Intel  8700k for £290.62 direct from Amazon
465°

Intel 8700k for £290.62 direct from Amazon

£290.62Amazon Deals
95
Found 1st AprEdited by:"MisterFresh1980"
Sold by Amazon direct for 295.62 - just add the Amazon Assistant £5 off £25 spend making it 290.62
Community Updates

Groups

95 Comments
I keep on seeing these pop up on the forum. We got members who love the 8700k? I've been keeping my eye out on the 8600k but no deals...
Schizophonic1 h, 51 m ago

I keep on seeing these pop up on the forum. We got members who love the …I keep on seeing these pop up on the forum. We got members who love the 8700k? I've been keeping my eye out on the 8600k but no deals...


Are you gaming with it? Because otherwise I would just pick up a non k 8700 over an 8600k. Which might explain why the deals are less popular as well, non k 8700 has been as low as £220 here
vulcanproject41 m ago

Are you gaming with it? Because otherwise I would just pick up a non k …Are you gaming with it? Because otherwise I would just pick up a non k 8700 over an 8600k. Which might explain why the deals are less popular as well, non k 8700 has been as low as £220 here


I will be gaming so the 8600k is suite my build more.
Schizophonic1 h, 43 m ago

I will be gaming so the 8600k is suite my build more.



It will suit it better slightly now, but only slightly providing you pile on a big overclock and are only playing at lower resolutions. Once you get to 2560 x 1600 or better it matters virtually nought.

In the mid to longer term the 8700 would probably come out on top in games plus the 8700 will be a match or win for productivity with a lot less power and heat. In this sense if there was no 8600k around but a cheap 8700 I would just buy the 8700.
vulcanproject1 h, 4 m ago

It will suit it better slightly now, but only slightly providing you pile …It will suit it better slightly now, but only slightly providing you pile on a big overclock and are only playing at lower resolutions. Once you get to 2560 x 1600 or better it matters virtually nought.In the mid to longer term the 8700 would probably come out on top in games plus the 8700 will be a match or win for productivity with a lot less power and heat. In this sense if there was no 8600k around but a cheap 8700 I would just buy the 8700.



why would the 8700K matter nought if using 2560 x 1600 res, over the 8700 non-K?
The 8600k is currently £212 on Amazon, I'd have thought that was a decent enough deal? I just bought one myself yesterday.
Edited by: "GMac11" 1st Apr
Original Poster
Now down to £268.04 + £15.10 = just over £280 delivered but it's a different seller.

Also Amazon Direct down to £297.32 edit - back up to £307 didn't stay long at that price!

I am getting tempted at these prices, if I bought and say it came down even more over the next feew days would Amazon compensate the difference?

Anybody know if it is likely to come down more or be in any Easter deals? If I was intending on getting the 8700k would I be better off waiting for new Ryzen to come out for this drop in price further or is it pretty much going to stay the same sort of price?
Edited by: "MisterFresh1980" 1st Apr
voted cold, looks like a scam account.
yoyo593 h, 15 m ago

voted cold, looks like a scam account.


What makes you say that?
brad.walker46 m ago

What makes you say that?


Xbox Minecraft kid ofc
vulcanproject10 h, 24 m ago

Are you gaming with it? Because otherwise I would just pick up a non k …Are you gaming with it? Because otherwise I would just pick up a non k 8700 over an 8600k. Which might explain why the deals are less popular as well, non k 8700 has been as low as £220 here


I would go 8400 instead of either of those for strictly gaming.

Hyper threading and games don't really work well and the 8400 has the same number of cores and is 155 quid.

Also, the 220 quid deal on here may have been a misprice, it's unclear if they have honored the orders or not, it might have been a unicorn (and even still, I don't think that 220 versus 155 is worth the difference).

The 8700k performs around 16% better @5GHz btw.
vulcanproject7 h, 59 m ago

It will suit it better slightly now, but only slightly providing you pile …It will suit it better slightly now, but only slightly providing you pile on a big overclock and are only playing at lower resolutions. Once you get to 2560 x 1600 or better it matters virtually nought.In the mid to longer term the 8700 would probably come out on top in games plus the 8700 will be a match or win for productivity with a lot less power and heat. In this sense if there was no 8600k around but a cheap 8700 I would just buy the 8700.


This isn't true at all, the 8600k would fair better at most games at higher resolution as the CPU starts to have less impact at higher resolution, apart from the IPC you get.
Nate14926 m ago

I would go 8400 instead of either of those for strictly gaming.


Crazy.

i7 for future proof for gaming and anything else.
garybb11 m ago

Crazy. i7 for future proof for gaming and anything else.


The unlocked 8600k would very likely handle 'future gaming' better.

Hyperthreading doesn't do much for gaming.
Nate149232 m ago

This isn't true at all, the 8600k would fair better at most games at …This isn't true at all, the 8600k would fair better at most games at higher resolution as the CPU starts to have less impact at higher resolution, apart from the IPC you get.



You aren't reading correctly. It's also 'fare'. At least you acknowledged that CPU performance has less impact at higher resolution, which was the point.

Therefore the difference between a highly overclocked 8600k and a non k 8700 at 1440p and beyond will be very small. Talking on the order of a couple percent.

I acknowledged that right now for gaming at lower resolutions, 8600k is better. But for higher resolutions it doesn't matter so much, and the 8700's threading will work better elsewhere as well as in the future of games most likely. So you pays your money and you makes your choice.
vulcanproject33 m ago

You aren't reading correctly. It's also 'fare'. At least you acknowledged …You aren't reading correctly. It's also 'fare'. At least you acknowledged that CPU performance has less impact at higher resolution, which was the point. Therefore the difference between a highly overclocked 8600k and a non k 8700 at 1440p and beyond will be very small. Talking on the order of a couple percent.I acknowledged that right now for gaming at lower resolutions, 8600k is better. But for higher resolutions it doesn't matter so much, and the 8700's threading will work better elsewhere as well as in the future of games most likely. So you pays your money and you makes your choice.


So, you want to advice people to spend more money on 'maybe better'?

It's never been the case that HT has done well in games, what makes you think it will change soon?
Nate149212 m ago

So, you want to advice people to spend more money on 'maybe better'?It's …So, you want to advice people to spend more money on 'maybe better'?It's never been the case that HT has done well in games, what makes you think it will change soon?


Again, it is not what was said and you need to read better yourself.

Hyper-threading does fine in games. It's just whether or not a given piece of software can utilise all the threads on offer. The past 10 years very few games (or consumer software in general) have used more than 4 cores and 8 threads. Not least because virtually nobody owned more than 4 cores and 8 thread for a start. 4 cores have dominated the performance scene for the best part of a decade.

It's a constant gradual evolution but I would say that given the current landscape of core wars between AMD and Intel that didn't exist even 18 months ago more and more people are getting their hands on greater than 4 cores and 8 threads.

Expect a gradual gravitation towards >4 core performance increases in an increasing number of games. In this sense I would say in general a 12 thread CPU will hold up better in say 18 months than a 6 thread one. But it also heavily depends on the user's intentions for their system.

You did ask for this explanation.
vulcanproject48 m ago

Again, it is not what was said and you need to read better …Again, it is not what was said and you need to read better yourself.Hyper-threading does fine in games. It's just whether or not a given piece of software can utilise all the threads on offer. The past 10 years very few games (or consumer software in general) have used more than 4 cores and 8 threads. Not least because virtually nobody owned more than 4 cores and 8 thread for a start. 4 cores have dominated the performance scene for the best part of a decade. It's a constant gradual evolution but I would say that given the current landscape of core wars between AMD and Intel that didn't exist even 18 months ago more and more people are getting their hands on greater than 4 cores and 8 threads.Expect a gradual gravitation towards >4 core performance increases in an increasing number of games. In this sense I would say in general a 12 thread CPU will hold up better in say 18 months than a 6 thread one. But it also heavily depends on the user's intentions for their system.You did ask for this explanation.


I am still unsure if you fully understand what Hyper Threading is.


techpowerup.com/for…17/
Do you recall how bad SMT was that it actually made games slower?

This isn't a 'gradual evolution'

Hyper Threading 'fakes' having more cores by doubling up the resources on a low used CPU.

This does not fit games.
Nate149221 m ago

I am still unsure if you fully understand what Hyper Threading …I am still unsure if you fully understand what Hyper Threading is.https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/gaming-benchmarks-core-i7-6700k-hyperthreading-test.219417/Do you recall how bad SMT was that it actually made games slower?This isn't a 'gradual evolution'Hyper Threading 'fakes' having more cores by doubling up the resources on a low used CPU.This does not fit games.


I'm very sure you don't really know what hyper-threading is after this post. SMT isn't inherently 'bad' for games.

If your game engine is designed to use more threads than you get a clear advantage with hyper threading. That is why a dual core with hyper threading (4 threads) can gain enormously over a dual core without hyper threading (2 threads) in games. Hyper threading works very well when it is used. It's just fundamentally whether or not the software is threaded well enough.

The simple reason why many titles a from a few years ago see no gain or some reduction with 8 threads is because they cannot use more than 4 threads and the task scheduler can mess up a small amount presenting more threads to some games. Today however, more games use 8 threads and you see a gain. Simply put you're better off having the threads and not needing them than not having them when you need them.

As I pointed out more games will likely be able to use more than 4 threads going forward. That is just a truism. There are several examples already.

Besides ALL THIS I pointed out whether you have 6 or 12 threads at higher resolution the performance difference is tiny any which way you call it. In circumstances other than games 12 threads will win a lot more than it loses. So yes, you'll lose maybe 1 percent gaming at 1440p with lower clocks, but you can easily gain 10 percent (and a lot more) transcoding or rendering. Added in the fact the future is more threading for everything in general then you just decide what you want knowing this.
Nate14922 h, 11 m ago

I am still unsure if you fully understand what Hyper Threading …I am still unsure if you fully understand what Hyper Threading is.https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/gaming-benchmarks-core-i7-6700k-hyperthreading-test.219417/Do you recall how bad SMT was that it actually made games slower?This isn't a 'gradual evolution'Hyper Threading 'fakes' having more cores by doubling up the resources on a low used CPU.This does not fit games.


just recently bought an i7 8700, over the 8600K, and i have to say, it's not only gaming, BUT MULTITASKING, you open 2-3 games, 4 browser, 10 other windows, and the i5 8600K DIES, and cooler shouts, when the i7 still quiet and snappy. That's the difference. I've had i5-6600K@4.8GHz, i7 7700, now i7 8700, and huge difference in 1440p with i7. Paired up with an OC GT 1080, very smooth and quiet gameplay, much less heat, than an overclocked i5.
Edited by: "DrTraktor" 2nd Apr
DrTraktor2 h, 43 m ago

just recently bought an i7 8700, over the 8600K, and i have to say, it's …just recently bought an i7 8700, over the 8600K, and i have to say, it's not only gaming, BUT MULTITASKING, you open 2-3 games, 4 browser, 10 other windows, and the i5 8600K DIES, and cooler shouts, when the i7 still quiet and snappy. That's the difference. I've had i5-6600K@4.8GHz, i7 7700, now i7 8700, and huge difference in 1440p with i7. Paired up with an OC GT 1080, very smooth and quiet gameplay, much less heat, than an overclocked i5.


Open up 2 - 3 games? Why, sounds like a test / scenario that is not going to be used everyday other than to put the cpu under strain... I game at 4k on a 1080ti, a 6600k is just as good as your 8700k on a gpu intensive game at 4k... Different of course if the game is cpu intensive.... IMHO I would of sold the 1080, kept the 6600k and bought a 1080ti..... Oh on 2nd thoughts I did.
DrTraktor5 h, 31 m ago

just recently bought an i7 8700, over the 8600K, and i have to say, it's …just recently bought an i7 8700, over the 8600K, and i have to say, it's not only gaming, BUT MULTITASKING, you open 2-3 games, 4 browser, 10 other windows, and the i5 8600K DIES, and cooler shouts, when the i7 still quiet and snappy. That's the difference. I've had i5-6600K@4.8GHz, i7 7700, now i7 8700, and huge difference in 1440p with i7. Paired up with an OC GT 1080, very smooth and quiet gameplay, much less heat, than an overclocked i5.


Sounds like you just purposely pushed the 6 core to its limit to justify spending more on a 8700k to yourself. Opening 2-3 games is stupid. Do you have 3 pairs of eyes?
vulcanproject17 h, 52 m ago

It will suit it better slightly now, but only slightly providing you pile …It will suit it better slightly now, but only slightly providing you pile on a big overclock and are only playing at lower resolutions. Once you get to 2560 x 1600 or better it matters virtually nought.In the mid to longer term the 8700 would probably come out on top in games plus the 8700 will be a match or win for productivity with a lot less power and heat. In this sense if there was no 8600k around but a cheap 8700 I would just buy the 8700.


That doesn't even make sense, CPUs have little to do with gaming at high resolutions, it's all on the GPU.... are you living in the 1990s still?
Just.Wondering2 h, 55 m ago

Open up 2 - 3 games? Why, sounds like a test / scenario that is not going …Open up 2 - 3 games? Why, sounds like a test / scenario that is not going to be used everyday other than to put the cpu under strain... I game at 4k on a 1080ti, a 6600k is just as good as your 8700k on a gpu intensive game at 4k... Different of course if the game is cpu intensive.... IMHO I would of sold the 1080, kept the 6600k and bought a 1080ti..... Oh on 2nd thoughts I did.


That's a fair point, but for folk like myself that run servers and games off one machine, more threads = win
bbfb1231 h, 3 m ago

Sounds like you just purposely pushed the 6 core to its limit to justify …Sounds like you just purposely pushed the 6 core to its limit to justify spending more on a 8700k to yourself. Opening 2-3 games is stupid. Do you have 3 pairs of eyes?


What i am saying is with i7 you will have much less chance to hit the limit. What's the point of the 16 threads ryzen then? Anyway, i could apply bclk overclock on 8700, so it boosts up to 4.4 GHz on 6 cores. Also if you see tests, not much difference in fps between the 8700 and 8600K@5.2GHz, but still slower in workloads. Much slower. But more heat, you need better motherboard with more phase of vrm( otherwise you'll never go over 4.8 GHz stable), better cooler, better psu, more electricity bill,there you go, you already spent more on it for little performance impact on minimum fps in games on 1080p. Fortunately i play on 1440p, so i see less difference. IMHO.
Edited by: "DrTraktor" 2nd Apr
Nate149210 h, 54 m ago

The unlocked 8600k would very likely handle 'future gaming' …The unlocked 8600k would very likely handle 'future gaming' better.Hyperthreading doesn't do much for gaming.



No chance.

Take Battlefield 1 for example a game thats very CPU heavy bottlenecks a 8600k/OC or not.

i7 will outlast any i5 in heavy CPU games making it a far better buy being the k or non k versions..

However this is game dependant but better to future proof than having to do it later.
DrTraktor1 h, 4 m ago

What i am saying is with i7 you will have much less chance to hit the …What i am saying is with i7 you will have much less chance to hit the limit. What's the point of the 16 threads ryzen then? Anyway, i could apply bclk overclock on 8700, so it boosts up to 4.4 GHz on 6 cores. Also if you see tests, not much difference in fps between the 8700 and 8600K@5.2GHz, but still slower in workloads. Much slower. But more heat, you need better motherboard with more phase of vrm( otherwise you'll never go over 4.8 GHz stable), better cooler, better psu, more electricity bill,there you go, you already spent more on it for little performance impact on minimum fps in games on 1080p. Fortunately i play on 1440p, so i see less difference. IMHO.



I see what your saying but I can't say I agree that in normal usage a 6 core 8600k would be the bottleneck in a system today and probably not for a good few years to come. Even a 2500k is still perfectly capable for gaming today. That being said I won't be upgrading my 4790k any time soon since we're not even close to having games needing more than 8 threads.
bbfb1237 m ago

I see what your saying but I can't say I agree that in normal usage a 6 …I see what your saying but I can't say I agree that in normal usage a 6 core 8600k would be the bottleneck in a system today and probably not for a good few years to come. Even a 2500k is still perfectly capable for gaming today. That being said I won't be upgrading my 4790k any time soon since we're not even close to having games needing more than 8 threads.


I don't say, it's not enough today, but what i am saying is the 8700@4.4 Ghz cooler, less energy, and faster multitasking. That's more than recommended for general usage today. I have a secondary backup PC with 2500/GTX 480, still enough for fooling around in 1080p medium, so i agree:)! But if i invest in something, for the price i want the best option all-over. 2 weeks ago the i7 8700 for 220 was much better choice. Even though i bought an expensive MSI board with it for the future, maybe next year i can get something very powerful unlocked processor for really bargain, who knows:)!
Where did you grab a 8700 for 220? Bargain!
Highway723 h, 29 m ago

That doesn't even make sense, CPUs have little to do with gaming at high …That doesn't even make sense, CPUs have little to do with gaming at high resolutions, it's all on the GPU.... are you living in the 1990s still?



No but I wish you had gone back there and learnt how to read. I'm tired of people jumping in and replying without having done so.


The comparison was between an 8600k and an 8700. My point was gaming at higher resolutions it won't matter much which one you use, but the i7 will be mostly faster for things besides gaming. Don't make me come back there and slap everyone else who turns up here to comment and doesn't read the previous posts of that discussion for context before replying.
bbfb1231 h, 24 m ago

Where did you grab a 8700 for 220? Bargain!


Amazon, of course:D, the deal was OUS within couple of hours, believe me! So you now understand why i sticked to the 8700 rather than i5 8600K and try a fortune with overclock.
garybb2 h, 27 m ago

No chance. Take Battlefield 1 for example a game thats very CPU heavy …No chance. Take Battlefield 1 for example a game thats very CPU heavy bottlenecks a 8600k/OC or not.i7 will outlast any i5 in heavy CPU games making it a far better buy being the k or non k versions..However this is game dependant but better to future proof than having to do it later.


What are you talking about?

techpowerup.com/rev…tml

The 8600k and the 8700k both put out exactly the same numbers. Take a look. within .3 FPS, 148.0 vs 148.3.
vulcanproject2nd Apr

I'm very sure you don't really know what hyper-threading is after this …I'm very sure you don't really know what hyper-threading is after this post. SMT isn't inherently 'bad' for games. If your game engine is designed to use more threads than you get a clear advantage with hyper threading. That is why a dual core with hyper threading (4 threads) can gain enormously over a dual core without hyper threading (2 threads) in games. Hyper threading works very well when it is used. It's just fundamentally whether or not the software is threaded well enough. The simple reason why many titles a from a few years ago see no gain or some reduction with 8 threads is because they cannot use more than 4 threads and the task scheduler can mess up a small amount presenting more threads to some games. Today however, more games use 8 threads and you see a gain. Simply put you're better off having the threads and not needing them than not having them when you need them.As I pointed out more games will likely be able to use more than 4 threads going forward. That is just a truism. There are several examples already.Besides ALL THIS I pointed out whether you have 6 or 12 threads at higher resolution the performance difference is tiny any which way you call it. In circumstances other than games 12 threads will win a lot more than it loses. So yes, you'll lose maybe 1 percent gaming at 1440p with lower clocks, but you can easily gain 10 percent (and a lot more) transcoding or rendering. Added in the fact the future is more threading for everything in general then you just decide what you want knowing this.


What is this? Are you just doing a Trump and saying "you don't know" as your reply?

en.wikipedia.org/wik…ing

The important part: Hyper-Threading can improve the performance of some MPI applications, but not all. Depending on the cluster configuration and, most importantly, the nature of the application running on the cluster, performance gains can vary or even be negative. The next step is to use performance tools to understand what areas contribute to performance gains and what areas contribute to performance degradation.

The point of Hyper Threading is that it allows another virtual core to be available, which has very fast context switching. When the physical core is using a high proportion of the CPU, say when playing a game that uses heavy CPU, the core doesn't have free time to switch.

You seem to be clinging onto gaming here, when you should stop clinging on gaming and focus on what HT is good for.

If you game one on monitor and browse the internet on another, HT starts to shine. You have a background application that is low CPU resource that can sit on one of the HT threads and when you context switch, it's faster, and the game can remain on the other HT core, so switching from one task, to another, is faster.

While you are *in* the game, you will notice virtually no difference, but switching between multiple things, you will start to notice.

So let me repeat, at the sake of being repetitive. Hyperthreading has NEVER BEEN GOOD FOR GAMES.

Expecting this to change in the future is a strong indication that you do not understand what Hyper Threading is at a fundamental level. It is a fake core that allows for faster application/core switching.


Feel free to look around for Benchmarks and Hyperthreading. You will quickly realize that the 8700 (non k) gets stomped by an OC'd 8600k. It's not even close.


If you are *ONLY* gaming, the 8600k (or the 8400) is the best value choice (probably the 8400). If you run heavy multitasking, stream, watch videos, game, do any encoding at all... It's not even close, the 8700 (or 8700k) are the only options for best.
I'm going to have to agree with Nate. Lol

If funds are not an issue just buy the 8700k.

But if you have a set budget (like most people) then if you are taking then a 8400 plus a tier higher graphics card will give you better results. There is £130 difference between the above deal and an 8400. Spend that on a faster card.
Before you start with "future proofing" most people don't upgrade every year or two. Most people buying 8000 series chips are using 4000 series chips or older.
DrTraktor9 h, 42 m ago

just recently bought an i7 8700, over the 8600K, and i have to say, it's …just recently bought an i7 8700, over the 8600K, and i have to say, it's not only gaming, BUT MULTITASKING, you open 2-3 games, 4 browser, 10 other windows, and the i5 8600K DIES, and cooler shouts, when the i7 still quiet and snappy. That's the difference. I've had i5-6600K@4.8GHz, i7 7700, now i7 8700, and huge difference in 1440p with i7. Paired up with an OC GT 1080, very smooth and quiet gameplay, much less heat, than an overclocked i5.


I mean, that's exactly what everyone here has been saying. It is multitasking that makes the 8700 (and, better yet, the 8700k) shine.

Who, in their right mind, opens '2-3 games, 4 browsers, 10 others windows' in normal operation? That sounds like you wanted to kill your CPU.

Comparing the 8700 versus the 6600k is a joke by the way. It's not the same comparison as the 8600k v 8700. We are talking about 6 cores versus 4 cores.
Nate149224 m ago

What are you talking …What are you talking about?https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_8600K/12.htmlThe 8600k and the 8700k both put out exactly the same numbers. Take a look. within .3 FPS, 148.0 vs 148.3.


100% cpu usage during battlefield 1 causing stuttering and bottleneck it has nothing to do with the fps.
garybb6 m ago

100% cpu usage during battlefield 1 causing stuttering and bottleneck it …100% cpu usage during battlefield 1 causing stuttering and bottleneck it has nothing to do with the fps.


Which CPU?
Nate149228 m ago

Hyperthreading has NEVER BEEN GOOD FOR GAMES.


I'm not reading all that because this quote is all anyone needs to know that you are wrong.

33563119-0h0er.jpg

Most games just haven't been able to use more than 4 threads so they show no impact, or some negative impact because of task schedule issues. But as I said very modern games are appearing that can use more than 4 threads. Hyper Threading is very good even for games, as long as your application can use more threads.

One glance at how the 7700k with no other changes running with HT0 (HT off) and HT1 (HT enabled) on properly multi threaded engine like Watch Dogs 2 here should put you to bed.

Whats this, like a pretty enormous 20 percent performance increase with HT turned on for the 7700k? An 8 thread ancient 2600k extremely close to a 4 thread 6600k? Pretty fantastic HT implementation right here. I suggest you quiet down now and have a little look see about catching up with newer trends.
vulcanproject27 m ago

I'm not reading all that because this quote is all anyone needs to know …I'm not reading all that because this quote is all anyone needs to know that you are wrong.[Image] Most games just haven't been able to use more than 4 threads so they show no impact, or some negative impact because of task schedule issues. But as I said very modern games are appearing that can use more than 4 threads. Hyper Threading is very good even for games, as long as your application can use more threads.One glance at how the 7700k with no other changes running with HT0 (HT off) and HT1 (HT enabled) on properly multi threaded engine like Watch Dogs 2 here should put you to bed. Whats this, like a pretty enormous 20 percent performance increase with HT turned on for the 7700k? An 8 thread ancient 2600k extremely close to a 4 thread 6600k? Pretty fantastic HT implementation right here. I suggest you quiet down now and have a little look see about catching up with newer trends.


That's it. i7 more future proof. Funny, how ppl were hanged on that i mentioned "2-3 games, 4 browsers, 10 others windows opened at once" i just said something, what is not impossible with 12 thread processor, but was just a dummy example. Even now i am writing, i have 5 windows open in browser, diablo 3 runs in the back, utorrent is on, still everything is very smooth, and my cpu cooler is dead silent.
Nate149239 m ago

Which CPU?

Edited by: "DrTraktor" 2nd Apr
Original Poster
I'll be going for the 8700k myself just look at the 2500k - 2600k scenario back in 2011 everybody went for the cheaper i5 2500k as there was no difference in gaming back then. Things have changed and the 2600k i7 has held up much better with a much better average and high fps in gaming in 2017-2018 and is better than some newer i5 chips.

I swapped out my 2500k for a 2600k and it was a large overall improvement especially most noticeably with the low fps drops that I no longer got with the i7.

I can see the exact same thing happening with these new cpus
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text