Intel's Core i7-8700K is finally available in Sweden. It's got more cores than the previous i7, but is it worth it?
4400 SEK translates to $525. That's about the same price as the Ryzen 1800X.
It'm not really sure it's a that good deal compared to the i7-7700K at $395 and it sure doesn't seem to be twice as powerful as the i5-8400 at exactly half that price.
Is it worth it?
Other urls found in this thread:
phoronix.com
twitter.com
Why do you people spend this much money just for muh 5 frames increase in vidya?
They don't, hence why 1600 sells so well, it's A64 3000+ of this gen.
It's the fastest CPU for gaming.
It gives you roughly the same maximum frame rate as the 7700k, but as it got the two extra cores, it increases the minimum frame rate quite a bit due stopping windows from stealing your cores for no good reason, as it happens with the ryzen CPUs.
And "as it happens with the Ryzen CPUs" i mean that they also increase the minimum frame rate with their extra cores.
if it costs the same almost as a 1800x..
built a 1700 system and save for a really good gpu
For that price? No , at 350 euro , YES it is . Considering the 1700x i 300/350 , why would you buy a slower cpu . But since now it s paper launch , just get the 1700 if you can t wait
No.
It's almost the exact same price as the 1800X. My initial reaction to that one too was eew dat price.
I know it's got two extra cores, but I personally find the 7700k to be a rather expensive for a CPU and the new i7 which replaces it costs $125 more.
It's tempting because it's "the best" desktop CPU on the market .. but that price, that's not exactly cheap.
It's no longer a paper launch. It was - here in Sweden - until this morning. Now you can buy'em - at that price.
its not really 1600 is still selling like crazy despite even the 8400 being in the market
and considering the rumors of the 10nm coming in the first q of 2018 on intel? and probably on another socket since they will need a new power regulator? good luck with that
coffe is essentially DOA by intel themselfs
Is your computer too slow for what you want or can you wait a bit more?
Because not buying can prove to be quite beneficial, as the final intel solution will most likely use an completely different slot, and AMD probably will come with an AM4+ that while compatible with AM4, will offer some clear advantages, like supporting better memory.
>and considering the rumors of the 10nm coming in the first q of 2018 on intel?
It's H2 2018 for peanuts-sized mobile chips.
Intel's 10nm process is woeful.
If you do more than just gaming definitely buy the R7 1800.
its not the second coming of brian as shills have promised to the jews?
SHAME
(i wonder when they realised that bringing that idiotic monolithic design they have down to 10nm isnt gonna work)
this.
the 8400 is a good CPU and I'm impressed Intel responded but I don't exactly have any regret since the 1600 is still a great all-rounder with a guaranteed upgrade path.
When you go for mid-tier value for money hardware you never really lose, regardless of whether its AMD/Intel/Nvidia
>its not the second coming of brian as shills have promised to the jews?
No, Cheng, Patton and whoever manages Samsung's fabs are about to fucking DIE of laughter.
8400 is good, heck, great, but I wish they've launched it along with B360 mobos.
The 8400 is the best CPU in the new intel range. If you want anything more than that, it's cores you want and so you go to AMD.
Over the 8700k? What's the reasoning behind this?
More MT perf and upgradable platform?
Besides you can get 1700.
it wont change socket for at least 3 years to come
>More MT perf
Slightly better MT performance when using over 12 threads, and single core performance is pretty bad comparatively at stock speeds.
>and upgradable platform?
So buy a cpu twice? That doesn't seem like a pro.
>Besides you can get 1700
But this at best performs like the 1800x, and the i7-8700k performs better than that.
>Slightly better MT performance when using over 12 threads, and single core performance is pretty bad comparatively at stock speeds.
He said "if you do more than gaming".
>So buy a cpu twice? That doesn't seem like a pro.
I understand that the concept of drop-in upgrades is alien to Intel users but it does exist.
>But this at best performs like the 1800x, and the i7-8700k performs better than that.
8700k does not perform better than 1800x in MT.
only few redid benches without mce enabled
and absolutely no one did productity tests with mce off
you cant beat physics the fact that 8700k was able to even beat 1700 let alone 1800x on anything else that isnt gaming pretty much shows the bs we saw
>He said "if you do more than gaming".
And I responded to that properly.
>I understand that the concept of drop-in upgrades is alien to Intel users but it does exist.
I've dropped in cpu upgraded my 970a mobo from phenom 2 to ffx, so I know that the drop in upgrades are just dumb, and judging by all the gpu bottlenecked amd ryzen benchmarks. A cpu drop in upgrade is in every ryzen owner's best interest when the new gpus are available.
>8700k does not perform better than 1800x in MT.
The r7-1800x performs 9% better than a stock speed i7-8700k when all threads are used.
>muh conspiracy
Fuck I guess that I just "don't get" Sup Forums anymore.
consipiracy? was the whole mce fiasco a consipiracy?
LOL
That's some subtle shilling.
>That's some subtle shilling.
>shilling.
Good argument. Just buy AMD guys.
you literally are saying that a 1800x is only 9% faster than a 8700k
now go back and see all the productivity benchmarks and REMOVE the euler one do the average and tell me what number you get
also give us an reasonable explaination as to why everyone included euler as a benchmark given that is literally an intel tool and gives massive advantage that reach to a certain workload over 60%(and why they never benched any intel cpu in the past at it at all)
THEN after you try to explain this also give us a reason as to why only HU did a productivy test with the current version of the programs and not ones with a built from 2015 that didnt had proper support to ryzen
and THEN after you try to explain both of them tell us why the majority didnt bother to use their updated ryzen numbers and instead used the ones that they got from the early start?
> upgradable
That's one meaningless and utterly stupid argument that needs to die and here's why:
We're talking about a $525 CPU. The cost of 32 GB DDR4 memory is around $350 and a good motherboard costs somewhere between $100 and $150. Proposing that you should buy a $500 CPU and replace it in a year or two is ludicrous. And the cost of the motherboard is negligible compared to the overall system anyway.
Being able to re-use the RAM in a potential next build is a much bigger concern than being able to re-use the motherboard.
AMD: the post
Just dropping this here. Daily reminder: 6 Intel cores= 8 AMD cores
phoronix.com
>32GB ram in 2012 = $150 (I could get 8GB DDR3 RAM for $32)
>32GB ram in 2017 = $350
Cucks will pay for it regardless to satisfy their fix.
Fucking
Are ram prices being fixed?