Intel "Coffee Lake" Builders Thread

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
P

phillyman36

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2004
1,762
160
106
Crono said:
To be fair, it's memory 4 less, not chips 4 less.
:D

That's a crazy high markup, though. It's understandable if it's just a placeholder and they don't really have stock.
Click to expand...
I see what you did there lol
memory4less always has a ridiculous mark up search for a 7700k and look and what they charge for that.
 
TheF34RChannel

TheF34RChannel

Senior member
May 18, 2017
786
309
136
Arachnotronic said:
Got my order in for an 8700K on Amazon as well. Will use the one that I get first and resell the other.
Click to expand...

The same; I've slept on it and just bit the bullet and pre-ordered myself a 8700K for € 389,00. It's on a first come, first serve basis they said and I don't want to miss out plus I expect prices to rise significantly after the first batch. No board yet as in the Maximus range only the Hero is in stock now for a whopping € 329,00 and I've got my eye on the better Apex board (or maybe even the Code if the CPU comes in that late) which hasn't released here yet. The Apex will be more expensive but it's such a nice and special board, and although I'm not a heavy clocker, the cleaner memory channels appeal to me. It also has better quality VRMs, chokes, mosfets etc.

So that's me:

Intel Core i7-8700K
Asus Maximus X Apex/Code
G.Skill Trident-Z 3333MHz 16-18-18-38 2x8GB
Re-using the rest that's in the sig.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crono and IRobot23
RichUK

RichUK

Lifer
Feb 14, 2005
10,320
672
126
I'd consider going with better memory if you're looking to get the Apex.

Cheaper boards will be able to OC the 8700k just fine, including the memory you've selected.
 
TheF34RChannel

TheF34RChannel

Senior member
May 18, 2017
786
309
136
RichUK said:
I'd consider going with better memory if you're looking to get the Apex.

Cheaper boards will be able to OC the 8700k just fine, including the memory you've selected.
Click to expand...

Higher speeds and lower latencies don't really do something for gaming other than costing heaps of money and requiring tinkering with all sorts of system volts to get running (which I do not want; I want no RAM hassles), additionally, when higher speeds and lower latencies do become more important for my needs I will buy a different kit. For the time being this is what I could get that was a) in stock, and b) didn't cost me a months pay. This RAM may be a tide over solution (as opposed to normally spending 5mins on finding my RAM it now took me 2 afternoons - for real!). Of course cheaper boards will be able to do that, but I want the better board with the better components :) and the cut-outs look fantastic!
 
TheF34RChannel

TheF34RChannel

Senior member
May 18, 2017
786
309
136
mikk said:
Memory latency is very important for games. Memory speed is fine with something like 3200 or higher.
Click to expand...

Do show it to me please. I know that C21 would be worse than 16 but other than that not so much. What I said is what I've learned and I don't mind being proven wrong.
 
elhefegaming

elhefegaming

Member
Aug 23, 2017
157
70
101
mikk said:
Memory latency is very important for games. Memory speed is fine with something like 3200 or higher.
Click to expand...
Yes... very important. like 1/2/3% difference.

As I said before, ram is the last thing you're gonna get bottlenecked by; so unless you have best cpu, best gpu, you shouldnt worry about latencys (as long as your ram is working at the native supported ram speed of your cpu of course)
 
M

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
4,143
2,154
136
TheF34RChannel said:
Do show it to me please. I know that C21 would be worse than 16 but other than that not so much. What I said is what I've learned and I don't mind being proven wrong.
Click to expand...


You may search for some older Skylake or Kabylake DDR scaling tests. It's a combination of both frequency and latency. I guess most people don't understand that the gaming speedup from faster memory kits comes from an improved latency as well, possibly more from a lowered latency than bandwidth.

That's why edram gave Broadwell GT3e a nice IPC boost for gaming purposes over Skylake at that time. Bandwidth of edram wasn't great but its latency. DDR4-3333 16-18-18 is much worse compared to DDR4-3200 14-14-14. Also that's why DDR4 was a bit lacklustre compared to DDR3 when it launched some years ago. DDR4-2133 with CL15 has a quite poor absolute latency.

http://www.hardware.fr/getgraphimg.php?id=222&n=3

DDR3-2400 CL11-11-11 faster than DDR4-3000 CL16-16-16 there.


DDR3-2400 CL11-11-11= 9.16 ns
DDR4-3000 CL16-16-16= 10.67 ns
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheF34RChannel
psolord

psolord

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2009
1,928
1,194
136
Honest question.

Is there a real reason in usability terms, for a gamer and hobbyist benchmarker to prefer the 8700k over the 8600k?

I mean I see they have very little performnance difference to make it worthwhile.
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/970-18/indices-performance.html

Even if the hardware.fr's GTX 1080 presents a gpu bottleneck up to a point, the guys at TPU even tested at 720P and the difference was like 3%.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K/18.html

So why shouldn't I chose the 8600k instead and save me a decent amount for the next graphics card? It seems to me that the +50% resources increase of the 8600k compared to the 7600k, make it a completely different beast than what the 7600k could ever be and also in relation to the grand scheme of things. I mean 6 coffeelake cores sit a lot more relaxed in the pantheon of desktop cpus, than previous offerings could.

Heck I'm still happy with my 2500k, but I guess it's time to move on. I believe the 8600k will be the new 2500k, only I see it being in an even better place in six years, than the 2500k is today.
 
PeterScott

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
136
psolord said:
Honest question.

Is there a real reason in usability terms, for a gamer and hobbyist benchmarker to prefer the 8700k over the 8600k?

I mean I see they have very little performnance difference to make it worthwhile.
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/970-18/indices-performance.html

Even if the hardware.fr's GTX 1080 presents a gpu bottleneck up to a point, the guys at TPU even tested at 720P and the difference was like 3%.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K/18.html

So why shouldn't I chose the 8600k instead and save me a decent amount for the next graphics card? It seems to me that the +50% resources increase of the 8600k compared to the 7600k, make it a completely different beast than what the 7600k could ever be and also in relation to the grand scheme of things. I mean 6 coffeelake cores sit a lot more relaxed in the pantheon of desktop cpus, than previous offerings could.

Heck I'm still happy with my 2500k, but I guess it's time to move on. I believe the 8600k will be the new 2500k, only I see it being in an even better place in six years, than the 2500k is today.
Click to expand...

Well it is more that just games. For the Rendering type tasks, HT will give up to 25% boost + you get extra cache that may add more.

Also in this part of the market, many people will just get the best option for their CPU socket and call it a day. I have seen polling on the whole family, it was near 80% for 8700K and ~20% spread among 5 other models.
https://hardforum.com/threads/coffee-lake-builders-thread-embracing-8th-gen-core.1941473/
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheF34RChannel
TheF34RChannel

TheF34RChannel

Senior member
May 18, 2017
786
309
136
mikk said:
You may search for some older Skylake or Kabylake DDR scaling tests. It's a combination of both frequency and latency. I guess most people don't understand that the gaming speedup from faster memory kits comes from an improved latency as well, possibly more from a lowered latency than bandwidth.

That's why edram gave Broadwell GT3e a nice IPC boost for gaming purposes over Skylake at that time. Bandwidth of edram wasn't great but its latency. DDR4-3333 16-18-18 is much worse compared to DDR4-3200 14-14-14. Also that's why DDR4 was a bit lacklustre compared to DDR3 when it launched some years ago. DDR4-2133 with CL15 has a quite poor absolute latency.

http://www.hardware.fr/getgraphimg.php?id=222&n=3

DDR3-2400 CL11-11-11 faster than DDR4-3000 CL16-16-16 there.


DDR3-2400 CL11-11-11= 9.16 ns
DDR4-3000 CL16-16-16= 10.67 ns
Click to expand...

Thanks @mikk - I got my 'wisdom' on the matter from the OC3D boss where, in a conversation, he said frequency over latency these days for gaming needs. However, your saying a healthy combination of the two has more logic to it. Nice set: F4-3200C14D-16GTZSK. I do wonder why in that case so many go for very frequency (and high latency)?

I'll see what becomes available once we get more RAM in the country and prices normalise again. Until then my new purchase will tide me over nicely.

On a side note: G.Skill releases CFL-S RAM this November:

http://wccftech.com/gskill-ddr4-trident-z-4600-intel-coffee-lake-z370/

High frequency but equally high latencies.
 
Last edited:
RichUK

RichUK

Lifer
Feb 14, 2005
10,320
672
126
These things are quite energy efficient :yum::

7roXQaQ.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay and crashtech
Shmee

Shmee

Memory & Storage, Graphics Cards Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 13, 2008
7,413
2,447
146
I would like to see load temps though^ :D
 
Glo.

Glo.

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2015
5,711
4,559
136

Why there is 10W difference in power consumption between Core i3 8100 with 2400 MHz DDR4, and 3200 MHz DDR4? Is 1.2V RAM consumes that much less power than 1.35V?
 
I

IRobot23

Senior member
Jul 3, 2017
601
183
76
I wonder, I did few build with R3 and cheaper B board... yet I could run 3200MHz easily.
OC R3 1200 to 3,6GHz is easy and DDR4 3200MHz is also easy. I did use samsung E die.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom