Intel Core i7-7700K 4.2 GHz QuadCore 8MB Cache Processor £301 @ Amazon - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
-191

Intel Core i7-7700K 4.2 GHz QuadCore 8MB Cache Processor £301.00 @ Amazon

£301.00 @ Amazon
seems like a good deal, usually retails for around 315-330. Intel is proud to announce its 7th generation Intel Core processor family. Manufactured on the latest 14 nm technology, these processors of… Read More
MFT01 Avatar
1w, 1d agoFound 1 week, 1 day ago
seems like a good deal, usually retails for around 315-330.

Intel is proud to announce its 7th generation Intel Core processor family. Manufactured on the latest 14 nm technology, these processors offer rich visual experiences with the latest 4K Ultra HD graphics improvements, amazing CPU performance, and great power efficiency, with the same range of power options and latest advanced features to boost edge-to-cloud Internet of Things (IoT) designs. The 7th generation Intel Core processor family also maintains a standardized thermal envelope for 65W and 35W desktop products, remaining consistent with the previous processor generation, and is an ideal low-power option for manufacturing flexibility.
MFT01 Avatar
1w, 1d agoFound 1 week, 1 day ago
Options

All Comments

(18) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
Sadly, not by Amazon...
5 Likes #2
Get an Ryzen 1700 instead cheeky
1 Like #3
Got to get it as cold as possible - to help with the overheating issues.
#4
Thanks for posting OP i'm sure its good for someone.
#5
is it a good deal??!!
#6
Gentle_Giant
Got to get it as cold as possible - to help with the overheating issues.

my 7700k @ 5ghz just fine lad, never goes over 65c during any normal task or gaming.
#7
malachi
Get an Ryzen 1700 instead :p

Same price, worse performance in the applications and uses most consumers have, and more problems?

Pass.

If you are doing video rendering, not using hardware acceleration, you are in the minority. And you'd know what you need anyway.

The 7700k is a great CPU for 95% of consumers.
2 Likes #8
Nate1492
malachi
Get an Ryzen 1700 instead :p
Same price, worse performance in the applications and uses most consumers have, and more problems?
Pass.
If you are doing video rendering, not using hardware acceleration, you are in the minority. And you'd know what you need anyway.
The 7700k is a great CPU for 95% of consumers.

?? Its £291.78 directly from Amazon and that's gone up from £274 I paid last week.

1700 worse performance in the applications...yes but on a very few. 1700 has more cores and is newer tech. Give it a few months while developers optimize for the new AMD architecture and the 1700 will be more ahead.

1700 is more future proof than buying a 7700K.
1 Like #9
Nate1492
malachi
Get an Ryzen 1700 instead :p

Same price, worse performance in the applications and uses most consumers have, and more problems?

Pass.

If you are doing video rendering, not using hardware acceleration, you are in the minority. And you'd know what you need anyway.

The 7700k is a great CPU for 95% of consumers.


We got an Intel haven't we? :))
#10
malachi
Nate1492
malachi
Get an Ryzen 1700 instead :p
Same price, worse performance in the applications and uses most consumers have, and more problems?
Pass.
If you are doing video rendering, not using hardware acceleration, you are in the minority. And you'd know what you need anyway.
The 7700k is a great CPU for 95% of consumers.

?? Its £291.78 directly from Amazon and that's gone up from £274 I paid last week.

1700 worse performance in the applications...yes but on a very few. 1700 has more cores and is newer tech. Give it a few months while developers optimize for the new AMD architecture and the 1700 will be more ahead.

1700 is more future proof than buying a 7700K.


Well said...
1 Like #11
Nate1492

The 7700k is a great CPU for 95% of consumers.
Don't forget that
"Nobody needs more than quad core with HT"
and so on.
Until later this summer of course, when Coffeelake six core launches when all the press will suddenly find benches where 4C/8T is no longer enough (the most significant of which currently is probably BF1 multi-player which seems to keep a 4C/8T CPU nearly fully pegged).

Unless willing to go for extreme overclocking (delit, aim for 5.0GHz+), I would recommend the 6C/12T Ryzen 5 1600 at under £200.

Anyway, will be interesting how polished the Skylake-X launch will be since it seems that at least the 14/16/18 cores were rushed. Despite their far larger R&D budget, previous Intel HEDT launches have had issues. Although like with Ryzen, I suspect a lot of issues came from people wanting to run memory beyond the spec (of the platform, not the memory modules).
#12
ritchiedrama
Gentle_Giant
Got to get it as cold as possible - to help with the overheating issues.
my 7700k @ 5ghz just fine lad, never goes over 65c during any normal task or gaming.

The issue isnt with overall temps, but the latest cores have an issue with short term spikes that dont seem to related to any cpu activity; the spikes are so short, many monitoring programs dont pick them up; but they do sometimes cause the cpu to thermal throttle for a fraction of a second, which can have an impact on games.

There was a detailed story about the issue on the tech sites a couple of months ago.
#13
Gentle_Giant
ritchiedrama
Gentle_Giant
Got to get it as cold as possible - to help with the overheating issues.
my 7700k @ 5ghz just fine lad, never goes over 65c during any normal task or gaming.
The issue isnt with overall temps, but the latest cores have an issue with short term spikes that dont seem to related to any cpu activity; the spikes are so short, many monitoring programs dont pick them up; but they do sometimes cause the cpu to thermal throttle for a fraction of a second, which can have an impact on games.
There was a detailed story about the issue on the tech sites a couple of months ago.

I was apart of the thread. I'm fully aware but the spikes aren't an issue. People made a big deal over it because they're inexperienced with computers.
#14
befr33man
Nate1492
malachi
Get an Ryzen 1700 instead :p
Same price, worse performance in the applications and uses most consumers have, and more problems?
Pass.
If you are doing video rendering, not using hardware acceleration, you are in the minority. And you'd know what you need anyway.
The 7700k is a great CPU for 95% of consumers.
We got an Intel haven't we? :))

I've not bought an intel processor for over 7 years, so whatever you 'think' you know is almost surely your assumption.
1 Like #15
malachi
Nate1492
malachi
Get an Ryzen 1700 instead :p
Same price, worse performance in the applications and uses most consumers have, and more problems?
Pass.
If you are doing video rendering, not using hardware acceleration, you are in the minority. And you'd know what you need anyway.
The 7700k is a great CPU for 95% of consumers.
?? Its £291.78 directly from Amazon and that's gone up from £274 I paid last week.

1700 worse performance in the applications...yes but on a very few. 1700 has more cores and is newer tech. Give it a few months while developers optimize for the new AMD architecture and the 1700 will be more ahead.

1700 is more future proof than buying a 7700K.

A few months? Do you really think parallelism is that easy?

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/

Less than 2% of all processors have more than 4 cores.

Less than .5% have 8 cores or more.

There's a lot of noise about Ryzen, but there isn't much market action.

Also, 'give it a few months' is what people said 'a few months ago'.

I've not a significant shift in games, have you?
#16
Nate1492
malachi
Nate1492
malachi
Get an Ryzen 1700 instead :p
Same price, worse performance in the applications and uses most consumers have, and more problems?
Pass.
If you are doing video rendering, not using hardware acceleration, you are in the minority. And you'd know what you need anyway.
The 7700k is a great CPU for 95% of consumers.
?? Its £291.78 directly from Amazon and that's gone up from £274 I paid last week.
1700 worse performance in the applications...yes but on a very few. 1700 has more cores and is newer tech. Give it a few months while developers optimize for the new AMD architecture and the 1700 will be more ahead.
1700 is more future proof than buying a 7700K.
A few months? Do you really think parallelism is that easy?http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/
Less than 2% of all processors have more than 4 cores.
Less than .5% have 8 cores or more.
There's a lot of noise about Ryzen, but there isn't much market action.
Also, 'give it a few months' is what people said 'a few months ago'.
I've not a significant shift in games, have you?

I don't understand your point. Buying a 1700 now is cheaper, newer, has more cores therefore its beneficial for the future with upcoming games which will take advantage more than 4 cores. Even better if you want to take the overclocking route.

The cold votes are saying it all.
#17
malachi
Nate1492
malachi
Nate1492
malachi
Get an Ryzen 1700 instead :p
Same price, worse performance in the applications and uses most consumers have, and more problems?
Pass.
If you are doing video rendering, not using hardware acceleration, you are in the minority. And you'd know what you need anyway.
The 7700k is a great CPU for 95% of consumers.
?? Its £291.78 directly from Amazon and that's gone up from £274 I paid last week.
1700 worse performance in the applications...yes but on a very few. 1700 has more cores and is newer tech. Give it a few months while developers optimize for the new AMD architecture and the 1700 will be more ahead.
1700 is more future proof than buying a 7700K.
A few months? Do you really think parallelism is that easy?http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/
Less than 2% of all processors have more than 4 cores.
Less than .5% have 8 cores or more.
There's a lot of noise about Ryzen, but there isn't much market action.
Also, 'give it a few months' is what people said 'a few months ago'.
I've not a significant shift in games, have you?
I don't understand your point. Buying a 1700 now is cheaper, newer, has more cores therefore its beneficial for the future with upcoming games which will take advantage more than 4 cores. Even better if you want to take the overclocking route.
The cold votes are saying it all.

I rememeber buying an intel q6600 for quad cores as they said they would benefit games .... i waited years; nothing of note. I bought a i5 2500k quad core and a year or 2 later gaming media said 8 cores will be used in a few years by all games / new consoles will be 8 cores. I waited 6 years and still my OC i5 2500k is still very capable on current games. My point is ive heard this marketing tune before ......
#18
malachi
Nate1492
malachi
Nate1492
malachi
Get an Ryzen 1700 instead :p
Same price, worse performance in the applications and uses most consumers have, and more problems?
Pass.
If you are doing video rendering, not using hardware acceleration, you are in the minority. And you'd know what you need anyway.
The 7700k is a great CPU for 95% of consumers.
?? Its £291.78 directly from Amazon and that's gone up from £274 I paid last week.
1700 worse performance in the applications...yes but on a very few. 1700 has more cores and is newer tech. Give it a few months while developers optimize for the new AMD architecture and the 1700 will be more ahead.
1700 is more future proof than buying a 7700K.
A few months? Do you really think parallelism is that easy?http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/
Less than 2% of all processors have more than 4 cores.
Less than .5% have 8 cores or more.
There's a lot of noise about Ryzen, but there isn't much market action.
Also, 'give it a few months' is what people said 'a few months ago'.
I've not a significant shift in games, have you?
I don't understand your point. Buying a 1700 now is cheaper, newer, has more cores therefore its beneficial for the future with upcoming games which will take advantage more than 4 cores. Even better if you want to take the overclocking route.
The cold votes are saying it all.

The Ryzen 7 falls in at 280, the 7700k falls in at 300. Sure, it's cheaper, and has more cores.

But that's where it stops. You are making a *massive* assumption that more cores==better.

We've heard this marketing for over a decade.

The cold votes are actually saying 300 isn't a great historical price for the 7700k, along with a new set of processors being released by Intel. This should give the price a bit of a push downward, closer to 280, that's all the votes are saying.

It's a fickle website, but 10 quid is everything.

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/amd-ryzen-7-1700-299-99-amazon-co-uk-ocuk-2646030
http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/ryzen-7-1700-289-99-amazon-1-4-weeks-2675422

10 quid difference changes from cold votes to super hot. Watch for the 290 quid 7700k and it'll be sky high.

Anyway, 'just wait, it'll eventually be good' doesn't hold water, we've waited, parallelism is *VERY* hard to accomplish, and most games simply don't bother.

Especially, why would games focus on the .5% of gamers who have 8 core+ CPUs?

You can keep hoping for miracles and peddling promises of the future, I'll the the faster CPU and wait Ryzen to mature first.

There are plenty of issues with a CPU that is unstable, the gaming performance, and application performance of the Intel is slightly better, the rendering is slower. I don't render much, but the few times I do, I don't care if it takes longer (Software) or I simply use the GFX cards hardware accelerated rendering (Hardware).

So, again, more cores! Great, but to what end? If the current set of games don't benefit, why should I suggest Ryzen to anyone?

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!