Im getting kind of hot for the 8700K. Convince me I don't need it.

[ClockHound]

OP: That you're asking the question here pretty much says it all. Except the question is phrased backwards. Sounds like you want us to convince you that you DO need the 8700k, when you already know you don't.

But the good news is...if we do 'convince' you to get the 8700k and in 6 months you admit it was a disappointing purchase, you can blame us for forcing it on you. Win-Win ;-)

So..in that spirit...go get that compromised, knee-jerk Intel-reactionary 8700k now. You can thank us later. For ruining your computing life.

 

[CHADBOGA]

go get that compromised, knee-jerk Intel-reactionary 8700k now.

What is "knee-jerk" or "reactionary" about the 8700K?

 

[bigboxes]

Yeah so all I do is game on this rig. I'm limited to 100hz refresh rate so I think my 6800K@4.2ghz probably has that covered pretty well at 3440x1440 and probably the next GPU upgrade should be covered by that as well. BUT, I have that little flame inside me that burns for the 8700K, or possibly the 8 core version coming next which should be even more unnecessary for my needs.
Can you save me money here? Tell me I don't need this thing. Would this help gaming performance vs the 6800K when limited to only 100hz?

I have a 4790K and I don't need a new CPU to max out my 3440x1440 Dell. All you do is game. Heck, I rarely game, but I do lots of other CPU intensive tasks. Maybe it is I who needs a new CPU. You certainly do not.

 

[ClockHound]

What is "knee-jerk" or "reactionary" about the 8700K?

Intel granting the mere mainstream gamer platform 6 cores - a knee-jerk reaction to Ryzen. No Ryzen, no 6 core mainstream Intel CPU until....2033. ;-)

 

[moonbogg]

Intel granting the mere mainstream gamer platform 6 cores - a knee-jerk reaction to Ryzen. No Ryzen, no 6 core mainstream Intel CPU until....2033. ;-)

Let alone the 8 cores that are coming.

OK, I won't buy the 8700K. You guys have likely prevented a catastrophe from occurring. However, if the 8 core is good...um yeah that's going to be a lot harder to resist. The only way to be saved from that one is to convince myself that 10nm is right around the corner and buying yet ANOTHER 14nm chip would be silly and noobish. I'm never silly and for god's sake I refuse to be noobish. However, Intel releasing yet another 14nm chip, 8 cores or not, would be considered fairly noobish of them I think. Here's to hoping 10nm++-(-)+-(-) arrives soon.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I became a hardware junkie and notorious addict around 2005.

Welcome to the club!

 

[CHADBOGA]

Intel granting the mere mainstream gamer platform 6 cores - a knee-jerk reaction to Ryzen. No Ryzen, no 6 core mainstream Intel CPU until....2033. ;-)

If Intel hadn't stuffed up 10nm completely, they would have had 6 core & 8 core Cannonlake out long before Ryzen hit the scene.

Let alone the 8 cores that are coming.

I'm pretty sure you have been in quite a few threads where it has been pointed out that Intel had scheduled an 8 core on 10nm, long ago, but with their 10nm process being a disaster, that nixed all that.

And yet here you are claiming that 8 core is only coming because of Ryzen.

 

[Gideon]

I'm pretty sure you have been in quite a few threads where it has been pointed out that Intel had scheduled an 8 core on 10nm, long ago, but with their 10nm process being a disaster, that nixed all that.

And yet here you are claiming that 8 core is only coming because of Ryzen.

Well considering previously we had the following Quad Cores + ever beefier GPU and fixed function blocks:

Nehalem: 731M transistors - 263 mm² @45nm
Sandy Bridge: 1,160M transistors - 216 mm² @32nm
Haswell: 1,400M transistors - 177 mm² @22nm
Skylake: 1,750M transistors - 122 mm² @14nm

Coffee Lake: ??? transistors - 149 mm² @ 14nm

Considering the miniscule die-sizes of the latter chips, Intel could have introduced mainstream 6-cores ages before it did, at least starting from Ivy Bridge/Haswell, yet they didn't. I'm pretty sure competition at least hurried things along.

 

[TheELF]

Considering the miniscule die-sizes of the latter chips, Intel could have introduced mainstream 6-cores ages before it did, at least starting from Ivy Bridge/Haswell, yet they didn't. I'm pretty sure competition at least hurried things along.

If intel had released a 6/12 CPU while AMD was still peddling the FX-9590 as it's top performance CPU it would have meant the end for AMD and intel is the last one to want AMD to disappear, due to monopoly/anti-trust laws.
The 8700K is neither "knee-jerk" or "reactionary" ,it's a money grab,intel finally had the chance to do it without killing off AMD so they did it as fast as possible.

 

[StinkyPinky]

What are you guys doing with your old, unwanted hardware?

My wife has my 4790k. I sold the 1070 gpu since she doesn't game and it now just uses the igpu. It's already 3+ years old, no reason she can't use it for another 3+ years.

 

[LTC8K6]

Where is this magical 6 core Intel desktop socket chip coming from though?
It looks to me like Skylake is the earliest Intel could have brought out a 6 core desktop chip with decent clocks and a reasonable TDP.

If you aren't requiring it to fit the desktop socket, then there's not much of an argument since Intel had 6 core chips available all along.

What would it have looked like as far as TDP and price, and what would it have done to AMD's already fairly anemic FX line?
Wouldn't / couldn't AMD have brought out a lower clocked Ryzen earlier in reaction?

We can get an idea of the TDP of 6 core Intel chips from the high end line, although it's not a direct comparison.

A Haswell 6 core chip was 140W TDP, for example, unless you dropped the clocks a lot.
Even with the 8700K we hear complaints that it's power hungry and that the 95W TDP is some sort of lie.

What is the earliest AMD could have brought out a 6 core Ryzen chip?

No one knows the future. If Intel brings out a 6 core chip earlier, maybe AMD pushes on Ryzen harder and brings it out earlier.

 

[whm1974]

Where is this magical 6 core Intel desktop socket chip coming from though?
It looks to me like Skylake is the earliest Intel could have brought out a 6 core desktop chip with decent clocks and a reasonable TDP.

Both AMD and Intel probably needed to move to the 16nm and 14nm process nodes first before being able to offer consumer CPUs with more then four cores that have decent IPC and clockspeeds, and at a reasonable TDP and cost.

 

[Arachnotronic]

What is "knee-jerk" or "reactionary" about the 8700K?

I think ClockHound is being facetious

 

[Arachnotronic]

Holy crap, this guy gets it *exactly*. Intel is a master of frustrating the hell out of the enthusiast, at least for those who enjoy the hobby for the same reasons I do. I'm not alone, I know that. I can't even count the forum threads I've seen with people asking the same question, "What's best for gaming? 6800K or 7700K?" or "Skylake vs Haswell-E for gaming". Its all about frustrating the enthusiast until they are absolutely ready to crawl out of their damn skin. Making someone choose between 6 slower cores or 4 faster ones is just about as frustrating as choosing a CPU can possibly get.

All of that frustration was a result of Intel REFUSING to deliver 6 mainstream cores. They insisted on taking advantage of the situation and absolutely price raping the entire 6 core market. If you wanted 6 cores, you had to settle for less in some very key areas and pay a huge premium for the privilege of getting screwed. This is enough to make my blood boil. All it took was a little competition, and now look where things are headed?

We are soon getting 8 of the latest mainstream Intel cores for what will likely be less than half the price they used to charge for 8 cores. They will be the latest so you won't have to choose between IPC and cores. The only thing limiting you might be a little less clock speed due to having the extra heat output, but that's about it. Unbelievable. Absolutely stunning is what it is.

Intel better start serving up a few extra PCI lanes as well on the mainstream, because if Ryzen gets even a little better, Intel will start shedding customers like crazy. Getting stuck with 8 fast cores and only 16 PCI lanes is yet another frustrating situation. Its a half baked half measure by Intel if they do this again. Its yet another BS way to create segmentation and force people to pay way more for a HEDT platform for just a few extra lanes, which is all HEDT will have to offer people at that point.

They don't double the PCIe lanes on mainstream because every so often there is a new PCIe standard that doubles bandwidth per link, which acts as an effective doubling of the number of lanes.

 

[LTC8K6]

Both AMD and Intel probably needed to move to the 16nm and 14nm process nodes first before being able to offer consumer CPUs with more then four cores that have decent IPC and clockspeeds, and at a reasonable TDP and cost.

And for Intel that would have been Broadwell, the Haswell die shrink.

 

[ClockHound]

I think ClockHound is being facetious

Not to mention knee-jerk. Possibly reactionary. That it also fits Intel's cynical market position is just a happy coincidence. ;-)

 

[rbk123]

If intel had released a 6/12 CPU while AMD was still peddling the FX-9590 as it's top performance CPU it would have meant the end for AMD and intel is the last one to want AMD to disappear, due to monopoly/anti-trust laws.

Complete urban myth propagated to rationalize Intel's greed.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Complete urban myth propagated to rationalize Intel's greed.

How wonderful it is that we now have an ungreedy corporation to save us.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Complete urban myth propagated to rationalize Intel's greed.

Every for-profit corporation is greedy.

 

[whm1974]

Every for-profit corporation is greedy.

Well yes of course they all are greedy, very greedy.

 

[Gikaseixas]

If intel had released a 6/12 CPU while AMD was still peddling the FX-9590 as it's top performance CPU it would have meant the end for AMD and intel is the last one to want AMD to disappear, due to monopoly/anti-trust laws.
The 8700K is neither "knee-jerk" or "reactionary" ,it's a money grab,intel finally had the chance to do it without killing off AMD so they did it as fast as possible.

You're giving too much credit to FX series. 8700K does to FX the exact same damage the 2600k, 3770k, 4770k, 6770k and 7700k have been doing. So yeah, 8700k was a counter measure to Ryzen

 

[TheELF]

You're giving too much credit to FX series. 8700K does to FX the exact same damage the 2600k, 3770k, 4770k, 6770k and 7700k have been doing. So yeah, 8700k was a counter measure to Ryzen

Not me,but "people" (hardcore AMD fans) where still giving the same beaten down arguments over and over again even against the 7700k , "only 4 cores in 20xx" "not future proof" "obscure linux bench that nobody knows what it even does "proves" that FX is still relevant" and so on.
Against an 6/12 intel chip even those people wouldn't be able to come up with any argument against buying it other then the still popular "intel is evil" .

 

[TheELF]

Complete urban myth propagated to rationalize Intel's greed.

Are you confusing rationalize and emphasize?

 

[rbk123]

Nope.

 

[raghu78]

Every for-profit corporation is greedy.

Every for profit corporation will try to maximize revenue and profits. I would not call it greedy as they have a fiduciary duty towards their shareholders. The only factor which can balance or work against that is strong competition. We know that monopolies are bad precisely for the same reason.