• 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.

Official OcUK Coffeelake review thread

~>Dg<~ said:
yup get on a new modern monitor.then say it doesnt matter.you want as much horsepower as possible.
Click to expand...

I keep my monitor to 1920x1080 to save the amount of money I need to spend on a GPU. It allows my system to last longer this way and is cheaper
 
Only dorks on forums really care though. Most gamers are not that bothered and this is why 1080p and 60HZ is the most common monitor still. A Core i5 8400(or even a Core i5 8600K) or AMD equivalent will do the job perfectly fine for years,and you will always spend more on graphics cards then CPUs.

As others mentioned,£170 on a graphics card is a massive amount if you went with say a Core i5 8400. It would easily mean you getting a GTX1070 instead of a GTX1060 3GB or RX570 4GB.

Even a Core i5 8600K would save you £100 over a Core i7 8700K and that would easily net you a GTX1070 8GB over a GTX1060 6GB or RX580 8GB.

An average gamer doing that could easily skip one additional GPU upgrade cycle by doing that,hence saving money longterm.

If you are the type who has budgeted for a GTX1080TI then fair enough,but I would argue looking at the reviews HT isn't adding much.
 
Last edited:
I feel a disturbance in the force. That, or some people are skirting close to a GC strike...
 
Journey said:
I said, on pricing... not impact on the mark you said it would be "somewhat over £200, maybe £220 or £230" now it is released at ~£175 it has become good value, no? You can get a decent ASRock Z370 board for £109.99 or less, so I'd hardly call boards a problem if you are buying an 8400 chip.
Click to expand...

I thought Coffee lake would have performed quite a bit faster than it turned out. The price of the 8400 reflects it's performance pretty well. The downer on the boards is the price and limited life span.
 
How much are the B360's going to cost? i mean , if they are £50 - £60 - if it needs replacing after 3-4 years anyway by then i assume we would have progressed to next gen.
 
What I want to know is is this new chip faster or slower on single core performance at the same speed as a 6700k. The only bit I found relevent in these reviews is that if the core gets to capacity it will use an additional one causing a slowdown. But that should not matter if you have your speed locked with your overclock settings right?
 
DarkBahamut said:
There is a reason to chase high FPS today: longevity.

A chip that's doing 120fps Vs <100fps today is going to keep running games at >60fps far long into the future. Considering a platforms value in this second only is no value consideration at all.

The same discussions happen every single time core counts change, and before that it was when L2 cache sizes changed or the FSB speeds changed. The whole internet's just been going round in circles for 2 decades on this :p
Click to expand...
Historically inaccurate though - often the CPU with the best performance drops off faster than some with poorer stats to start with. This has been especially noticeable for CPUs with few cores where fast single-threading gives them a momentary lead that over time they lose to better multi-tasking CPUs.
 
Still not sure what to make of these chips compared to the last gen. Definitely awesome going up to 6 cores from 4 though. Those complaints about stutter in things like BF1 with only 4 cores should hopefully be a thing of the past now? PLUS... you get the IPC to push things for higher frames... albeit with a cost attached.

EVH said:
I feel a disturbance in the force. That, or some people are skirting close to a GC strike...
Click to expand...

For the sake of my own personal comedy... I am gonna pretend that means Garbage Collection rather than Graphics Cards... :D
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Only dorks on forums really care though. Most gamers are not that bothered and this is why 1080p and 60HZ is the most common monitor still.
Click to expand...

+1 this. Like I said on the other page for the intel release, this is why consoles will always sell in abundance as the masses aren't bothered about benchmarks, just gaming and everyday use. The price gap between a good gaming system and the good benchmarking systems continue to grow. Outside of the circles people like 8 pack move in, what actual use does a benchmark have on anyone, other than psychological 'need MOAR power' if they just want to play games? Also it's all good and well being able to run multi core benchmarks for productivity but even then is waiting an extra few seconds on rendering really an issue outside of a small segment of the market?

This is why Intel and NVidia never need to raise the bar other than staying slightly ahead of AMD as it's only in recent games that those with a 2600k or 780ti have genuinely probably needed to upgrade to continue to play AAA at 1080p / 60hz.
 
Born_2_Kill_83 said:
When will 6 cores start to show their age? Already mainstream in games like pubg.
Click to expand...
Well if one looks at the tech power up relative gaming performance chart a stock quad core is 'identical'* to an overclocked 8700k. *I suspect the overclocked 7700k would pull back that 1%.

So given quad cores are topping the charts, beating out 8 core opposition I suspect they are safe for a while...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom