"Amazing to see huh? Yeah, I nearly purchased one..." - HH
Let's give this guy a medal! He looked at the specs before he ran out and made an uninformed purchase! He's definitely got some sensational news story here - better jump on the bandwagon! You can do better than this.
........
........
With the 8700K you can sometimes buy a golden chip. With the 8086K you know you get a golden chip. Mine runs 100% stressed with XTU @ 35 degrees C @ 1.056V. It overclocks to 5.1 @ 56 degrees C. Yes, it's 75 euro more but if you want a good overclocker or a really quiet system, IMHO it's worth it!
How long have you tested? I find 1.056v @ 5.1GHz with long-term stability to be very hard to believe. I don't even think a hand-picked CPU with liquid nitrogen could get you those specs.
But let's say doing an intensive benchmark requires you to bump up the voltage to something more realistic, like 1.30v. Do you actually think 75 euros is worth spending for a 100MHz overclock over an 8700K?
Seems really strange that your CPU boosts in BF1 to 4.5-4.6GHz. I thought the game is good at multithreading and CPU-hungry (don't have it myself). Even on games that are older/light on the CPU, my 8700K would rarely venture above 4.4GHz, and 4.3GHz is standard for all the latest 2017-2018 AAA games I have (like AC:Origins, Deus Ex, FFXV, Kingdom Come Delieverance).
The 8700K is not really running "better than advertised" either. The 3.7GHz base speed is there for a reason - namely stress testing and AVX. Running the latest Prime95 SmallFFTs for example will quite quickly bring a 8700K to 3.7-3.9GHz, because of its conservative 95W limitations. We're "lucky" that games and most workflows don't use AVX so we see these higher speeds routinely, as if the CPU is a 4.3GHz part and not 3.7GHz.
I am using quotation marks for "lucky" though, because from what I have heard, we would actually be better served with AVX and lower clocks. Apparently the CPU throughput would be significantly higher if we would have games that can take advantage of AVX, even at the lower clocks, although I am not really sure how that works.
Not sure why your CPU isn't operating at a higher rate.
I'm using an NH-D15 on the processor and the maximum temp for any core has been 57C max with the package reaching 64C max.
My CPU usage regularly reaches 100% on all cores running simultaneously at 4.5GHz while playing BF1. GPU usage also reaches 100% while playing. GPU RAM max I've noticed around 4GB.
When I'm not playing, minimums are at 800MHz on the CPU cores.
I'm running a 1440p monitor if that makes a difference.
It's been a really nice setup.
Not sure why your CPU isn't operating at a higher rate.
I'm using an NH-D15 on the processor and the maximum temp for any core has been 57C max with the package reaching 64C max.
My CPU usage regularly reaches 100% on all cores running simultaneously at 4.5GHz while playing BF1. GPU usage also reaches 100% while playing. GPU RAM max I've noticed around 4GB.
When I'm not playing, minimums are at 800MHz on the CPU cores.
I'm running a 1440p monitor if that makes a difference.
It's been a really nice setup.
Well, the issue here is that the CPU (on default/stock settings) has very specific limitations from the factory. So even if you allow it some thermal allowance and keep it cool, it still can't turbo higher than its pre-programmed bins 9that is, unless you change that in BIOS, obviously).
All-core turbo should never, ever exceed 4300MHz for 8700K. When you see some cores spiking a bit above that, it means that the load was somehow reduced and the CPU is able to use a lower core turbo.
These are the bins:
1C: 4.7GHz
2C: 4.6GHz
3C: 4.5GHz
4-5C: 4.4GHz
6C: 4.3GHz
If these bins are exceeded, something is not stock. That's hardly an issue to be honest for a CPU that is so easy to OC and is happy at 4.7GHz+, but that is still not stock operation.
Again, as long as the CPU is below 100°C, thermals are not important, as only then the CPU throttles.
The 800MHz minimums are similar to mine. It's only an idle/browsing thing as the CPU speed is very stable when you launch some game, it won't drop below 4.3GHz ever. As a curiosity, browsing the web, reading forums etc., on Balanced power plan, with the CPU throttling down to 800MHz and about 0.7V, the package power consumption is just 12W. Ultimate Performance power plan, i.e. the CPU trying to clock as high as possible regardless of load is somewhere around 14-16W. The CPU is using up to 1.33V to reach 4.7GHz with High/Ultimate power plans, which I guess is a good indication that one can safely downvolt the beast.
I don't understand people with these expectations that are based on nothing but their own unfounded assumptions.
Dismissing all product announcements as gimmicks designed to fool the masses must leave you seriously uninformed. Or was your remark just something easy to say?
The news here is that we have another indication of deterioration in Intel's technical / marketing leadership. Because of their position and importance, that's a big deal overall. I want to be able to trust Intel a lot more than is possible today. Sadly, that's less than yesterday, which was less than the day before. Etc. I certainly don't want to wonder if their latest whatever is just a gimmick, much less assume so. It didn't used to be that way.
Ha, you're being sarcastic right, I think you are. i7-8086K would be the same as 8700K in those charts (it's only when just one core is being used that it boosts to 5Ghz, otherwise it's the same as the 8700K) - I think you're just being funny, but had to post this just to make sure!
How long have you tested? I find 1.056v @ 5.1GHz with long-term stability to be very hard to believe. I don't even think a hand-picked CPU with liquid nitrogen could get you those specs.
But let's say doing an intensive benchmark requires you to bump up the voltage to something more realistic, like 1.30v. Do you actually think 75 euros is worth spending for a 100MHz overclock over an 8700K?
Quite sure he means stock@1.056v@35c with the OC @5.1GHz resulting in 56'C, logically assuming at a significantly higher voltage.
Otherwise, he has the golden of the most golden of cpu's. 😛
Seems really strange that your CPU boosts in BF1 to 4.5-4.6GHz. I thought the game is good at multithreading and CPU-hungry (don't have it myself). Even on games that are older/light on the CPU, my 8700K would rarely venture above 4.4GHz, and 4.3GHz is standard for all the latest 2017-2018 AAA games I have (like AC:Origins, Deus Ex, FFXV, Kingdom Come Delieverance).
The 8700K is not really running "better than advertised" either. The 3.7GHz base speed is there for a reason - namely stress testing and AVX. Running the latest Prime95 SmallFFTs for example will quite quickly bring a 8700K to 3.7-3.9GHz, because of its conservative 95W limitations. We're "lucky" that games and most workflows don't use AVX so we see these higher speeds routinely, as if the CPU is a 4.3GHz part and not 3.7GHz.
I am using quotation marks for "lucky" though, because from what I have heard, we would actually be better served with AVX and lower clocks. Apparently the CPU throughput would be significantly higher if we would have games that can take advantage of AVX, even at the lower clocks, although I am not really sure how that works.
Toyo... You set me straight on the MCE setting. This was enabled along with XMP on the ASUS motherboard. So my processor is not running better than advertised. That being said, it's still a great processor even with it's toothpaste.
Fastest gaming processor on Earth...
stop kidding yourself Folks....you're only lying to yourself if you say otherwise
I don't think anybody disagrees with that, but most of just don't care about a few extra FPS (whether you're getting an Intel or not). Frankly, spending $75 extra for bragging rights is petty, to say the least.
Keep in mind - it's not like you're getting the Bugatti Veyron of CPUs. Neither the 8086K or 8700K will "wow" anybody. In the vast majority of cases, you won't notice the difference they have vs other similar CPUs (again, including other Intels). So yeah, you have to be kidding yourself if you think they're not the fastest gaming CPUs, but you also have to be kidding yourself if you think anybody cares or that it actually matters.
I don't think anybody disagrees with that, but most of just don't care about a few extra FPS (whether you're getting an Intel or not). Frankly, spending $75 extra for bragging rights is petty, to say the least.
Keep in mind - it's not like you're getting the Bugatti Veyron of CPUs. Neither the 8086K or 8700K will "wow" anybody. In the vast majority of cases, you won't notice the difference they have vs other similar CPUs (again, including other Intels). So yeah, you have to be kidding yourself if you think they're not the fastest gaming CPUs, but you also have to be kidding yourself if you think anybody cares or that it actually matters.
Keep in mind, this thread and your posts (and of course those also expressing an opinion) means somebody cares and it matters or the discussion wouldn't exist. So....in a way you're an example of 'kidding yourself'. 😉
Keep in mind, this thread and your posts (and of course those also expressing an opinion) means somebody cares and it matters or the discussion wouldn't exist. So....in a way you're an example of 'kidding yourself'. 😉
Uh... no? Acknowledging or discussing the existence of something doesn't at all correlate to caring about it. For example, let's say I tell you my daily routine, and you respond with "none of this interests me". That's a perfectly justifiable response, but by your logic, your response has automatically added interest to my boring rambling. Sure, I might think my daily routine is interesting, but nobody else cares, nor should they.
Owning a CPU with an overclock that thousands of other people also have is not interesting. A CPU that gets an extra 1-2FPS on benchmarks is not worth bragging about. What makes something interesting is the uncommon or the exceptional, which an 8086K isn't. Note: that doesn't detract it from being the best gaming CPU.
8700k8086k or the 8-core CL! Only TR2 or 2700X would hold my interested at this point! Here's my 5GHz@1.25v Prime 29.4b5 1344k 1hour. Non-AVX I think(edited the config). https://s15.postimg.cc/xujy318rf/8700k_5_GHz_1.25v_4133_C17_Prime_29.4b5_1344k_1hour_final.png https://s15.postimg.cc/ty6m7237f/8700k_5_GHz_1.255_V_4133_16-16-16-340-1_T_1.425v_Cinebench.png