Thursday, September 29th 2016

Core i7-8700K Reviewed by Lab501

Ahead of the 5th October reviews NDA, Lab501 posted their review of the Core i7-8700K six-core processor using samples not provided by Intel, paired with an Aorus Z370 Ultra Gaming motherboard. The tests reveal that the i7-8700K trades blows with the Ryzen 7 1800X in multi-threaded tests, despite two fewer cores, and has a clear leadership in single-threaded tests. It also reveals that the i7-8700K may not be as pricier than the i7-7700K as previously thought. Interestingly, the i7-8700K also spells trouble for "Skylake-X" Core i7 SKUs such as the i7-7800X and i7-7820X, as it offers multi-threaded performance in proximity to them, while being cheaper overall.

The Core i7-8700K is able to sustain its Turbo Boost frequencies of 4.20 GHz better than Intel's other Core X HEDT chips, which translates into higher gaming performance. The tests reveal that today's games still don't need six cores, and on the merit of high sustained clock speeds alone, the i7-8700K is shaping up to be among the fastest processors you can choose for gaming PC builds. Lab501 also got the i7-8700K to overclock to 5.1 GHz with relative ease. The chip runs feisty hot at overclocked speeds, but rewards with HEDT-like performance. Find other interesting findings of Lab501 in the source link below.
More results follow.
Add your own comment

102 Comments on Core i7-8700K Reviewed by Lab501

My name is Dave
jagjitnatt said:
So you are saying that Intel sells unlocked processors and Z series chipsets (both at a premium) advertising how they support overclocking, and then cripple their processors so that we cannot overclock and risk killing our processors?
It's not that way at all. Core i9-7900X is a 140W CPU, but can do about 275-300W before overheating with decent AIO. 95W 7700K chips usually go 150-175W. Both chips use paste. How is letting a CPU draw double it's rated power consumption "crippling" it?

Also, I'd call allowing chips to draw twice their rated power, while still not dying, supporting overclocking. They could have easily designed CPUs so that they cannot do this at all, which is technically the case with the non-"K" or -"X" SKU CPUs. Do also keep in mind that BIOS is programmed with power use limits, and some CPUs also offer reduced power use modes. The truth of the matter could not be further from what you are suggesting.
Posted on Reply
cadaveca said:
Using solder would allow user to push CPU hard enough that it would die. Using paste makes CPU overheat before this is possible. It saves them RMA hassles from users that do not know how to OC properly.

In past thread I linked a video with Intel staff saying they needed a way to make CPU fail testing, but not damage itself, so they could examine those failures and figure out how to overcome them. I believe that using this paste is how they do so, as CPU will overheat faster. Temperatures do not kill CPUs anyway. Current does. So they make CPU overheat BEFORE current reaches dangerous levels, using traditional cooling methods. The paste is like a rev limiter.

And if an enthusiast wants to push harder, delid is pretty easy, especially if you have one of the many tools on the market for this.
There is no reason to attach nefarious or in your case "beneficial" reasons to intel's business decisions, ie intel using tim to cause overheating at higher current... that was likely jagjitnatt's intent by summarizing your post. If solder was same cost as paste, intel would still use solder. Some get annoyed that intel is using cheaper paste and overstate its detriment, others get annoyed at those overstating the effect of paste and resort to "defending" intel's business decision by attaching nonsensical benefits, as if intel needed defending from running a business for profit. Solder costs millions more per year vs paste, is not required to meet thermal specs even with a modest overclock, and is currently not a determining factor in competitive edge with AMD, so solder doesnt make business sense. No bizarre, beneficial, altruistic or conspiracy theories on either side of the argument need apply.

The one good thing from intel (likely via competition) is 8 core mainstream cpus will be coming next year. So I can go from broadwell e soldered 8 core, to mainstrean as I have less issue deliding those than $1K-2K enthusiast ones, both from economic (though unlikely oops can happen) and just principle.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment