Monday, August 28th 2017

Intel Core i7-8700K and i5-8400 SANDRA Benchmarks Surface

Ahead of their launch later this quarter, SiSoft SANDRA benchmarks of Intel 8th generation Core i7-8700K and Core i5-8400 six-core processors surfaced in benchmark databases, which were promptly compared to their predecessors by HotHardware. The results put to the test Intel's claims of "over 40 percent more performance" compared to the 7th generation Core processors, which the company made in its 8th Generation Core Launch Event presentation. A bulk of these performance increases are attributed to the increasing core-count over generation, which directly yields higher multi-threaded performance; while a small but significant portion of it is attributed to increases in single-threaded performance. Since the "Coffee Lake" micro-architecture is essentially a refresh of the "Skylake" architecture, single-threaded performance increases could be attributed to higher clock speeds.

The Core i7-8700K is the top-dog of the 8th generation Core mainstream-desktop processor family. This six-core chip was compared to the product it succeeds in Intel's MSDT product-stack, the quad-core Core i7-7700K. There is a 45 percent increase in performance, in the "processor arithmetic" test; and a 47 percent increase in the "processor multimedia" test. These two test-suites are multi-threaded, and hence benefit from the two added cores, which in turn add four additional logical CPUs, thanks to HyperThreading. "Processor cryptography" sees a 12 percent increase. The single-precision and double-precision "Scientific Analysis" tests, which again are multi-threaded, see 26 percent and 32 percent performance gains over the i7-7700K, respectively.
The next processor on the chopping block is the Core i5-8400. This chip is of particular significance because it is expected to give you six cores around the $200-mark, and logically succeeds the Core i5-7400, and yet it was compared to the i5-7600K (which is succeeded by the i5-8600K). Despite that, we see a healthy 40 percent increase in "processor arithmetic" performance, a staggering 50 percent increase in "processor multimedia" performance, a 14 percent increase in "processor cryptography," and 30 percent and 17 percent increases in single- and double-precision "scientific analysis" results, respectively. It looks like the generational update could entice Core i5 owners more than Core i7 owners. For someone with, say, a Core i5-4670, the upgrade to an 8th generation Core i5 could bring tangible performance gains. The results also show i7-8700K to be a formidable opponent to the Ryzen 7-1800X.

Source: HotHardware
Add your own comment

58 Comments on Intel Core i7-8700K and i5-8400 SANDRA Benchmarks Surface

#1
Lionheart
Looking good, I mainly want to know & probably everyone else is IPC gains if there is any? :(
Posted on Reply
#2
drade
Looking very, very good. Glad I held out on upgrading my system. Coffee lake it is (8700k).
Posted on Reply
#3
RejZoR
Lionheart said:
Looking good, I mainly want to know & probably everyone else is IPC gains if there is any? :(
They often mask IPC increase within clock bumps so people think they increased IPC where it's basically just a gain from clock bump. If it was so easy to just keep on adding 10-15% IPC with each release, then CPU's should be ridiculously faster now with 1 thread compared to just 3-4 generations back. We're talking ~50% IPC boost over such period of time. But we know that's not really true.
Posted on Reply
#4
R0H1T
Lionheart said:
Looking good, I mainly want to know & probably everyone else is IPC gains if there is any? :(
Maybe a couple of percentage points if we're lucky, will need to see results at fixed clock & no turbo to get a fair(er) assessment.
Too bad not many review do so these days, we see stock vs stock which doesn't really tell us anything about IPC.
Posted on Reply
#5
RejZoR
IPC specifically, no, but it tell sus how product behaves out of the box. Most people don't actually overlcock...
Posted on Reply
#6
R0H1T
RejZoR said:
IPC specifically, no, but it tell sus how product behaves out of the box. Most people don't actually overlcock...
Not about OC, but would love to see another objective review.
As in all else being equal i.e. RAM speed, clock speed et al how does processor A fare vs processor B or C.
Posted on Reply
#7
ratirt
Doesn't look bad but I kinda agree with R0H1T. I'd like to see the proper IPC gains not with the higher clocks for the newer CPU's. I know they have bumped the frequency but it may have lower the OC potential with this? I think I will wait for review but if the figures Intel specified for the 8th gen CPU's are true it's pretty solid gain.
Posted on Reply
#9
BorisDG
Let's see if this CPU will take the crown of best gaming CPU from 5775C.
Posted on Reply
#10
Vya Domus
Looks exactly like the kind of scaling one would expect with the extra cores and given clocks , IPC gains are pretty much non existent. However this is definitely a step forward.
Posted on Reply
#11
LogitechFan
"to be a formidable opponent to the Ryzen 7-1800X." --- you own amd stock or somethin? gtfo, it's at least equal or FASTER in MT with 2 fewer cores and REKTS 1800x left, right and sideways in ST, while clearly being able to clock to 5Ghz.

http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3797188 here are new GB scores for 8700k @ 3.7Ghz. Take a hint, AMDones.
Posted on Reply
#12
dyonoctis
LogitechFan said:
"to be a formidable opponent to the Ryzen 7-1800X." --- you own amd stock or somethin? gtfo, it's at least equal or FASTER in MT with 2 fewer cores and REKTS 1800x left, right and sideways in ST, while clearly being able to clock to 5Ghz.

http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3797188 here are new GB scores for 8700k @ 3.7Ghz. Take a hint, AMDones.
To be fair, even a ryzen 5 at lower clock can do better than a ryzen 7 on geek bench:
6 cores:
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3821555
8 cores:
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3821655
Posted on Reply
#13
LogitechFan
dyonoctis said:
To be fair, even a ryzen 5 at lower clock can do better than a ryzen 7 on geek bench:
6 cores:
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3821555
8 cores:
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3821655
Ehhh.... not sure if blind or trollin.... look at the OC and the scores, both are OCed to shits and both are WAY slower than 8700k at stock 3.7 in ST and MT (see results in my link^^). 8700k @ stock completely annihilates a 4Ghz OCed 1700x. Gee, it's soo bad, it's embarrassing...
Posted on Reply
#14
dyonoctis
LogitechFan said:
Ehhh.... not sure if blind or trollin.... look at the OC and the scores, both are OCed to shits and both are WAY slower than 8700k at stock 3.7 in ST and MT (see results in my link^^). 8700k @ stock completely annihilates a 4Ghz OCed 1700x. Gee, it's soo bad, it's embarrassing...
When did I talked about the 8700k ? i was only saying that a ryzen 6 cores can beat a ryzen 8 cores, even when the ryzen 6 cores is lower clocked than the 8 core one.
Posted on Reply
#15
Vya Domus
I think some should sweep these threads and get rid of the trolls.
Posted on Reply
#16
LogitechFan
dyonoctis said:
When did I talk about the 8700k ? i was only saying that a ryzen 6 cores can beat a ryzen 8 cores, even when the ryzen 6 cores is lower clocked than the 8 core one.
Ooops my bad, misread it completely. Not sure about R6, but the scores you've provided are for heavily OC cpus, 1800x can get there too. So if everything else stays the same, 1800x performs better in stock than these two OC, and still looses heavily to 8700k at stock. Imagine it being OC to 5 on all 6 cores. It's probably going to be 40-50+% faster than ryzen in games.
Posted on Reply
#17
Lionheart
Vya Domus said:
I think some should sweep these threads and get rid of the trolls.
You read my mind, this site is losing it's charm. :mad:

Modders??? o_O
Posted on Reply
#18
dyonoctis
LogitechFan said:
Ooops my bad, misread it completely. Not sure about R6, but the scores you've provided are for heavily OC cpus, 1800x can get there too. So if everything else stays the same, 1800x performs better in stock than these two OC, and still looses heavily to 8700k at stock. Imagine it being OC to 5 on all 6 cores. It's probably going to be 40-50+% faster than ryzen in games.
But don't forget that the turbo boost of intel is more aggressive than the turbo of Ryzen. The 8700k can reach 4.30 GHz on all core, and 4.60 Ghz on one core. So the 3.7Ghz is misleading. The current Ryzen can't reach clock as high, and geekbench isn't the best tool to measure real world performance. The results showed in the 2 link that I've showed don't even make sense there is no way for a ryzen 5 to beat a ryzen 7 with higher clock in Mt. I'd rather wait for real world bench.
Posted on Reply
#19
trparky
Very interesting. It looks like this series of new processors would be a significant upgrade compared to my current Core i5-3570K. Very good Intel!

This is what competition does for consumers! It makes things better!
Posted on Reply
#20
efikkan
i7-8700K/i7-7800X will offer great competition to R7 1800X/TR 1900X.

Lionheart said:
Looking good, I mainly want to know & probably everyone else is IPC gains if there is any? :(
There are no IPC gains in either Kaby Lake nor Coffee Lake. The next IPC improvement will be in Intel's next architecture Ice Lake, due late 2018.
Posted on Reply
#21
ZoneDymo
all comes down the price now, Im sure (because we are still in the current landscape) the 8700k does better in gaming but I highly doubt it will be better in many other tasks.

Again, price, release this for 380 euro and sure you got a good one, release it for 500 or above (aka equal to the 1800x) aaand im not so sure, but that is my perspective.

trparky said:
Very interesting. It looks like this series of new processors would be a significant upgrade compared to my current Core i5-3570K. Very good Intel!

This is what competition does for consumers! It makes things better!
yeah but should you reward the money hungry company that did not do jack sh*t while AMD was trying to recover from their Bulldozer experiment?
Or should you reward the underdog that finally has made something that can compete so they can develop more better cpu's in the future.

If you truly want competition, now is the time to get AMD, its not like you will suffer from the purchase.
Posted on Reply
#22
EarthDog
Where my money goes doesn't have "jack shit" to do with a company resting on their Laurels or being an underdog. I will spend what money I need for the performance I need and want. If I want more IPC and better overclocking, I go Intel. If I want more cores for the money, go Ryzen. It's really that simple (to me).
Posted on Reply
#23
dwade
ZoneDymo said:
all comes down the price now, Im sure (because we are still in the current landscape) the 8700k does better in gaming but I highly doubt it will be better in many other tasks.

Again, price, release this for 380 euro and sure you got a good one, release it for 500 or above (aka equal to the 1800x) aaand im not so sure, but that is my perspective.
7800x had no problem beating the 1800x most of the time in multithreaded work with 2 lesser cores. 1800x was already made overpriced by the r7 1700 and now retarded by the 8700k.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11550/the-intel-skylakex-review-core-i9-7900x-i7-7820x-and-i7-7800x-tested/10
Posted on Reply
#24
Lightofhonor
dyonoctis said:
To be fair, even a ryzen 5 at lower clock can do better than a ryzen 7 on geek bench:
6 cores:
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3821555
8 cores:
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3821655
LogitechFan said:
Ehhh.... not sure if blind or trollin.... look at the OC and the scores, both are OCed to shits and both are WAY slower than 8700k at stock 3.7 in ST and MT (see results in my link^^). 8700k @ stock completely annihilates a 4Ghz OCed 1700x. Gee, it's soo bad, it's embarrassing...
The 1700X was using 2166 RAM. lol

My 1700X modestly OC'd to 3.9ghz still outpaces the 8700K in multithreaded. Hopefully single core improves in the next revision.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/3829403?baseline=3797188
Posted on Reply
#25
LogitechFan
dyonoctis said:
But don't forget that the turbo boost of intel is more aggressive than the turbo of Ryzen. The 8700k can reach 4.30 GHz on all core, and 4.60 Ghz on one core. So the 3.7Ghz is misleading. The current Ryzen can't reach clock as high, and geekbench isn't the best tool to measure real world performance. The results showed in the 2 link that I've showed don't even make sense there is no way for a ryzen 5 to beat a ryzen 7 with higher clock in Mt. I'd rather wait for real world bench.
All ryzens are capped at 4.0 at most (the usual OC is about 3.8/3.9) and the voltage needs to be insane, unless it's something like 1800x which is a heavily binned chip (still 4.1 is an absolute limit for it, if you're super lucky and have samsung b-die ram). 8700k base is 3.7, with 4.3 turbo on all 6 cores, 4.4 on 4 cores, 4.7 on one. I'm sure it can OC to 5.1+ on all 6 cores with water and delid. Just by looking at 3.7 base core results, it annihilates 4.0Ghz 1700x in both ST and MT. There is no second opinion on it. Ryzen 7 line up will be obsolete as of October 2017.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment