Coffee is right, these are 1k units prices, not retail, which will be higher.
Okay I will put my hand up and admit I was wrong about Intel pricing Coffee Lake at effectively Kaby Lake price points, as I thought they would make the i7 8700K be at least $400.
Even though I am not in the market for a new PC/CPU, I still look forward to the benchmarking of these beasts.
The only thing that keeps it under $400 are the leaks from retailer websites and they still have time to set the prices.
Intel released pricing for 1k units, if Kaby 1k-to-retail margins would be applied to Coffee 1k prices the retail would easily reach $400.
No it won't. Cause when next gen GPUs arrive, games will be more demanding. And GPU will be bottleneck again. I think for vast majority of gamers, GPU is bottleneck. Therefore, investment in GPU is always better solution.
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i5/Intel-Core i5 i5-8400.htmlBase clock is irrelevant. What I want to know is the all-core turbo, but sadly (and inexplicably) Intel is not publishing that info anymore.
Looks like the 1230cb score leak is seemingly legit. Why is it this low?
Looks like the 1230cb score leak is seemingly legit. Why is it this low?
The RAM speed they tested at is a bit anemic.
Looks like the 1230cb score leak is seemingly legit. Why is it this low?
Cinebench doesn't care much about RAM. Look at what they get when they clock it at 4.5GHz, much better and in line with what you'd expect with properly functioning turbo. Looks to me like BIOS is not ready.DDR4 2400 C14 is bad for health when you have 12 threads fighting for memory access?
Cinebench doesn't care much about RAM. Look at what they get when they clock it at 4.5GHz, much better and in line with what you'd expect with properly functioning turbo. Looks to me like BIOS is not ready.
5 - 10% in GPU bound scenarios, perhaps. CPU bound benchmarks will show a far greater differenceAt default the R5 1600 has a base clock of 3.2GHz for 12 Threads and 3.6GHz ST turbo. The Gaming performance difference should be very close (5-10%).
Overclocking the R5 1600 to 4GHz all 12 threads will make it 50%+ faster in MT than the 8400. Yes it will consume more but it will make it a lot faster too.
.. MT/ST for 7800X is better than CFL.I think it's Bios fault.
The 8700k vs 7800x battle is a great case study mostly for memory bandwidth bottlenecks on the former, as well as the changes in the cache structure of the two systems. Very interesting.7800x and 8700k seem pretty close with 7800x better in sandra processor multimedia tests and 8700k better in gaming.
CB seems to be the odd one out. The rest of the synthetic benches show greater than 40% improvements.Looks like the 1230cb score leak is seemingly legit. Why is it this low?
Yeah, it almost appears that the 8700K is stuck at base clocks or something, if you compare the 4.5GHz comparisons between the 7700K and 8700K scaling is at ~47%, almost linear.CB seems to be the odd one out. The rest of the synthetic benches show greater than 40% improvements.
It's not even the stock speed...The RAM speed they tested at is a bit anemic.
POV ray single score flops around at the videocardz link. Overclocked 8700K is slower than 7700K, stock it's the other way around. Probably got the overclocked one backwards.
It is a core thing. The 7800X is just worse at games, so the extra cores are only covering a deficiency rather than pushing it higher. Broadwell-E CPU's did much better.Locked at 4.5 Ghz (?) the 8700K is 18% faster than the 7700K in the Witcher. It's not a core thing too since the 7800X is slower than the 7700K. Overall though, at stock it's a bit of a wash between it and the 7700K. Which is what you should have expected anyway.
Overclocked were all three to 4.5 while stock 8700k does single boost to 4.7 but then it looks like stock 7700k single boost was not working for that POV ray single thread run.
hereI need a 8600k review now!