And I went for CB since it's easier to check performance numbers, see if there's proper correlation between the two claims - power usage remaining largely the same while offering up to 50% increased performance.Fair point, I used Blender because it draws the most power and seems to stress the cores the most, as evidenced by their MCE enabled 8700K @ 4.7GHz being unstable in Blender whilst being stable in everything else.
i5 8400 is not looking as good as it was before, especially with cheap motherboards.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi-zU2p2ykc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O98qP-FsIWo
Interesting stuff. l personally would turn it off for a review
Yep the DDR4 prices are a real downer.I've decided to keep my 2600K @ 4.5 rig for awhile longer. Combined with sky high DDR4 prices that have almost doubled and benches that show I don't really need to upgrade yet, why bother.... spending $350 on RAM kind of kills any savings that comes from the cheaper mainstream platform. I'll wait for the 8 core variant to be released on the mainstream platform and hopefully by then RAM prices come back to earth. I don't want to upgrade the video card until Volta, anyways. I admit I'm tempted and this is as good a time as any for sandy and ivy bridge users to upgrade, however...
I've decided to keep my 2600K @ 4.5 rig for awhile longer. Combined with sky high DDR4 prices that have almost doubled and benches that show I don't really need to upgrade yet, why bother.... spending $350 on RAM kind of kills any savings that comes from the cheaper mainstream platform. I'll wait for the 8 core variant to be released on the mainstream platform and hopefully by then RAM prices come back to earth. I don't want to upgrade the video card until Volta, anyways. I admit I'm tempted and this is as good a time as any for sandy and ivy bridge users to upgrade, however...
I already posted it in different thread which probably won't be watched by most people, but it seems i3-8350K (and likely i3-8100) are really just Kaby Lake-S dies. The stepping is the same, the components on the bottom side of the substrate look exactly the same.
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...d-pentium-silver.2521441/page-2#post-39116981
Sucks that people with 100/200 series are not allowed to buy these as cheap quad upgrades for G4560 builds an the like. If it's Kaby silicon, it could have work had Intel wanted it to. We can hope that they drop prices of Kaby Lake i5s to match, but that's probably unlikely.
Anyone know how RAM speed matters in games, with 8600k or 8700k? I am looking for games with 3000mhz RAM vs 3600 or more. So far for kabylake i found that mostly matters for minimum fps around 5%
Anyone know how RAM speed matters in games, with 8600k or 8700k? I am looking for games with 3000mhz RAM vs 3600 or more. So far for kabylake i found that mostly matters for minimum fps around 5%
So it seems it matters:
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes..._i5_8600k_rzeznik_zwany_coffee_lake?page=0,45
But that's just a pin point data, i would need to get more.
For example, i am consider it to buy Corsair 3000 Mhz CL16 or put 15% more money for the G skill Trident Z at 3600 Mhz CL17 or +21% over the corsair for G Skill flare at 3200 CL14.
All is 16 GB.
I am leaning for Trident but the question is what is better choice for an 8600K that should arrive today and i plan to keep it at 4.5 Ghz?
Video card I have 970 but planning to upgrade, so i think an 1080ti will be put in the mix.
Thanks.
If you were only willing to OC up to 4.5GHz, why chose the 6C 6T 8600K at $260 + Cooler and not get the 6C 12T 8700 ($315) with 4.6GHz ST and 4.3GHz all-core turbo ??
Guru3d had a response to the Adored vid and why the differences in benches. Involving quite obvious factors that seem to have completely escaped Adored's attention.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi-zU2p2ykc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O98qP-FsIWo
Interesting stuff. l personally would turn it off for a review
Because 8700 is with 20% more expensive, and what is the point to pay more if im getting same performance with 8600k?Thats a good point, the 8700 turbos quite high and makes a mildly overclocked 8600K redundant
Because 8700 is with 20% more expensive, and what is the point to pay more if im getting same performance with 8600k?
It's not about the choice of 8600k in a vacuum: your were also considering spending more money to go from 3200 C16 to 3600 C17. You would gain more by staying with 3200 C16 and spending the extra money towards the 8700.Because 8700 is with 20% more expensive, and what is the point to pay more if im getting same performance with 8600k?
From your own link:Guru3d had a response to the Adored vid and why the differences in benches. Involving quite obvious factors that seem to have completely escaped Adored's attention.
https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/review-intel-core-i7-8700k-processor.417223/page-12#post-5480890
This is the part where Adored was right, but there's also a part where he took assumptions for granted: the part about chip quality and how 8400 will behave in the cheaper boards from Q1 2018. There were rumors among reviewers that initial ES chips were cherry picked and retail chips have lower quality than those used in reviews. Turns out some of them are indeed worse, but some are also better than ES chips - showing we're just dealing with expected variance.ASUS for example has a feature that 'optimizes' performance and enables it by default. Great stuff for the novice user, but not representable for stock reference proc results as they set the turbo bin to 4.7 GHz on all cores for the 8700k. The problem is that most reviewers do not even look at such settings to disable them (which I did for the reference proc review).
I blame some of this on reviewers too: some of them simply turned a blind eye to how the platforms behaved in terms of power & performance, and only reacted when other more scrupulous members of the press began proper investigations on the matter. Kudos to Gigabyte too for adhering to proper stock configurations and indirectly helping make this issue obvious to everybody.
MCE has been around since 2012 and Z77 chipsets. Why would reviewers be unaware of it?We don't know if that's true either, as the reviewers could very well overlooked that aspect (it is easy to miss)
The thing is that Intel should have send clear instructions to everyone as they were aware of the feature. The delta from one reviewer to another somewhat confused a lot of people and that's why he got all the attention.
With that said, this does not change the fact that Coffeelake is a great chip by Intel and the best we have for gaming. I blame mostly Intel and to some extent some reviewers.
One aspect to note is that, by default, ASUS has the 'MultiCore Enhancement' set to enabled. This feature overrides Intel's Turbo Boost technology - which sets the specific frequency on each core - and rather than run the stepped-up MHz on a per-core basis, all cores are run at the maximum (single-core) Turbo Boost frequency. For a Core i7-3700K this means the chip running at 3.9GHz when under load. MultiCore Enhancement is a performance-boosting feature which is appreciated, but the problem here is that ASUS doesn't draw specific attention to it; the user won't know it's running unless they go into the BIOS. We switched it off during benchmarking, keeping parity with other boards in the upcoming line-up.