Arbie:

You should think more about what your "needs" really are. Do they include having competition in the PC CPU market? Even if Intel offers more performance per dollar (true only in a few cases now), AMD has amazingly reduced the difference to the point where I can accept it in order to help fuel competition. If the market does not reward AMD for their valiant effort in Zen, the company may be forced to give up. How many times can they come from behind in a high-stakes business like this? Then Intel will again quit trying, and several years from now we'll ALL be worse off than if they were still duking it out. It *isn't* fanboyism to lean towards AMD now. It's common sense.

My "needs", or what I want is a good gaming CPU that will last me for many years (I don't intend to upgrade again until at least a few years after DDR5 is introduced to the mainstream market). I want something that is good at handling not only games that do make use of multiple cores, but can also brute force through the lousy ports that are heavily dependent on single-threaded performance (FF13 being a rather extreme case at this). I'm not gonna get a CPU that doesn't fit my needs just for the sake of competition.

Depends on your workload. Intel still leads in gaming in most price brackets until every game well utilizes more than 4 cores. That's still a ways off from the looks of it. Sure there are some games where AMD CPUs do better but not many. If mainly gaming Intel is still ahead and will most likely be further ahead with the 8700k. I agree the MT is a little weak in this leak. I expect to see better results once it's released but it's not a gaming benchmark anyway so I don't care much.

FranciscoCL:

Something isn't rigth with that multithread score. 8700K can go to 4.3GHz (6 cores) with good cooling. Maybe that HP system isn't good at that.

i would say single core turbo boost values disrupts sc -> mc score/scaling.

This thing will absolutely smash anything score wise that uses a single core. Now how many games/apps do i have that uses a single core still. hmm i'm not sure i have anything on my PC that still is one core dependent so that's why i ordered the 1600x.....

Arbie:

You should think more about what your "needs" really are. Do they include having competition in the PC CPU market? Even if Intel offers more performance per dollar (true only in a few cases now), AMD has amazingly reduced the difference to the point where I can accept it in order to help fuel competition. If the market does not reward AMD for their valiant effort in Zen, the company may be forced to give up. How many times can they come from behind in a high-stakes business like this? Then Intel will again quit trying, and several years from now we'll ALL be worse off than if they were still duking it out. It *isn't* fanboyism to lean towards AMD now. It's common sense.

Well, if sales figures from Germany are correct, then I'd say the market is already rewarding AMD for Zen. 😉 I agree with ezodagrom that we should all buy products according to our needs. I've bought two Zen-based CPUs this year, but I didn't do it to support the competition. I've recently gotten back into grid computing and so I now look for the most powerful computing processor that I can find (and afford), which can also play games when required. As such, I buy AMD, since they offer a lot more cores than Intel at a similar price point while still being capable of gaming. I think Coffee Lake would be ideal for someone who wants 7700K-level gaming performance but also needs/wants a boost in multicore performance. It's obviously not for serious content creators, but gamers should find it appealing, especially those who stream or multitask while gaming.

i bought a kaby lake 7700 (non K, laptop) because i had to. i bought the ryzen 7 1700 because i needed the performance. if there were ryzen laptops with gtx 1070's (lol) available at the time i would have bought that instead of the MSI Apache Pro. a word to those on the fence vis-a-vis Intel's horribly over-priced (as if it won't be) i-7 8700k - game performance is much closer between ryzen and Intel now vs. at launch. spend the difference on a gpu - it will yield a larger difference than R-7(or 5) vs i-7. plus in two years you can reuse the mobo with the ryzen, instead of trashing it (and the cpu) like Intel.

ezodagrom:

My "needs", or what I want is a good gaming CPU that will last me for many years (I don't intend to upgrade again until at least a few years after DDR5 is introduced to the mainstream market). I want something that is good at handling not only games that do make use of multiple cores, but can also brute force through the lousy ports that are heavily dependent on single-threaded performance (FF13 being a rather extreme case at this). I'm not gonna get a CPU that doesn't fit my needs just for the sake of competition.

AMD is very competitive in all aspects of cpu use right now. No one "needs" to buy them anymore for competition sake. The stand on there own performance wise. The 8700k will be 5% faster gaming tan the 7700k, thats about it.

Multi thread performance doesnt do any thing for me . I only look at single thread and Intel is on top as always. If you game Intel is the way to go regardless of price. I think people want to jump on the AMD ban wagon . The 8700k is going to be the best CPU for streamers who game with those extra cores and Intel fast single thread performance. I have a 4790k and looking as these numbers this would be a solid upgrade for me if i choose to. I have owned alot of AMD cpu's like Phenom 2 1100t 975 965 955 8350. They all struggle hard with Mainstream games were single core was what was needed. I will never buy AMD again after my first experiance with Intel( not counting my Pentiums 1 and 2 ) 4790k everything is butter smooth.

ezodagrom:

My "needs", or what I want is a good gaming CPU that will last me for many years (I don't intend to upgrade again until at least a few years after DDR5 is introduced to the mainstream market). I want something that is good at handling not only games that do make use of multiple cores, but can also brute force through the lousy ports that are heavily dependent on single-threaded performance (FF13 being a rather extreme case at this). I'm not gonna get a CPU that doesn't fit my needs just for the sake of competition.

I wouldn't hold my breath for DDR5, it won't come soon. I agree we shouldn't buy a CPU just for the sake of competition: if you need to power a 144Hz monitor, then go Intel; for everything else, AMD has the price/performance right now.

Reddoguk:

This thing will absolutely smash anything score wise that uses a single core. Now how many games/apps do i have that uses a single core still. hmm i'm not sure i have anything on my PC that still is one core dependent so that's why i ordered the 1600x.....

This "Turbo3.0" BS is just Intel attempt at retaining the attention of the decades old fanboyism. Every game I've played in 2016 and 2017 used all 4 cores of my i5 2500k, we need to move forward.

tunejunky:

A word to those on the fence vis-a-vis Intel's horribly over-priced (as if it won't be) i-7 8700k - game performance is much closer between ryzen and Intel now vs. at launch. spend the difference on a gpu - it will yield a larger difference than R-7(or 5) vs i-7. plus in two years you can reuse the mobo with the ryzen, instead of trashing it (and the cpu) like Intel.

My thoughts exactly.

Embra:

AMD is very competitive in all aspects of cpu use right now. No one "needs" to buy them anymore for competition sake. The stand on there own performance wise. The 8700k will be 5% faster gaming tan the 7700k, thats about it.

5% on top of already the best gaming chip + a bunch of added speed for youtubers to edit/encode and some headroom for streamers is a very good thing. Confirmed best gaming CPU.

Silva:

I wouldn't hold my breath for DDR5, it won't come soon. I agree we shouldn't buy a CPU just for the sake of competition: if you need to power a 144Hz monitor, then go Intel; for everything else, AMD has the price/performance right now.

I know, when I say that I want it to last a long time, I mean it. xD A Phenom II X4 lasted me this long, I intend for the 8700K to last me about 5~ish years or so, if not more (unless it breaks before then).

Sixtyfps:

Multi thread performance doesnt do any thing for me . I only look at single thread and Intel is on top as always. If you game Intel is the way to go regardless of price. I think people want to jump on the AMD ban wagon . The 8700k is going to be the best CPU for streamers who game with those extra cores and Intel fast single thread performance. I have a 4790k and looking as these numbers this would be a solid upgrade for me if i choose to. I have owned alot of AMD cpu's like Phenom 2 1100t 975 965 955 8350. They all struggle hard with Mainstream games were single core was what was needed. I will never buy AMD again after my first experiance with Intel( not counting my Pentiums 1 and 2 ) 4790k everything is butter smooth.

then you missed out on all the "fun"...and exactly why people (like me) are dumping on Intel. first, though you say you only care about single thread - but every new game from 2017 on will be multi-threaded (some more than others natch'). and streaming has its own issues. you just laid out the case in your own words for ryzen vs. 8700k. ryzen has way more performance than you will have seen on your 4790k, hell it has more performance than my old i-7 6850k system - which has more than your 4790k. if you rely on facts not emotions, you will realize the cost differential will be better put to use with buying a gpu - where you will see a far larger performance delta. if you just want to "chase the dragon", you are already four generations behind.

@tunejunky I been saying it for years the day APPS and GAMES truely start using mulitcore and multi thread correctly, STP will become thing past, and the day that happens is the day AMD will be laughing to the bank, multi core/thread imo has always been better on AMD side vs Intel in the price to performance ratio. I kinda regret getting the 6700k now cause 6/12 and more core/thread seeing there more main stream now. and personal dont seem much difference in multi core/thread performance vs the i7 920@ stock i had, in STP i definitely see it. and that mostly cause i really only play Swtor and that game cares about 1 thing STP of the CPU, and even then game has performance issues. for the price i got current system i could got 6c/12t or 8c/16t cpu and pretty much got similar perfmance in game that want STP when i saw prices of ryzen i seriously thought about getting one, i was even pricing out build for them for few month, but i had just payed 800$ for this build wasnt really into the idea of geting new system and more computer parts i cant sell cause people want it for dirt cheap. my old build is sitting in my old case cover by bag to keep dust out of it missing just HDD/PSU/GPU i will buy those missing pieces before I sell the stuff for 100$ as for the 8700k if those number hold true it is most unimpressive,

Memorian:

Weak as hell..

it is just not impressive... 🙂

Silva:

As if they didn't knew what was coming...AMD had announced Zen months before release, Intel never thought they could leapfrog +40% IPC over last gen. If they were scheduled for next year, why are we seeing them next month? Rushed much?

Not at all the 6 cores Intel mainstream was anounced before Zen (that become Ryzen) but not on 1151 due to hardware limitation of the chipset/socket (well, exept the socket that is 1151 the chipset is clearly different than 1** and 2** series, right now we don't even know if actual 1151's CPU will work on it, i guess not).

audiophizile:

5% on top of already the best gaming chip + a bunch of added speed for youtubers to edit/encode and some headroom for streamers is a very good thing. Confirmed best gaming CPU.

Looking at the spec, its 4.3 max for i7-8700k vs 4.2 min for i7-7700k in MT. Not many new game will not run much faster on CL vs KL. Benchmarks will show if I am right or not. If you want to edit/encode while gaming I would rather take R7 1700X as the 8c/16t has more performance even if games may run little better on i7-8700k. Depends how much performance you need for editing/encoding.

I dunno 1230 seems about right for 4.3Ghz, need to run my 4770K at 6Ghz to beat that!

Looking forward to your i5-8600K budget gamers performance review.

Starting to remind me of when intel in the P4 days just kept upping the MHZ then AMD tried that with the FX cpu now intel is doing it again....the Higher the MHZ doesnt always matter.... yes the higher the mhz is great as long as its efficent not just a number I was holding out for the 8700k but now the Threadripper is looking more reaslistic time will tell

Matt26LFC:

I dunno 1230 seems about right for 4.3Ghz, need to run my 4770K at 6Ghz to beat that!

I think I should have been more specific in what my thoughts were. In single threaded its barely faster than KL so not much change there. One thing I would like to see is how hard it will be to brought it down to the 4.3 GHz MT turbo. In multi threaded its inferior to R7. If a game needs only 4c/8t I dont see it much better than KL, benchmarks will tell. The only 2 scenarios i can see it better than both are if a game can utilize only 6c/12t and no more or for current games + streaming (dont know if the left over 2c/4t are enough for this).

Saw someone pointing out on Anandtech forums that a leak from a couple weeks ago had the 8700K with 901 ST score and 1410 MT score. https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/28803237 Who knows if this is accurate at all, maybe it's not, maybe the values in today's leak are more accurate, but, it's too early to be jumping to conclusions I guess.