Core i7 8700 vs 8700k đánh giá năm 2024
|
I'm looking to build a new computer for myself and have a quick question. Is the performance difference between 8700 and 8700k worth the price difference? I don't plan on overclocking. My usage is some gaming, light video editing and transcoding, and web/office work. For comparison I will be upgrading from a Core i7-870. Show Thank you for any insight! Minister of Gerbil Affairs Posts: 2977 Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:47 pm Location: Upper Canada Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:12 am apkellogg wrote: Is the performance difference between 8700 and 8700k worth the price difference? Not for you. Last edited by End User on Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:44 am, edited 1 time in total. Gerbil Posts: 68 Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 6:53 pm Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:13 am I'd probably go for the non-k variant and wait for non-Z motherboards if you want to save some cash and have similar performance without an overclock. From reports I've heard though, that could take a few months :-/ Gerbil XP Posts: 391 Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 6:38 pm Location: Houston, TX Contact: Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:29 am Even if you don't manually overclock the chip, the K variant has benefits with Z370 motherboards. It can turbo higher and the MCE (multi-core enchancement) feature on the motherboard will bump all core clockspeeds for you (to safe levels). With that being said, let me offer an alternative setup. Go with a Ryzen 1600 or 1600X and save a few dollars. If gaming isn't your primary focus, money will be wasted on the 8700(K) platform. Ryzen is a beast in non-gaming, high performance workloads. EDIT: I meant to add a B350 motherboard to the Ryzen 1600(X) combo. That's a bang-for-your-buck champion combination. Last edited by wingless on Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total. Intel Core i7 2600K | 16GB DDR3-2133 | ASUS P8Z77-V Pro | Silverstone 750W | ASUS Strix GTX 980 OC | ASUS Xonar DSX/S.M.S.L. M2 USB DAC | Samsung 840 Pro | A bunch of HDDs and a lot of TBs. Lord High Gerbil Posts: 8646 Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:47 pm Location: Sunny Colorado front range Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:41 am apkellogg wrote: Side question, I assume you plan to install an add-on GPU, and not rely on the onboard graphics? If so, the Ryzen has been mentioned, have you compared CPU and motherboard prices to see what your best value would be? Abacus Model 2.5 | Quad-Row FX with 256 Cherry Red Slider Beads | Applewood Frame | Water Cooling by Brita Filtration Gerbil Jedi Posts: 1835 Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:32 pm Location: Paragon City, RI Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:49 am Another vote for Ryzen. If you're not going to be overclocking or gaming and just want general good performance, a Ryzen-based system will last longer (more cores will matter in the near future). The only major disadvantage is needing to buy some kind of video card. Gerbil Elite Topic Author Posts: 962 Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:15 am Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:55 am ludi wrote: Side question, I assume you plan to install an add-on GPU, and not rely on the onboard graphics? If so, the Ryzen has been mentioned, have you compared CPU and motherboard prices to see what your best value would be? You are correct. I will be transferring my GTX 1070 to the new system, so a graphics card is not a near term purchase. I already ordered a motherboard (trying to buy pieces as I can/as available), but I could try to return it. Guess I could look at AMD, just haven't had on since the Athlon 64. Thank you for the advice! Gerbil Elite Posts: 576 Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 8:10 pm Location: Hmmm, I was *here* a second ago... Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:57 am wingless wrote: Go with a Ryzen 1600 or 1600X and save a few dollars. If gaming isn't your primary focus, money will be wasted on the 8700(K) platform. Ryzen is a beast in non-gaming, high performance workloads. Alternatively, look at an R7 1700 and get 2 more cores. Same motherboard would still be appropriate unless you need multiple graphics cards (which sounds unlikely for the use case you described). Main System: i7-8700K, ASUS ROG STRIX Z370-E, 16 GB DDR4 3200 RAM, ASUS 6800XT, 1 TB WD_Black SN750, Corsair 550D HTPC: I5-4460, ASUS H97M-E, 8 GB RAM, GTX 970, CRUCIAL 256GB MX100, SILVERSTONE GD09B Maximum Gerbil Posts: 4670 Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:49 pm Location: Europe, most frequently London. Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:23 pm I would get the 8700 for gaming. If you're not going to overclock it's the same 4.6GHz when all cores are loaded and only 100MHz slower in those vanishing rare instances when all the other cores are idle. The extra cost is largely for the unlocked multiplier, which you're not going to use. If you're more concerned about the non-gaming performance, I'll second a recommendation for a Ryzen 7 1700 - with the caveat that it does depend on what software you're using. Some transcodes are still faster on a 6-core i7-8700 than they are on an 8-core R7 1700 (which is a similar price). Where the Ryzen really shines might be outside your current usage case - and that's software rendering where the huge 16MB cache and 16 threads give it a distinct advantage. It's pretty close to the 8700 but it sips power by contrast. It's odd to think of AMD being more power-efficient than Intel, but when it comes to vastly parallel tasks that use all the threads and lots of data, AMD's Zen architecture with great inter-core bandwidth is just better suited to the job. As much as I'd like to recommend Ryzen to you, I would expect that you're more gaming focused than people are giving you credit for, because the 1070 is not a light gaming card. I don't think Ryzen will be the right choice at the level you're talking about. The R5 1600 makes a lot of sense against any intel quad core for gaming, but once you get beyond that mid-level budget, Intel still offer the better gaming experience, and the 8700/8700K have enough cores to remain competitive for productivity too. Congratulations, you've noticed that this year's signature is based on outdated internet memes; CLICK HERE NOW to experience this unforgettable phenomenon. This sentence is just filler and as irrelevant as my signature. Grand Gerbil Poohbah Posts: 3776 Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:50 pm Location: Wisconsin, USA Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:31 pm Depends on how serious you are at video editing and transcoding and how much you're willing to give up in the gaming department. The 6C/6T i5-8600K is a pretty good all-around processor at a nice price. Main: i5-3570K, ASRock Z77 Pro4-M, MSI RX480 8G, 500GB Crucial BX100, 2 TB Samsung EcoGreen F4, 16GB 1600MHz G.Skill @1.25V, EVGA 550-G2, Silverstone PS07B HTPC: A8-5600K, MSI FM2-A75IA-E53, 4TB Seagate SSHD, 8GB 1866MHz G.Skill, Crosley D-25 Case Mod Lord High Gerbil Posts: 8646 Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:47 pm Location: Sunny Colorado front range Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:38 pm Chrispy_ wrote: As much as I'd like to recommend Ryzen to you, I would expect that you're more gaming focused than people are giving you credit for, because the 1070 is not a light gaming card. I don't think Ryzen will be the right choice at the level you're talking about. The R5 1600 makes a lot of sense against any intel quad core for gaming, but once you get beyond that mid-level budget, Intel still offer the better gaming experience, and the 8700/8700K have enough cores to remain competitive for productivity too. Note that he's upgrading from an i7-870 (Lynnfield, 2009). Either an R7 or an 8700 is going to be light years ahead of what he's living with now. Abacus Model 2.5 | Quad-Row FX with 256 Cherry Red Slider Beads | Applewood Frame | Water Cooling by Brita Filtration Gerbil Elite Topic Author Posts: 962 Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:15 am Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:46 pm ludi wrote: Note that he's upgrading from an i7-870 (Lynnfield, 2009). Either an R7 or an 8700 is going to be light years ahead of what he's living with now. Yeah, its going to be nice to upgrade to a motherboard with full SATA 6.0Gb/s for my SSD's along with the PCI 3.0 x4 M.2 drive I'm looking at in addition to upgrading the CPU and going from 8 GB to 32 GB RAM. Graphmaster Gerbil Posts: 1160 Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:30 pm Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:07 pm If you're priority is gaming, and will be playing at high refresh rates, then the i7-8700 is what you want. However, I think, since you don't need integrated video, it is very tempting to save $50-$100 on the CPU/motherboard combo and go with an AMD r7 1700. It will most likely be (depending on what you do specifically) the faster processor for video editing, transcoding and productivity. The reviews, including the one published here, show the i7-8700 to be significantly faster than the AMD r7 1700 in games And it is when the testing conditions are extreme (though how perceptible this difference is when playing might not be as much as the numbers would seem to indicate). But, for instance, the TechReport review of the i7-8700 tested gaming at 1080p (fairly low resolution) and with a 1080 Ti. With a GTX 1070, the difference will be less perceptible. And if you play at higher resolutions than 1080p, you probably wouldn't be able to notice the difference, while saving a bit of money and getting better performance in most multithreaded tasks with the R7 1700. Maximum Gerbil Posts: 4670 Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:49 pm Location: Europe, most frequently London. Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:48 am ludi wrote:Chrispy_ wrote: As much as I'd like to recommend Ryzen to you, I would expect that you're more gaming focused than people are giving you credit for, because the 1070 is not a light gaming card. I don't think Ryzen will be the right choice at the level you're talking about. The R5 1600 makes a lot of sense against any intel quad core for gaming, but once you get beyond that mid-level budget, Intel still offer the better gaming experience, and the 8700/8700K have enough cores to remain competitive for productivity too.Note that he's upgrading from an i7-870 (Lynnfield, 2009). Either an R7 or an 8700 is going to be light years ahead of what he's living with now. True, but whilst the Intel 8700 and AMD 1700 are competitive on compute/transcode and non-gaming tasks, the 8700 is a whopping 35% better at gaming. Sure, the 1700 will game just fine, but why leave so much performance on the table unnecessarily? I always root for the underdog, and AMD deserve all the sales they get from Ryzen's excellent performance, but for games that still benefit from high clocks and high IPC, the Intels have a significant advantage still. I hate to say it, but Coffee Lake i7 is good enough to tempt me away from the 1700X I was eyeing up. Congratulations, you've noticed that this year's signature is based on outdated internet memes; CLICK HERE NOW to experience this unforgettable phenomenon. This sentence is just filler and as irrelevant as my signature. Maximum Gerbil Posts: 4936 Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:00 pm Contact: Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:25 am Chrispy_ wrote:ludi wrote:Chrispy_ wrote: As much as I'd like to recommend Ryzen to you, I would expect that you're more gaming focused than people are giving you credit for, because the 1070 is not a light gaming card. I don't think Ryzen will be the right choice at the level you're talking about. The R5 1600 makes a lot of sense against any intel quad core for gaming, but once you get beyond that mid-level budget, Intel still offer the better gaming experience, and the 8700/8700K have enough cores to remain competitive for productivity too.Note that he's upgrading from an i7-870 (Lynnfield, 2009). Either an R7 or an 8700 is going to be light years ahead of what he's living with now. IMO Techreport bench results were 20% off. At first when i saw the review of 8700K at TR, i had to go and see other reviews and i agree 8700K is fast, but not 35% faster than Ryzen. Here are some links to reviews from internets. Techpowerup - https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Int ... 0K/12.html Guru3D - http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/in ... ew,19.html Anandtech review of 8700K shows performance margin (gaming) to be not more than 10% at best. - https://www.anandtech.com/show/11859/th ... numbers/13 Gerbil Elite Topic Author Posts: 962 Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:15 am Thu Nov 02, 2017 8:17 am I want to thank everyone for their input. Looks like I will be going with the 8700 non-K, whenever it becomes available. Guess I didn't need the Corsair H100 v2 after all. Maximum Gerbil Posts: 4670 Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:49 pm Location: Europe, most frequently London. Thu Nov 02, 2017 8:24 am Now that *is* interesting. Has anyone worked out why the TR results were so far from other sites? Congratulations, you've noticed that this year's signature is based on outdated internet memes; CLICK HERE NOW to experience this unforgettable phenomenon. This sentence is just filler and as irrelevant as my signature. Global Moderator Posts: 28704 Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm Location: Vermont, USA Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:45 am Chrispy_ wrote: Now that *is* interesting. Has anyone worked out why the TR results were so far from other sites? TR: 95% percentile frame times Everyone else: Average frame rates with no regard for frame times What we have today is way too much pluribus and not enough unum. Emperor Gerbilius I Posts: 6192 Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:39 am Captain Ned wrote:Chrispy_ wrote: Now that *is* interesting. Has anyone worked out why the TR results were so far from other sites?TR: 95% percentile frame times Everyone else: Average frame rates with no regard for frame times Pretty much this. Anyone that isn't reporting frametimes is reporting trash. Maximum Gerbil Posts: 4670 Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:49 pm Location: Europe, most frequently London. Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:51 am No, it's not that - even if you look at TR's average framerate data, it's more than elsewhere. Congratulations, you've noticed that this year's signature is based on outdated internet memes; CLICK HERE NOW to experience this unforgettable phenomenon. This sentence is just filler and as irrelevant as my signature. Gerbil Elite Posts: 576 Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 8:10 pm Location: Hmmm, I was *here* a second ago... Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:25 am Chrispy_ wrote: Now that *is* interesting. Has anyone worked out why the TR results were so far from other sites? Different games, different settings. Jeff has said repeatedly "other sites aren't running our test routine." Main System: i7-8700K, ASUS ROG STRIX Z370-E, 16 GB DDR4 3200 RAM, ASUS 6800XT, 1 TB WD_Black SN750, Corsair 550D HTPC: I5-4460, ASUS H97M-E, 8 GB RAM, GTX 970, CRUCIAL 256GB MX100, SILVERSTONE GD09B Grand Gerbil Poohbah Posts: 3776 Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:50 pm Location: Wisconsin, USA Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:08 pm Yeah, even in GPU reviews, the rankings and/or performance gap between each GPU doesn't really change when you flip between 99th% and Average. This is because AMD and Nvidia and game devs have basically fixed the frame time variance problem that Scott discovered way back when. I'd go so far as to say 99th% is a non-issue for most games these days (outliers being poorly coded games, or un-optimized drivers), but it's still good to keep their feet to the fire so things don't go back to what they were. Main: i5-3570K, ASRock Z77 Pro4-M, MSI RX480 8G, 500GB Crucial BX100, 2 TB Samsung EcoGreen F4, 16GB 1600MHz G.Skill @1.25V, EVGA 550-G2, Silverstone PS07B HTPC: A8-5600K, MSI FM2-A75IA-E53, 4TB Seagate SSHD, 8GB 1866MHz G.Skill, Crosley D-25 Case Mod Gerbil Elite Posts: 576 Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 8:10 pm Location: Hmmm, I was *here* a second ago... Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:28 pm Jigar wrote: ... in Civ 6. The discrepancy is larger in other games. Main System: i7-8700K, ASUS ROG STRIX Z370-E, 16 GB DDR4 3200 RAM, ASUS 6800XT, 1 TB WD_Black SN750, Corsair 550D HTPC: I5-4460, ASUS H97M-E, 8 GB RAM, GTX 970, CRUCIAL 256GB MX100, SILVERSTONE GD09B Emperor Gerbilius I Posts: 6192 Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:33 pm DPete27 wrote: Yeah, even in GPU reviews, the rankings and/or performance gap between each GPU doesn't really change when you flip between 99th% and Average. This is because AMD and Nvidia and game devs have basically fixed the frame time variance problem that Scott discovered way back when. I'd go so far as to say 99th% is a non-issue for most games these days (outliers being poorly coded games, or un-optimized drivers), but it's still good to keep their feet to the fire so things don't go back to what they were. It is certainly good for finding discrepancies in GPU performance, but now that AMD is making a solid effort to compete in the CPU space again, timeframe analysis is essential for pointing out differences- which is what we're talking about in this thread. Gerbil Team Leader Posts: 262 Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 8:46 am Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:58 pm If you even care about the slightest in resale value and everything else irrelevant, the K hands down. 8700K 4.3GHz @ 1.05V | Cryorig H7 | MSI Z370M AC | 32GB Corsair LPX DDR4-3200 | GTX 1070 @ 0.8V | 500GB Evo 850 | 1TB M550 | 3TB Toshiba | Seasonic G650 | Acer XB271HU |
