Intel 8th Gen Core i7-8700K Processor £298.80 @ Amazon
371°Expired

Intel 8th Gen Core i7-8700K Processor £298.80 @ Amazon

£298.80Amazon Deals
34
Found 29th MarEdited by:"oliver.wong"
Intel 8th Gen Core i7-8700K Processor Sold directly by Amazon. Another great price.

Editted for lower price

2917610.jpg
Community Updates

Groups

34 Comments
Give me cheap gpu plz
Is the k model really worth the £80 over the non K? If you managed to get the £220 deal posted a few days ago, this deal is 36% more, albeit for a higher spec

I know you get it unlocked, and likely a bit better binned, but is the performance that much better? Charts seem to suggest 10% performance gain. The 95W vs 65W tdp puts me off, as it will generate more heat too.

Thoughts?
robodan91813 m ago

Is the k model really worth the £80 over the non K? If you managed to get …Is the k model really worth the £80 over the non K? If you managed to get the £220 deal posted a few days ago, this deal is 36% more, albeit for a higher specI know you get it unlocked, and likely a bit better binned, but is the performance that much better? Charts seem to suggest 10% performance gain. The 95W vs 65W tdp puts me off, as it will generate more heat too. Thoughts?


If you are overclocking and want the ultimate in gaming performance then yes because the k is currently that. The premium is worth it to those people.

However for most people the non k is still an exceptional CPU and just one step below this 8700k.
robodan91814 m ago

Is the k model really worth the £80 over the non K? If you managed to get …Is the k model really worth the £80 over the non K? If you managed to get the £220 deal posted a few days ago, this deal is 36% more, albeit for a higher specI know you get it unlocked, and likely a bit better binned, but is the performance that much better? Charts seem to suggest 10% performance gain. The 95W vs 65W tdp puts me off, as it will generate more heat too. Thoughts?


If you are using it for gaming or in a bit of a stretch the non k is fine. Also depends how long you gonna keep your PC, I have an i7 7700k and I will keep it for 5+ years. Needless to say that the k, will give it a bit more life in the end of the line when it starts lagging behind you can push its clock speed to alleviate the problem.
Edited by: "MarcoLoves360" 29th Mar
robodan91819 m ago

Is the k model really worth the £80 over the non K? If you managed to get …Is the k model really worth the £80 over the non K? If you managed to get the £220 deal posted a few days ago, this deal is 36% more, albeit for a higher specI know you get it unlocked, and likely a bit better binned, but is the performance that much better? Charts seem to suggest 10% performance gain. The 95W vs 65W tdp puts me off, as it will generate more heat too. Thoughts?


It really depends on your individual want/need. If you want to overclock, the 8700K is the route to go. As well as having a higher base and turbo clock (albeit turbo boost difference isn't a huge amount).

Personally I would get the 8700K now for the extra so that in a couple of years, if I needed to squeeze some extra speed out of it the option is there.

But that's my circumstance.
MattyK18 m ago

It really depends on your individual want/need. If you want to overclock, …It really depends on your individual want/need. If you want to overclock, the 8700K is the route to go. As well as having a higher base and turbo clock (albeit turbo boost difference isn't a huge amount).Personally I would get the 8700K now for the extra so that in a couple of years, if I needed to squeeze some extra speed out of it the option is there. But that's my circumstance.


Thanks for the comment. I've been reading up and it seems like enabling multi core enhancement and doing a modest blck bump up 102 (the only way to overclock on a non k model) will push the 8700 to 8700k (stock) territory. That means you can technically get 4.7GHz out of the 8700, whereas the 8700k can itself only stably overclock to 4.9-5.0GHz. So 4.7 vs (let's say) 5.0 = 6% higher max performance of the k variant for 36% higher cost (again, in the case that you bought each cpu at lowest retail -£220 vs £300)
robodan91816 m ago

Thanks for the comment. I've been reading up and it seems like enabling …Thanks for the comment. I've been reading up and it seems like enabling multi core enhancement and doing a modest blck bump up 102 (the only way to overclock on a non k model) will push the 8700 to 8700k (stock) territory. That means you can technically get 4.7GHz out of the 8700, whereas the 8700k can itself only stably overclock to 4.9-5.0GHz. So 4.7 vs (let's say) 5.0 = 6% higher max performance of the k variant for 36% higher cost (again, in the case that you bought each cpu at lowest retail -£220 vs £300)


If you are interested in OC'ing the 'k' adds a lot to that experience.

If you are really strapped for cash, the 8400 is a better purchase than the 8700, in my eyes.

Both 6 cores, no HT, similar boosts/potential.
It's probably worth getting the K version to compensate for the Meltdown software fix performance drop... *grabs popcorn* :P
Edited by: "wizk1" 29th Mar
Well you’re still f!cked, just a lot quicker.
Good price but beware intel is going to release a new revision to the current cpu to patch meltdwon exploit
8700k is pretty much pointless over a 8700 at £220 for gaming unless you pair it with a GTX 1080ti.... otherwise you'll never see the CPU bottleneck for many years.
robodan9181 h, 28 m ago

Thanks for the comment. I've been reading up and it seems like enabling …Thanks for the comment. I've been reading up and it seems like enabling multi core enhancement and doing a modest blck bump up 102 (the only way to overclock on a non k model) will push the 8700 to 8700k (stock) territory. That means you can technically get 4.7GHz out of the 8700, whereas the 8700k can itself only stably overclock to 4.9-5.0GHz. So 4.7 vs (let's say) 5.0 = 6% higher max performance of the k variant for 36% higher cost (again, in the case that you bought each cpu at lowest retail -£220 vs £300)


Arent you at the mercy of what the 8700 actually wants to run at tho? I think thats just an optimistic assumption 4.7 across all cores.
Intel arent going to sell something for less that can match a more profitable sku.
Personally think the 8700k is utterly pointless over the 8700. Remember you have to throw in the price of a decent cooler too, so an extra £20. My 8700 boosts up to 4.3Ghz on all cores with the stock cooler anyway, I mean that's an exceptional speed in itself but no way in hell you're getting £60-70 more performance from an 8700k.

A 6 core 12 thread i7 would probably still be a good 6 years from now anyway so I think the 8700k is a bit overkill
sion2250 m ago

Good price but beware intel is going to release a new revision to the …Good price but beware intel is going to release a new revision to the current cpu to patch meltdwon exploit


Yes, but not for a while yet.
vulcanproject2 h, 37 m ago

If you are overclocking and want the ultimate in gaming performance then …If you are overclocking and want the ultimate in gaming performance then yes because the k is currently that. The premium is worth it to those people. However for most people the non k is still an exceptional CPU and just one step below this 8700k.


If playing a modern GPU focused game at 4K, then a older or cheaper chip will do, this chip is overkill for 4k killing
The 95W vs 65W tdp puts me off, as it will generate more heat too.
wrong way to think about it , think of it as max allowed heat , one is allowed to produce more heat than the other, when under max load. At rest they will both produce the same (or very similar) heat.
I don't buy the overclocking at then of its life argument either ... if you are noticing a reduction iin CPU power then the extra 5-10% wont really help much, AND if you can have that power , why not use it now?
Lets be honest , people just love overclocking a HEDT chip and seeing how much extra they can get.
Still debating about Amd 1600 vs 1600x vs 2600 myself or maybe 2400g ??
the longer I wait the cheaper they get
Edited by: "GwanGy" 29th Mar
robodan9183 h, 33 m ago

Thanks for the comment. I've been reading up and it seems like enabling …Thanks for the comment. I've been reading up and it seems like enabling multi core enhancement and doing a modest blck bump up 102 (the only way to overclock on a non k model) will push the 8700 to 8700k (stock) territory. That means you can technically get 4.7GHz out of the 8700, whereas the 8700k can itself only stably overclock to 4.9-5.0GHz. So 4.7 vs (let's say) 5.0 = 6% higher max performance of the k variant for 36% higher cost (again, in the case that you bought each cpu at lowest retail -£220 vs £300)


This is not correct.

The 8700 will not run at 4.7 all cores. It will boost to 4.7 on a single core but you will lose that as soon as you increase the bclk. The other cores will not boost to 4.7 under any circumstances as their boost multipliers are locked at x43. The maximum you will get from an 8700 is 4.4Ghz all core at 102.5 bclk.

Secondly, setting it to 102 bclk isn't garunteed, Ive had 3 8700 chips and 2 of them wouldn't do anything past 101.

The 8700 is a fine chip, for £220 it was a steal, although I can't find that deal anymore. The added costs associated with an 8700k are the better motherboard required for overclocking and a new cooling system.

The 8700 will happily run on the lowest Z370 board and comes with a cooler, although the cooler is arguably not fit for purpose.
Edited by: "Immotek" 29th Mar
Nate14923 h, 38 m ago

If you are interested in OC'ing the 'k' adds a lot to that experience.If …If you are interested in OC'ing the 'k' adds a lot to that experience.If you are really strapped for cash, the 8400 is a better purchase than the 8700, in my eyes.Both 6 cores, no HT, similar boosts/potential.


What? The i7 8700 has hyperthreading.
Not strapped for cash - I just buy a lot of hardware and prefer it to always be the best performance per pound (while still being in the high end) imho the 8700 fits the bill
jaju1232 h, 30 m ago

8700k is pretty much pointless over a 8700 at £220 for gaming unless you …8700k is pretty much pointless over a 8700 at £220 for gaming unless you pair it with a GTX 1080ti.... otherwise you'll never see the CPU bottleneck for many years.


What if you pair it with dual 1080ti in sli?
Immotek51 m ago

This is not correct. The 8700 will not run at 4.7 all cores. It will boost …This is not correct. The 8700 will not run at 4.7 all cores. It will boost to 4.7 on a single core but you will lose that as soon as you increase the bclk. The other cores will not boost to 4.7 under any circumstances as their boost multipliers are locked at x43. The maximum you will get from an 8700 is 4.4Ghz all core at 102.5 bclk.Secondly, setting it to 102 bclk isn't garunteed, Ive had 3 8700 chips and 2 of them wouldn't do anything past 101.The 8700 is a fine chip, for £220 it was a steal, although I can't find that deal anymore. The added costs associated with an 8700k are the better motherboard required for overclocking and a new cooling system. The 8700 will happily run on the lowest Z370 board and comes with a cooler, although the cooler is arguably not fit for purpose.


Running the 'multi core enhancement' actually circumvents Intel's frequency tables, and you can have all 6 cores running at max! Will report back about blck at 102-103 and mce-on.

Will be testing at stock + air cooler in cinebench r15, then +mce +blck air, then +mce +blck waterblock, then delid and do the same test with air and water cooling. I might end up buying a die guard and running direct die watercooling with either kryonaut or conductonaut as TIM
robodan9188 m ago

Running the 'multi core enhancement' actually circumvents Intel's …Running the 'multi core enhancement' actually circumvents Intel's frequency tables, and you can have all 6 cores running at max! Will report back about blck at 102-103 and mce-on. Will be testing at stock + air cooler in cinebench r15, then +mce +blck air, then +mce +blck waterblock, then delid and do the same test with air and water cooling. I might end up buying a die guard and running direct die watercooling with either kryonaut or conductonaut as TIM


It doesn't. This has been disproved countless times. There were some reports that early Z370 implementations did this however it was not substantiated and the thought is that Intel quickly fixed the issue via manufacturer BIOS updates.

On all boards, the MCE function is either disabled or not present when non-K CPU's are used.
Just.Wondering2 h, 43 m ago

If playing a modern GPU focused game at 4K, then a older or cheaper chip …If playing a modern GPU focused game at 4K, then a older or cheaper chip will do, this chip is overkill for 4k killing


Considering that at 4K the onus is heavily on the GPU limitation then the results end up being similar or the same. But then adding in more GPU performance later on a better central processor will push an even faster GPU better. Right now at 4K it won't be apparent but in the near future with additional GPU performance a gap will appear. You choose be platform right now and if you plan to keep it for several years then you go with something adequate for future upgrades.
vulcanproject22 m ago

Considering that at 4K the onus is heavily on the GPU limitation then the …Considering that at 4K the onus is heavily on the GPU limitation then the results end up being similar or the same. But then adding in more GPU performance later on a better central processor will push an even faster GPU better. Right now at 4K it won't be apparent but in the near future with additional GPU performance a gap will appear. You choose be platform right now and if you plan to keep it for several years then you go with something adequate for future upgrades.


But why not save the money and upgrade in 18 months 2 years time....when the graphics cards need the CPU power for 4k.....unless a upgrade is required , then save the money .
Immotek1 h, 10 m ago

It doesn't. This has been disproved countless times. There were some …It doesn't. This has been disproved countless times. There were some reports that early Z370 implementations did this however it was not substantiated and the thought is that Intel quickly fixed the issue via manufacturer BIOS updates.On all boards, the MCE function is either disabled or not present when non-K CPU's are used.



Immotek1 h, 10 m ago

It doesn't. This has been disproved countless times. There were some …It doesn't. This has been disproved countless times. There were some reports that early Z370 implementations did this however it was not substantiated and the thought is that Intel quickly fixed the issue via manufacturer BIOS updates.On all boards, the MCE function is either disabled or not present when non-K CPU's are used.


Hmm that's a shame
Will put that to the test today
Just.Wondering23 m ago

But why not save the money and upgrade in 18 months 2 years time....when …But why not save the money and upgrade in 18 months 2 years time....when the graphics cards need the CPU power for 4k.....unless a upgrade is required , then save the money .


Because you probably aren't saving money scrapping a platform or CPU every 18 months. And in the meantime you don't have the best CPU performance for anything else you might be doing with the machine, besides gaming. I do a lot of transcoding, a cheaper CPU just doesn't cut it if I don't want to waste extra hours of productivity time. The difference in gaming at 4k between an 8100 and 8700 won't be huge but transcoding 4K video it's virtually twice as fast, probably saving an hour on each and every task.

Only considering gaming then at 4K you need the fastest hardware all round you can lay your hands on. More is never a bad thing at those resolutions.
vulcanproject25 m ago

Because you probably aren't saving money scrapping a platform or CPU every …Because you probably aren't saving money scrapping a platform or CPU every 18 months. And in the meantime you don't have the best CPU performance for anything else you might be doing with the machine, besides gaming. I do a lot of transcoding, a cheaper CPU just doesn't cut it if I don't want to waste extra hours of productivity time. The difference in gaming at 4k between an 8100 and 8700 won't be huge but transcoding 4K video it's virtually twice as fast, probably saving an hour on each and every task. Only considering gaming then at 4K you need the fastest hardware all round you can lay your hands on. More is never a bad thing at those resolutions.


Well my 6600k vs a i7 8700k in 4k gpu intensive gaming = negligible difference... I've read up a lot about the benefits and watched the YouTube videos...
Just.Wondering1 h, 36 m ago

Well my 6600k vs a i7 8700k in 4k gpu intensive gaming


Key words being GPU intensive gaming. Of course we already went through all this, at high resolutions for the time CPU performance is far far less impactful.

When mainstream GPU performance increases this year with new Nvidia cards there will be more difference. When it doubles again in another 2 years it'll be a bigger difference. When individual games are more threaded there is a difference. For example on Civilzation 6 even in 4K resolution the difference between a stock 8700K and an i5 7500 is ~40 percent! Depends on each situation.

If you aren't playing at 4K currently there is a clear difference. 2560 x 1440 60FPS is for example far better than 4K 30FPS anyway IMO. It is whatever you use it for. If you use it for 4K gaming and absolutely nothing else than you can probably get away with a less than amazing CPU right now.

If however like 99 percent of PC owners you game at less than 4K or use the PC for other stuff or plan to keep the base of the system more than a couple years that is why you buy a better CPU.
robodan9183 h, 56 m ago

What? The i7 8700 has hyperthreading.Not strapped for cash - I just buy a …What? The i7 8700 has hyperthreading.Not strapped for cash - I just buy a lot of hardware and prefer it to always be the best performance per pound (while still being in the high end) imho the 8700 fits the bill


Let's start by saying this: The 8700 isn't selling for £220. They are being sold around £255.

The 8400 is being sold for £144. This is an absolute steal.

Is hyper threading worth the £111 price increase?

I certainly do not think so, considering in a perfect scenario, the hyper threading adds 20% to the CPU at nearly double the cost.

While the difference between the 8700 and the 8700k is more obvious, because it's constant, there is no 'best scenario' here. The 8700k will always pull at least 10% faster performance.

So, in some magical, theoretical vacuum, going from the 8400 to the 8700 for 20% performance is terrible value. Living in the real world, this difference is no where near 20%. The hyper threading works wonders on rendering, but does virtually nothing for gaming, which leaves the 8400 and the 8700 nearly identical.

So, if you are trying to justify the differences and include prices... The 8700 makes no sense on any spectrum. Unless you are looking for some rendering machine, or some non gaming rig, hyper threading is not worth the cost difference. The 8700k or the 8400 are the 'smart' buys.

The 8100 has merits too, but it sounds like you are looking at the 6 core chips.
Has anybody actually noticed it's being sold by NVCOMPUTER at this price and fulfilled by Amazon, not Amazon direct!

NVComputer looks foreign and has zero seller feedback

Detailed Seller Information
  • Business Name:BALZANO MARIANEVE
  • Trade Register Number:08788891219
  • VAT Number:IT08788891219
  • Business Address:
    • PARCO PENNINIELLO 22
    • TORRE ANNUNZIATA
    • NA
    • 80058
    • IT

The Amazon prime is still £307 here amazon.co.uk/gp/…c=1
Edited by: "MisterFresh1980" 29th Mar
vulcanproject1 h, 55 m ago

Key words being GPU intensive gaming. Of course we already went through …Key words being GPU intensive gaming. Of course we already went through all this, at high resolutions for the time CPU performance is far far less impactful. When mainstream GPU performance increases this year with new Nvidia cards there will be more difference. When it doubles again in another 2 years it'll be a bigger difference. When individual games are more threaded there is a difference. For example on Civilzation 6 even in 4K resolution the difference between a stock 8700K and an i5 7500 is ~40 percent! Depends on each situation.If you aren't playing at 4K currently there is a clear difference. 2560 x 1440 60FPS is for example far better than 4K 30FPS anyway IMO. It is whatever you use it for. If you use it for 4K gaming and absolutely nothing else than you can probably get away with a less than amazing CPU right now.If however like 99 percent of PC owners you game at less than 4K or use the PC for other stuff or plan to keep the base of the system more than a couple years that is why you buy a better CPU.


So would you recommend me buying a i7 8600k and a new motherbosrd considering cpu usage is around 60 percent whilst gaming at 4k?

Or should I save money and wait until next year?

Considering that I would see no improvement in gaming as clearly demonstrated online by various expert reviewers?
Edited by: "Just.Wondering" 29th Mar
Nate14927 h, 15 m ago

Let's start by saying this: The 8700 isn't selling for £220. They are …Let's start by saying this: The 8700 isn't selling for £220. They are being sold around £255.The 8400 is being sold for £144. This is an absolute steal.Is hyper threading worth the £111 price increase?I certainly do not think so, considering in a perfect scenario, the hyper threading adds 20% to the CPU at nearly double the cost.While the difference between the 8700 and the 8700k is more obvious, because it's constant, there is no 'best scenario' here. The 8700k will always pull at least 10% faster performance.So, in some magical, theoretical vacuum, going from the 8400 to the 8700 for 20% performance is terrible value. Living in the real world, this difference is no where near 20%. The hyper threading works wonders on rendering, but does virtually nothing for gaming, which leaves the 8400 and the 8700 nearly identical.So, if you are trying to justify the differences and include prices... The 8700 makes no sense on any spectrum. Unless you are looking for some rendering machine, or some non gaming rig, hyper threading is not worth the cost difference. The 8700k or the 8400 are the 'smart' buys.The 8100 has merits too, but it sounds like you are looking at the 6 core chips.


nah mate after having played around with the 8700 tonight I'm sold - it's worth the 220 I paid for it a few days ago on amazon. And if it goes down to a low price, it's only a matter of time until it reaches it again.

BLCK 102.9 (stable)
4.425GHz (stable) base + target 4.7GHz turbo
temps: never above 50C at load (24C room/ambient temp) thanks to good air cooler (arctic freezer 33 with 2 120mm fans, and 140mm case fan) & kryonaut paste - waterblock to come, as I'd like to drop the temps down to as close to room temp as possible, but haven't built the open loop yet

Cinebench consistently 1458 multicore (almost 2x my i7-6700 with otherwise identical hardware)

Looking forward to seeing what this can do under water and after delid/liquid metal re-paste. Definitely worth it for me to save the money on non-k 8700 (fyi I already have the delid tools and paste, so minimal 'extra' cost there which would also have applied to the 8700k if I bought that instead)
robodan9183 h, 19 m ago

nah mate after having played around with the 8700 tonight I'm sold - it's …nah mate after having played around with the 8700 tonight I'm sold - it's worth the 220 I paid for it a few days ago on amazon. And if it goes down to a low price, it's only a matter of time until it reaches it again.BLCK 102.9 (stable)4.425GHz (stable) base + target 4.7GHz turbotemps: never above 50C at load (24C room/ambient temp) thanks to good air cooler (arctic freezer 33 with 2 120mm fans, and 140mm case fan) & kryonaut paste - waterblock to come, as I'd like to drop the temps down to as close to room temp as possible, but haven't built the open loop yetCinebench consistently 1458 multicore (almost 2x my i7-6700 with otherwise identical hardware)Looking forward to seeing what this can do under water and after delid/liquid metal re-paste. Definitely worth it for me to save the money on non-k 8700 (fyi I already have the delid tools and paste, so minimal 'extra' cost there which would also have applied to the 8700k if I bought that instead)


You are delidding your CPU, putting on a water cooler, and NOT buying a 'K' version?

Also, you bought it for 220 a few days on amazon, why not post the deal here where it would get tons of heat? The only current deal appears to be a 'global deal' that doesn't include the Import Fees until you click through.

I *STILL* think you are crazy as you can't get anywhere near what an 8700k can get with the same effort.

The fact you are buying exotic parts (Good thermal paste, delidding tools, waterblock) but NOT buying a 'k' is so crazy.

There is a reason you can't go up to 103 MHz BCLK btw, because IME will freak out.

Stock Cinebench scores for the 8700k are right around 1500.

4.7 = 1550ish

5.0 = 1660ish

5.1 = 1700ish

That's 17% faster.... Anyway, if you are happy, fine, but I think your selling porky pies here.

And don't bother, you won't get past 102.9 BLCK, I've read that 103 is basically a hard limit not based on the chip performance.

Finally: Post your 220 quid deal if it exists, as it's 35 quid cheaper than anywhere else.
Nate14927 h, 50 m ago

You are delidding your CPU, putting on a water cooler, and NOT buying a …You are delidding your CPU, putting on a water cooler, and NOT buying a 'K' version?Also, you bought it for 220 a few days on amazon, why not post the deal here where it would get tons of heat? The only current deal appears to be a 'global deal' that doesn't include the Import Fees until you click through.I *STILL* think you are crazy as you can't get anywhere near what an 8700k can get with the same effort.The fact you are buying exotic parts (Good thermal paste, delidding tools, waterblock) but NOT buying a 'k' is so crazy.There is a reason you can't go up to 103 MHz BCLK btw, because IME will freak out.Stock Cinebench scores for the 8700k are right around 1500.4.7 = 1550ish5.0 = 1660ish5.1 = 1700ishThat's 17% faster.... Anyway, if you are happy, fine, but I think your selling porky pies here.And don't bother, you won't get past 102.9 BLCK, I've read that 103 is basically a hard limit not based on the chip performance.Finally: Post your 220 quid deal if it exists, as it's 35 quid cheaper than anywhere else.


Here ya go hotukdeals.com/dea…789
I didn't post it -another user did a few days ago
Don't be salty that you didn't get it then -it'll come back to that price

your binebench projections are just that - projections. Stock 8700k is reported by cinebench as 1480, and 1700 max at 5ghz oc (14% increase for a lot more heat). My 1458 is near enough to 8700k at stock that I'm happy to take the 36% lower price.

Lastly - yes so crazy! #madness
robodan91830th Mar

Here ya go …Here ya go https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/amazon-prime-intel-i7-8700-processor-22021-amazon-sold-by-netxit-and-fulfilled-by-amazon-2914789#comment-33542191I didn't post it -another user did a few days agoDon't be salty that you didn't get it then -it'll come back to that price your binebench projections are just that - projections. Stock 8700k is reported by cinebench as 1480, and 1700 max at 5ghz oc (14% increase for a lot more heat). My 1458 is near enough to 8700k at stock that I'm happy to take the 36% lower price. Lastly - yes so crazy! #madness


Those are not 'cinebench' projections. Those are actual numbers from multiple people.

I'm not salty at all, I got my 8700k and it absolutely crushes the 8700 non k.
The values you see here for cinebench are replicated on my rig as well. I run on water and can pull 5 ghz without any sweat.


Your '1480' is no where near the easily reached OC's of the 8700k.

But hey, if you want to feel happy about this price, go for it.

I think it's a bad price for someone who is clearly interested in overclocking, I still find it really crazy you are talking about delidding a cpu that can't be overclocked.

It's not crazy, it's actually just stupid, but hey, to each their own.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text