They mention the feature, is there anything actually demonstrating it working?
Results weren't posted. I hope someone here can confirm.
They mention the feature, is there anything actually demonstrating it working?
Results weren't posted. I hope someone here can confirm.
they also have the K cpus saying they ship on Oct 16th. That makes me believe that new waves are coming8700 in stock at B&H (no checkout until 7:45PM tomorrow, though).
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1356633-REG/intel_bx80684i78700_core_i7_8700_3_2_ghz.html
lol memory4less wants 1300 bucks for the i7 8700k
http://www.memory4less.com/intel-3-70ghz-core-i7-desktop-processor-bx80684i78700k
I see what you did there lolTo be fair, it's memory 4 less, not chips 4 less.
That's a crazy high markup, though. It's understandable if it's just a placeholder and they don't really have stock.
Got my order in for an 8700K on Amazon as well. Will use the one that I get first and resell the other.
I'd consider going with better memory if you're looking to get the Apex.
Cheaper boards will be able to OC the 8700k just fine, including the memory you've selected.
Memory latency is very important for games. Memory speed is fine with something like 3200 or higher.
Yes... very important. like 1/2/3% difference.Memory latency is very important for games. Memory speed is fine with something like 3200 or higher.
Do show it to me please. I know that C21 would be worse than 16 but other than that not so much. What I said is what I've learned and I don't mind being proven wrong.
Honest question.
Is there a real reason in usability terms, for a gamer and hobbyist benchmarker to prefer the 8700k over the 8600k?
I mean I see they have very little performnance difference to make it worthwhile.
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/970-18/indices-performance.html
Even if the hardware.fr's GTX 1080 presents a gpu bottleneck up to a point, the guys at TPU even tested at 720P and the difference was like 3%.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K/18.html
So why shouldn't I chose the 8600k instead and save me a decent amount for the next graphics card? It seems to me that the +50% resources increase of the 8600k compared to the 7600k, make it a completely different beast than what the 7600k could ever be and also in relation to the grand scheme of things. I mean 6 coffeelake cores sit a lot more relaxed in the pantheon of desktop cpus, than previous offerings could.
Heck I'm still happy with my 2500k, but I guess it's time to move on. I believe the 8600k will be the new 2500k, only I see it being in an even better place in six years, than the 2500k is today.
You may search for some older Skylake or Kabylake DDR scaling tests. It's a combination of both frequency and latency. I guess most people don't understand that the gaming speedup from faster memory kits comes from an improved latency as well, possibly more from a lowered latency than bandwidth.
That's why edram gave Broadwell GT3e a nice IPC boost for gaming purposes over Skylake at that time. Bandwidth of edram wasn't great but its latency. DDR4-3333 16-18-18 is much worse compared to DDR4-3200 14-14-14. Also that's why DDR4 was a bit lacklustre compared to DDR3 when it launched some years ago. DDR4-2133 with CL15 has a quite poor absolute latency.
http://www.hardware.fr/getgraphimg.php?id=222&n=3
DDR3-2400 CL11-11-11 faster than DDR4-3000 CL16-16-16 there.
DDR3-2400 CL11-11-11= 9.16 ns
DDR4-3000 CL16-16-16= 10.67 ns