Worth the upgrade to 8700k from 4770k for 1440p gaming @ 165Hz?

[AleksandarK]

@Hifihedgehog Everything is right exept the part of temps. It displays same temp result for both stock an OC. So it may have a broken mesuring diode.
@MarcParis I am disappointed too.
As far as TIM, they are using the same as on Sky-Lake. Maybe a bit better, tiny tiny bit. The one on Kaby-Lake was by far the worst. That RX VEGA comparison tho...

My own OP on CF Lake is next:
Fast for both gamaing and productivity.
Super hot and power hungry. I mean, shouldnt we try to lower the power consumption.
Needs more cores, the i5 should have 6c/12t and the i7 8c/16t. We may get that with next generation. Six are enough but would be nice to see more.

 

[Dedaciai]

Agreed. A little disappointed at temps of this CPU. I'm getting the new Dan Case that has 92mm AiO capabilities, but I'm not a fan of AiOs. Maybe someone else will go first on putting an 8700k in a Dan Case A4 and see how it performs temps wise. Or, better yet, maybe @dondan 's new LP CPU Heatsink will be able to handle it.

 

[SFF2008]

I will be building a new system soon using the 8700K, an LP53, and the following Dan Case clone. If the LP53 isn't up to the task, I'll have to find a way to fit in a 92mm AiO.

https://world.taobao.com/item/545250722223.htm

 

[Josh | NFC]

Let's face it. 8700K is not suitable for SFF systems.
It may be handled easily in terms of power consumption if used in Dan's case or M1. A proper SFX psu does not have any problem with it.
Gunique and HDplex are way out of his league, combined with a respective gpu.

I'm sorry, but this is not fair or true. I don't have experience with G-Unique's products (they look really good) but I do have lots of experience and hundreds of hours with HDPLEX's newest products. I can tell you that the 8700K and a 1060 could be powered no trouble at all with the HDPLEX 300 AC/DC.

 

[gffermari]

I'm sorry, but this is not fair or true. I don't have experience with G-Unique's products (they look really good) but I do have lots of experience and hundreds of hours with HDPLEX's newest products. I can tell you that the 8700K and a 1060 could be powered no trouble at all with the HDPLEX 300 AC/DC.

Of course both of psu could handle easily a combination of 8700K and a gpu like 1060. But i wrote ''respective'' gpu which means a 1080/Vega 64 and above. I don't think anyone would pair such a beast with a 1060, not even a 1070.

 

[gffermari]

Agreed. A little disappointed at temps of this CPU. I'm getting the new Dan Case that has 92mm AiO capabilities, but I'm not a fan of AiOs. Maybe someone else will go first on putting an 8700k in a Dan Case A4 and see how it performs temps wise. Or, better yet, maybe @dondan 's new LP CPU Heatsink will be able to handle it.

You may use a Corsair H60 or Silverstone something or else by using a ITX gpu.
Fortunately Gigabyte have released a 1080 ITX.

 

[AleksandarK]

Of course both of psu could handle easily a combination of 8700K and a gpu like 1060. But i wrote ''respective'' gpu which means a 1080/Vega 64 and above. I don't think anyone would pair such a beast with a 1060, not even a 1070.

Everyone has different evaluation of "Respective" GPU, so for someone it may be 1060. It is awesome for 1080p max settings at 80+ frames. So it is "Respective". At least IMO. And pairing a powerful CPU with mediocre graphics is not unheard of. Everyone has a different use case, where they might benefit from a strong CPU, but GPU is not doing anything, so it doesnt need to be powerful.

 

[Josh | NFC]

Of course both of psu could handle easily a combination of 8700K and a gpu like 1060. But i wrote ''respective'' gpu which means a 1080/Vega 64 and above. I don't think anyone would pair such a beast with a 1060, not even a 1070.

My best friend has the mentality of "if it's not the flagship card, it's garbage." He is entitled to his own opinion, but I believe he is wrong. He still is using a 960 because he can't afford a 1080 XP.

...he plays heroes of the storm

Meanwhile I have a build going now with an i9 + 1050ti, and another on planned for a 1050ti and 8700K when it gets here. Some people care about performance in their use case, not about charts and graphs on review websites.

Peace

 

[gffermari]

Yes, of course there may be someone who may use the 8700K with a 1060 or worse gpu but it's not the majority. If someone needs raw power and low end graphics, he could buy a ryzen 1700 or 8700 non K. Or a 7980X and a 1030.
The specific model 8700K, i think, addresses to gamers with ultra high demands, since there are a lot of models with 4/8 cores/threads which are extremely capable for gaming as well and 8/16 to 16/32 cpus that are more capable to professional use.

I do not care about charts and numbers and i do not have the mentality that everything has to be the flagship in the case.

 

[MarcParis]

Ahah, since i have my cerberus-x...i don't really care of thermals or power consumption...what i love my sff atx case... simply no compromise lol

 

[Hifihedgehog]

To illustrate 8700K's temperature defiencies, here is a non-synthetic gaming test mapping out tempeature while using the Alphacool Eisbear 420. Per the manufacturer, "[t]he Alphacool Eisbaer 420mm is the biggest and strongest expandable CPU AIO worldwide." Naturally, therefore, most other AIOs would fare far worse in this test configuration. Higher workloads such as video encoding and synthetic testing will be naturally higher. Those higher workloads will result in even higher temperatures in cramped ventilation or with air cooling.

From Gamespot:

Temperatures
As stated earlier in the methodology, we used the NZXT Kraken X62; an all-in-one liquid CPU cooler with a dual-fan 280mm radiator. However, the 8700K still got pretty hot. At idle, the CPU sat at a mild 32 degrees Celsius and went up to 78 degrees Celsius under load during our runs of X264. With using the 5.0GHz overclock profile, it reached 86 degrees Celsius under load in X264, which is considered higher than desirable.​

Let's break this down. At stock voltage and clock settings, the 8700K reached a temperature of 78 degrees Celsius. This was again with a premium AIO, NZXT Kraken X62, which is a $150+ solution with a 280mm radiator. By comparison, according to the Amazon reviews of the X62, the 7700K reaches maximum temperatures of the high 50 degrees Celsius with the same cooler. This is a twenty degree Celsius increase in temperature over the 7700K. Expect 80 to 90 temperatures with throttling with most normal cooling solutions. Beware of throttling, possibly thermal shutdown and heat damage (as has already been reported with X299) if attempting air cooling.

In short, this is frankly disappointing for what is the flagship of Intel's mainstream processor line. I could understand this if this were an HEDT processor in their X299 line, but it is not. There were reports of overheating with 7700K in DIY systems and mass market builds due to users and manufacturers using standard air cooling (e.g. the Cooler Master Hyper 212). This common theme of overheating will only worsen and become more commonplace for 8700K due to its added 20 degree Celsius disadvantage over its predecessor.

 

[MarcParis]

Well, well, finally i found my ryzen chip better than this 8700k...i still don't understand those temperature and power use of 8700k

 

[Vittra]

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...l-coffee-lake-i7-8700k-i5-8400-review-15.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...el-coffee-lake-i7-8700k-i5-8400-review-3.html

The thing about this particular result is I know all of the exact variables both from the review and subsequent posts from SKYMTL. Stock settings, manually set memory timings, and Multi Core Enhancement is turned off manually. That one is significant, because if it's on it's forcing all cores to run at the single core turbo setting. In this case, 4.6ghz. If you set an XMP profile on an Asus board, in recent generations it will ask if you want to run Asus Optimized (Multicore enhancement on) or Intel stock operation.

So for the pictures of reviews currently posted - did they truly run the processor at stock settings? Or is Multi-Core Enhancement of some kind forcing all core to run at the turbo boost speed, skewing the results?

Regarding the original question posted by the OP - you'd be better off overclocking the 4770K to 4.5ghz if possible and purchasing a new GPU.

As a sidenote, I've never run my XB271HU @ 165hz. 144hz is sufficient and keeps power consumption and 2d clockspeeds on the desktop reasonable. I'll cap games at 142 fps, or if I run enough frames consistently (double refresh rate, so ~280ish+), I'll let fastsync take over instead.