Thread: 8700k vs 7700k

Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #1

    8700k vs 7700k

    Hi guys, I'm building a pc to play WoW mainly and some other games. For WoW, will the 8700k perform better than the 7700k at baseline, not overclocked? Money is not an issue. I haven't found many threads on this topic, specifically for WoW.

  2. #2
    The 7700K is better for gaming since no game supports the six cores of the 8700K and personally I would go for the 8350K.
    Last edited by Amalaric; 2017-11-10 at 09:48 AM.
    "Every country has the government it deserves."
    Joseph de Maistre (1753 – 1821)


  3. #3
    8700k is always at least equal, usually a bit better, sometimes a lot better

    in WoW the benefit will be quite minor since the extra cores are not doing anything but it's still a slightly higher clocked 7700k on a better manufacturing process.

    make sure to get decent RAM (3000mhz+) and set XMP to use that speed, it can make huge differences to WoW performance. Going from 2400c16 to 3200c16 i've seen 15-20% FPS gains (margin for error under 1% on some) for every CPU limited WoW benchmark i've done w/ an OC'd 6700k.
    Last edited by Svisalith; 2017-11-10 at 10:34 AM.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Svisalith View Post
    8700k is always at least equal, usually a bit better, sometimes a lot better

    in WoW the benefit will be quite minor

    make sure to get decent RAM (3000mhz+) and set XMP to use that speed, it can make huge differences to WoW performance. Going from 2400c16 to 3200c16 i've seen 15-20% FPS gains (margin for error ~1%) on every CPU limited WoW benchmark w/ an OC'd 6700k.
    WoW only supports one core.
    "Every country has the government it deserves."
    Joseph de Maistre (1753 – 1821)


  5. #5
    It does not, a lot of the work is not highly multithreaded but there is significant scaling when enabling 3-4 cores. You can test this quite easily by either (quick test) removing WoW's core affinity for all cores but 1 in task manager or (long way) disabling cores in the bios and watching your performance fall off a cliff whenever you're CPU limited and only have 1 or 2 cores enabled.

    Going past 4c to 4c8t or 6c showed very minimal if any benefit on the benchmarks i've seen and personal tests that i did last expansion
    Last edited by Svisalith; 2017-11-10 at 09:46 AM.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Svisalith View Post
    It does not, a lot of the work is not highly multithreaded but there is significant scaling when enabling 3-4 cores. You can test this quite easily by either (quick test) removing WoW's core affinity for all cores but 1 in task manager or (long way) disabling cores in the bios and watching your performance fall off a cliff whenever you're CPU limited and only have 1 or 2 cores enabled.

    Going past 4c to 4c8t or 6c showed very minimal if any benefit on the benchmarks i've seen and personal tests that i did last expansion
    WoW only supports one core and hyper threading is not beneficial in games.
    Last edited by Amalaric; 2017-11-10 at 09:51 AM.
    "Every country has the government it deserves."
    Joseph de Maistre (1753 – 1821)


  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Amalaric View Post
    WoW only supports one core and hyper threading is not beneficial in games.
    You are wrong.

    https://eu.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/17613513716

  8. #8
    8700K will outperform the 7700K. Just. Real world, you'll be hard pushed to see the difference, I reckon. They're both complete overkill for the task in hand.

    I'm getting the i5-8400, but I'm waiting for the lower end motherboards to launch early next year, as well as for the shortages to disappear and even out the pricing. I can't see any real reason to pay twice as much for maybe 10% extra performance in games, and even then you'll only see that with a hugely expensive graphics card.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Yirman View Post
    You are the one who are wrong because WoW still doesn't support more than one core.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmist View Post
    8700K will outperform the 7700K. Just. Real world, you'll be hard pushed to see the difference, I reckon. They're both complete overkill for the task in hand.

    I'm getting the i5-8400, but I'm waiting for the lower end motherboards to launch early next year, as well as for the shortages to disappear and even out the pricing. I can't see any real reason to pay twice as much for maybe 10% extra performance in games, and even then you'll only see that with a hugely expensive graphics card.
    Anyone with any common sense can see that the 8350K is the best one for gamers.
    "Every country has the government it deserves."
    Joseph de Maistre (1753 – 1821)


  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Amalaric View Post
    Anyone with any common sense can see that the 8350K is the best one for gamers.
    That depends on how you define best. There's very little performance difference between them in most titles. Where there is a difference, it's in processing heavy titles, like Civ and Warhammer games. And it favours the 8400.

    The 8400 is also more future proof, IMO. Games are using more cores, not less. If you're willing to wait for the new boards, it will be much cheaper overall.

  11. #11
    in WoW no

    but if you have the money then buy 8700K for sure

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Amalaric View Post
    WoW only supports one core and hyper threading is not beneficial in games.
    Easy to disprove, i gave you several methods to get started with but you can find many more on google. Challenging yourself and learning is fun!

  13. #13
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Amalaric View Post
    You are the one who are wrong because WoW still doesn't support more than one core.
    I'm curious. How do you detect that it doesn't?

    When I open Windows task manager, I see it using 4 cores on my 4/8 i7-3770K pretty evenly with the usual ups and downs. This is true even in heavily populated areas with lots of spell effects flying, like 40 man invasions, Ashran (in WoD) etc.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmist View Post
    That depends on how you define best. There's very little performance difference between them in most titles. Where there is a difference, it's in processing heavy titles, like Civ and Warhammer games. And it favours the 8400.

    The 8400 is also more future proof, IMO. Games are using more cores, not less. If you're willing to wait for the new boards, it will be much cheaper overall.
    The only things that are future proof are things that doesn't evolve and a six core CPU is not future proof in any shape or form because in a few years time even the very cheap CPUs will have eight cores.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenNorth View Post
    I'm curious. How do you detect that it doesn't?

    When I open Windows task manager, I see it using 4 cores on my 4/8 i7-3770K pretty evenly with the usual ups and downs. This is true even in heavily populated areas with lots of spell effects flying, like 40 man invasions, Ashran (in WoD) etc.
    Thats because what you are seeing is your operating system using the four cores and not WoW.
    "Every country has the government it deserves."
    Joseph de Maistre (1753 – 1821)


  15. #15
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Amalaric View Post
    Thats because what you are seeing is your operating system using the four cores and not WoW.
    What kind of rubbish is this? The OS cannot split a single threaded task across multiple cores. That is just amateur hour. Programmer since 1980 wants to know.

  16. #16
    If money is not an issue, you can go full YOLO as I did - with 8700k + kraken x62 (not delided). This build is more future-proof. You can easily achieve 4.8-5.0 on all cores. I'm currently running 4.8 @ 1.25V because temps in stress are between 55-70*C, when running 5.0 @ 1.29 V temps are in 70-80*C. One side note, though - get big case. Mounting kraken x62 is pain in the &@^. I went with nzxt h440, and even when official docs says that you CAN top mount x62 there, it is not always true...

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenNorth View Post
    What kind of rubbish is this? The OS cannot split a single threaded task across multiple cores. That is just amateur hour. Programmer since 1980 wants to know.
    Your operating system can perform many tasks at the same time it's called multitasking and I'm sure that it has existed since at least 1980.
    "Every country has the government it deserves."
    Joseph de Maistre (1753 – 1821)


  18. #18
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Amalaric View Post
    Your operating system can perform many tasks at the same time it's called multitasking and I'm sure that it has existed since at least 1980.
    Oh boy, here we go...

    You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Suspected as much. The OS ability to run multiple tasks/threads at once have absolutely nothing to do with splitting a single thread across more than one CPU core.

    The fact that there is no generic method to split a single thread of execution due to concurrence issues is one of the main stumbling blocks as to why we cannot split every mathematical calculation across thousands of individual cores, linked by a network. Some problems, like calculating 3-D graphics for display on a monitor, are often trivial to parallelize. Others ... not so much.

    If a single program running on *any* OS occupies more than one physical CPU core, then it is because - and only because - the programmers of said program took this possibility into account and made adjustments to their code accordingly. Look up the problem with race conditions and synchronization if you want to know more about this.

  19. #19
    So many false statements in this thread it hurts. There are absolutely games that support 6 cores, some games support even more. BF1, is just one such example, and it's more common in DX12 titles. Other CPU havey titles like Witcher 3 benefit as well. WoW also absolutely supports more than 1 core, it has since Cata. The vast majority of the game load is still stuck on the primary CPU core, but ever since the Cata revamp WoW has supported up to 4 CPU cores. Yes again it doesn't support them very well, and WoW will always prefer IPC and clock speed on that first core, but having those extra cores does help.

    Performance gains between the 7700K and 8700K in those games that support 6 or more cores is still often close due to those games all supporting HT as well. And with 8 total threads, the 7700K can still perform. But even as an 8700K owner, I would not recommend either of those chips. The 8600K is the better option currently. It has those 6 cores for the games that support it, and going forward supporting 6 or more cores will now be the standard, not the exception. It's also $100 less than an 8700K, and can clock higher out of the box the majority of the time depending on the silicon lottery. The lack of the extra threads allows for slightly more thermal headroom to more easily push overclocks above 5Ghz without delidding or extremely warm temps.

    And @Amalaric, for the seemingly 40th time in this thread, yes WoW supports more than 1 core. Not only have you been provided links proving this it's easily observed by leaving a resource monitor open while in game. Yes, again, most of the load is on the first core, but the other cores aren't sitting around doing nothing like they would in a game that's truly single core. Windows background processes and other programs like Chrome use less than 5% of modern CPUs. Yet running WoW certain cores will be in the 10-40% usage range. Something they wouldn't be doing if WoW was truly a single core game.

    Here is proof of my own core usage on my 8700K. I have nothing running but some Chrome tabs and have pain open doing nothing so I can paste my screenshots. My Task Manager is included to prove this. I've included both in game and desktop idle to show the difference between the two. WoW was run, allowed to fully load everything, then I reset the recorded values on HWiNFO64 so it's max values would record only what was happening from WoW and nothing from the task of launching the game.



    In the second screenshot, you can see my current usage is down to almost nothing. And that's with 2 Chrome windows, 16 tabs total, running.



    You are also dead wrong to claim the 8350K is the "best one for gamers". Not a single reviewer on the planet agrees with that statement. The 8400 or 8600K are the chips most reviewers recommend. And all the benchmarks back up those recommendations and completely invalidate yours. Here is yet another example of a game benefiting from more than 6 cores from Gamers Nexus 8350K review. Watch Dogs 2 shows a clear advantage for CPU cores over clock speed, with the locked 8400 beating an Overclock 8350K. All the other higher core count CPUs beat it as well.


    Ashes of the Singularity is another example


    Yes not all games support 6 or more cores, but not that BOTH AMD and Intel have 6+ core/thread chips on the mainstream platform, 6 cores will replace 4 cores as the industry standard. It's already happening with existing games having already recieved updates to support the extra cores after Ryzen launched and new games like Wolfenstein 2 being optimized for the extra cores at launch.

    This is GN's summary from their review, point blank recommending the 8400 over the 8350K due to the 8350K being too expensive to justify it's use in the random games that prefer clock speed over core count still. It's not "every" game like you claim, it's not even "most" games. And the number of games that prefer fewer higher clock cores is shrinking with every new release. The only thing holding back the 8400 being the best value it could be is the lack of B series motherboards. When those less expensive boards hit the market, the 8400 will be an even bigger value performer than the 8350K than it currently is.

    "Even still, some games make it difficult to defend the 8350K over Intel’s own i5-8400 – it just depends on whether those applications like frequency or cores. Either way, like the 7350K’s launch price (which did later come down by $30), the 8350K is too expensive for its own good. We want to encourage Intel to continue with K-SKU i3 (and, ideally, Pentium) components, but the prices have to make sense. Even if we ignore AMD and just look at Intel’s own stack, the i3-8350K only really makes sense in exceedingly rare circumstances. Given the choice, we’d opt-out, generally speaking, and instead favor the i5-8400 or R5 1600 (and refer to the charts for help in that decision). The i5-8400’s presently required bundling with Z370 motherboards unfortunately nukes much of its price-performance potential, granted, and we won’t see B/H boards until 1Q18. Refer to the i5-8400 review for more information on that product."
    Last edited by Slicer299; 2017-11-10 at 10:54 AM.
    Cooler Master H500P Mesh | i7 8700K@5GHz | CLC 280 | Gigabyte Z370 Gaming 7 | 16GB Corsair Vengeance LP DDR4@3000MHz | EVGA GTX 1080 FTW2 | Samsung EVO 960 500GB | Samsung EVO 850 500GB | WD Black 3TB | AOC G2460PF 144Hz

  20. #20
    This should save you the pain of dealing with the "experts" here. the 8700k is about 10-20% better

    http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare...00K/3937vs3647

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •