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
LogitechFan
Lightofhonor said:
The 1800X was using 2166 RAM. lol
There are no 1800x in his links. Wake up.
Posted on Reply
#2
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Lionheart said:
You read my mind, this site is losing it's charm. :mad:

Modders??? o_O
It's not as much the site, it's the (much needed) influx of new posters, and on the whole it's the ... whole world. Fragmentation increases and all communication is filtered. It's the reason we drink.
Posted on Reply
#3
LogitechFan
^^
The AMDones are afraid to loose their safe zone? Don't be frightened children, we will not hurt you, we're honorable people... well, most of us anyway.
Posted on Reply
#4
Lightofhonor
LogitechFan said:
There are no 1800x in his links. Wake up.
1700X then. Better? Doesn't change my point that the 8 core had the slowest RAM possible. :) Actually makes my point even stronger since mine had a smaller OC.
Posted on Reply
#5
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
LogitechFan said:
^^
The AMDones are afraid to loose their safe zone? Don't be frightened children, we will not hurt you, we're honorable people... well, most of us anyway.
Yeah, that's it. Here's a buck. It's imaginary, so spend it wisely. That means it'll last forever though.
Posted on Reply
#6
trparky
IPC on Intel is better than AMD, you can't deny that. Combine that with a faster boost clock and if you have good cooling it should be able to stay there, and you have better single threaded performance and that's what really counts.

I couldn't give a crap about the multithreaded numbers, they don't mean anything when most programs are still single threaded including games.

So yeah, when compared to Ryzen Intel is still the undisputed king of performance. Period.
Posted on Reply
#7
efikkan
6 good cores are always going to beat 8 inferior cores in real workloads, even non-synthetic multithreaded workloads. Intel got much higher IPC and higher clocks. You'll have to do a lot of rendering in Blender for R7 1800X to be really beneficial.
Posted on Reply
#8
phanbuey
efikkan said:
6 good cores are always going to beat 8 inferior cores in real workloads, even non-synthetic multithreaded workloads. Intel got much higher IPC and higher clocks. You'll have to do a lot of rendering in Blender for R7 1800X to be really beneficial.
^ this.
Posted on Reply
#9
tacosRcool
LogitechFan said:
^^
The AMDones are afraid to loose their safe zone? Don't be frightened children, we will not hurt you, we're honorable people... well, most of us anyway.
Maybe you should change for screen name to Intelfanboy as it suits you.
Posted on Reply
#10
evernessince
Lionheart said:
Looking good, I mainly want to know & probably everyone else is IPC gains if there is any? :(
It's still skylake. Any IPC gain, or losses, will depend on the cache, RAM speed, and frequency.

efikkan said:
6 good cores are always going to beat 8 inferior cores in real workloads, even non-synthetic multithreaded workloads. Intel got much higher IPC and higher clocks. You'll have to do a lot of rendering in Blender for R7 1800X to be really beneficial.
Last I checked, Ryzen outperforms Intel in most non-gaming workloads. "Intel got much higher IPC" is blatantly false. Intel has higher clocks, not higher IPC.
Posted on Reply
#11
trparky
evernessince said:
most non-gaming workloads
Listen here man, we want to game. You don't need multiple cores to be playing with Excel spreadsheets all the live long day. However you do need high clock speeds for gaming and that's where Intel is the undisputed king of performance. But of course, the AMD fanboy community just can't accept that.
Posted on Reply
#12
dwade
Intel having the superior CPU makes some AMD fans' blood boil lol
Posted on Reply
#13
evernessince
trparky said:
Listen here man, we want to game. You don't need multiple cores to be playing with Excel spreadsheets all the live long day. However you do need high clock speeds for gaming and that's where Intel is the undisputed king of performance. But of course, the AMD fanboy community just can't accept that.
Accept what? That Intel has had better performance for the last 10 years until Ryzen. I would know, I had a 2500k, 3570k, and 5820k. You can shove the "fanboy" comment, I've well versed in using either platforms. I switch to whatever product gives me the most performance for my money. Right now, why in the world would I touch Intel when they can't come anywhere close to the price / performance of my $279 Ryzen 1700? Are you going to recommend I buy a 7700k for the 1% extra FPS? That's great, unless you consider that games coming out are using more cores or that my encoding performance would be cut in half. It's also not fun upgrading my motherboard every 8 months.

FYI, Intel themselves have already proven that clockspeed isn't the only thing that matters. You can go out and buy a i7-5775c clocked at 3.7 GHz and it will outperform the 7700k in games with the EDRAM enabled. In fact, it will outperform the 7700k if you overclock the EDRAM.

Now it's great that your world revolves around gaming but some of us need to use computers for big boy work.
Posted on Reply
#14
BorisDG
evernessince said:

FYI, Intel themselves have already proven that clockspeed isn't the only thing that matters. You can go out and buy a i7-5775c clocked at 3.7 GHz and it will outperform the 7700k in games with the EDRAM enabled. In fact, it will outperform the 7700k if you overclock the EDRAM.
Yeah 5775C is true king in gaming. I'm really tempted to see direct comparisons of the two, but from what I see 8700K is just 6 core Skylake so I'm not seeing it to complete with Broadwell in not heavy thread workloads. It's shame that 5775C is rare overall and not many are making comparisons.
Posted on Reply
#15
trparky
evernessince said:
for the 1% extra FPS?
It's not just a 1% FPS difference man, I've watched enough benchmark videos and read enough data on the subject that quite often there's a much larger FPS gap than that; sometimes by as much as 15 to 20 FPS difference. That's a huge difference in performance in games.

evernessince said:
unless you consider that games coming out are using more cores
Oh sure, when's that going to happen? Wake me up when that happens because I don't see that coming any time soon. Most users still have only a quad-core CPU in their systems and will for a long time to come. There's no way in hell that game developers are going to alienate an entire segment of the market just because some people have more cores in their systems than four. No, they're going to program to the least common denominator so that a majority of gamers will be able to play them without having to go out and build an entirely new system just to play the game. Sure, they might need a new GPU but that's to be expected.

evernessince said:
my encoding performance would be cut in half.
That's nowhere close to being the truth and you know it, that's pulling numbers out of thin air and you know it.

evernessince said:
It's also not fun upgrading my motherboard every 8 months.
Most people keep their machines for more than eight months, they build for the long term like 4 to 5 years. Which if you look at Intel vs AMD's IPC numbers it shows that Intel is still going to last you longer than an AMD chip regardless how many cores your AMD chip has because when it comes down to it single core performance is and will be king for years to come which is where Intel is king.

Not only that but there's still RAM issues on the Ryzen platform months after it was released. And then let's not forget that AMD Ryzen's clock speed limit appears to be a hard 4.0 GHz wall with a majority of people unable to even crack past 3.8 GHz due to shit silicon (except for the Ryzen 7 1800X which is already heavily binned). They keep ramming their heads into it and not making a dent other than in their own heads. Meanwhile Intel chips are clocking past that. The Core i7 8700K has a boost clock of 4.3 GHz and if you have good cooling like a good water cooling system that CPU is bound to stay at 4.3 GHz the whole damn time and when you combine that with Intel's superior IPC numbers that means Intel is going to positively wipe the damn floor with AMD's Ryzen.

Sorry you AMD fanboy, that's just the way it is; Intel is the undisputed king of CPU performance. AMD is once again trotting out the tired "moar cores!" because that's all they can deliver.
Posted on Reply
#16
ratirt
trparky said:

Most people keep their machines for more than eight months, they build for the long term like 4 to 5 years. Which if you look at Intel vs AMD's IPC numbers it shows that Intel is still going to last you longer than an AMD chip regardless how many cores your AMD chip has because when it comes down to it single core performance is and will be king for years to come which is where Intel is king.

Not only that but there's still RAM issues on the Ryzen platform months after it was released. And then let's not forget that AMD Ryzen's clock speed limit appears to be a hard 4.0 GHz wall with a majority of people unable to even crack past 3.8 GHz due to shit silicon (except for the Ryzen 7 1800X which is already heavily binned). They keep ramming their heads into it and not making a dent other than in their own heads. Meanwhile Intel chips are clocking past that. The Core i7 8700K has a boost clock of 4.3 GHz and if you have good cooling like a good water cooling system that CPU is bound to stay at 4.3 GHz the whole damn time and when you combine that with Intel's superior IPC numbers that means Intel is going to positively wipe the damn floor with AMD's Ryzen.

Sorry you AMD fanboy, that's just the way it is; Intel is the undisputed king of CPU performance. AMD is once again trotting out the tired "moar cores!" because that's all they can deliver.
Apparently he doesn't want to wait few years so I'm guessing he's not "Most people" you mentioned. Stop telling people what they should do or follow the "MOST PEOPLE" behavior towards PC's.

I can be the "most people" since I have managed to change my computer to Ivy long time ago. Believe me if I didn't have to swap my entire rig I'd go with a better CPU. So Most people may be in the same situation as I am. Don't wanna change my entire rig for minimal gains. But if it was only CPU I'd go with the new gen for sure. I understand what evernessince's saying and I agree.
So Ryzen is a better choice from variety of reasons not just gaming.
Posted on Reply
#17
BluesFanUK
Do yourselves a favour and get as 5820K instead. Overclockable beasts, soldered, and has quad channel memory, prices should have come down by now.
Posted on Reply
#18
vega22
BluesFanUK said:
Do yourselves a favour and get as 5820K instead. Overclockable beasts, soldered, and has quad channel memory, prices should have come down by now.
i wish i had jumped on that boat when they were £265 for that cpu new :|

funny how people moan about amd fanbois, but it is the intel trenches which stink the worst :(
Posted on Reply
#19
trparky
ratirt said:
Don't wanna change my entire rig for minimal gains.
So if there are minimal gains, don't buy a new system every year; it's really that simple people! Wait a couple of years between generations and suddenly there's a reason to upgrade. I've had my Core i5-3570K for nearly five years already, now is about time to do an upgrade since the generational gains are decent enough to put the money into it.
Posted on Reply
#20
ratirt
trparky said:
So if there are minimal gains, don't buy a new system every year; it's really that simple people! Wait a couple of years between generations and suddenly there's a reason to upgrade. I've had my Core i5-3570K for nearly five years already, now is about time to do an upgrade since the generational gains are decent enough to put the money into it.
I would like to have an option for upgrades without changing entire system. What's wrong with that? I disagree with Intel with what they are doing with the platforms swap every gen. It's different to choose not to upgrade or be forced not to upgrade cause of incompatibilities with newer devices.
Posted on Reply
#21
Dimi
ratirt said:
I would like to have an option for upgrades without changing entire system. What's wrong with that? I disagree with Intel with what they are doing with the platforms swap every gen. It's different to choose not to upgrade or be forced not to upgrade cause of incompatibilities with newer devices.
Well enjoy your AM4 motherboard for the next 8+ years, stuck on DDR4 and PCIE 3.0. You can only drag out a chipset/platform so many years before it becomes outdated.

Newer chipset = new features.
Posted on Reply
#22
trparky
If you do an upgrade every five years then I expect to have to get a new motherboard. That's why I said that your shouldn't do upgrades for the sake of upgrading, put some time in between them.
Posted on Reply
#23
evernessince
trparky said:
It's not just a 1% FPS difference man, I've watched enough benchmark videos and read enough data on the subject that quite often there's a much larger FPS gap than that; sometimes by as much as 15 to 20 FPS difference. That's a huge difference in performance in games.


Oh sure, when's that going to happen? Wake me up when that happens because I don't see that coming any time soon. Most users still have only a quad-core CPU in their systems and will for a long time to come. There's no way in hell that game developers are going to alienate an entire segment of the market just because some people have more cores in their systems than four. No, they're going to program to the least common denominator so that a majority of gamers will be able to play them without having to go out and build an entirely new system just to play the game. Sure, they might need a new GPU but that's to be expected.


That's nowhere close to being the truth and you know it, that's pulling numbers out of thin air and you know it.


Most people keep their machines for more than eight months, they build for the long term like 4 to 5 years. Which if you look at Intel vs AMD's IPC numbers it shows that Intel is still going to last you longer than an AMD chip regardless how many cores your AMD chip has because when it comes down to it single core performance is and will be king for years to come which is where Intel is king.

Not only that but there's still RAM issues on the Ryzen platform months after it was released. And then let's not forget that AMD Ryzen's clock speed limit appears to be a hard 4.0 GHz wall with a majority of people unable to even crack past 3.8 GHz due to shit silicon (except for the Ryzen 7 1800X which is already heavily binned). They keep ramming their heads into it and not making a dent other than in their own heads. Meanwhile Intel chips are clocking past that. The Core i7 8700K has a boost clock of 4.3 GHz and if you have good cooling like a good water cooling system that CPU is bound to stay at 4.3 GHz the whole damn time and when you combine that with Intel's superior IPC numbers that means Intel is going to positively wipe the damn floor with AMD's Ryzen.

Sorry you AMD fanboy, that's just the way it is; Intel is the undisputed king of CPU performance. AMD is once again trotting out the tired "moar cores!" because that's all they can deliver.
"Oh sure, when's that going to happen?"

It's happening now... or have you ignored TechSpot and other outlets CPU scaling benchmarks.

"It's not just a 1% FPS difference man, I've watched enough benchmark videos and read enough data on the subject that quite often there's a much larger FPS gap than that; sometimes by as much as 15 to 20 FPS difference. That's a huge difference in performance in games."

You are quoting best case scenario in a benchmark situation at 720p. Congrats, you pulled up data with context that is irrelevant. I don't see that as a viable way to use your $300+ CPU.

"That's nowhere close to being the truth and you know it, that's pulling numbers out of thin air and you know it."

lol, no http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/20

It should seem pretty obvious that an easily threaded task like encoding is nearly doubled with double the cores. Derp. By the way, I have my Ryzen OC'd to 4.0 GHz, so it actually gets better encoding performance then an 1800X.

"Most people keep their machines for more than eight months, they build for the long term like 4 to 5 years. Which if you look at Intel vs AMD's IPC numbers it shows that Intel is still going to last you longer than an AMD chip regardless how many cores your AMD chip has because when it comes down to it single core performance is and will be king for years to come which is where Intel is king."

That's exactly what I was saying. Intel just released a 2nd forced mobo upgrade in a single year. AMD does not require you to upgrade your mobo every year. Like I said before, Intel and AMD's IPC are neck and neck. Show me a reputable source that says otherwise.

"Not only that but there's still RAM issues on the Ryzen platform months after it was released. And then let's not forget that AMD Ryzen's clock speed limit appears to be a hard 4.0 GHz wall with a majority of people unable to even crack past 3.8 GHz due to shit silicon (except for the Ryzen 7 1800X which is already heavily binned). They keep ramming their heads into it and not making a dent other than in their own heads. Meanwhile Intel chips are clocking past that. The Core i7 8700K has a boost clock of 4.3 GHz and if you have good cooling like a good water cooling system that CPU is bound to stay at 4.3 GHz the whole damn time and when you combine that with Intel's superior IPC numbers that means Intel is going to positively wipe the damn floor with AMD's Ryzen."

Lol, I must have missed how my RAM is currently clocked at 3600. Hard clock speed limit of 4.0 GHz? You do realize threadripper is clocked at 4.2 GHz correct? Dam, if only you actually knew anything about what you are talking about...

"Meanwhile Intel chips are clocking past that."

And yet AMD achieves better performance at a lower clock. Oh, did you see those power consumption numbers? I'm sure people love that. Oh, and that lovely thermal paste better the IHS. Good luck cooling that furnace.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1433-intel-core-i9-core-i7-skylake-x/

Yay for throttling with everything but the highest end AIO liquid coolers! Intel is so awesome! For god's sake, just admit when Intel fucks up. At least I have the ball to admit AMD's obvious fuck ups.

"Sorry you AMD fanboy, that's just the way it is; Intel is the undisputed king of CPU performance. AMD is once again trotting out the tired "moar cores!" because that's all they can deliver."

Like I said before, I don't care how is providing the performance. You can keep sucking that Intel cock tho, your obviously attached.
Posted on Reply
#24
evernessince
Dimi said:
Well enjoy your AM4 motherboard for the next 8+ years, stuck on DDR4 and PCIE 3.0. You can only drag out a chipset/platform so many years before it becomes outdated.

Newer chipset = new features.
AMD already has a new platform planned for Ryzen 2 FYI in 3 years so yeah...

No one said they wouldn't release revisions in between either nor that vendors couldn't add features.

These trolls, you don't even do a cursory check on google to make sure your rhetoric is even remotely correct.
Posted on Reply
#25
trparky
evernessince said:
You do realize threadripper is clocked at 4.2 GHz correct?
Threadripper is even more heavily binned than the Ryzen 7 1800X. Threadripper uses only the best silicon possible meanwhile the mere peasants get the table scraps.

evernessince said:
I must have missed how my RAM is currently clocked at 3600.
Very cool man, you are one of the few that have been able to achieve those RAM speeds. The rest can't even get past DDR4-3200 without using very specific RAM along with extensive tweaking in UEFI. Meanwhile in the Intel camp all I need to worry about is sticking the stuff into the slot and... oh yeah, that's it.

evernessince said:
Oh, and that lovely thermal paste better the IHS. Good luck cooling that furnace.
As long as the CPU is running within thermal limits it doesn't matter how "hot" the CPU gets. And as for the thermal stuff, @EarthDog and a number of other people who actually know what they are talking about have said that the TIM doesn't mean anything.

evernessince said:
You are quoting best case scenario in a benchmark situation at 720p.
It's also an issue at 1080p which still a lot of gamers play at. Sure, the CPU bottleneck goes away at 4K or even 2K gaming but who the hell has the money to go that route? Most of us plebes are still playing at 1080p.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment