Intel Core i7-8086K 40th Anniversary Edition？

[Brahmzy]

Yep you really are paying $425 for 1 core turbo boost to 5.0 and base of 4.0. The rest of it is the exact same as the 8700k

No, I'm paying for the binning and better overclocks personally. Don't really care what stock config is on either an 8700K or 8086K.

 

[Gideon]

"For this review, the 8700K had the gaming data done on the system I was able to borrow"

I think he meant 8086K there.

No he didn't. Obviously he had the gaming data done for the CPU he was reviewing in the first place. What's the point of mentioning that?

 

[LTC8K6]

No he didn't. Obviously he had the gaming data done for the CPU he was reviewing in the first place. What's the point of mentioning that?

I'll just wait for a different review, I guess.

Here's one from Tech Report....

https://techreport.com/review/33786/intel-core-i7-8086k-cpu-reviewed

'The story changes a little—and I do mean a little—when we take advantage of the i7-8086K's unlocked multipliers. It's tricky to recommend a processor on the basis of its overclocking prowess alone, because no two chips will overclock alike. That said, our retail i7-8086K made it to 5.1 GHz on all cores without any AVX offset and nothing more than the usual thermal challenges of modern Intel CPUs. No i7-8700K in our labs can run at speeds higher than 5 GHz for non-AVX workloads, and they require -2 AVX offsets to remain stable."

 

[Brahmzy]

From the Techreport review, and well said:
"The story changes a little—and I do mean a little—when we take advantage of the i7-8086K's unlocked multipliers. It's tricky to recommend a processor on the basis of its overclocking prowess alone, because no two chips will overclock alike. That said, our retail i7-8086K made it to 5.1 GHz on all cores without any AVX offset and nothing more than the usual thermal challenges of modern Intel CPUs. No i7-8700K in our labs can run at speeds higher than 5 GHz for non-AVX workloads, and they require -2 AVX offsets to remain stable."

I'd love to run AVX @ 5.0 as I've gotta run it @ 4.8 right now with both my 8700Ks (5.0/4.8). I'll be happy with 5.2/5.0 or even 5.0/5.0.

 

[ehume]

That review also showed both the 8086k and the 8700k mostly pulling ahead (Ryzen did get its licks in) when they were overclocked. But the 8086k pulled more ahead. Worth reading, IMO.

 

[Markfw]

I'll just wait for a different review, I guess.

Here's one from Tech Report....

https://techreport.com/review/33786/intel-core-i7-8086k-cpu-reviewed

'The story changes a little—and I do mean a little—when we take advantage of the i7-8086K's unlocked multipliers. It's tricky to recommend a processor on the basis of its overclocking prowess alone, because no two chips will overclock alike. That said, our retail i7-8086K made it to 5.1 GHz on all cores without any AVX offset and nothing more than the usual thermal challenges of modern Intel CPUs. No i7-8700K in our labs can run at speeds higher than 5 GHz for non-AVX workloads, and they require -2 AVX offsets to remain stable."

The only thing I did not like about that, was the 8700K and the 8086K had both stock and overclocked testing. The 2700X ONLY had stock, no overclock. If you looked close the 2700X beat the other 2 at stock in MANY benchmarks and even beat them both overclocked in a few.

 

[UsandThem]

The only thing I did not like about that, was the 8700K and the 8086K had both stock and overclocked testing. The 2700X ONLY had stock, no overclock. If you looked close the 2700X beat the other 2 at stock in MANY benchmarks and even beat them both overclocked in a few.

They also used DDR4 3866 RAM on the Intel test bed, and DDR4 3400 on the Ryzen. From everything I've read, the Ryzen keeps showing good improvements the faster the RAM is, while the 8700k/8086k not so much.

 

[LTC8K6]

The only thing I did not like about that, was the 8700K and the 8086K had both stock and overclocked testing. The 2700X ONLY had stock, no overclock. If you looked close the 2700X beat the other 2 at stock in MANY benchmarks and even beat them both overclocked in a few.

They weren't really testing the 2700X, and the 2700X looked good in everything at stock and multi-threaded, except most games. We'd expect an 8 core chip to outrun 6 core chips with multi-threaded stuff.

They also used DDR4 3866 RAM on the Intel test bed, and DDR4 3400 on the Ryzen. From everything I've read, the Ryzen keeps showing good improvements the faster the RAM is, while the 8700k/8086k not so much.

The memory was run at the same speed in the stock tests for Intel and AMD. It was only run at 3866 for the Coffee Lake overclocking testing.

 

[moonbogg]

This chip is stupid. Is it OK to say that? I think this chip is stupid.

 

[LTC8K6]

This chip is stupid. Is it OK to say that? I think this chip is stupid.

I think every commemorative item issued ends up that way.
It's just a better binned 8700K, period.

If something is put on sale with the "collectible" or "commemorative" label, it almost always means it's actually neither, and not worth collecting.

Now if I win one...

 

[Markfw]

They weren't really testing the 2700X, and the 2700X looked good in everything at stock and multi-threaded, except most games. We'd expect an 8 core chip to outrun 6 core chips with multi-threaded stuff.


The memory was run at the same speed in the stock tests for Intel and AMD. It was only run at 3866 for the Coffee Lake overclocking testing.

The point is, if they are going to test it, do it at both stock and OC like the other chips. Also, games is where the 2700X with 3600 or better memory will actually compete with the 8700K/8086K. It may still loose, but at least it will make a better showing, especially overclocked. I would love to see a 2700X@4.3 (or a little more) with 4266 memory against these other 2 chips, both stock and overclocked.

 

[dullard]

That review also showed both the 8086k and the 8700k mostly pulling ahead (Ryzen did get its licks in) when they were overclocked. But the 8086k pulled more ahead. Worth reading, IMO.

The only thing I did not like about that, was the 8700K and the 8086K had both stock and overclocked testing. The 2700X ONLY had stock, no overclock. If you looked close the 2700X beat the other 2 at stock in MANY benchmarks and even beat them both overclocked in a few.

Do we really need to bring in an AMD vs Intel post into every thread? Is there something wrong with just leaving the 8086K thread about the 8086K instead of trying to make this into a wish list to highlight other companies?

 

[UsandThem]

Do we really need to bring in an AMD vs Intel post into every thread? Is there something wrong with just leaving the 8086K thread about the 8086K instead of trying to make this into a wish list to highlight other companies?

Well, to play devil's advocate here, both of the reviews that were linked to both specifically mention the 2700x in the review, so pretty tough to not at least talk about it, because they both do.

From TechReport:

Everybody else should just buy an i7-8700K or a Ryzen 7 2700X, depending on whether high-refresh-rate gaming or multithreaded grunt is what's called for.

From Anandtech:

At this point Intel is between a rock and a hard place: the Core i7-8700K competes directly against the Ryzen 7 2700X, winning in single threaded performance and low resolution gaming, losing in multi-threaded performance, and equal at GPU-limited high resolution gaming.

 

[LTC8K6]

The 2700X and the 8086K were both tested at stock, so that allowed for people to compare them reasonably well.

The test was primarily to see the differences, if any, between the 8700K and 8086K, stock and overclocked.

It was primarily an 8086K review. The 2700X has been well covered already.

Tech Report seemed to have the 2700X somewhat behind in gaming, though.

 

[StinkyPinky]

If I somehow win one of these 8086K cpu's in the sweepstakes, I will just sell it anyway. Can't be bothered taking apart half my pc for maybe an extra 100mhz.

 

[AdamK47]

Bought one. Because, can.

Also bought that 970 Pro. It was $220 (not the $250 that's on the sticker).

 

[epsilon84]

The point is, if they are going to test it, do it at both stock and OC like the other chips. Also, games is where the 2700X with 3600 or better memory will actually compete with the 8700K/8086K. It may still loose, but at least it will make a better showing, especially overclocked. I would love to see a 2700X@4.3 (or a little more) with 4266 memory against these other 2 chips, both stock and overclocked.

The 2700X gets very similar gaming performance overclocked or at stock because XFR2 / PB2 already boosts it to 4.0GHz. We are talking about 4.2GHz on average with an overclocked 2700X vs 4.0GHz (or slightly higher) for a stock 2700X in gaming. At most you would gain 5%, in reality the difference might be 2 - 3%, since gaming performance never scales linearly with clockspeed unless you are 100% CPU bound in games, which is very rare. See for yourself here: https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...w-game-streaming-cpu-benchmarks-memory/page-3

Compare that to a stock 8700K/8086K which runs games at 4.3GHz. When you overclock a 8700K/8086K to 5.1/5.2GHz that is almost a full GHz faster than stock, or in percentage terms about a ~20% overclock, so CPU limited gaming scenarios will actually see a more noticeable boost

Introducing other variables like extreme speed DDR4 is probably beyond the scope of a CPU review, though I should mention Ryzen actually benefits from tighter timings a lot more than Intel does, whereas Intel can most likely actually run memory at 4000MHz+, something I haven't seen Ryzen 2x00 chips being able to do.

 

[formulav8]

Those buying 6 core i7's may want to wait till September to see how Intel prices the 8 Core CFL

 

[Brahmzy]

Price isn't a factor for a lot of us - it's that the 8-core requires a new z390 motherboard and will/can it hit 5.0-5.1 all cores without becoming the sun...

 

[LTC8K6]

Price isn't a factor for a lot of us - it's that the 8-core requires a new z390 motherboard and will/can it hit 5.0-5.1 all cores without becoming the sun...

It's not known yet whether it will work with Z370.

I predict it's all core turbo is 4.4 with a 5.0 single core turbo because I expect it to be a little better than the 8700K, with a slightly higher TDP
I think it has to be faster than the 8700K at everything to sell well. So I think it will have to have a bit higher clocks.

Now that we have seen a 5ghz single core turbo, that's what we expect from the top end chips, so it will probably have that as well.

 

[formulav8]

Price isn't a factor for a lot of us

It definitely is for persons looking to invest in that i7-8086k cpu and buying a z370 mobo, for sure it is. Insiders are thinking the 8 core will require the z390. That could be one of the reason's besides wireless for bringing z390. Should be known before September.

 

[WiseUp216]

Anybody else win one of the 8086k processors? I received an e-mail this morning asking me to confirm my address. I checked Reddit and it looks like all the winners are being notified today.

Who else got lucky??

 

[Midwayman]

It definitely is for persons looking to invest in that i7-8086k cpu and buying a z370 mobo, for sure it is. Insiders are thinking the 8 core will require the z390. That could be one of the reason's besides wireless for bringing z390. Should be known before September.

Hopefully some of the z370 with overbuilt VRM will be able to handle it as well. Might be one of those things where is a case by case basis. If you're on a low end board that barely support stock frequencies, you're out of luck.

 

[Topweasel]

The 2700X and the 8086K were both tested at stock, so that allowed for people to compare them reasonably well.

The test was primarily to see the differences, if any, between the 8700K and 8086K, stock and overclocked.

It was primarily an 8086K review. The 2700X has been well covered already.

Tech Report seemed to have the 2700X somewhat behind in gaming, though.

Not to turn it into a big AMD vs. Intel Debate. But there is a trend in reviews that are a bit disconcerting. You are right on why they reviewed it the way they did. But it's hard to find a Ryzen or Ryzen 2k review where they didn't show it against an over clocked i7 or X99/299 CPU. There is probably a reason most reviewers do it that way and the numbers of an overclocked Ryzen are out there. But if they are going to show it against it's "competition" they should when reviewing it show the same consideration to those products as well or at least that's my opinion on the matter.