Intel Core i7-7700K 4.2 GHz £257 - Sold by netXit and Fulfilled by Amazon
380°Expired

Intel Core i7-7700K 4.2 GHz £257 - Sold by netXit and Fulfilled by Amazon

20
Found 6th Feb
  • Core i7-7700K, Speed: 4.2 GHz, QuadCore, 8 Mb Cache
  • NEW 4K Ultra HD support: Provides stunning display resolutions,8 now up to 4096 x 2304 pixels, and supports performance across three independent displays with audio.
  • Intel Advanced Vector Extensions 2 (Intel AVX2): Provides optimized instructions to deliver enhanced performance on floating point-intensive
  • PLEASE NOTE: For any technical assistance Customer care number 01793404925
  • The item comes with 2 years warranty
Community Updates

Groups

20 Comments
Very good processor, previous generation but really good price! Never heard of the supplier before.
Looks like an i7 8700k is (very roughly!) circa £300 on the bay. I would certainly choose that option for the extra 2 cores and 4 threads.
Cold from me I'm afraid.
Edited by: "Zoea" 6th Feb
If only it was the 7700t version. Looking to upgrade my htpc
Edited by: "niffer1" 6th Feb
CraigT14 m ago

Very good processor, previous generation but really good price! Never …Very good processor, previous generation but really good price! Never heard of the supplier before.


Seems fine, have had a couple of bits off their ebay store and all was good, not sure if they have shipped from germany to amazon or these are coming from germany, via amazon fulfilment, all in all very good price for a very fast cpu!
Zoea1 h, 10 m ago

Looks like an i7 8700k is (very roughly!) circa £300 on the bay. I would …Looks like an i7 8700k is (very roughly!) circa £300 on the bay. I would certainly choose that option for the extra 2 cores and 4 threads. Cold from me I'm afraid.



Not that Intel's consumer CPUs finally have a core count great than quad, I don't really see the point of getting the i7 over the i5.
Surely the competition for this (on the Intel side at least) is i5-8600K: 6 actual cores are going to be quicker in most things than 4 cores with HT.
Gkains14 h, 36 m ago

Not that Intel's consumer CPUs finally have a core count great than quad, …Not that Intel's consumer CPUs finally have a core count great than quad, I don't really see the point of getting the i7 over the i5.Surely the competition for this (on the Intel side at least) is i5-8600K: 6 actual cores are going to be quicker in most things than 4 cores with HT.


I disagree. HT is quite efficient - 90% ish in most cases if not more. You're 8 threads will beat 6 cores in almost all applications.
Disclaimer: I'm not an expert but I do read and watch a lot of relevant vids and if you're at the same GHz I would stand by this.
and of course 8700k is 12 threads vs 7700k 8 threads so it's even better here... especially for high FPS gamerz
Edited by: "Zoea" 7th Feb
Zoea1 h, 22 m ago

Looks like an i7 8700k is (very roughly!) circa £300 on the bay. I would …Looks like an i7 8700k is (very roughly!) circa £300 on the bay. I would certainly choose that option for the extra 2 cores and 4 threads. Cold from me I'm afraid.



This is a decent deal for people that don't have the latest socket motherboard, if you were to upgrade from a Z170/Z270 you'd have to factor in the extra £80+ for the new motherboard aswell.
8700k is a huge leap of performance in comparison to the jump from 6700k > 7700k. Worth the extra.
not worth it at this price now that 8700k is out
This processor is not worth buying at this price. The i5 8400 or the i3 8350k puts this to the wringer at a cheaper price. The i5 8600k and i7 8700k absolutely stomp this.

Unless you have a z270 motherboard and *REALLY* are desperate for a CPU, this one will keep dropping in price.
Zoea12 h, 10 m ago

I disagree. HT is quite efficient - 90% ish in most cases if not more. …I disagree. HT is quite efficient - 90% ish in most cases if not more. You're 8 threads will beat 6 cores in almost all applications. Disclaimer: I'm not an expert but I do read and watch a lot of relevant vids and if you're at the same GHz I would stand by this.and of course 8700k is 12 threads vs 7700k 8 threads so it's even better here... especially for high FPS gamerz


No that's not true. Intel Hyperthreading is about 37% in best case scenario on my CPU, and closer to 25% on most workloads. That's effectively 5 to 5.5 'cores' in a quad with hyperthreading. Games are a different beast, and yeah, the 7700k is very capable at them, but it just doesn't make sense to get them any more when the hexacores are out and will handily beat them in minimum frame times, while staying close on the averages despite the lower clocks. And annihilate the 7700k at productivity
Zoea12 h, 30 m ago

I disagree. HT is quite efficient - 90% ish in most cases if not more. …I disagree. HT is quite efficient - 90% ish in most cases if not more. You're 8 threads will beat 6 cores in almost all applications. Disclaimer: I'm not an expert but I do read and watch a lot of relevant vids and if you're at the same GHz I would stand by this.and of course 8700k is 12 threads vs 7700k 8 threads so it's even better here... especially for high FPS gamerz


Oh wow, I almost missed this.

This is a total fabrication.

Here, read up on this topic.

en.wikipedia.org/wik…ing

Intel claims up to 30% performance. Others claim 15-30%.

But that's only on applications that can take advantage of hyper threading effectively.

There are plenty of examples that don't. And there are examples of HT leading to negative performance. Just ask AMD, their SMT was causing many games to lose in performance.

Your '90%' statement is so far off, it's a shame you make any claim that you 'watched a lot of relevant vids' because you are so far from the truth, it is hard to believe you had a source at all.

Maybe you are familiar with Linus? He explains it simply.
Nate149243 m ago

Oh wow, I almost missed this.This is a total fabrication.Here, read up on …Oh wow, I almost missed this.This is a total fabrication.Here, read up on this topic.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading#Performance_claimsIntel claims up to 30% performance. Others claim 15-30%.But that's only on applications that can take advantage of hyper threading effectively.There are plenty of examples that don't. And there are examples of HT leading to negative performance. Just ask AMD, their SMT was causing many games to lose in performance.Your '90%' statement is so far off, it's a shame you make any claim that you 'watched a lot of relevant vids' because you are so far from the truth, it is hard to believe you had a source at all.Maybe you are familiar with Linus? He explains it simply. [Video]


So basicaly, you play a heavy loaded game, and do an alt+tab, and run 3+ other heavy loaded task , none of it would be slowed as much if we'd have only a 4 core processor without HT. Very efficient in general multitasking. No delay. In fact, i switched from a i5 6600k@4.5GHz to an i7 7700@4.1GHz(BCLK OC +2.5MHz), and i see a little difference on multitasking. So imagine a 7700K monster compaired to a 4 simple 4 core cpu.
Edited by: "DrTraktor" 7th Feb
Thank you Cat_OfWar and Nate1492 for the corrections. I stand corrected. I'll edit my original post.

edit: can you just clarify you're saying it's only 15-30% performance increase, where extra physical cores would get 100% increase? That's shocking but I don't doubt your sources (and I'm watching the Linus TT video now).

edit2: I was going by things like Aida64, and rendering tests, with HT. But I haven't honestly looked into it for a number of years so,....

Edited by: "Zoea" 7th Feb
Computers are always changing. Still i wouldn't touch any cpu at the moment till fixes are made on a hardware level with spectre, meltdown exploits etc. Plus the fact gpu cost have rocketed with mining.
I was lucky enough to get a brand new 7700k off the bay for £200 a few weeks back,i had a 6400 on a z170 board that I had blk OC to 4.5ghz before that and the difference is definitely there in gaming and benchmark scores,all I did was update bios on the z170 and dropped it in.

from what benchmark gaming videos I have seen the 7700k at stock is just above the 8400 but of course the 7700k will do 4.8ghz easily and its not far off the 8600k in gaming,again from the gaming videos I have seen.
Edited by: "davegee" 7th Feb
DrTraktor4 h, 29 m ago

So basicaly, you play a heavy loaded game, and do an alt+tab, and run 3+ …So basicaly, you play a heavy loaded game, and do an alt+tab, and run 3+ other heavy loaded task , none of it would be slowed as much if we'd have only a 4 core processor without HT. Very efficient in general multitasking. No delay. In fact, i switched from a i5 6600k@4.5GHz to an i7 7700@4.1GHz(BCLK OC +2.5MHz), and i see a little difference on multitasking. So imagine a 7700K monster compaired to a 4 simple 4 core cpu.


This isn't right either.

You would not see a benefit in the scenario above.

You would see a benefit in this scenario:

Playing a game, takes 2 cores.
Stack of google chrome tabs, light CPU use, so many of these can be loaded into HT.

But we are back to the point being made earlier.

A 4k 8 thread machine, versus a 6 core 6 thread machine (7700k vs 8400).

Those HT threads can help with light tasks, but those same tasks that can benefit from having 4 extra HTs would benefit even more from having an additional physical core.

When you say '7700k monster' you are ignoring the fact that the 8400 is the real monster.

4 Hyper threaded cores, in a perfect situation, is 1 physical core. Add in 2 physical cores, subtract the HT, you get the picture.

When you can buy an i5 8400 for 165: amazon.co.uk/Int…400

and a motherboard for 91 : uk.pcpartpicker.com/mr/…frH

So, for 256 quid (1 quid cheaper than THIS CPU). You can buy the motherboard AND a better CPU...

Why on earth would ANYONE consider this CPU? There is no reason I can see.
the 8400 only runs at 4ghz..the 7700k will run at 4.4ghz stock and happily run at 4.8 every day with a 1 click button in the bios...you get the picture?


most games prefer clock speed over cores,but not everyone just games and I think the 8400 might be better at the multi tasking jobs..also that 8400 you linked to isn't in the uk so not sure how you would go on if something happened.

I was torn between getting a new MB and the 8400 but after seeing gaming benchmarks I decided on the 7700k from ebay as it also meant I did not have to re install windows or faff about im lazy
Edited by: "davegee" 7th Feb
davegee1 h, 39 m ago

the 8400 only runs at 4ghz..the 7700k will run at 4.4ghz stock and happily …the 8400 only runs at 4ghz..the 7700k will run at 4.4ghz stock and happily run at 4.8 every day with a 1 click button in the bios...you get the picture?most games prefer clock speed over cores,but not everyone just games and I think the 8400 might be better at the multi tasking jobs..also that 8400 you linked to isn't in the uk so not sure how you would go on if something happened.I was torn between getting a new MB and the 8400 but after seeing gaming benchmarks I decided on the 7700k from ebay as it also meant I did not have to re install windows or faff about im lazy


If you have exactly 257 quid to spend and already have an existing Z270 motherboard... What CPU do you currently have that you are replacing?

Also, 'reinstalling windows'? You know you can just pick that HD up and set it in with the new mobo? There will be some new drivers, but it should work without much fuss.

The one I linked isn't in the UK, but other places do offer it at similar price... At worst, its 185 from Amazon.

You are in the only case that I feel is even applicable to talk about buying this CPU.

You own a Z270 motherboard, you have a bad CPU currently?

Anyway, if you want a higher performing CPU at a lower cost (motherboard excluded) the i5 8600k is also superior to the 7700k in every way. It can be bought for 227 from Amazon (Not US this time).
no I had a z170 mb not z270...I needed a faster cpu than the 6400 I had and the 7700k ticked the boxes for what I needed and came along at the right price right time.
the last time I upgraded a mb from h110 to z170 I had to reinstall windows as it didn't like it so figured it might be the same from z170 to z370 the 8400 needs.

if you have a z170 or z270 mb there isn't much choice..i certainly wouldn't have paid £260 for a new 7700k,i would have gone 8400 and new mb but that doesn't mean the 7700k gets beaten..its extremely fast for gaming matching the 8600k in some games and beating the 8400 in others,swings and roundabouts.

the 8400/z370 is a nice cheapish way to get into the latest platform for now and leaves the door open to upgrade the chip later if you need it..shame there aren't any cheaper non oc boards out yet for it.
Edited by: "davegee" 7th Feb
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text