Intel 8th Gen Core i7-8700K Processor Boxed Retail CPU - £347.99 @ Amazon UK - In Stock now
224°Expired

Intel 8th Gen Core i7-8700K Processor Boxed Retail CPU - £347.99 @ Amazon UK - In Stock now

£347.99Amazon Deals
42

Groups

Top comments
Don't buy Intel until you know the outcome of their security issues
Expect slower speeds than advertised at best
daz_7517 m ago

Don't buy Intel until you know the outcome of their security issues Expect …Don't buy Intel until you know the outcome of their security issues Expect slower speeds than advertised at best


The chips aren't going to run any slower. A 3.7Ghz chip will still run at 3.7Ghz after the fix, but it'll get less done in the same amount of time.

The advertised speeds are exactly what you'll get. Nowhere is it advertised how quickly you should expect a task to complete.
johnthehuman10 m ago

The chips aren't going to run any slower. A 3.7Ghz chip will still run at …The chips aren't going to run any slower. A 3.7Ghz chip will still run at 3.7Ghz after the fix, but it'll get less done in the same amount of time.The advertised speeds are exactly what you'll get. Nowhere is it advertised how quickly you should expect a task to complete.


What on you on about the guy was making a valid point especially when spending 350 pounds, at the end of the day the performance they enticed you in with the benchmarks might not be the same after the patch. no body has ever mentioning clock speeds the reason bei ng that they have been meaningless ever since pentium 4 vs athlon xp era.

Anyway with this whole issue coming out intel processor prices are likely to drop in the near future even if they have zero performance drops.
robodan91849 m ago

I'll be steering well clear of intel for a few years nowa bit pissed off …I'll be steering well clear of intel for a few years nowa bit pissed off that my i7-6700 could now basically be 'downgraded' in a sense to i5 speeds. The 8000 series was already pretty crappy compared to ryzenwith ryzen 2 out soon. That will probably be my next build


I don't know, everywhere review I read the 8700k smashes ryzen, even more when overlocked. Please stop scare mongering, you probably don't even run Intel.
42 Comments
Don't buy Intel until you know the outcome of their security issues
Expect slower speeds than advertised at best
I'd probably wait with purchase of anything intel right now 😁
Next lot of Ryzen CPU's round the corner. Might aswell wait regardless of Intel security issue. Then again.... those DDR4 prices....
daz_755 m ago

Don't buy Intel until you know the outcome of their security issues Expect …Don't buy Intel until you know the outcome of their security issues Expect slower speeds than advertised at best


Fixes already tested and no performance drops.
Raven_crow6 m ago

Fixes already tested and no performance drops.


No fixes have been released by Intel as of yet.

The OS vendors have/will release *workarounds* that disable pre-fetching on the affected CPUs and that WILL cause a performance drop, your mileage may vary depending on usage.

pcworld.com/art…tml
daz_7517 m ago

Don't buy Intel until you know the outcome of their security issues Expect …Don't buy Intel until you know the outcome of their security issues Expect slower speeds than advertised at best


The chips aren't going to run any slower. A 3.7Ghz chip will still run at 3.7Ghz after the fix, but it'll get less done in the same amount of time.

The advertised speeds are exactly what you'll get. Nowhere is it advertised how quickly you should expect a task to complete.
johnthehuman10 m ago

The chips aren't going to run any slower. A 3.7Ghz chip will still run at …The chips aren't going to run any slower. A 3.7Ghz chip will still run at 3.7Ghz after the fix, but it'll get less done in the same amount of time.The advertised speeds are exactly what you'll get. Nowhere is it advertised how quickly you should expect a task to complete.


What on you on about the guy was making a valid point especially when spending 350 pounds, at the end of the day the performance they enticed you in with the benchmarks might not be the same after the patch. no body has ever mentioning clock speeds the reason bei ng that they have been meaningless ever since pentium 4 vs athlon xp era.

Anyway with this whole issue coming out intel processor prices are likely to drop in the near future even if they have zero performance drops.
Orima23 m ago

No fixes have been released by Intel as of yet.The OS vendors have/will …No fixes have been released by Intel as of yet.The OS vendors have/will release *workarounds* that disable pre-fetching on the affected CPUs and that WILL cause a performance drop, your mileage may vary depending on usage. https://www.pcworld.com/article/3245606/security/intel-x86-cpu-kernel-bug-faq-how-it-affects-pc-mac.html


it isn't pre fetching as such as but more compiling code ahead of time because the core has nothing to do, the problem is that the code is visible and it should never be visible to user apps..

For intel altering this will cause a performance hit on everything, but it will vary.

With the spectre bug, the fix will cause less of a performance hit .. but long term easier to fix in next gen cpus.

Intel on the other hand have a huge huge issue and it is a pr disaster
Intels professors will be just fine. There's a reason amd are working with Intel. They share very similar blueprints and competition is healthy. You won't find one competitor doing really well over the other, amd stock prices rocketed because of false media reports, not because of the intel issues.
Cuddl3s18 m ago

What on you on about the guy was making a valid point especially when …What on you on about the guy was making a valid point especially when spending 350 pounds, at the end of the day the performance they enticed you in with the benchmarks might not be the same after the patch. no body has ever mentioning clock speeds the reason bei ng that they have been meaningless ever since pentium 4 vs athlon xp era.Anyway with this whole issue coming out intel processor prices are likely to drop in the near future even if they have zero performance drops.


What am I on about? Try reading the thread.

daz said "Expect slower speeds than advertised at best" - I was replying to that. You're not getting slower speeds than advertised. If you're expecting performance based on synthetic benchmarks then you're gonna be disappointed just as much before the patch as you are after.
johnthehuman16 m ago

What am I on about? Try reading the thread. daz said "Expect slower speeds …What am I on about? Try reading the thread. daz said "Expect slower speeds than advertised at best" - I was replying to that. You're not getting slower speeds than advertised. If you're expecting performance based on synthetic benchmarks then you're gonna be disappointed just as much before the patch as you are after.


Yeah but its semantics really isn't it? Perhaps true to say that you may be even *more* disappointed after the patch. At least you can console yourself with the thought that the chip is even *more* 'working as designed' than it was in its previous 'working as designed' state
johnthehuman26 m ago

What am I on about? Try reading the thread. daz said "Expect slower speeds …What am I on about? Try reading the thread. daz said "Expect slower speeds than advertised at best" - I was replying to that. You're not getting slower speeds than advertised. If you're expecting performance based on synthetic benchmarks then you're gonna be disappointed just as much before the patch as you are after.


I for one thought it went without saying that he was referring to performance and not to the clock speeds,

Anyway for the time being I for one would stay well away from buying any intel processors unless its a craking bargain.
I'll be steering well clear of intel for a few years now
a bit pissed off that my i7-6700 could now basically be 'downgraded' in a sense to i5 speeds.

The 8000 series was already pretty crappy compared to ryzen
with ryzen 2 out soon. That will probably be my next build
robodan91849 m ago

I'll be steering well clear of intel for a few years nowa bit pissed off …I'll be steering well clear of intel for a few years nowa bit pissed off that my i7-6700 could now basically be 'downgraded' in a sense to i5 speeds. The 8000 series was already pretty crappy compared to ryzenwith ryzen 2 out soon. That will probably be my next build


I don't know, everywhere review I read the 8700k smashes ryzen, even more when overlocked. Please stop scare mongering, you probably don't even run Intel.
Slightly off topic and might be a noob question but when is the 8700 mobile /laptop variant going to be released?
robodan9181 h, 19 m ago

I'll be steering well clear of intel for a few years nowa bit pissed off …I'll be steering well clear of intel for a few years nowa bit pissed off that my i7-6700 could now basically be 'downgraded' in a sense to i5 speeds.


You've fallen for the hyperbole that the media spin to get pages views. If you look at the benchmarks there's hardly any difference and certainly not enough for AMD to catch up.
But, it's early days for these exploits and the situation could change.
Agharta22 m ago

You've fallen for the hyperbole that the media spin to get pages views. If …You've fallen for the hyperbole that the media spin to get pages views. If you look at the benchmarks there's hardly any difference and certainly not enough for AMD to catch up.But, it's early days for these exploits and the situation could change.


While there certainly is a lot of hype (and kudos to Intel PR for spinning it like every CPU vendor is equally affected), the biggest performance hit seems to IO, database and hypervisors. There is a reason why Google, Amazon etc. are so active with this bug as it is exactly that kind of workload which they would run. For their internal use the likes of Google, Facebook etc. can probably afford to change code to minimise performance issues but the cloud providers like Amazon AWS are a lot more affected since they don't have that kind of control of what their clients are running.

Looking at forums and places like phoronix.com, even enterprise customers are coming up with totally different experiences. Guess it is very workload dependent so those worst affected probably make heavy use of hypervisors or databases which need lots of IOPS.

That home users and games are not really affected is mostly expected. Well 'mostly' since unlike with the initial Linux benches, on Windows AFAIK the graphic API stack does reside in kernel unlike in Linux so there should some extra overheads there. Guess only those synthetic 'max draw call' type benches would show those up.
"Deal" lol
Gkains1 h, 45 m ago

While there certainly is a lot of hype (and kudos to Intel PR for spinning …While there certainly is a lot of hype (and kudos to Intel PR for spinning it like every CPU vendor is equally affected), the biggest performance hit seems to IO, database and hypervisors. There is a reason why Google, Amazon etc. are so active with this bug as it is exactly that kind of workload which they would run. For their internal use the likes of Google, Facebook etc. can probably afford to change code to minimise performance issues but the cloud providers like Amazon AWS are a lot more affected since they don't have that kind of control of what their clients are running.Looking at forums and places like phoronix.com, even enterprise customers are coming up with totally different experiences. Guess it is very workload dependent so those worst affected probably make heavy use of hypervisors or databases which need lots of IOPS.That home users and games are not really affected is mostly expected. Well 'mostly' since unlike with the initial Linux benches, on Windows AFAIK the graphic API stack does reside in kernel unlike in Linux so there should some extra overheads there. Guess only those synthetic 'max draw call' type benches would show those up.


So not a big deal for most consumers then.
In the good old days before MS started adding consumer crud such as Direct X to the NT code base the graphics stack didn't reside with the Kernel at level 0. The good old days when MS actually had a Professional Workstaiotn product.
Intel CEO flogged all his shares. Thats all i need to know.

im quite surprised to see people so passionately defending them being they have quite literally been coning us for years.
The CEO has demonstrated the company ethos perfectly.
robodan9185 h, 11 m ago

I'll be steering well clear of intel for a few years nowa bit pissed off …I'll be steering well clear of intel for a few years nowa bit pissed off that my i7-6700 could now basically be 'downgraded' in a sense to i5 speeds. The 8000 series was already pretty crappy compared to ryzenwith ryzen 2 out soon. That will probably be my next build


Do you game? If so then I think the 8700K is a consistently better performer.
Raven_crow6 h, 59 m ago

Fixes already tested and no performance drops.


Incorrect
Cuddl3s6 h, 46 m ago

What on you on about the guy was making a valid point especially when …What on you on about the guy was making a valid point especially when spending 350 pounds, at the end of the day the performance they enticed you in with the benchmarks might not be the same after the patch. no body has ever mentioning clock speeds the reason bei ng that they have been meaningless ever since pentium 4 vs athlon xp era.Anyway with this whole issue coming out intel processor prices are likely to drop in the near future even if they have zero performance drops.


I want some of what you have been drinking.
If it's small, the performance drop doesn't bother me as much as Intel's pathetic PR spin.

"Intel and other technology companies have been made aware of new security research describing software analysis methods that, when used for malicious purposes, have the potential to improperly gather sensitive data from computing devices that are operating as designed. Intel believes these exploits do not have the potential to corrupt, modify or delete data."

I'm pretty sure that if a hacker uses the exploit to read "sensitive data" such as a password, there is potential to corrupt, modify or delete data...
Great Price! £359 at Scan. Voted HOT!!
Gkains4 h, 50 m ago

While there certainly is a lot of hype (and kudos to Intel PR for spinning …While there certainly is a lot of hype (and kudos to Intel PR for spinning it like every CPU vendor is equally affected), the biggest performance hit seems to IO, database and hypervisors. There is a reason why Google, Amazon etc. are so active with this bug as it is exactly that kind of workload which they would run. For their internal use the likes of Google, Facebook etc. can probably afford to change code to minimise performance issues but the cloud providers like Amazon AWS are a lot more affected since they don't have that kind of control of what their clients are running.Looking at forums and places like phoronix.com, even enterprise customers are coming up with totally different experiences. Guess it is very workload dependent so those worst affected probably make heavy use of hypervisors or databases which need lots of IOPS.That home users and games are not really affected is mostly expected. Well 'mostly' since unlike with the initial Linux benches, on Windows AFAIK the graphic API stack does reside in kernel unlike in Linux so there should some extra overheads there. Guess only those synthetic 'max draw call' type benches would show those up.




The biggest reason why those vendors need to patch their servers is that guests can run privilege escalation sh&t on the hypervisor and break the segmentation. Forget any performance hit this undermines their *entire* usage mode (IaaS and some flavours of PaaS at the very least plus any VDI)l!
The Security issue was a Back Door, not a Bug.
xavierzzz7 h, 49 m ago

The Security issue was a Back Door, not a Bug.



While anything's possible, even in tinfoil mode it is far more likely that the Intel ME (Management Engine) bug was designed as a backdoor for the likes of the NSA etc.

Thing is there are currently at least three types of security issues with Intel chips:

Firstly, there was / is the Intel Management Issue. The wikipedia on the vulnerabilities is actually rather long
en.wikipedia.org/wik…ine
and proper fixes really require a new BIOS (slim chance with any laptop or motherboard older than a few years!).

Secondly, there is the Meltdown.
en.wikipedia.org/wik…ty)
This seems to affect all Intel chips from the Pentium Pro onwards except some In-Order Atom CPUs. Also affected is the (as yet unreleased) ARM Cortex-A75. AMD meanwhile say that the exploit is not possible on their CPU design. The workaround for this is patches to the kernel (Windows, Linux etc) and that can cause slowdown especially in workloads with lots of IO and VM usage. And as haileriscorrectly pointed out above, cloud providers cannot risk one VM being attacked (or being deliberately being used as an attack vector) compromising another VM belonging to another client.

Thirdly there is Spectre:
en.wikipedia.org/wik…ty)
There are currently a few variants of this and (at least for some variants) all CPUs from Intel, AMD, and ARM can be affected. The fix (for Intel at least) seems to involve a microcode update (mostly a BIOS update although at least Linux has the potential to load microcode updates at boot time). There are also potential performance issues with this fix as someone on Redddit posted
np.reddit.com/r/p…os/
33001987-0fIf9.jpg
The bugs have just been made public, so will have to wait for further tests but certainly that Reddit user suffered a big drop in performance when both the Windows patch and the new BIOS is used.
daz_755th Jan

Don't buy Intel until you know the outcome of their security issues Expect …Don't buy Intel until you know the outcome of their security issues Expect slower speeds than advertised at best


You realize this is bad advice, right?

AMD is also affected by Spectre, and all this FUD about 'Intel security issues' is not addressing the real issue.

All CPUs are impacted by Spectre, and many are impacted by Meltdown. (I use these terms as the style of vulnerability, because technically these are intel specific nomenclature, but the concepts are similar on different CPUs.)

If you are suggesting to 'not buy intel right now' you should *REALLY* be saying *don't buy ANY CPU* right now.
Nate149212 m ago

You realize this is bad advice, right?AMD is also affected by Spectre, and …You realize this is bad advice, right?AMD is also affected by Spectre, and all this FUD about 'Intel security issues' is not addressing the real issue.All CPUs are impacted by Spectre, and many are impacted by Meltdown. (I use these terms as the style of vulnerability, because technically these are intel specific nomenclature, but the concepts are similar on different CPUs.)If you are suggesting to 'not buy intel right now' you should *REALLY* be saying *don't buy ANY CPU* right now.


Care to name some specific AMD CPU's proven to be affected by Meltdown?
Edited by: "Ashe" 7th Jan
Nate149231 m ago

You realize this is bad advice, right?AMD is also affected by Spectre, and …You realize this is bad advice, right?AMD is also affected by Spectre, and all this FUD about 'Intel security issues' is not addressing the real issue.All CPUs are impacted by Spectre, and many are impacted by Meltdown. (I use these terms as the style of vulnerability, because technically these are intel specific nomenclature, but the concepts are similar on different CPUs.)If you are suggesting to 'not buy intel right now' you should *REALLY* be saying *don't buy ANY CPU* right now.


This thread is about an Intel chip. Not sure how it's bad advice as I'm talking about this chip in question. The thread has since gone on to talk about other cpus which wasn't what I posted about.

If you think telling people not to buy a CPU is bad advice that has a massive outstanding security and possible performance flaw then I think you are mistaken.
daz_7516 h, 45 m ago

This thread is about an Intel chip. Not sure how it's bad advice as I'm …This thread is about an Intel chip. Not sure how it's bad advice as I'm talking about this chip in question. The thread has since gone on to talk about other cpus which wasn't what I posted about.If you think telling people not to buy a CPU is bad advice that has a massive outstanding security and possible performance flaw then I think you are mistaken.


It's a mistake to not include the information that 'all chips are affected by a massive and outstanding security issue'.

Spectre is outstanding, meltdown has been partially patched and will be finished within a week.

Apple is impacted by both. AMD is impacted by Spectre. Qualcom is impacted by both on a subset of chips.

Here is AMD's list:

Variant OneBounds Check BypassResolved by software / OS updates to be made available by system vendors and manufacturers. Negligible performance impact expected.Variant TwoBranch Target InjectionDifferences in AMD architecture mean there is a near zero risk of exploitation of this variant. Vulnerability to Variant 2 has not been demonstrated on AMD processors to date.Variant ThreeRogue Data Cache LoadZero AMD vulnerability due to AMD architecture differences.

Notice the same 'variant 1' issue? 'Negligible performance'. Sounds familiar to other companies wording.

Anyway, singling out Intel suggests it's the one to avoid, and as I can imagine you aren't posting this in AMD threads... Like this one... hotukdeals.com/dea…526


I'd say it's good to not be exclusive with your info ;-)
Nate14928 h, 27 m ago

It's a mistake to not include the information that 'all chips are affected …It's a mistake to not include the information that 'all chips are affected by a massive and outstanding security issue'.Spectre is outstanding, meltdown has been partially patched and will be finished within a week.Apple is impacted by both. AMD is impacted by Spectre. Qualcom is impacted by both on a subset of chips.Here is AMD's list:Variant OneBounds Check BypassResolved by software / OS updates to be made available by system vendors and manufacturers. Negligible performance impact expected.Variant TwoBranch Target InjectionDifferences in AMD architecture mean there is a near zero risk of exploitation of this variant. Vulnerability to Variant 2 has not been demonstrated on AMD processors to date.Variant ThreeRogue Data Cache LoadZero AMD vulnerability due to AMD architecture differences.Notice the same 'variant 1' issue? 'Negligible performance'. Sounds familiar to other companies wording.Anyway, singling out Intel suggests it's the one to avoid, and as I can imagine you aren't posting this in AMD threads... Like this one... https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/ryzen-7-1800x-8-core-36-ghz-40-ghz-turbo-socket-am4-95w-desktop-processor-29999-for-prime-members-amazon-2860526I'd say it's good to not be exclusive with your info ;-)


Lots of words which try to cloud the fact that Intel is the only major x86 (i.e. PC) processor manufacturer with both of the Meltdown and Spectre flaws - including the only one of those two flaws that the workaround has a considerable performance impact on some types of workloads.
Ashe2 h, 26 m ago

Lots of words which try to cloud the fact that Intel is the only major x86 …Lots of words which try to cloud the fact that Intel is the only major x86 (i.e. PC) processor manufacturer with both of the Meltdown and Spectre flaws - including the only one of those two flaws that the workaround has a considerable performance impact on some types of workloads.


Not at all man, if you can't handle 400 characters, I suggest you don't bother reading about spectre or meltdown.

I guess we live in the twitter age.

zdnet.com/art…ts/

This one is easy to read, Google says AMD is full of it and is indeed affected.

And this is a hoot.

AMD later clarified that it believes there is "near zero risk" to its processors.

"I think 5 percent for a load with a noticeable kernel component (eg, a database) is roughly in the right ballpark," he said. "But if you do micro-benchmarks that really try to stress it, you might see double-digit performance degradation."

Anyway, not much more to say really. Might be too much to read ;-)
Nate149250 m ago

This one is easy to read, Google says AMD is full of it and is indeed …This one is easy to read, Google says AMD is full of it and is indeed affected.And this is a hoot.AMD later clarified that it believes there is "near zero risk" to its processors."I think 5 percent for a load with a noticeable kernel component (eg, a database) is roughly in the right ballpark," he said. "But if you do micro-benchmarks that really try to stress it, you might see double-digit performance degradation."


So you've just used a quote from Linus Torvalds talking about the expected percentage slowdown from the Intel-specific patch for an Intel-specific issue on x86 processors. Yet you use that quote while you're talking about AMD, and don't mention Intel once in your post. That's an impressive attempted level of deception (or ignorance - ironic considering you're attacking me based on some supposed dislike of reading you've made up).
Edited by: "Ashe" 8th Jan
Ashe1 h, 27 m ago

So you've just used a quote from Linus Torvalds talking about the expected …So you've just used a quote from Linus Torvalds talking about the expected percentage slowdown from the Intel-specific patch for an Intel-specific issue on x86 processors. Yet you use that quote while you're talking about AMD, and don't mention Intel once in your post. That's an impressive attempted level of deception (or ignorance - ironic considering you're attacking me based on some supposed dislike of reading you've made up).


That's an insane leap, I tried to condense my post so your short attention span could hold on. I was simply putting quotes from the article one at a time, they happened to be next to each other, it was, quite frankly, not intended to suggest AMD stated anything about performance.

I was keeping the paragraphs and quotes short and separate. As you have already demonstrated a short attention span, I figured trying to string paragraphs and full quotes and articles would absolutely destroy you!
Nate149223 m ago

As you have already demonstrated a short attention span, I figured trying …As you have already demonstrated a short attention span, I figured trying to string paragraphs and full quotes and articles would absolutely destroy you!


That's the best excuse for an incoherent string of unrelated quotes put into a misleading context that I've ever heard. It's pitiful also that despite showing I've clearly read up enough that I can place the quote you gave into the proper source, context and origin, you're still resorting to some dumb attempt at insulting my literacy.
Ashe1 h, 39 m ago

That's the best excuse for an incoherent string of unrelated quotes put …That's the best excuse for an incoherent string of unrelated quotes put into a misleading context that I've ever heard. It's pitiful also that despite showing I've clearly read up enough that I can place the quote you gave into the proper source, context and origin, you're still resorting to some dumb attempt at insulting my literacy.


You simply copied the quote into google, it's fine. Congrats, you're turning this into an attempt at personal attacks.

We're done, this is a bad discussion, with someone who doesn't want to have a discussion, going nowhere.

Bye.
Nate149213 m ago

You simply copied the quote into google, it's fine. Congrats, you're …You simply copied the quote into google, it's fine. Congrats, you're turning this into an attempt at personal attacks.We're done, this is a bad discussion, with someone who doesn't want to have a discussion, going nowhere.Bye.

...in other words, I dared to check the context of a quote you copied and pasted, and confirmed that you used it in a completely misleading way. When called on it, you proceeded to continue to attack my literacy as the reason you wrote a number of unconnected sentences together, yet you're the one with the gall to say I'm turning this into personal attacks. At least you're correct that this is a bad discussion going nowhere....
Ashe1 h, 2 m ago

...in other words, I dared to check the context of a quote you copied and …...in other words, I dared to check the context of a quote you copied and pasted, and confirmed that you used it in a completely misleading way. When called on it, you proceeded to continue to attack my literacy as the reason you wrote a number of unconnected sentences together, yet you're the one with the gall to say I'm turning this into personal attacks. At least you're correct that this is a bad discussion going nowhere....


Not even close, I know you want the last word though, so on your bike.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text