Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel - General › Thinking about the 8600K
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Thinking about the 8600K - Page 3

post #21 of 49
8600K is the obvious choice for gaming, 8700K will be interesting if you game + do more at the same time (like streaming with software encoding), and for heavy MT work.
for pure gaming it's probably not worth the extra cost, unless maybe if you are going to keep the CPU for a long time.
Current PC
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2310 Pegatron IPMSB-H61 Sapphire r7 370 2GB 8GB 1333 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung hd103sj lga 775 Intel stock cooler Win10 HP l190hb 
KeyboardPowerMouseAudio
AT with PS/2 adapter Huntkey 450W MS WMO 1.1 ALC662 
  hide details  
Reply
Current PC
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2310 Pegatron IPMSB-H61 Sapphire r7 370 2GB 8GB 1333 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung hd103sj lga 775 Intel stock cooler Win10 HP l190hb 
KeyboardPowerMouseAudio
AT with PS/2 adapter Huntkey 450W MS WMO 1.1 ALC662 
  hide details  
Reply
post #22 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by virpz View Post

Wait for the launch and official benchmarks, you may figure it out.
Benchmarks don't change the stock clock, which appears to be 3.7 GHz. You pulled numbers randomly out of thin air. This is why I'm confused and you've done nothing explain. You don't multiply clock speed by the number of cores or threads. That isn't how it works.
post #23 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by chessmyantidrug View Post

Benchmarks don't change the stock clock, which appears to be 3.7 GHz. You pulled numbers randomly out of thin air. This is why I'm confused and you've done nothing explain. You don't multiply clock speed by the number of cores or threads. That isn't how it works.
Ok.
I'm not really in the mood to explain anything. You can assume that what you said is what I said and you are right.
post #24 of 49
I'm merely asking you to explain your claims. It's pretty clear it's not a matter of you not wanting to explain, but rather an inability to explain because what you said makes no sense. If you're going to attempt to be informative, at least be correct. Spouting out incorrect information helps no one.
post #25 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by virpz View Post

I don't know bro, the 8600K is a hard beat... I think the 8700K is going to be what Intel should do instead of what Intel can do. People claiming 10, 20 , 25% IPC increase LOL. I think that saying it will beat clock for clock the R7 1700 at everything is...well, unlikely to say at least.

4.3GHz all core should get at least 1200 Cinebench R15 multicore.

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-core-i7-8700k-benchmarks.html

https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/2017/09/core-i7-8700k-core-i5-8600k-3dmark-vs-ryzen-7/


https://videocardz.com/72471/first-intel-core-i7-8700k-benchmarks-leaked

Comparing the geekbench to 4GHz Ryzen 7 1800X:
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/2191993?baseline=3928583
The only decisive win for the overclocked Ryzen chip is AES encryption and memory copy for single core performance
Multicore numbers , the only major lead Intel's Coffee Lake has is in LLVM

4GHz R7 1700 on CH VI Hero https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/2558757?baseline=3928583
It seems Ryzen 7 1700 @ 4GHz has a fighting chance if tuned




https://www.3dcenter.org/news/weitere-vorab-benchmarks-zum-core-i7-8700k-aufgetaucht


The issue is in non-parallelized when a main thread holds up the other threads.
Edited by AlphaC - 9/15/17 at 7:24pm
post #26 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by virpz View Post

Ok.
I'm not really in the mood to explain anything. You can assume that what you said is what I said and you are right.

24.blah ghz *** is those numbers lol
post #27 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by SightUp View Post

The 8700K won't be a huge difference for gaming/streaming, right? So what will be the big benefit of having real cores over HT cores? Noticeable? Because 4/8 when compared to the 7700K vs 6/6 of the 8600K is only the real cores. Will that be noticeable? Or should I spring for the 8700K?

I'd go with i7-8700K, especially if you want to keep it for some years and does streaming etc. It's not that much more anyway.

Look at how the 7700K beats the 7600K clock for clock here.
Only difference is HT. So HT helps when the real cores max out. 4C i5's are pretty much peaked in newer / demanding games. 2 more cores on i5-8600K will do wonders, but for how long?

https://www.techspot.com/review/1360-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-1500x-gaming/
Golden Ivy
(14 items)
 
HTPC
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-3770K @ 5 GHz Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H 980 Ti @ 1580/2000 2x 8GB G.Skill @ 2400/CL10 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
2x 850 Evo 500 GB Custom Water Windows 10 Pro Asus PG258Q 1080p/240Hz TN 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
Dell U2515H 1440p/60Hz AH-IPS Logitech G610 MX-Red + O-Rings EVGA SuperNova G2 850W Logitech G403 
AudioAudio
Asus Xonar Essence STX Philips Fidelio X1 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
i3-4150T AsRock Z97E-ITX/ac 2x 4GB @ 1600/CL9 Samsung 850 Evo 250GB + 20TB NAS 
Optical DriveCoolingKeyboardPower
None Fanless Logitech K400 Streacom Nano150 Fanless 
Case
Streacom FC8 Evo 
  hide details  
Reply
Golden Ivy
(14 items)
 
HTPC
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-3770K @ 5 GHz Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H 980 Ti @ 1580/2000 2x 8GB G.Skill @ 2400/CL10 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
2x 850 Evo 500 GB Custom Water Windows 10 Pro Asus PG258Q 1080p/240Hz TN 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
Dell U2515H 1440p/60Hz AH-IPS Logitech G610 MX-Red + O-Rings EVGA SuperNova G2 850W Logitech G403 
AudioAudio
Asus Xonar Essence STX Philips Fidelio X1 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
i3-4150T AsRock Z97E-ITX/ac 2x 4GB @ 1600/CL9 Samsung 850 Evo 250GB + 20TB NAS 
Optical DriveCoolingKeyboardPower
None Fanless Logitech K400 Streacom Nano150 Fanless 
Case
Streacom FC8 Evo 
  hide details  
Reply
post #28 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMatzelle60 View Post

24.blah ghz *** is those numbers lol

If you can cross data then, maybe, you can figure a thing or two on your own.
ONsCju9.png
Edited by virpz - 9/21/17 at 4:46am
post #29 of 49
Processing frequency isn't additive. That isn't how it works. That graph communicates nothing useful other than Cinebench scores. Those gigahertz numbers are meaningless.

If you assume Intel uses traditional release prices for their unlocked mainstream processors, an i7-8700K would be about 40% more expensive than an i5-8600K. That's pretty substantial, but definitely go for the i7 if budget allows.
Edited by chessmyantidrug - 9/21/17 at 7:54am
post #30 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by chessmyantidrug View Post

Processing frequency isn't additive. That isn't how it works. That graph communicates nothing useful other than Cinebench scores. Those gigahertz numbers are meaningless.

If you assume Intel uses traditional release prices for their unlocked mainstream processors, an i7-8700K would be about 40% more expensive than an i5-8600K. That's pretty substantial, but definitely go for the i7 if budget allows.

Hello? Who is talking about price ?

While that is not exactly how it works, we have the whole architecture to take into account and only a few people in the world know how it exactly works. For sure I am not one of them but I am 110% confident sure you are not anywhere close to that circle... FIY this is overclock.net - We overclock to get more the most out of it and cinebench has been one of the top CPU benchmarks for years now.

Now, ill post another graph for those who care.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel - General
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel - General › Thinking about the 8600K