That would be a review of the cooler, not the CPU. And anyone buying a 400+USD CPU should invest in a decent cooler as well, that is just common sense.
They used to but Intel coolers are so bad that no one used them so instead of making one that was usable for the k CPU's they just stopped including them. At least the other guys include them still and 2 of the 3 are actually usable as coolers. Personally I would rather have some sort of cooler included so at least would be up and running if the high end air or water cooler was om back order or waiting on shipping at least can get the system built and running.
The ones they sent out with the older -K series processors were a joke. My i5-2500K came with a cooler that couldn't even cool it within Intel's specs running stock in a cold room.
I'm still using the one which came with my 4790K and it works fine, and the one my 2500K came with also worked fine when I had it, even at 30C ambient temps in the middle of summer.
Probably an installation error there Flunk.
(yes, I bought K series processors and never overclocked them, for both of these my intention was to downclock them for reduced heat and noise but never got round to it with the 2500K and the 4790K didn't really downclock very well so I couldn't be bothered!)
Absolutely incorrect. I installed tons of the stock Intel coolers on i5s and i7s and they work as specified for the stock settings of the CPUs plus were normally very quiet.
If it were more similar to the 4790K with a better thermal design (think devils canyon..) it's something I'd be interested in over the 8700K. It's not tho… and doesn't even come with a specialty cooler that might peak interest.. but rather "NO COOLER" at all.. I dunno..
Who *actually* thought, after so many years of Intel not giving coolers with it's "K" model variants, that this one might come with a bundled cooler? :)
A bin that is a big let down, with no better 2-6 core turbos it makes this CPU only marginally better then the 8700k. they could of tried to have the other turbo speeds have some improvements.
It's a whimsical anniversary celebration CPU. What were you expecting? It will only sell to people who want it for the novelty/collectors aspect. Anyone getting it for the performance delta deserves to lose their money.
So what happened here? It looks like Intel's play with frequencies made this throttle more often. At least that the only explanation I can find for 8700k ending up better in so many tests.
I don't think it's worse as much as the silicon lottery exists regardless of it. In other words, even among speed binned parts some OC better than others. And that's true for both the 8086K, the 8700K or any others.
I'd be very interested in this processor if it brought something to the table to justify it's cost. The 4790K did with a better thermal design. They could have added a kick ass cooler, or a factory delid and redo for better thermals. Something .. anything besides a small bump in clocks.
It might be milking, but I kind of have a hard time believing that. They're only making 50,000 of them, and only at about a 21% markup over the 8700k. But they're flat out giving away 16% of the chips. I doubt Intel is going to milk much money beyond their regular business from this. It's the companies 50th anniversary year, so I'm going to guess it's just positive fanfare and a collector's item related to that and it happening to be an anniversary for a well known processor at the same time.
I enjoy hating Intel as much as the next guy but this is a good point.
Revenue from 41,914 8086Ks: $17,813,450 Revenue from 50,000 8700Ks: $17,500,000 (at $350 apiece)
The remaining $313,450 doesn't really feel like a lot of money when you factor in binning the chips and dealing with all the other overhead of the promotion, especially since Intel isn't getting all of that money anyway.
This was actually not the revenue but the PROFIT you blind people with easily effed brains. The production cost for this chip was probably less then 20 bucks. The processor in your phone is probably more hi-tech, has more transistors, more cores, and was made on more advances factories with 10nm litho being all sold below $25.
His maths is bang on, although he neglects the cut the retailer will be taking off the top for that. They aren't making that much profit off each chip.
They aren't making that much profit off each chip? If they aren't making huge profits then all mobile chip factories lose money by selling the same transistor count processors like the one in Apple or Samsung phones for just $25
who said binned chips? that would imply added costs. Did intel make some official statement? There is now way the 8086ks are binned chips. Intel clocked the 4.7ghz core to 5ghz on a 8700k. That's doable on any cooler you dont need a binned chip for that. Perhaps additional testing was done to make sure they're stable but there is no way intel cherry picked these chips.
No real explanation why the 8086K underperforms the 8700K in multithreaded CPU tests, then. Considering they are rated the same at more than dual-core usage I can't really understand.
As noted in the testbed section, this wasn't run on our standard testbed since Ian didn't have it with him in Taiwan. Every motherboard is different, sometimes infuriatingly so.
The multiplier chart doesn't make sense. The single core is 5Ghz, but Intel is quoting 4.7 Ghz all core and you're showing 4.4 identical to 8700K. I understand the base frequencies are the same, but the default multiplier for the 8086K should be higher. Is this a possible bios glitch or is the multiplier chart in the CPU not correct?
Boost frequencies are all the same on 5 cores. there is a youtube video with somebody testing this chip on a z370 gaming 7 and you can clearly see in that video that boost is the same on all cores except 1. Intel = lame.
One thing that is strange is the name - the Original IBM PC that started this whole PC industry used the intel 8088 processor and not the Intel 8086 processor. The difference is that 8088 has 8 bit external and 8086 has 16 bit external - But CPU's used 16 bit internally. No internal Floating processor until the 386 line.
But it wild that it been 40 years - I have an original IBM PC - in my downstairs closet, I remember while at Georgia Tech - putting a 2Meg Ram card into and booting up to 1.4Meg ramdisk and loading Microsoft C 3.0 compiler on it.
As for new one - it would be cool if they actually included the original chip also as part of collectors edition.
I had a special card in the PC - it was EMS memory - that could also fill up the main system memory to 640kb - instead of normal cache mode use by the card - I configured it as ram drive. Memory above 640Kb was directly accessible by the system.
OOORrrrr....its a different motherboard, not the usual test bed. The motherboard used for this is an asrock board, which explains the difference in performance.
How did they get such a lower score on the Dolphin benchmark with a 5ghz overclock on the 8086k? Isn't the benchmark single core only and considering the 8086 already turbos to 5ghz on a single core, why would there be that much of a difference? I tried it on my 8700k at 5ghz and only get a score of about 265-270 with 2666mhz ram.
The 5.0 GHz turbo, at stock, doesn't kick in that often. Depends on how the software sets its own affinity, and most do not. This is the danger with only single core turbo - with all the modern software in the background, even with Windows and scheduling, you rarely hit single core Turbo.
7 years ago, first batches of Core i7-2600K (like mine) were able to reach stable 5.0-5.2 GHz on water, on all 4 cores. Given 7 years difference and 32 vs 14 nm, I am maybe not disappointed (there are +2 cores, half a CPU more), but rather not amused. IPC is higher, that's one, DDR4 can reach 3 times higher frequencies than DDR3, that's two, so there are improvements, but given the bovine excrement that goes on chipset side and PCI-Express connectivity it's clear to see the stagnation.
Total flop. The processor in your phone is probably more hi-tech, has more transistors, more cores, and was made on more advances factories with 10nm litho being all sold below $25.
They mostly serve different purposes and apps and have different TDP. But if you restrict consumption power of Intel processors to the same one of mobile processors then in the same apps it's not clear in advance which one will win.
Time for ARM to look at the server and supercomputers markets.
So are the regular i7-8600K unable to run all core 5GHz? If so, what't the max stable freq for a non-binned i7-8600K? Personally I went for an even lower/cheaper i5-8400 CPU, but I see why some people prefer to be running max speed all the time...
I assume you mean the i7-8700k. There is a phenomenon called 'the silicon lottery.' Basically, when you buy an i7-8700k, you can't know the max stable frequency. It could max out at 5.2GHz or it could only reach 4.7GHz before going unstable. The thing is, you can't know what you'll end up with. This brings us to the i7-8068k. The i7-8068k is pretty much guaranteed to have a max stable frequency above 5GHz. Of course, this matters only when overclocking.
Is it a lower temp than a 8700k for a given multiplier though? i.e. both 8700k and 8086k at 46x which is cooler? 8700k obviously has to be averaged as not everyone is lucky with the silicon lottery. Presumption is the 8086k will run cooler on average due to the better binning.
In which case I'm happy to pay more to save some degrees in my wee itx build
Depends on the use case. For pure gaming, I'd stick with intel, which is a bit faster now and, if history is any indication, will hold up a LOT better for gaming in 5 years then the AMD chip will.
Especially if you run games or emulators dependent on IPC (like PCSX2) the intel chip will perform a lot better then the AMD chip.
There is also the memory controller. Ryzen 2000 improved, but intel's controller is still superior, and that matters for things like RTS games that consume memory bandwidth like black holes consume stars.
Props to Asrock for providing the system so that you could get us stuff so quickly Ian. Not sure why everybody is complaining about the system and cooling that was used. The system was loaned to you so that you could get us numbers fast, which personally I am happy about. Thanks for your hard work Ian!
This is quite the premium cost for a small increase in frequency that should be close to what you get to a 8700k OCed, an interesting offering regardless.
It seems like the only good reason to buy this processor would be for the preferential binning - it's kind of like a manufacturer official version of Silicon Lottery.
well i know and few more that anatech are and clear long time amd support and cant make test without raise amd gpus and cpus someway better. sad... but we are not idiots its clear that both 6-core cpus 870k0 and 8086 are much better cpus than amds 8-core ryzen 2700x. that is clear fact
2700x is 8-core and still loose 3dmarks what is historical.. bcoz never bfore cpu that own more cores LOOSE cpu wich have less them. its tell clear that ryzen 2700x is weak and also mem problem show it. 2700x cant handle high timing and hertz,
2700x is better and really shod be for mathematic apz,but as i say ITS 8-CORE CPU.
still it loose many test.
and for thouse importants games and 3dmarks its loose and clear.
when intels ALSO 8-core cpu guess 9700k release we really see how bad 2700z is. i can say that 8-core 2700x loose clear for intels 9700k 8-core cpu.
ok..then 6700k vs 8086 cpu
well its clear that 8086 is better than 8700k,bcoz 8086 is hand picket cpus and oc'd better than 8700k.
so its mean 8086 ov'c higher,running lower heat ...exmaple all 8086 ov'd easily 5ghz, many 8700k not. only best.. and i took 24/7 use.
sure if you get good 8700k its different,but if different is example anatech saying 75$ that i can get good cpu i pay it for joy!
if you want best gaming rig buy:
asus hero x 2x8gb 4000mhz cl17 mem 8086 or 8700k cpu and ocäd it about 5ghz buy more nvidia gtx 1080 ti
then u have gaming rig that amd cant beat near 2 years...think about it...
gtx 1080 ti is old shit and amd vega only few month old still no chance.
I wasnt expecting much out of the 8086k over the 8700k... but this is truely underwhelming. Only a single core turbo boost? I was expecting all the boost tiers to be higher. And same tdp....so there goes it doing anything more at stock.
I wasnt going to buy one anyway....so i guess it doesnt matter. I completely agree that intel could have and should have done more.
Ich frage mich, wie schnell der technologische Fortschritt voranschreitet. Der nächste Schritt ist das Streamen von einem Online-Casino, beispielsweise über https://casinoonlineschweiz24.com/software/merkur-... Es wird für alle Glücksspielenthusiasten mega aufregend sein
Do not save on this if you really need it, just start earning more. Apollo Slots is one of the leading online casinos in the South African online market. just go to the website https://casinolife.co.za/review/apollo-slots because it is safe, offers speedy payouts, has powerful and responsive support, and many more
Thank you for such a wonderful review. It is really important to understand in time that you need to save money. For example, I save money when I play using the minimum deposit: https://casinospieles.de/10-euro-einzahlung/ . This allows me to understand if this game really suits me without spending a lot of money on it.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
111 Comments
Back to Article
Marlin1975 - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
You used a "Cooler Master CLC"? Is that what comes with the CPU? If not then this is a awful review. Should use what cooler it comes with.Beany2013 - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
it doesn't come with a cooler, as far as I'm aware.Ryan Smith - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
Correct.seamonkey79 - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
Should have run it naked then, what were you thinking? /sRyan Smith - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
I was thinking that getting blocked by content filters for indecency would hurt my business...deathBOB - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
You see indecency, I see a new (and potentially lucrative) take on PC hardware reviews.Ryan Smith - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
That was already tried in the 90s. It doesn't work as well as you might think. (RIP PCXL)Alexvrb - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
See that's the problem with content filters... always chafin' me.Death666Angel - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
That would be a review of the cooler, not the CPU. And anyone buying a 400+USD CPU should invest in a decent cooler as well, that is just common sense.wr3zzz - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
K-series CPUs don't come with coolers.rocky12345 - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
They used to but Intel coolers are so bad that no one used them so instead of making one that was usable for the k CPU's they just stopped including them. At least the other guys include them still and 2 of the 3 are actually usable as coolers. Personally I would rather have some sort of cooler included so at least would be up and running if the high end air or water cooler was om back order or waiting on shipping at least can get the system built and running.Flunk - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
The ones they sent out with the older -K series processors were a joke. My i5-2500K came with a cooler that couldn't even cool it within Intel's specs running stock in a cold room.mkaibear - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link
I'm still using the one which came with my 4790K and it works fine, and the one my 2500K came with also worked fine when I had it, even at 30C ambient temps in the middle of summer.Probably an installation error there Flunk.
(yes, I bought K series processors and never overclocked them, for both of these my intention was to downclock them for reduced heat and noise but never got round to it with the 2500K and the 4790K didn't really downclock very well so I couldn't be bothered!)
jimmysmitty - Friday, June 15, 2018 - link
Absolutely incorrect. I installed tons of the stock Intel coolers on i5s and i7s and they work as specified for the stock settings of the CPUs plus were normally very quiet.SirMaster - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
"K" CPUs con't come with heatsinks or fans... Neither does the 8700K or 8600K or 7700K, etc.Matthmaroo - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
It’s been a while for you , I see - K series cpus have no coolerMemo.Ray - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
Memo.Ray - Monday, June 11, 2018 - linkAs I mentioned in my comment in the other article a couple of days ago:
Intel managed to give away 8086 "binned" 8700K (AKA 8086K) and still make some money on top of it. win-win situation :D
https://www.anandtech.com/comments/12940/intels-co...
jimmysmitty - Friday, June 15, 2018 - link
And you miscalculated because you used the i7 8700 cost not the 8700K cost. They made maybe $300K on them.You know I have never seen anyone complain about say a 40th anniversary version of a car.
just4U - Wednesday, June 13, 2018 - link
If it were more similar to the 4790K with a better thermal design (think devils canyon..) it's something I'd be interested in over the 8700K. It's not tho… and doesn't even come with a specialty cooler that might peak interest.. but rather "NO COOLER" at all.. I dunno..I think Intel missed the boat with this one.
MDD1963 - Tuesday, June 26, 2018 - link
Who *actually* thought, after so many years of Intel not giving coolers with it's "K" model variants, that this one might come with a bundled cooler? :)Tkan215215 - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
got rip off by Intel again Xd. little to no improvement. that is what their fab are for flexible manufacturingThe Chill Blueberry - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
But that's not a new processor, it's just a binned i7-8700k. It's just pre-overclocked a bit and guaranteed stable.The Benjamins - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
A bin that is a big let down, with no better 2-6 core turbos it makes this CPU only marginally better then the 8700k. they could of tried to have the other turbo speeds have some improvements.Dr. Swag - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
This chip is obviously intended for OCing in which case it should be able to attend least hit 5 ghz.AutomaticTaco - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
Simple enough solution. Don't buy one. Right?mr_tawan - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
You know, this SKU is meant a collectible for their anniversary.I think they should gold plate the lid though :P
jcc5169 - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
More INTEL non-innovation ....Death666Angel - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
It's a whimsical anniversary celebration CPU. What were you expecting? It will only sell to people who want it for the novelty/collectors aspect. Anyone getting it for the performance delta deserves to lose their money.AutomaticTaco - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
Or others who happen to be in the market for an upgrade now.Oxford Guy - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
As whimsical as roadkill.bug77 - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
So what happened here? It looks like Intel's play with frequencies made this throttle more often. At least that the only explanation I can find for 8700k ending up better in so many tests.Tkan215215 - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
As always its called milking and wallet ripper they know people still Buy them anywaybug77 - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
I wasn't expecting this to be a cost-effective part, but rather a collector-oriented one.But mostly worse than a standard part is surely unexpected.
AutomaticTaco - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
I don't think it's worse as much as the silicon lottery exists regardless of it. In other words, even among speed binned parts some OC better than others. And that's true for both the 8086K, the 8700K or any others.just4U - Wednesday, June 13, 2018 - link
I agree bug,I'd be very interested in this processor if it brought something to the table to justify it's cost. The 4790K did with a better thermal design. They could have added a kick ass cooler, or a factory delid and redo for better thermals. Something .. anything besides a small bump in clocks.
Drumsticks - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
It might be milking, but I kind of have a hard time believing that. They're only making 50,000 of them, and only at about a 21% markup over the 8700k. But they're flat out giving away 16% of the chips. I doubt Intel is going to milk much money beyond their regular business from this. It's the companies 50th anniversary year, so I'm going to guess it's just positive fanfare and a collector's item related to that and it happening to be an anniversary for a well known processor at the same time.Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
I enjoy hating Intel as much as the next guy but this is a good point.Revenue from 41,914 8086Ks: $17,813,450
Revenue from 50,000 8700Ks: $17,500,000 (at $350 apiece)
The remaining $313,450 doesn't really feel like a lot of money when you factor in binning the chips and dealing with all the other overhead of the promotion, especially since Intel isn't getting all of that money anyway.
SanX - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
This was actually not the revenue but the PROFIT you blind people with easily effed brains. The production cost for this chip was probably less then 20 bucks. The processor in your phone is probably more hi-tech, has more transistors, more cores, and was made on more advances factories with 10nm litho being all sold below $25.mkaibear - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link
What are you smoking?His maths is bang on, although he neglects the cut the retailer will be taking off the top for that. They aren't making that much profit off each chip.
SanX - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link
They aren't making that much profit off each chip? If they aren't making huge profits then all mobile chip factories lose money by selling the same transistor count processors like the one in Apple or Samsung phones for just $25Hxx - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
who said binned chips? that would imply added costs. Did intel make some official statement? There is now way the 8086ks are binned chips. Intel clocked the 4.7ghz core to 5ghz on a 8700k. That's doable on any cooler you dont need a binned chip for that. Perhaps additional testing was done to make sure they're stable but there is no way intel cherry picked these chips.AutomaticTaco - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
Okay. So people make purchases. So be it. If it's not better you can purchase something else. And others can make up their own minds.LemmingOverlord - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
No real explanation why the 8086K underperforms the 8700K in multithreaded CPU tests, then. Considering they are rated the same at more than dual-core usage I can't really understand.Utter waste of money, that's for sure
Ryan Smith - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
As noted in the testbed section, this wasn't run on our standard testbed since Ian didn't have it with him in Taiwan. Every motherboard is different, sometimes infuriatingly so.AsParallel - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
Because ASRock and configuration. ASRock boards are a pain to dial in, and sometimes their firmware is an immovable object.artifex - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
Waiting for the i7-80286K, so I can hit the turbo buttonTheinsanegamerN - Monday, June 18, 2018 - link
I'm waiting for the AMD 5x86 4700x that will slot into an intel motherboard.AsParallel - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
Purchased one for me and a few to sit on the shelf for 10 years. Just in time for the 50th :)peevee - Friday, June 15, 2018 - link
Hopefully, by that time x64 will die.Jad77 - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
I don't feel so bad about missing the contest now. How I managed to be so completely out of loop is baffling.ipkh - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
The multiplier chart doesn't make sense.The single core is 5Ghz, but Intel is quoting 4.7 Ghz all core and you're showing 4.4 identical to 8700K. I understand the base frequencies are the same, but the default multiplier for the 8086K should be higher. Is this a possible bios glitch or is the multiplier chart in the CPU not correct?
Hxx - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
Boost frequencies are all the same on 5 cores. there is a youtube video with somebody testing this chip on a z370 gaming 7 and you can clearly see in that video that boost is the same on all cores except 1. Intel = lame.Ian Cutress - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
Where is Intel promoting 4.7 GHz all core?HStewart - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
One thing that is strange is the name - the Original IBM PC that started this whole PC industry used the intel 8088 processor and not the Intel 8086 processor. The difference is that 8088 has 8 bit external and 8086 has 16 bit external - But CPU's used 16 bit internally. No internal Floating processor until the 386 line.But it wild that it been 40 years - I have an original IBM PC - in my downstairs closet, I remember while at Georgia Tech - putting a 2Meg Ram card into and booting up to 1.4Meg ramdisk and loading Microsoft C 3.0 compiler on it.
As for new one - it would be cool if they actually included the original chip also as part of collectors edition.
AsParallel - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
8088 shipped in 79, was a variant of the 8086. 8086 was the first to 1M transistorspeevee - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
"No internal Floating processor until the 386 line."486. 386 still used 387 AFAIR. There were even 487, but it was just renamed 486 to be installed with 486SX.
HStewart - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
Yes I forgot that - the 486 was the one with Math Coprocessor.AsParallel - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
Addition. The 8087 was the floating point coprocessor for the 8086/8829a - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
You didn't put 2mb of RAM in an original IBM PC it supported 256kb max.HStewart - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
I had a special card in the PC - it was EMS memory - that could also fill up the main system memory to 640kb - instead of normal cache mode use by the card - I configured it as ram drive. Memory above 640Kb was directly accessible by the system.peevee - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
8086 being slower than 8700 just indicates an error in your methodology.For example, one has updated microcode for exploits and another does not.
TheinsanegamerN - Monday, June 18, 2018 - link
OOORrrrr....its a different motherboard, not the usual test bed. The motherboard used for this is an asrock board, which explains the difference in performance.Memo.Ray - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
As I mentioned in my comment in the other article a couple of days ago:Intel managed to give away 8086 "binned" 8700K (AKA 8086K) and still make some money on top of it. win-win situation :D
https://www.anandtech.com/comments/12940/intels-co...
Xenphor - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
How did they get such a lower score on the Dolphin benchmark with a 5ghz overclock on the 8086k? Isn't the benchmark single core only and considering the 8086 already turbos to 5ghz on a single core, why would there be that much of a difference? I tried it on my 8700k at 5ghz and only get a score of about 265-270 with 2666mhz ram.Ian Cutress - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
The 5.0 GHz turbo, at stock, doesn't kick in that often. Depends on how the software sets its own affinity, and most do not. This is the danger with only single core turbo - with all the modern software in the background, even with Windows and scheduling, you rarely hit single core Turbo.Xenphor - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
I suppose but even on the Dolphin forums spreadsheet the highest score is a 249 which is a 7700k at 5.2ghz.Ian Cutress - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link
I'll retest when I'm back home at the end of the week and recovered from jet lagXenphor - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link
Well don't feel like you have to. Just thought it was weird.Vatharian - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
7 years ago, first batches of Core i7-2600K (like mine) were able to reach stable 5.0-5.2 GHz on water, on all 4 cores. Given 7 years difference and 32 vs 14 nm, I am maybe not disappointed (there are +2 cores, half a CPU more), but rather not amused. IPC is higher, that's one, DDR4 can reach 3 times higher frequencies than DDR3, that's two, so there are improvements, but given the bovine excrement that goes on chipset side and PCI-Express connectivity it's clear to see the stagnation.SanX - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
Total flop. The processor in your phone is probably more hi-tech, has more transistors, more cores, and was made on more advances factories with 10nm litho being all sold below $25.mkaibear - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link
"Total flop"I suggest benchmarking the CPU in your phone against this CPU and try again.
SanX - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link
They mostly serve different purposes and apps and have different TDP. But if you restrict consumption power of Intel processors to the same one of mobile processors then in the same apps it's not clear in advance which one will win.Time for ARM to look at the server and supercomputers markets.
iranterres - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link
HAHA. Intel once again trying to fool some people and appeasing the fanboys with something worthless and expensive.xchaotic - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link
So are the regular i7-8600K unable to run all core 5GHz? If so, what't the max stable freq for a non-binned i7-8600K? Personally I went for an even lower/cheaper i5-8400 CPU, but I see why some people prefer to be running max speed all the time...Rudde - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link
I assume you mean the i7-8700k.There is a phenomenon called 'the silicon lottery.' Basically, when you buy an i7-8700k, you can't know the max stable frequency. It could max out at 5.2GHz or it could only reach 4.7GHz before going unstable. The thing is, you can't know what you'll end up with.
This brings us to the i7-8068k. The i7-8068k is pretty much guaranteed to have a max stable frequency above 5GHz. Of course, this matters only when overclocking.
Bradyb00 - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link
Is it a lower temp than a 8700k for a given multiplier though? i.e. both 8700k and 8086k at 46x which is cooler? 8700k obviously has to be averaged as not everyone is lucky with the silicon lottery.Presumption is the 8086k will run cooler on average due to the better binning.
In which case I'm happy to pay more to save some degrees in my wee itx build
Lolimaster - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link
Why not simply pick the Ryzen 5 2600, same thing with actual lower temps from using high quality solder...$189
TheinsanegamerN - Monday, June 18, 2018 - link
Depends on the use case. For pure gaming, I'd stick with intel, which is a bit faster now and, if history is any indication, will hold up a LOT better for gaming in 5 years then the AMD chip will.Especially if you run games or emulators dependent on IPC (like PCSX2) the intel chip will perform a lot better then the AMD chip.
There is also the memory controller. Ryzen 2000 improved, but intel's controller is still superior, and that matters for things like RTS games that consume memory bandwidth like black holes consume stars.
Stuka87 - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link
Props to Asrock for providing the system so that you could get us stuff so quickly Ian. Not sure why everybody is complaining about the system and cooling that was used. The system was loaned to you so that you could get us numbers fast, which personally I am happy about. Thanks for your hard work Ian!El Sama - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link
This is quite the premium cost for a small increase in frequency that should be close to what you get to a 8700k OCed, an interesting offering regardless.Oxford Guy - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
Welcome to marketing — land of emotion.twtech - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link
It seems like the only good reason to buy this processor would be for the preferential binning - it's kind of like a manufacturer official version of Silicon Lottery.xpto - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
New Vulnerability hits Intel processors - Lazy FP State Restorehttps://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/security-c...
jarf1n - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
well i know and few more that anatech are and clear long time amd support and cant make test without raise amd gpus and cpus someway better.sad...
but we are not idiots
its clear that both 6-core cpus 870k0 and 8086 are much better cpus than amds 8-core ryzen 2700x. that is clear fact
2700x is 8-core and still loose 3dmarks what is historical.. bcoz never bfore cpu that own more cores LOOSE cpu wich have less them.
its tell clear that ryzen 2700x is weak and also mem problem show it.
2700x cant handle high timing and hertz,
2700x is better and really shod be for mathematic apz,but as i say ITS 8-CORE CPU.
still it loose many test.
and for thouse importants games and 3dmarks its loose and clear.
when intels ALSO 8-core cpu guess 9700k release we really see how bad 2700z is.
i can say that 8-core 2700x loose clear for intels 9700k 8-core cpu.
ok..then 6700k vs 8086 cpu
well its clear that 8086 is better than 8700k,bcoz 8086 is hand picket cpus and oc'd better than 8700k.
so its mean 8086 ov'c higher,running lower heat ...exmaple all 8086 ov'd easily 5ghz, many 8700k not. only best.. and i took 24/7 use.
sure if you get good 8700k its different,but if different is example anatech saying 75$ that i can get good cpu i pay it for joy!
if you want best gaming rig buy:
asus hero x
2x8gb 4000mhz cl17 mem
8086 or 8700k cpu and ocäd it about 5ghz
buy more nvidia gtx 1080 ti
then u have gaming rig that amd cant beat near 2 years...think about it...
gtx 1080 ti is old shit and amd vega only few month old still no chance.
xpto - Monday, June 18, 2018 - link
https://www.amd.com/en/campaigns/threadripper-exch...alpha754293 - Tuesday, June 19, 2018 - link
FYI - On the overclocking CPU page - GeekBench MT chart is a duplicate of the CineBench MT chart.sarahberard - Wednesday, June 20, 2018 - link
Hello I am so delighted I located your blog, I was watching on google for something else, greatsarahberard - Wednesday, June 20, 2018 - link
Your site fantastic, superior quality succeed... http://best-penis-pump.com/">.none12345 - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
I wasnt expecting much out of the 8086k over the 8700k... but this is truely underwhelming. Only a single core turbo boost? I was expecting all the boost tiers to be higher. And same tdp....so there goes it doing anything more at stock.I wasnt going to buy one anyway....so i guess it doesnt matter. I completely agree that intel could have and should have done more.
Thests - Sunday, November 17, 2019 - link
Ich frage mich, wie schnell der technologische Fortschritt voranschreitet. Der nächste Schritt ist das Streamen von einem Online-Casino, beispielsweise über https://casinoonlineschweiz24.com/software/merkur-... Es wird für alle Glücksspielenthusiasten mega aufregend seinReeceDay - Saturday, February 1, 2020 - link
Do not save on this if you really need it, just start earning more. Apollo Slots is one of the leading online casinos in the South African online market. just go to the website https://casinolife.co.za/review/apollo-slots because it is safe, offers speedy payouts, has powerful and responsive support, and many morejanwn - Friday, May 22, 2020 - link
Thank you for such a wonderful review. It is really important to understand in time that you need to save money. For example, I save money when I play using the minimum deposit: https://casinospieles.de/10-euro-einzahlung/ . This allows me to understand if this game really suits me without spending a lot of money on it.