8700K VS Older Gen i7's (Ivy-Haswell-KabyLake vs Coffeelake)

[Born_2_Kill_83]

A 970 is plenty performance for some-one on 1080p, upgrading to a 8700k will increase fps massively, so would upgrading to a 1080ti, either upgrades will make a big difference, if money is an issue one might want to do one now and the other later, upgrading the cpu to an 8700k will greatly future proof that user.

 

[B1gbeard]

There are two sides to the argument, one of which is present for some people but not others, the FPS per £ spent, or just out and out value for money.

Logic would state that if you are running, lets say a 3570K, with 16GB RAM, and a GTX 970 and you want to upgrade for better FPS, changing the CPU/Motherboard/RAM is not going to offer much in terms or bang for your buck, and not really improve the FPS output from your system. The sensible option would be a newer, faster Graphics card e.g. GTX 1070, and possibly swapping out to a 3770/3770K, netting you a much greater level of FPS for similar monies spent to the CPU/Motherboard/RAM.

If you don't care about how much you spend, and have an unrestricted budget, then yes upgrading it all is going to give you some improvements over the aforementioned option, but the level of diminishing returns for the money spent will be incredibly noticeable. These videos help highly just how good old hardware still is, and how a lot of it can keep up with modern GPU's for the most part at 1440p/4k, but there will always be exceptions, and those will get bigger over time, but the value argument about how much you are paying to have 5/10/15/20/25/30 extra FPS is what really matters to the majority.

Until the likes of the equivalent of the GTX 1060, can bottleneck an older i7, and peg the frame rates to below 60, or with severe stuttering then then, don't spend the money on the CPU etc, spend it on games, spend it on a larger SSD, spend it on taking your wife out, or just put it away for a rainy day when you need a new CPU.

I suppose when someone asks whether it's worth an upgrade they don't go into their finances. I'm not sure about the buy other stuff instead bit. This could be money that is available for one or the other so spending it on games or an SSD may stop an upgrade later. If someone is thinking about an upgrade then it's going to gnaw away at them. We all know what that's like right?

The issue is someone providing false information to someone asking whether it is worth upgrading and to keep doing it in every thread. There are enough reviews out there showing that with GPU's that are not 1080ti's and at 1440p (4k is where things level out the most it seems) the CPU can make a difference. It's then up to the individual whether it's worth it.

It starting to look like a crusade to put people off of, in this case, upgrading to Coffeelake for whatever grudge or issue the poster has.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I suppose when someone asks whether it's worth an upgrade they don't go into their finances. I'm not sure about the buy other stuff instead bit. This could be money that is available for one or the other so spending it on games or an SSD may stop an upgrade later. If someone is thinking about an upgrade then it's going to gnaw away at them. We all know what that's like right?

The issue is someone providing false information to someone asking whether it is worth upgrading and to keep doing it in every thread. There are enough reviews out there showing that with GPU's that are not 1080ti's and at 1440p (4k is where things level out the most it seems) the CPU can make a difference. It's then up to the individual whether it's worth it.

It starting to look like a crusade to put people off of, in this case, upgrading to Coffeelake for whatever grudge or issue the poster has.

It isn't false - its the reality of most gaming rigs out there. Remember this is a hardware enthusiasts forum,where many people want to justify buying new parts just because they want a new toy. FFS,look on Steam there are hardly any GTX1080TI users on their compared to say a GTX750TI and the GTX750TI has more users than the GTX1070,GTX1080 and GTX1080TI COMBINED!

I am not saying moving to a GTX1080TI and Core i7 8700K won't give you the best gaming performance,but the issue is that considering what card most gamers have its questionable whether its even worth upgrading every part. Even for me the one game I play which is CPU limited in parts on a GTX1080 at qHD is because I modded the game massively and probably more than what 99% of people playing the normal game would do. Even then with the latest Windows 10 update,me trying out game mode(which I had ignored),and a few tweaks has enabled me to gain a few more FPS.

Heck,for some of the more lightly threaded games an overclocked £100 Core i3 7350k might even be a better choice in terms of performance per pound spent.

OTH,in the real world many gamers are not that clued up on hardware so actually will ask on forums to see IF they need an upgrade - I have saved people tons of money,by pushing them to system upgrades not full rebuilds,as they have not realised their existing parts are good enough to do the job.

Look at how many times enthusiasts say an older CPU or GPU "sucks" in a game - yet its often because one part does 100FPS and the other 80FPS. Yet,since most are on 60HZ monitors,that is still way above 60FPS.

Sometimes its not even their rigs which are the issue,but the server side of online games which can be the issues,or even a simple software issue. I remember on here someone was going to ditch a pefectly good R9 290/290X card since they had "issues" with it and people OFC said buy XYZ. Me and one or two others noticed something was amiss with the card,and we figured out they had a crytocurrency mining virus on their computer - once they managed to remove it the card was fine and they had saved 100s of quid.

Its the same with me - I have tended to be far more critical with my own upgrades so have actually got decent usage out of my parts.

The fact is PC gaming is not expensive in reality,despite many moaning forums that it is,but enthusiasts can make it sound like you need the latest and greatest,hence pushing up the cost of PC gaming and making consoles actually look a viable alternative(as even a few on here have started to mention).

You need to think of this logically - most of the games which run poorly on reasonable hardware tend to be early access or poor ports of console games,where the console is the main platform. However,for most games,devs need to target a middle ground if they want to have people actually buy their games in the first place. Look at some ofth

 

[B1gbeard]

It isn't false - its the reality of most gaming rigs out there. Remember this is a hardware enthusiasts forum,where many people want to justify buying new parts just because they want a new toy. FFS,look on Steam there are hardly any GTX1080TI users on their compared to say a GTX750TI and the GTX750TI has more users than the GTX1070,GTX1080 and GTX1080TI COMBINED!

I am not saying moving to a GTX1080TI and Core i7 8700K won't give you the best gaming performance,but the issue is that considering what card most gamers have its questionable whether its even worth upgrading every part. Heck,for some of the more lightly threaded games an overclocked £100 Core i3 7350k might even be a better choice.

OTH,in the real world many gamers are not that clued up on hardware so actually will ask on forums to see IF they need an upgrade - I have saved people tons of money,by pushing them to system upgrades not full rebuilds,as they have not realised their existing parts are good enough to do the job.

Sometimes its not even their rigs which are the issue,but the server side of online games which can be the issues,or even a simple software issue. I remember on here someone was going to ditch a pefectly good R9 290/290X card since they had "issues" with it and people OFC said buy XYZ. Me and one or two others noticed something was amiss with the card,and we figured out they had a crytocurrency mining virus on their computer - once they managed to remove it the card was fine and they had saved 100s of quid.

Its the same with me - I have tended to be far more critical with my own upgrades so have actually got decent usage out of my parts.

The fact is PC gaming is not expensive in reality,despite many moaning forums that it is,but enthusiasts can make it sound like you need the latest and greatest,hence pushing up the cost of PC gaming and making consoles actually look a viable alternative(as even a few on here have started to mention).

Never said anything about what people have and have not. It is false though to say that everything evens out with GPU's that are not 1080ti's or at 1440p. Some games sure, but there are plenty of numbers out there that show otherwise.

I'm not suggesting anyone should upgrade anything by the way. I'm still holding out on my 3930k. Just that it should be done without people trying to influence someone's decision by stating facts that are provably false by the same way (reviews) that the facts are stated.

 

[gavinh87]

Never said anything about what people have and have not. It is false though to say that everything evens out with GPU's that are not 1080ti's or at 1440p. Some games sure, but there are plenty of numbers out there that show otherwise.

I'm not suggesting anyone should upgrade anything by the way. I'm still holding out on my 3930k. Just that it should be done without people trying to influence someone's decision by stating facts that are provably false by the same way (reviews) that the facts are stated.

I agree with this. So much nonsense being spouted on these boards.
Then again, so many "reviews" from youtubers are also BS. Like testing CPU performance with a 1070 etc, its a minefield for newcomers.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Never said anything about what people have and have not. It is false though to say that everything evens out with GPU's that are not 1080ti's or at 1440p. Some games sure, but there are plenty of numbers out there that show otherwise.

I'm not suggesting anyone should upgrade anything by the way. I'm still holding out on my 3930k. Just that it should be done without people trying to influence someone's decision by stating facts that are provably false by the same way (reviews) that the facts are stated.

I never said it ALWAYS evens out,like I said the one game I noticed being CPU limited was CPU limited at qHD,and that is highly modded FO4 in my largest settlements(because I can get dips down to 25~30FPS but the latest Windows update and me trying game mode seems to have helped add a few FPS) ,but again literally every other game I have tried isn't like that. It can be proven by the fact if I overclock my GTX1080 GPU and RAM,even on my old IB Core i7,I see linear increases in performance in most of the other games I play.

Plus again remember,one CPU sucks because it produces 100FPS instead of 125FPS in an intensive part of the game with a GTX1080TI at 1080p,etc. Most gamers don't own 120HZ monitors,etc. If anything it reminds sometimes of the MP war with cameras a few years back.

Lots of times people are more worried about relative metrics then actually looking at physical performance.

You need to understand I have mates with WORSE CPUs than mine,who are still more GPU limited than CPU limited since they don't have the latest greatest graphics card,but they still play newish games too and they are not slideshows either,since I have watched them play the said games when we do LANs,etc. Its why I increasing look at YT to see if you really need to put down £300 on a new piece of hardware,etc.

Even with some of the online games I have played,one or two are far more limited on the server side,to the extent we all saw similar drops at EXCACTLY the same time. An example was D3 at the beginning when Rifts were first introduced,it didn't matter whether it was Haswell,IB,or even an AMD processor at the time,performance could go down the sink at certain points. Then PS2 which does better on faster CPUs,until you hit the same issues during huge battles where performance is still POS.
Even in SC2 which loves single threaded performance,where plenty of people with modern Core i5s were getting thrashed by this bloke using a Phenom II X4 at a LAN I went to a few years ,which meant he was getting enough performance to still win the games convincingly(he was apparently in the Master or Diamond League).

The fact of the matter this is a hardware enthusiasts forum where people justify reasons to change out hardware at every generation,and then try to make out old hardware can't run games decently to any degree. Its hilarious where I have seen people ditch perfectly good hardware and then go on how "slow" it is,and I see plenty of people running said games on the "slow" hardware in RL getting great performance.

 

[B1gbeard]

I never said it ALWAYS evens out,like I said the one game I noticed being CPU limited was CPU limited at qHD,and that is highly modded FO4 in my largest settlements(because I can get dips down to 25~30FPS but the latest Windows update and me trying game mode seems to have helped add a few FPS) ,but again literally every other game I have tried isn't like that. It can be proven by the fact if I overclock my GTX1080 CPU and RAM,even on my old IB Core i7,I see linear increases in performance in most of the other games I play.

Plus again remember,one CPU sucks because it produces 100FPS instead of 125FPS in an intensive part of the game with a GTX1080TI at 1080p,etc. Most gamers don't own 120HZ monitors,etc. If anything it reminds sometimes of the MP war with cameras a few years back.

Lots of times people are more worried about relative metrics then actually looking at physical performance.

You need to understand I have mates with WORSE CPUs than mine,who are still more GPU limited than CPU limited since they don't have the latest greatest graphics card,but they still play newish games too and they are not slideshows either,since I have watched them play the said games when we do LANs,etc. Its why I increasing look at YT to see if you really need to put down £300 on a new piece of hardware,etc.

Even with some of the online games I have played,one or two are far more limited on the server side,to the extent we all saw similar drops at EXCACTLY the same time. An example was D3 at the beginning when Rifts were first introduced,it didn't matter whether it was Haswell,IB,or even an AMD processor at the time,performance could go down the sink at certain points. Then PS2 which does better on faster CPUs,until you hit the same issues during huge battles where performance is still POS.
Even in SC2 which loves single threaded performance,where plenty of people with modern Core i5s were getting thrashed by this bloke using a Phenom II X4 at a LAN I went to a few years ,which meant he was getting enough performance to still win the games convincingly(he was apparently in the Master or Diamond League).

The fact of the matter this is a hardware enthusiasts forum where people justify reasons to change out hardware at every generation,and then try to make out old hardware can't run games decently to any degree. Its hilarious where I have seen people ditch perfectly good hardware and then go on how "slow" it is,and I see plenty of people running said games on the "slow" hardware in RL getting great performance.

OK so what is it you are disagreeing with then as it doesn't sound like you are responding to me anymore?

This video as a point of reference shows that a 1080 and even a 1070 can show an increase in FPS across a selection of CPU's. In some games the CPU is clearly having an effect. I'm not saying this video is accurate but it is one of a number of reviews that dispute the points we are talking about. It's not the best thing to do maybe if cost is a concern but the difference is there.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

OK so what is it you are disagreeing with then as it doesn't sound like you are responding to me anymore?

This video as a point of reference shows that a 1080 and even a 1070 can show an increase in FPS across a selection of CPU's. In some games the CPU is clearly having an effect. I'm not saying this video is accurate but it is one of a number of reviews that dispute the points we are talking about. It's not the best thing to do maybe if cost is a concern but the difference is there.

You are just proving my point about relative numbers. Look at the actual numbers,LMAO.

If I listened to "so called" experts like you I would have piddled away £100s if not more on useless upgrades.

Even that video shows the same - look at the G4560 with a GTX1060 or GTX1070,and the the locked Core i5. Oh noes! You can get 60FPS on any of those games tested at 1080p.

I mean I could understand 30FPS vs 50FPS,but none of those games seem that CPU intensive!

Look at the scores with a GTX1060 too,almost all the games are GPU bottlenecked. Plus all 1080p tests too,so once you move to qHD and 4K it gets worse.

So this is all this is really - hardware enthusiasts on forums trying to justify buying a new toy when most people are more likely to be GPU bottlenecked. Its to be expected when the very same people here on this forum have upgraded almost every year to the latest CPU or GPU.

Edit!!

Look at what the reviewer said - he said "only" a GTX1070 and then mentioned it was an "expensive" GPU.

But like I said before I also don't have any issues people doing to some degree too,as it means the secondhand market is there which is a viable option for many too!

 

[Journey]

This video as a point of reference shows that a 1080 and even a 1070 can show an increase in FPS across a selection of CPU's.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say by linking the video? It's about CPU's ranging from G4560, Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5, 7700K, and the older 2500K and showing what the level of performance you'll get with a GTX 1060/1070/1080. The conclusion being that most CPU's unless you are at the super budget level don't really have a great deal of problem running with in a small margin of the others, and even the 2500K is holding it own still.

Please answer this question honestly, if someone asked you if they should upgrade their CPU/Mobo/RAM or Graphics Card, and they had the following config what would you say - i7 2600K with 8GB RAM and a 780Ti?

 

[P4Clock]

4cores 8 threads vs 6cores 12 threads..... wow I am so shocked it better.

Try benching old i7 vs new i5

 

[B1gbeard]

You are just proving my point about relative numbers. Look at the actual numbers,LMAO.

If I listened to "so called" experts like you I would have piddled away £100s if not more on useless upgrades.

Even that video shows the same - look at the G4560 with a GTX1060 or GTX1070,and the the locked Core i5. Oh noes! You can get 60FPS on any of those games tested at 1080p.

Look at the scores with a GTX1060 too,almost all the games are GPU bottlenecked. Plus all 1080p tests too,so once you move to qHD and 4K it gets lower and lower.

So this is all this is really - hardware enthusiasts on forums trying to justify buying a new toy. Its to be expected when the very same people here on this forum have upgraded almost every year to the latest CPU or GPU.

Edit!!

Look at what the reviewer said - he said "only" a GTX1070 and then mentioned it was an "expensive" GPU.

I think you are missing the point. I don't see anyone saying you should waste £100's on useless upgrades or that it is financially a good idea or that all the CPU's aren't running the games well, they are. Just that the statement made was false, which it is, irrespective of how someone views whether 10/20fps are important.

Also by your last statement it feels the issue is not people having to justify whether they upgrade every year but maybe the fact that you don't or can't. Sounds a tad bitter.

 

[B1gbeard]

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say by linking the video? It's about CPU's ranging from G4560, Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5, 7700K, and the older 2500K and showing what the level of performance you'll get with a GTX 1060/1070/1080. The conclusion being that most CPU's unless you are at the super budget level don't really have a great deal of problem running with in a small margin of the others, and even the 2500K is holding it own still.

Please answer this question honestly, if someone asked you if they should upgrade their CPU/Mobo/RAM or Graphics Card, and they had the following config what would you say - i7 2600K with 8GB RAM and a 780Ti?

How well they run the game wasn't the statement though with the greatest respect. The point made was that at 1080p unless you are running a 1080ti all of the CPU's perform the same with a 1080/1070 etc where they clearly don't. Things also don't always even out as much at 1440p as was claimed. I agree the margins are not huge, although it is >20% is some games, but for some people that would be enough to warrant it.

Honestly I would upgrade the GPU if it was going to be a one off but again that wasn't the point. I think you have to think of the future as well. At some point we will all upgrade our CPU's. It's not a either or thing. For someone looking at upgrading the rig you mention depending on budget a Coffeelake now and a Volta next year makes sense as well. Less impact initially but you get the next gen GPU.

 

[Journey]

How well they run the game wasn't the statement though with the greatest respect. The point made was that at 1080p unless you are running a 1080ti all of the CPU's perform the same with a 1080/1070 etc where they clearly don't. Things also don't always even out as much at 1440p as was claimed. I agree the margins are not huge, although it is >20% is some games, but for some people that would be enough to warrant it.

Fair enough, I suppose if you are hitting the below 60 fps mark, in 0.1% and 1% lows regularly then it may be worth while, but you'll need to be running a current gen GPU, GTX 1060 6G or above to see any benefit at all by the look of things. Oh and the 980Ti too, I don't think there is anything else that will show the differences, and what ever AMD have to offer at a similar speed.

Honestly I would upgrade the GPU if it was going to be a one off but again that wasn't the point. I think you have to think of the future as well. At some point we will all upgrade our CPU's. It's not a either or thing. For someone looking at upgrading the rig you mention depending on budget a Coffeelake now and a Volta next year makes sense as well. Less impact initially but you get the next gen GPU.

Yes, no dispute there eventually, everyone would need to upgrade their CPU, say if their gaming priorities changed wanted to go to super high refresh rates etc. but there is never a good time to upgrade, but there are terrible times, and poor times equally to more optimal ones. It's almost embarrassing how good older CPU's are still, and only now are they being shown up by more modern GPU's, and anyone who has had 6 years from a 2600K has certainly had great value for money. However IMHO buying into either a new AMD/Intel platform now, would be a bit of a waste since we know that AMD are doing Zen refresh and Intel already have 10nm 8 cores on the cards, I would then hope one of these options may last the user another 4-5 years. vs. what is on offer today.

Obviously moving up to 4K and coming soon 8K gaming changes things again, and it starts to look like CPU's just are hardly relevant anymore for current generation games, yes I said both 8K and CPU's not relevant anymore.

 

[Doogles]

End result:

New PC : Go for 8700k
Upgrade PC: Don't unless 1080p 240hz required (Pro gamer) or you like the latest and greatest for no reason

Not true with BF 1 stutter happens even with decent frame rates, it the frame time you want to look at with my 3570k 100% in 64 player multiplayer I really need to find a 8700k in stock soon.

 

[Born_2_Kill_83]

I agree with this. So much nonsense being spouted on these boards.
Then again, so many "reviews" from youtubers are also BS. Like testing CPU performance with a 1070 etc, its a minefield for newcomers.

This ^^
For youtube the only people I listen to are Digital Foundary, Linus and the chap with long curly hair (forget his name) and maybe Jay2cents.

 

[southernorth]

Not true with BF 1 stutter happens even with decent frame rates, it the frame time you want to look at with my 3570k 100% in 64 player multiplayer I really need to find a 8700k in stock soon.

Yep, same setup as you and BF1 is unplayable for me as well due the reasons you listed. What upgrade are you considering?

 

[Doogles]

Yep, same setup as you and BF1 is unplayable for me as well due the reasons you listed. What upgrade are you considering?

I was going to go with Ryzen and waited for Coffee but now with it being no stock I'm considering Ryzen+ if it arrives shortly, 8700k would be great but I wanted to buy it on release date although having waited 6 months another 1-2 months isn't too bad I guess.

 

[southernorth]

I was going to go with Ryzen and waited for Coffee but now with it being no stock I'm considering Ryzen+ if it arrives shortly, 8700k would be great but I wanted to buy it on release date although having waited 6 months another 1-2 months isn't too bad I guess.

For purely gaming, I would be genuinely surprised if Ryzen+ beats a 8700k, or even an 8600k

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

For purely gaming, I would be genuinely surprised if Ryzen+ beats a 8700k, or even an 8600k

It depends if its simply a slight clock bump(and a slight IPC increase) or whether they increase the inter-CCX communication bandwidth. But its apparently being released in February and AMD dates have been know to slip in the past(will be dependent on Global Foundries).

OTH,the CFL was meant to be an early 2018 launch,so its no wonder stock is limited. The price will drop down in the next two months.

 

[Doogles]

For purely gaming, I would be genuinely surprised if Ryzen+ beats a 8700k, or even an 8600k

Yeah I know Coffee will still be better but I don't want to support Intel with their terrible TIM and overpriced hardware, for what I want a £180 R5 1600 would do me fine but I also like to have the best so waited for the 8700k only to be told "Sorry but this is a paper launch to stop you buying Ryzen, also get ****** you'll have to delid for decent temps".