Nkflyer

i5-8600K vs i7-8700 vs i7-8700k? Which one should I go with?

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone!

 

I'm currently in the process of building a new rig and need some hardware advice (I'm a beginner in the field). I just came off an FX-8350 processor and I'm switching over to the Intel lineup.

 

I'm currently debating between the i5-8600K, i7-8700 and i7-8700K, while balancing out a few criteria:

-I'm NOT planning to overclock anything, so I'll be using the stock clock speeds

-I'd like to minimize the need for any intense cooling systems on my machine and keep heat output to a minimum in general (I already have 2 fans from my previous machine that I'd like to use, and ideally I'd want to keep it at just those unless I absolutely need to buy specific fans)

-My budget is fairly flexible, but I'd still strongly prefer to minimize spending on the CPU if possible (so I'd go for the i5 if that's sufficient, but if absolutely necessary I can go with the more expensive option)

-I use some payware airports and aircraft (and I like a fair bit of AI traffic at airports to make them feel more alive - with at least 80% or so) - I have quite a few addons installed in general

 

So I guess what I'm getting at is: would it be possible to enjoy a smooth FSX experience on higher settings and more detailed scenery on an i5-8600K given the criteria above without an overclock, or would I need to bump up the CPU to the i7 to enjoy a good experience? Would it even be possible to do with my criteria in the first place on any of the CPUs?

 

I'm also using an RX470 GPU and will have 16GB of RAM.

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated! 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

1 hour ago, Nkflyer said:

I'm currently debating between the i5-8600K, i7-8700 and i7-8700K, while balancing out a few criteria:

-I'm NOT planning to overclock anything, so I'll be using the stock clock speeds

 

So I guess what I'm getting at is: would it be possible to enjoy a smooth FSX

 

 

Quoted what got my attention, no overclok the awnser is simple for me i7-8700

FSX!? just confuses me that people still invest in FSX with all the OOM problems, but well is hardware, you can go later to P3D v4 or even better X-Plane 11

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your not going to OC then the i7-8700 has a bigger turbo boost compared to the i5-8600k (4,3 vs 4.7)

Edited by zmak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dmarques69 said:

Quoted what got my attention, no overclok the awnser is simple for me i7-8700

FSX!? just confuses me that people still invest in FSX with all the OOM problems, but well is hardware, you can go later to P3D v4 or even better X-Plane 11

I agree, just don't see the point in upgrading your hardware when the software (FSX) will be your biggest bottleneck imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go with the 8700K. I know you said you weren't going to overclock, but minds do change. It may be that in a few months time, next year, the year after, you may feel differently about overclocking and wish to give it a bash. At that point, you may well regret not having the "k" variant.

 

8600 has lower cache and lower max Turbo frequency. 

 

 

 

Edited by martin-w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, martin-w said:

I would go with the 8700K. I know you said you weren't going to overclock, but minds do change. It may be that in a few months time, next year, the year after, you may feel differently about overclocking and wish to give it a bash. At that point, you may well regret not having the "k" variant.

 

8600 has lower cache and lower max Turbo frequency. 

 

 

 

Agreed. what a waste to not utilize the maximum horse power available..especially FSX where CPU is king

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a time when I thought that overclocking was voodoo that would quickly kill a CPU.  Once I tried overclocking, I was convinced it could be done safely and that with a good cooler, the CPU would still enjoy a very long life.  Today, I would not consider a CPU that was locked and not capable of being overclocked.  With a good cooler, overclocking the CPU is the least expensive performance boost you can give to a computer.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mobo: ROG Apex

Cpu: 8700K or 8600K

Ram: GSkill 3200 c14 2x8GB

Monitor: Asus ROG Swift PG279Q

GPU: GTX 1080ti

anything less (or more) than the above and you run the risk of ....well, see the P3D forum -if you're using P3d 4.3.

Optional: PS/2 mouse and keyboard, Win7 Pro

other recs: P/S Corsair Rm 750x, Samsung EVO drives,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses everyone! Looks like 8700K it is! 🙂

Also, would the 2 built-in case fans be enough? Or should I get more cooling for the 8700?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which CPU cooler do you currently have?

But yes, two case fans is sufficient, especially if not cutrently overclocking. One ingesting at the front and one exhausting at the rear.

To be honest, even those of us overclocking tend to go way over the top with case fans. 

Even at 5 Ghz with the 8700k I only have two 140 fans at the front and one 140 at the rear.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, martin-w said:

Which CPU cooler do you currently have?

But yes, two case fans is sufficient, especially if not cutrently overclocking. One ingesting at the front and one exhausting at the rear.

To be honest, even those of us overclocking tend to go way over the top with case fans. 

Even at 5 Ghz with the 8700k I only have two 140 fans at the front and one 140 at the rear.

My old, but still quite functional, computer uses the Antec 900 case.  It features a pair of 120mm intake fans in the lower 1/2 of the front of the case, a single 120mm exhaust fan at the top rear of the case and a 240mm exhaust fan in the top of the case.  Adequate airflow does not seem to be an issue with this arrangement.  Honestly, I think the top fan in the case is overkill.

Edited by stans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're not overclocking I would either get an 8086k or wait for the i9 9900k due out on October 1st with 8 cores and up to 5GHz boost clocks.  Reason being that the stock, out-of-the-box performance of these parts will be the highest of any consumer CPU for the next year or so.  

Do people round these parts not follow hardware news?  I find it odd that so many people are chiming in with advice in multiple "what hardware should I get" threads with advice to buy hardware that is literally weeks away from being replaced...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Do people round these parts not follow hardware news?  I find it odd that so many people are chiming in with advice in multiple "what hardware should I get" threads with advice to buy hardware that is literally weeks away from being replaced...

 

He mentioned three CPU's he was interested in. He asked which of the three he should go for. The answers reflected that question. He also said he wished to "minimise spending", so given that the 8086k is more expensive, and the 9900K is looking like it will be "considerably" more expensive, those options weren't suggested.  If he hadn't said he wished to minimise spending I'm sure those options would have been suggested.  

Edited by martin-w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

He mentioned three CPU's he was interested in. He asked which of the three he should go for. The answers reflected that question. He also said he wished to "minimise spending", so given that the 8086k is more expensive, and the 9900K is looking like it will be "considerably" more expensive, those options weren't suggested.  If he hadn't said he wished to minimise spending I'm sure those options would have been suggested.  

My point is that better answers exist, which the OP may not be aware of.  The question then is, why not inform the OP of these options which he seems to be unaware of, unless those making said responses are not themselves aware of said options.  

There's nothing to suggest the 9900k will be considerably more expensive than e.g. 8086k since, despite the "i9" nomenclature it is still a mainstream part.  In fact, I will bet right now that its price falls within $50 of 8086k pricing.  When discussing mainstream CPUs for a new build, the price differences are relatively small in the grand scheme.  It's not like I said "why aren't you guys recommending a 7980xe".  Besides, the 9700k will be out around the same time as the 9900k so if the $50-100 difference in price is too much then there's the "budget" option which may still be an upgrade over existing parts.

Bottom line: new parts are weeks away and there are lots of people asking for advice on parts purchases who no doubt are unaware of these impending launches.  Why not inform them?

Edited by TechguyMaxC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TechguyMaxC said:

Why not inform them?

Agreed.  And it's also a shame the new Ryzens aren't even mentioned.  Most likely because this board hasn't been exposed to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Greggy_D said:

Agreed.  And it's also a shame the new Ryzens aren't even mentioned.  Most likely because this board hasn't been exposed to them.

re: Ryzen

1) yes this board has a lack of exposure to AMD products, but...

2) AMD's products are still not "the best" for flight sim.  They've come a long way since the FX series but Intel still has a clockspeed advantage and an IPC advantage.  AMD GPUs aren't worth mentioning for graphics.  They're good at compute workloads (i.e. some professional workloads and crypto-currency mining) but they're very far behind NV for graphical workloads and it's about to get worse with the launch of Geforce RTX 20xx parts soon.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, TechguyMaxC said:

AMD's products are still not "the best" for flight sim. 

I'd like to see some actual Ryzen vs Intel benchmarks in P3D/XP11 before that determination is made.  Also, the price/performance ratio should be considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Greggy_D said:

I'd like to see some actual Ryzen vs Intel benchmarks in P3D/XP11 before that determination is made.  Also, the price/performance ratio should be considered.

In my world the champ is the champ until proven otherwise. Intel has been the single thread champ for many years .....You want to challenge that notion? Then you prove it.

OBTW, my 8600K is $225. My money sez the 8600K I own and operate for P3D V4.3 will wax any AMD processor at any price.

Edited by FunknNasty
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FunknNasty said:

In my world the champ is the champ until proven otherwise. Intel has been the single thread champ for many years .....You want to challenge that notion? Then you prove it.

Why take this so personal?  I didn't challenge your "world".  I'd simply like to see some equal benchmarks from both sides.  There have been some advances in CPU technology lately and it hasn't been done yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Greggy_D said:

Why take this so personal?  I didn't challenge your "world".  I'd simply like to see some equal benchmarks from both sides.  There have been some advances in CPU technology lately and it hasn't been done yet.

Flight sim benchmarks on Ryzen haven't been posted anywhere (that I have seen) because no one has bothered to do it yet.  If you are interested, perhaps you could take up the challenge?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

My point is that better answers exist, which the OP may not be aware of.  The question then is, why not inform the OP of these options which he seems to be unaware of, unless those making said responses are not themselves aware of said options.  

 

8086k is not a better option. 8086K is £50 more expensive ($63) and all that it will provide him, given that he stated he will not be overclocking, is a mere  300 MHz max turbo on ONE core, as long as that ONE core is the only core in use. So essentially nothing that would be noticeable over the 8700K. And given that he specifically stated he wished to keep costs down on the CPU and was prepared to drop to an i5, no reason to recommend the more expensive 8086K that would essentially give him no noticeable benefit. If he were planning to overclock on the other hand, the fact that the 8086K is a binned 8700K might have been a useful suggestion. So I see why there was no mention in the thread of the 8086K.

 

Quote

There's nothing to suggest the 9900k will be considerably more expensive

 

"but the Core i9-9900K looks set to cost around $450"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyleather/2018/07/24/intels-monster-core-i9-9900k-8-core-processor-will-reach-a-massive-5ghz-with-4-7ghz-all-core-boost/#159d6e947222

 

8700K costs $359... so the 9900k is estimated to be $91 more expensive.  So again.... given he stated he had already decided he wanted one of the three CPU's mentioned, given he's not overclocking, given he specifically said he wishes to keep costs down on the CPU and even drop to an i5 I see why there is no mention of the 9900K in this thread.

 

Quote

Why not inform them?

 

It costs nothing to inform, so I would accept that on that basis and accept your point, and perhaps an oversight not to at least mention said CPU's. Likewise I see why there was no mention of your suggested CPU's given the reasons stated above.

In addition, the 8700K will probably drop in price after the launch of 9900K. So if cuttings costs is still the OP's objective he may be able to save more.

Edited by martin-w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In lieu of starting another thread seeking the same answer I will add to this one. I have a i7 6700k and I want to get it upgraded along with the cooling system and MB. I lost the silicon lottery as even a stock speed and 1.18VCPU my cpu temps are around 60C. This with a H115i cooler. I am thinking of waiting for Intel's new i9-9900K. Going from 4 cores to 8 cores in non-HT setting plus the added speed. I do long 12+ hour flights frequently using the high-end payware type planes and airports. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, B777ER said:

In lieu of starting another thread seeking the same answer I will add to this one. I have a i7 6700k and I want to get it upgraded along with the cooling system and MB. I lost the silicon lottery as even a stock speed and 1.18VCPU my cpu temps are around 60C. This with a H115i cooler. I am thinking of waiting for Intel's new i9-9900K. Going from 4 cores to 8 cores in non-HT setting plus the added speed. I do long 12+ hour flights frequently using the high-end payware type planes and airports. 

 

"even a stock speed and 1.18VCPU my cpu temps are around 60C."

At what ambient temp? 60C isn't a bad temp under load. Whats the temp at stock voltage? What kind of a load, the sim or stress test? If you are running something like RealBench or Prime 95 that runs AVX temp will be high.

I cant recall what stock voltage is to be honest. At 60C you still have loads of thermal headroom, why do you see that as an issue?. 

If you are considering the 9900K, then there's still just rumour and speculation floating around. We will have to see how it does in the sim once released. I know someone who has probably tested it, but of course NDA applies. 

Edited by martin-w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

"even a stock speed and 1.18VCPU my cpu temps are around 60C."

At what ambient temp? 60C isn't a bad temp under load. Whats the temp at stock voltage? What kind of a load, the sim or stress test? If you are running something like RealBench or Prime 95 that runs AVX temp will be high.

I cant recall what stock voltage is to be honest. At 60C you still have loads of thermal headroom, why do you see that as an issue?. 

If you are considering the 9900K, then there's still just rumour and speculation floating around. We will have to see how it does in the sim once released. I know someone who has probably tested it, but of course NDA applies. 

Under load the temps are in the upper 70's with spikes into the 80's. Now a payware aircraft into Orbx True Earth Netherlands and FT EHAM and its in the 90's, all 4 cores with HT not enabled (which, with HT enabled will cause greater heat). I swear, P3D is more stress than Prime95.

Edited by B777ER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now