• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

No CoffeeLake stock?

Seems bizarre Intel would launch with hardly any K CPU's, but then again it slows down AMD sales with the sacrifice of destroying their own sales of Kabylake CPU's.

Imagine how many Z170/Z270 chipset motherboards are just gathering dust now with people holding off, must be costing Intel by doing this, but at least it costs AMD too and that's the main thing for Intel.

AMD should price drop the current CPU's and then launch Ryzen 2 as fast as they can get them out and under cut Intel.
Armadillo said:
Came and went this morning. At least for the K processors, there were hardly any units.
Click to expand...
Mentions in the other thread, OcUK used ALL their 8700K RETAIL CPU's for binning, to sell at a massive profit, fair enough that's business.

They kept all this quiet due to Intels very own NDA and their was no retail 8700K to buy! meaning all these potential and loyal customers have been left in the ****. You have to laugh though, I did when I read that lol.
RichUK said:
You opened and binned retail 8700ks?

That's price gouging at its best. :p
8 Pack said:
Ofcourse that's all we got. Systems and binned cpu's make more money and end users are getting an uplifted stock product.

Ie 5g with 25c better thermals.

5g already sold out so some saw the value. We also sold several 5.1 so.........
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/8700k-pre-binned-question.18795325/
 
Last edited:
They launched earlier than they wanted apparently, so not many units. Obviously Gibbo has a more accurate account of things.
 
Nelly said:
Seems bizarre Intel would launch with hardly any K CPU's, but then again it slows down AMD sales with the sacrifice of destroying their own sales of Kabylake CPU's.

Imagine how many Z170/Z270 chipset motherboards are just gathering dust now with people holding off, must be costing Intel by doing this, but at least it costs AMD too and that's the main thing for Intel.

AMD should price drop the current CPU's and then launch Ryzen 2 as fast as they can get them out and under cut Intel.Mentions in the other thread, OcUK used ALL their 8700K RETAIL CPU's for binning, to sell at a massive profit, fair enough that's business.

They kept all this quiet due to Intels very own NDA and their was no retail 8700K to buy! meaning all these potential and loyal customers have been left in the ****. You have to laugh though, I did when I read that lol.https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/8700k-pre-binned-question.18795325/
Click to expand...


AMD has nothing to be scared of. Zen+ comes February, and 1700 at £275 is very cheap. Consider the 7820X and 6900K which is of equivalent perf are going for 2x to 2.5x the money, and almost triple the cost of motherboards in the case of X299. While 1600X is £200 cheaper than the 8700K. How about the 7800X which seems forgotten and of comparable perf with the 1600X but at higher price?

8700K has a very narrow market that make it worthy over any other offering in X299 or Ryzen, given the reviews. You must have a Vega64/GTX1080/1080ti game at 1080p 144hz/200hz without gsync, and use 1 NVMe drive to the likes of Samsung 960 Evo/Pro speed.

Any deviation of this parameters, there are better options, even by Intel.
2560x1440 or higher, all are of equal perf. GPU of less than GTX1080 perf, all are equal also. More than one Samsung 960 drive and gets bottlenecked by the DMI 3.0 connection.

Except if gaming at 800x640 or 1366x720 is your thing.
 
Panos said:
AMD has nothing to be scared of. Zen+ comes February, and 1700 at £275 is very cheap. Consider the 7820X and 6900K which is of equivalent perf are going for 2x to 2.5x the money, and almost triple the cost of motherboards in the case of X299. While 1600X is £200 cheaper than the 8700K. How about the 7800X which seems forgotten and of comparable perf with the 1600X but at higher price?

8700K has a very narrow market that make it worthy over any other offering in X299 or Ryzen, given the reviews. You must have a Vega64/GTX1080/1080ti game at 1080p 144hz/200hz without gsync, and use 1 NVMe drive to the likes of Samsung 960 Evo/Pro speed.

Any deviation of this parameters, there are better options, even by Intel.
2560x1440 or higher, all are of equal perf. GPU of less than GTX1080 perf, all are equal also. More than one Samsung 960 drive and gets bottlenecked by the DMI 3.0 connection.

Except if gaming at 800x640 or 1366x720 is your thing.
Click to expand...

Completely disagree. The reviews, the ones I take notice of anyway like Digital Foundry, show it mostly murdering the other CPU's in games at 1080p which is still the most common resolution. If I was looking at a gaming/streaming CPU I wouldn't look anywhere else at the moment.
 
B1gbeard said:
Completely disagree. The reviews, the ones I take notice of anyway like Digital Foundry, show it mostly murdering the other CPU's in games at 1080p which is still the most common resolution. If I was looking at a gaming/streaming CPU I wouldn't look anywhere else at the moment.
Click to expand...

you read only my last sentence?
 
B1gbeard said:
Completely disagree. The reviews, the ones I take notice of anyway like Digital Foundry, show it mostly murdering the other CPU's in games at 1080p which is still the most common resolution. If I was looking at a gaming/streaming CPU I wouldn't look anywhere else at the moment.
Click to expand...

The problem with this statement is, there is a noticeable shift away from 1080p gaming to 4K, with 1440p being on the up as well, yeah currently 1080p is still the most common, but the price of 1440p and 4k monitors are falling quite rapidly, the only thing really holding back 4k gaming now is GPU's...

Each generation of GPU pushes the previous tiers performance down one too, last years 980ti is now this years 1070 etc, next years 1170 will more than likely be this years 1080, 4K is getting closer and closer, give it a few years and 4k will be mid to low range gpu's, we are not far away from an era where it doesnt really matter how fast your CPU is, but it will matter how many cores you have to do the work.
 
B1gbeard said:
Completely disagree. The reviews, the ones I take notice of anyway like Digital Foundry, show it mostly murdering the other CPU's in games at 1080p which is still the most common resolution. If I was looking at a gaming/streaming CPU I wouldn't look anywhere else at the moment.
Click to expand...

It may be the most common used on Steam but on here most members are 1440 / UW or 4k where the fps difference between chips is pretty much none existent.
 
SiDeards73 said:
The problem with this statement is, there is a noticeable shift away from 1080p gaming to 4K, with 1440p being on the up as well, yeah currently 1080p is still the most common, but the price of 1440p and 4k monitors are falling quite rapidly, the only thing really holding back 4k gaming now is GPU's...

Each generation of GPU pushes the previous tiers performance down one too, last years 980ti is now this years 1070 etc, next years 1170 will more than likely be this years 1080, 4K is getting closer and closer, give it a few years and 4k will be mid to low range gpu's, we are not far away from an era where it doesnt really matter how fast your CPU is, but it will matter how many cores you have to do the work.
Click to expand...

That may be the case for us, but as an example my 2 sons and a dozen or so of their game playing friends in their 20's have no interest in 4k. They want their games to be playable at the absolute max FPS performance and they all game at 1080p. Maybe these new 144hz 4k panels coming will change that but 4k is still very niche overall. A 1080p high refresh monitor is £200ish.

I don't see Zen+ making up all of the difference there currently is so AMD are looking at 2019 possibly before their Ryzen catches a 8700k. That's not a criticism by the way, I think Ryzen is great, just don't see the Zen+ making up the current % performance difference.
 
Glanza said:
It may be the most common used on Steam but on here most members are 1440 / UW or 4k where the fps difference between chips is pretty much none existent.
Click to expand...

If that is the most common used on Steam then that is the most common full stop. If we are talking about just an enthusiasts forum then fine but I imagine we are talking about PC gamer's in general.
 
B1gbeard said:
That may be the case for us, but as an example my 2 sons and a dozen or so of their game playing friends in their 20's have no interest in 4k. They want their games to be playable at the absolute max FPS performance and they all game at 1080p. Maybe these new 144hz 4k panels coming will change that but 4k is still very niche overall. A 1080p high refresh monitor is £200ish.

I don't see Zen+ making up all of the difference there currently is so AMD are looking at 2019 possibly before their Ryzen catches a 8700k. That's not a criticism by the way, I think Ryzen is great, just don't see the Zen+ making up the current % performance difference.
Click to expand...
Are all those friends and sons run on 1080/1080ti?:)
 
B1gbeard said:
If that is the most common used on Steam then that is the most common full stop. If we are talking about just an enthusiasts forum then fine but I imagine we are talking about PC gamer's in general.
Click to expand...

The most common chip on steam is still a quad core, going by your reasoning then they won't be looking at these chips in the first place. Most places bench marking these chips and the posts on here are from enthusiasts not the average day to day user.
 
B1gbeard said:
There are a few 1080's in there but it's more about what they are aspiring to. They want the fastest FPS at 1080p and when they upgrade next that will be the only consideration.
Click to expand...
The best performance for gaming is with gpu upgrade, like you know majority gamers don't have the best gpu and spending £200 more on cpu (to get the best cpu)while sitting on 1050-1070 gtx is fail..
.and using "I want the best gaming experience that's why I upgrade cpu :D"
 
Glanza said:
The most common chip on steam is still a quad core, going by your reasoning then they won't be looking at these chips in the first place. Most places bench marking these chips and the posts on here are from enthusiasts not the average day to day user.
Click to expand...

Not really because for 1080p a £200 144hz monitor is about all they have the option for at the moment. In my experience they also seem more content to just sit with the monitor they have as long as it is 144hz. Image quality is a secondary concern for them at the moment. When they next upgrade, which will be next year, it will be about the fastest at 1080p and they were very interested in what the Digital Foundry video had to say. I understand it's not for us, but we aren't the majority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom