Worth upgrading to 8700k?

Okay so should clarify because most of your responses make no sense. Should have noted my rig is in my sig.

My CPU is bottlenecking almost everything right now because I have a 1080 Ti and it doesn't even break a sweat on most titles.

But I have a Zotac 1080 Ti AMP Extreme and play on an Acer Predator X34, 3440x1440 100Hz monitor.

Secondly I do have a full version of Windows 10 So it actually will transfer over. I've actually already transferred the license once after replacing an old Z77 MB, a 3770k, and DDR3 RAM kit, just over a year ago, so no issues there.

Please see the rig in my signature. It is a very high-end build. A stone's throw away from an extreme/enthusiast build if it is not already there.

Also I would like the option to stream without affecting performance. And I know my current CPU is degrading slowly because I am running it at 1.4V I am not sure it will give the same performance a year from now. And I can't in good conscience sell a degraded CPU so it will have little to no value in a year from now.

I mostly play titles in which the CPU is the bottleneck which is why I have already decided it is probably going to be worth it. WoW and SCII I need all the per core speed I can get. At worst I will get the exact same speed I am getting now but without an OC so I can always get a bit more out of it. I also may need it for editing videos if I ever get to my plans of starting up my YouTube channel....

Also would like the option for a second M.2 drive, which the Z370 MB would surely be capable of since more and more boards are coming out with 2 or even 3 M.2 ports. So there are other reasons to upgrade besides just the CPU.

For vanity purposes I would also like to have the Asus ROG Maximus X (_______) board just to have the Ten (X)

But for now its only for gaming.

That depends entirely on the program. For single core performance it IS a 13% increase SHOULD I overclock to 5.3GHz. If I am unable or don't OC to 5.3GHz it will be a 0% increase because it Turbo Boosts to 4.7GHz single core and I am already at 4.7GHz. And on 4 cores mine is faster. The only way I can get beaten by the 8700k currently is if it is OC'd or it's full 6-core performance is taken into account against my quad-core performance, which would be 4.3GHz Hex-core vs 4.7GHz quad core, it would actually be closer than you think too. The only way I could get any useful performance out of an 8700k is if it is OC'd well. And THAT is the only thing that worries me.

I have a full version and have already transferred it to new hardware before, that is not an issue.

BTW I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "retail" version.

There is the FULL version which is transferrable across different motherboards, and the OEM's (which are not transferrable) Also I could only assume the Retail version is the OEM since that is the one by far most commonly found on prebuilt systems. But I have a FULL USB version of Windows 10.

That is looking towards the end of 2018 or early 2019 and I fear I may NEED an upgrade by then with the OC I have on my CPU. I am not confident that the OC will last another year. I am already noticing a very small decrease in CPU performance after a few months of the OC I have on it. It is small but once I exceed the 1.4V mark, according to every OC guide I have ever read, the potential of damage rises greatly.

I would like to get ahead of the curve on that and it would be entirely possible that if I upgrade now, I would be looking to upgrade again another year or so, so it is likely I will still end up with a Cannonlake or Ice Lake CPU. In the last year I have upgraded from a 3770k to a 6700k and from a 650TI (inherited) to a 1080 to a 1080 Ti. I am not too concerned about money. I really just like having the latest and greatest (except Kaby Lake I still do find upgrading to a 7700K to be worth it even for me.)

But I am curious as to why PCIe 4.0 would be a sole reason to upgrade?

Tell that to my monitoring software and fps.

In poorly optimized games I am seeing single core usage at 90-100%, fps below 100, and my GPU usage at roughly 50% or lower in a lot of cases. Overclocking the CPU helped DRASTICALLY. It does not have to "significantly" reduce my performance to be a bottleneck. The fact that it is the limiting factor makes it a bottleneck, and therefore adding more performance there will add more overall performance. For example in WoW in just an open area by myself I can get over 200fps on the highest graphics settings. In open raids with lots of stuff going on I can get as low as 40 and its a constant 40 not spikes.

I will agree that the performance difference in well optimized games should make up for it, but unfortunately in well-optimized games I do not have a problem and would therefore not make a difference.

But again, to me, if I am actually able to get 13% higher clock speeds that equates to 13% more performance in games such as WoW and SCII which use a single core for the bulk of the workload, which means roughly 13% more fps. Overclocking from the turbo of 4.2GHz to 4.7 GHz on my CPU equated to 12-15fps increase in WoW fps. Increasing it a further 12-15 would actually help a lot.

And that is what I am talking about. Forget generalized statements it doesn't really matter. Yes the 8700k will outperform the 7700k with all 6 cores, but if a program is only able to utilize 4 cores, a slightly overclocked 7700k or a highly overclocked 6700k will actually beat a stock 8700k (which turbos 4 cores up to 4.5-4.6GHz) With WoW it should only be turbo boosting on a single core and give that one core 4.7GHz, which means I will see no increase on a stock 8700k. Take a game like BF1 which can and does utilize the full CPU its looking at 4.3GHz on 6 cores vs my 4.7GHz on 4 cores, it may be close, but it does not immediately equate to 50% increased performance. Not even Intel boasts that over Kaby Lake, and how often are their claims of performance increase are correct?

The fact is that I am intrigued by these claims of being able to OC to 5.3GHz and in the games I mostly play, WoW and SCII, that would give me a slight performance increase, and as well, I would be able to multi-task better. I do not often run extra programs, but I do need to use Discord for communicating with my teams, which is a necessity. And as I said I would like to start streaming and I think that would help.

But my point is proven in that the vast majority of people think this move is a waste of money. But these are exactly the questions I need to be able to answer to justify what I want to do.

WOW:
Your info couldn't be more flawed.

First off, I HAVE Seen how clock speeds will affect WoW, multiple times.

Firstly I had a 3770k, not overclocked. Then I upgraded to a 6700k, not overclocked. I immediately went up about 10fps min. 3.9Ghz to 4.2GHz on a single core. Then overclocking from 4.2 (Boost) to 4.7GHz increased min fps about 12-15fps. SO increasing the clock speed further on single-core bound games by 13% will not give 4-5fps... It should give me another 12-13fps. That's just science. Secondly, you're assuming a freaking LOT. My minimum fps is still far above 40. more like mid 60's in the WCS. In which, yes you would be right and I would only get about 8-10fps min, but I'm far more concerned with average fps. Right now the average is mid 80's to low 90's in CPU heavy areas, (not torture areas but about average heavy) In THOSE areas that 13% increase in single core speed will make enough of a difference.


That doesn't even touch on the subject of the multi-tasking I do. It's not heavy multi-tasking but I do like to watch Netflix while I play WoW and I often have to use voice chat which does a number on my CPU performance. Not to mention I would like the option to stream.

You're factoring in gaming only at the moment, which is a mistake. And actually BEST case scenario, my multitasking stops affecting my gaming performance and I actually get more like 15 min fps, and roughly 20 average fps. So according to you, yes that would be worth it, thanks to the extra cores going towards other programs and not taking resources away from the game.

Gotcha, thanks for the info.

I was unaware OEM's were not sold as CD's/USB's as with the transferable version

Yes it goes without question I should actually wait for actual overclocking results, but the 1700x and 1800x are too much CPU for gaming. SO much that the lower clock speeds actually hurt it for the games I play, where clock speed is EVERYTHING. I wouldn't mind if it all I was doing was streaming BF1 or something I imagine it would be a perfect setup, but as my most played games are crap optimized single-core fests, I need every bit of clock speed I can get.

And WORST case I only get very slightly more single core performance but vastly increased multi-tasking, which is still very intriguing, as I do like to watch videos and such and one or the other affects performance at some point. And don't get me started on when I have to run simulations.... I have to literally stop playing for 10-15 minutes to run my sims and that is quite annoying.

I do multi-task a "fair" amount, but I very much would like to make youtube videos. I would at least like the option and an 8700k would be much better for streaming and editing than my 6700k. But I still need the gaming performance. Which is why I am in this dilemma.

The problem is games that mostly use a single-core, which are games I play most. And yes in well optimized games, and at my resolution, I suspect my fps increase would be 0, since the 6700k even handles those games just fine. It's the multi-tasking and single core speeds for me. I can't really say I am 100% happy with my current performance. I would put it more about 80% I am fine with it, but I am looking to upgrade.

It would actually be 0 for BF1 as I am currently bottlenecked by my GPU there. 3440x1440 100Hz, Ultra is damn near 4k as far as GPU's are concerned.

But when you incorporate streaming/recording/editing.... it might help, as I have mentioned I would at least the option to do, as I have wanted to start a youtube channel for some time now.