

The same socket as Skylake and Kabylake, but you are forced to move to the new Z370 Chipset due to the restrictions of the Z270 in the aspect of Multi-Core stuff.

[ShadowStorm42]

Ty.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[effectiv]

I wouldn't touch Coffeelake with a 100 foot pole. Sure, it might overclock well, but it isn't going to overtake the high-end Ryzen SKU's in multithreading, and it also will REQUIRE you to get a Z370 Motherboard (Yes this is confirmed). Whereas with Ryzen, you can keep your B350 or X370 Motherboard most likely until the Zen 3 architecture.

For gaming purposes higher core count processors still fall behind lower core counts because of clock speed. Until games start supporting more than 4 cores or better optimization for lower clock speeds, buying a $1000 10-16 core cpu will not be worth it for most of us here.

I’m excited to see how they OC as well. There were many delidded 7700k’s that pushed over 5GHz on custom loops. Maybe we’ll finally see 5Ghz possible on AIO’s or even higher quality air coolers, like the noctuas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KaosC57]

For gaming purposes higher core count processors still fall behind lower core counts because of clock speed. Until games start supporting more than 4 cores or better optimization for lower clock speeds, buying a $1000 10-16 core cpu will not be worth it for most of us here.

I’m excited to see how they OC as well. There were many delidded 7700k’s that pushed over 5GHz on custom loops. Maybe we’ll finally see 5Ghz possible on AIO’s or even higher quality air coolers, like the noctuas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ryzen's R7 lineup is taking on games toe-to-toe with the i7 lineup with 8c/16t. There's several games nowadays that are working toward better multi-threading. People were complaining about shitty Ryzen performance in PUBG, Bluehole fixed it within 2 - 3 weeks with a patch to make multithreading take advantage of 6 Core and higher CPUs more effectively.

[effectiv]

Ryzen's R7 lineup is taking on games toe-to-toe with the i7 lineup with 8c/16t. There's several games nowadays that are working toward better multi-threading. People were complaining about shitty Ryzen performance in PUBG, Bluehole fixed it within 2 - 3 weeks with a patch to make multithreading take advantage of 6 Core and higher CPUs more effectively.

More cores != more performance.

You can patch a bug/inefficiency but you can’t change a game engine in 1 patch. People all around the internet agree the 7700k is still the reigning king when it comes to gaming.

Please tell me why I should spend $100 more on a processor that gets me less fps? Toe to toe performance in multithreaded games vs getting destroyed in single threaded games aren’t worth it for gamers bro.

1700:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3...k-144hz-gaming

1800x:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...7-1800x-review


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KaosC57]

More cores != more performance.

You can patch a bug/inefficiency but you can’t change a game engine in 1 patch. People all around the internet agree the 7700k is still the reigning king when it comes to gaming.

Please tell me why I should spend $100 more on a processor that gets me less fps? Just because it has more cores?

1700:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3...k-144hz-gaming

1800x:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...7-1800x-review


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Erm, The R7 1700 is 10 USD less even when not on sale than the 7700k and literally trades blows at 1080p and 1440p. And even in the great equalizer that is 4K They have near identical framerates.

[effectiv]

Erm, The R7 1700 is 10 USD less even when not on sale than the 7700k and literally trades blows at 1080p and 1440p. And even in the great equalizer that is 4K They have near identical framerates.

$10 less for the price of getting destroyed in single threaded games for what benefit? Of being on par with a processor with half its cores in multithreaded games? For a GAMER this makes no sense right now.

And bro you have to be kidding. The 1080p performance doesn’t trade blows. Look at the numbers in the links I posted. Getting 50fps less in some instances isn’t close. Some games, sure it’s close, but in others, no. I’ll gladly eat the $10 difference.

At 1440p and 4K you’re pushing more work onto the GPU and relieving stress off the cpu to do tasks, so of course it’s going to even out. This should have been a given. But by this logic, I could buy an i5 and play 4K as long as I have a gtx 1080 or better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ZED]

More cores != more performance.

You can patch a bug/inefficiency but you can’t change a game engine in 1 patch. People all around the internet agree the 7700k is still the reigning king when it comes to gaming.

Please tell me why I should spend $100 more on a processor that gets me less fps? Toe to toe performance in multithreaded games vs getting destroyed in single threaded games aren’t worth it for gamers bro.

1700:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3...k-144hz-gaming

1800x:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...7-1800x-review


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Totally agree, i7 7700k is still a king due to higher Single Core performance because games still prefer single core performance over multi-core performance. It will take time until game devs begin to optimize games for multi-core performance.

[KaosC57]

$10 less for the price of getting destroyed in single threaded games for what benefit? Of being on par with a processor with half its cores in multithreaded games? For a GAMER this makes no sense right now.

And bro you have to be kidding. The 1080p performance doesn’t trade blows. Look at the numbers in the links I posted. Getting 50fps less in some instances isn’t close. Some games, sure it’s close, but in others, no. I’ll gladly eat the $10 difference.

At 1440p and 4K you’re pushing more work onto the GPU and relieving stress off the cpu to do tasks, so of course it’s going to even out. This should have been a given. But by this logic, I could buy an i5 and play 4K as long as I have a gtx 1080 or better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm gonna have to stop you there because me and my roommate both game at 1080p, I have a 6600k overclocked to 4.5ghz and he has a new Ryzen 7 1700. All of the games we play we can both max out with no problems. He has 16 GB of RAM, I have 32 GB, We both have 1070's and that's about the only differences between our machines. Both of us can play games like Heroes of the Storm, Overwatch, NieR:Automata, and pretty much any AAA title we throw at our PC's at maxed out 1080p and we trade blow for blow on performance. The same story is there with the 7700k because I tested my friend's setup against my dad's 6700k and it was even pulling ahead in most games. Now, for fairness of everything we did take my 1070 and put it into my dad's machine because he has a 980. But then the only differences were the CPU. Both systems ran 16 GB of RAM and all games were tested on SSD's.

You want to know the results? Damn near identical between both machines on Benchmarking software, and real-world gaming tests.

[ZED]

I'm gonna have to stop you there because me and my roommate both game at 1080p, I have a 6600k overclocked to 4.5ghz and he has a new Ryzen 7 1700. All of the games we play we can both max out with no problems. He has 16 GB of RAM, I have 32 GB, We both have 1070's and that's about the only differences between our machines. Both of us can play games like Heroes of the Storm, Overwatch, NieR:Automata, and pretty much any AAA title we throw at our PC's at maxed out 1080p and we trade blow for blow on performance. The same story is there with the 7700k because I tested my friend's setup against my dad's 6700k and it was even pulling ahead in most games. Now, for fairness of everything we did take my 1070 and put it into my dad's machine because he has a 980. But then the only differences were the CPU. Both systems ran 16 GB of RAM and all games were tested on SSD's.

You want to know the results? Damn near identical between both machines on Benchmarking software, and real-world gaming tests.

I replaced my i5 6600k with i7 7700k and I have GTX 1070. Do you want to know results? I have 15% - 25% increase in FPS and the best part is that I have much more stable FPS than with i5 6600k.

See for yourself.

[effectiv]

I'm gonna have to stop you there because me and my roommate both game at 1080p, I have a 6600k overclocked to 4.5ghz and he has a new Ryzen 7 1700. All of the games we play we can both max out with no problems. He has 16 GB of RAM, I have 32 GB, We both have 1070's and that's about the only differences between our machines. Both of us can play games like Heroes of the Storm, Overwatch, NieR:Automata, and pretty much any AAA title we throw at our PC's at maxed out 1080p and we trade blow for blow on performance. The same story is there with the 7700k because I tested my friend's setup against my dad's 6700k and it was even pulling ahead in most games. Now, for fairness of everything we did take my 1070 and put it into my dad's machine because he has a 980. But then the only differences were the CPU. Both systems ran 16 GB of RAM and all games were tested on SSD's.

You want to know the results? Damn near identical between both machines on Benchmarking software, and real-world gaming tests.

It’s obvious you haven’t looked at any benchmarks. Or read anything on the 1600-1800x vs an i7. I can tell you the differences, I can post links to benchmarks, I can even post links to discussions about which one is better and everyone says the 7700k for gaming, but I can’t make you understand something. That’s on you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tymplar]

It’s obvious you haven’t looked at any benchmarks. Or read anything on the 1600-1800x vs an i7. I can tell you the differences, I can post links to benchmarks, I can even post links to discussions about which one is better and everyone says the 7700k for gaming, but I can’t make you understand something. That’s on you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anyone can post links to benchmarks.

Stop with the bitching and nitpicking and have a constructive discussion vs. a brand-loyal love-fest with snide remarks aimed at a fellow poster that's just giving examples of his own, personal experiences.

There's a shitload more factors that come into play than just a CPU and a GPU when it comes to what someone would define is their "best gaming experience". Not every game or application is optimized to run on every, single type of system configuration. And to add to that, the more a game is optimized to take advantage of additional CPU cores when it's also pretty demanding GPU-wise, the likelihood of a massive bottleneck between the two becomes the issue. Not to mention latency within other paths for RAM and SSD/disk.

I've been an Intel + nVIDIA customer for over 20 years now and there's a reason for that - their products fit exactly what I aim for every year I build a new rig. But guess what? When I start my next build in a month or so, what was it going to center around? Threadripper. Granted, I have several other devices that most may not (additional PCIe based NVMe drives to be more specific) that require as many direct PCI Express lanes to the CPU as possible (each requires 4 lanes). So, my needs are a bit different than most. I've also always preferred more cores than necessary for other applications (VMware lab environment, for example) along with why I have 128 GB RAM in my current build. But now, after seeing what the 8700K looks like price-wise for the specs it's offering, I may tone down my next build and center around it vs. Threadripper. It's taken game developers to get to 2017 to just finally standardize on taking advantage of 2-4 cores, most still only at 1-2. Hopefully that gap between 4-6 cores will shorten moving forward.

Now run along and come back to me when you can run games like Battlefield 1, Battlefront 2 (was in the closed alpha) and Quake Champions max'ed completely out settings-wise on a 34" Ultrawide 1440p and never dip below 100 FPS.

[effectiv]

Anyone can post links to benchmarks.

Stop with the bitching and nitpicking and have a constructive discussion vs. a brand-loyal love-fest with snide remarks aimed at a fellow poster that's just giving examples of his own, personal experiences.

There's a shitload more factors that come into play than just a CPU and a GPU when it comes to what someone would define is their "best gaming experience". Not every game or application is optimized to run on every, single type of system configuration. And to add to that, the more a game is optimized to take advantage of additional CPU cores when it's also pretty demanding GPU-wise, the likelihood of a massive bottleneck between the two becomes the issue. Not to mention latency within other paths for RAM and SSD/disk.

I've been an Intel + nVIDIA customer for over 20 years now and there's a reason for that - their products fit exactly what I aim for every year I build a new rig. But guess what? When I start my next build in a month or so, what was it going to center around? Threadripper. Granted, I have several other devices that most may not (additional PCIe based NVMe drives to be more specific) that require as many direct PCI Express lanes to the CPU as possible (each requires 4 lanes). So, my needs are a bit different than most. I've also always preferred more cores than necessary for other applications (VMware lab environment, for example) along with why I have 128 GB RAM in my current build. But now, after seeing what the 8700K looks like price-wise for the specs it's offering, I may tone down my next build and center around it vs. Threadripper. It's taken game developers to get to 2017 to just finally standardize on taking advantage of 2-4 cores, most still only at 1-2. Hopefully that gap between 4-6 cores will shorten moving forward.

Now run along and come back to me when you can run games like Battlefield 1, Battlefront 2 (was in the closed alpha) and Quake Champions max'ed completely out settings-wise on a 34" Ultrawide 1440p and never dip below 100 FPS.

You having a lot of money to throw at a build isn't a valid reason to tell somoene that they shouldn't participate in a discussion.. when I'm trying to educate someone and keep misinformation from being spread to clanmates. Congratulations on your build. I bet it's glorious.

I understand different people have different needs, but the discussion was about Ryzen being "toe to toe" with the 7700k, specifically at 1080p, in gaming performance. I never said the Ryzen series can't max out games on ultra. I never said that they didn't come close, or even exceed the performance of the 7700k in multi-threaded games in some cases, because they did. No one here is complaining or nitpicking. No one is being a fanboy. I'm actually going to upgrade my wife's computer to the 1700x, because it fits her needs. But facts are facts and I'm not going to deny them.

Yes, anyone can post a benchmark, you're right. They're there for a reason and without them we'd all be lost and relying on word of mouth. My point was that the 7700k outperforms processors he claims are similar in performance for gaming in multiple games by a larger margin that he probably would have thought. I posted proof that in most cases, it's true.

Gaming engines just aren't there on a larger scale yet. Most still rely heavily on single-threaded performance, like you've said. And as I've said earlier in the thread here:

For gaming purposes higher core count processors still fall behind lower core counts because of clock speed. Until games start supporting more than 4 cores or better optimization for lower clock speeds, buying a $1000 10-16 core cpu will not be worth it for most of us here.

It just sucks that they took this long after having quad cores for nearly 10 years.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Ryzen. It's really good to have the companies competing again. Their jump back up to the plate has caused Intel to react already. I'm pretty sure this will give the gaming industry a little breathing room when it comes to their engines as well. Who knows what we'll see in 5 years time. And Ryzen will be to thank when that time comes.