Why is the i7-8700k always sold out

Guessing because its new and popular and hard to keep in stock.

It's only just come out and people have been waiting for it instead of getting the i7 7700k

often it's also because there aren't any shipments yet delivered to the sellers.

Yeah, but the i7 7700k runs hot like i7 4790k. I would rather get the i7 6700k instead which it doesn't runs as hot as i7 4790k and i7 7700k.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/248908-intel-responds-i7-overheating-issue-cluelessly-suggests-stop-overclocking

https://www.techspot.com/community/topics/intel-responds-to-i7-7700k-high-temperature-issue-tells-owners-they-shouldnt-overclock.235062/

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1369984

a 6700k overclocked to 7700k levels gets just as hot.

Depends if you have a good chip or a bad chip. With good chip, you can overclock to 4.6GHz with no problem at all. Unlike the i7 7700k which already gets hot at stock. Why buy an overclockable CPU if you can't overclock at all? If you can't overclock at all, you can save $100 more by buying a locked processor instead.

Now Intel responded to i7 7700k owner that they shouldn't overclock at all which is like what the heck? Aren't Intel k prefix series designed for freedom tuning? If I can't freedom overclock at all on the k series CPU, than screw you Intel, ima go with AMD or a non overclock Intel CPU instead.

OP: Probably supply problem.

if your 7700k is almost overheating at stock speeds you either....
... have an insufficient cooler
... bad airflow in your case
... live in a very hot area
in summer my 6700k can reach 85°C at stock speeds due to the room temperature being 38°C and my computer being located in an unlucky spot (but literally the only possible spot in my flat unfortunately). but I don't blame the CPU for it.
the 7700k behaves exactly as you'd expect from a overclocked 6700k.
of course there are some better and some worse chips but saying you should buy a 6700k and OC it to 7700k levels for temps is just not a right statement.
also you can OC a 7700k to speeds most 6700ks don't reach.

I've heard of this 7700K runs hot stuff. It might not be as cool as other chips, but it's still a great CPU. People use 7700Ks all the time, it's not like they burn up after a year. The 8700K games literally nearly identical to the 7700K. In another thread I was in, the cost difference to someone who lived outside the USA between the 8700 and the 7700 was 103. That's a lot of extra money spent for nearly the same FPS. I wouldn't avoid the 7700K because it "runs hot".

But the problem is tons of people complains on Intel community forum is have an AIO, good airflow case, and ambient is 25C. Yet, they still experience temp at 85C and above with no manual overclocking at all. We thought if we wait a bit, we can heard some good news from Intel. Here we are, 3 months after the complaining and all Intel can give us is some BS and pathetic solution. Now to answer your question, I have seen a lot people with i7 6700k overclock to 4.6Ghz - 4.7Ghz with temp below ~85C on AIO and ambient room at 25C. Now that we called a good chip right there. But with an i7 7700k, we can reach 4.6GHz - 4.7Ghz no problem at all.

I would rather buy an i7 6700k that can overclock to 4.5Ghz which is stock turbo of i7 7700k, than losing my money and satisfaction on a CPU that designed for freedom tuning at first and can't overclock a single bit at all at the end, yet already overheating at stock. There will be some performance gap between i7 6700k and i7 7700k, but at the end of the day both CPU are still fantastic and will last pretty long.

Now a question to you, would you spend money on a k series CPU that can overclock or a k series CPU that can't overclock at all backed with some BS and pathetic solution from Intel which I linked above? Of course, you would pick a k series CPU that can overclock.

But the problem is tons of people complains on Intel community forum is have an AIO, good airflow case, and ambient is 25C. Yet, they still experience temp at 85C and above with no manual overclocking at all...I have seen a lot people with i7 6700k overclock to 4.6Ghz - 4.7Ghz with temp below ~85C on AIO and ambient room at 25C. Now that we called a good chip right there. But with an i7 7700k, we can reach 4.6GHz - 4.7Ghz no problem at all. I would rather buy an i7 6700k that can overclock to 4.5Ghz which is stock turbo of i7 7700k, but at the end of the day both CPU are still fantastic and will last pretty long. Now a question to you, would you spend money on a k series CPU that can overclock or a k series CPU that can't overclock at all backed with some BS and pathetic solution from Intel which I linked above?

Click to expand...

Wow. First, you didn't link anything. You claimed, you said, but I see no links. Second, as I bolded in the quote, you even said the 6700K would usually OC to what 7700K will turbo to by itself. So you suggest taking the risk of buying a dud/bad chip instead of the chip that will get there via turbo? And if the chips are "still fantastic", why buy the even older one?

Did a websearch for 7700K, took a random post on the first page of results.

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?94090-Looking-for-some-advice-on-OC-ing-7700k

Here is a guy who can hit 5.0GHz, 5.1 is just out of reach. AIO cooler doesn't mean it's a good one. High 70s with a good cooler with 5.0GHz on all cores isn't a bad chip in my book. Intel wasn't giving us "BS". You do need a good cooler, but it's not some problem chip that's going to run at 80C+ as soon as you turn it on.

I have a 7700k in my pc cooled with kraken x62 and i also have one in my sons pc cooled with cryorig r1, both oced to 5ghz both only reach 80 in prime95, both stay around 70-75 under normal everyday gaming load. Now i know i didn't hit the silicone lottery twice, i think the cases your read about are the extremely bad, or perhaps have done something wrong during the installation process. Only problem i have, which really isnt a "problem", are the sharp spikes from idle 30-32 to 60-70 when opening a program.

I think the issue is people who OC them using 212Evo's or H60s. Using lower end better coolers isn't going to get you great temps. It may suck that you are only able to get .3GHz more then turbo gets you, but that is on all cores and not just one. Unless there is a good cost savings on the 6700K, I'm not sure why you'd get one if it tops out around 4.5-4.7 if there are examples of the 7700K hitting 5.0.

#6 my post

https://www.techspot.com/community/topics/intel-responds-to-i7-7700k-high-temperature-issue-tells-owners-they-shouldnt-overclock.235062/

https://www.techspot.com/community/topics/intel-responds-to-i7-7700k-high-temperature-issue-tells-owners-they-shouldnt-overclock.235062/

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1369984





1) Than why more than 80 pages created on Intel thread last time I read which is like more than 3 months? Those people with H100i and H110 which capable of handling the i7 7700k, and yet still struggling
:/

2) Than why Intel gave us a pathetic solution which is don't overclock at all and it is okay for the CPU to run 85C - 90C spike seriously?

3) A bad chip to get there with at least capable of overclocking than a chip that can't overclock at all backed with Intel pathetic solution, and yet overheating right out the box. This also affected the i7 7700 non k version as well, so what is going on?

4) I wouldn't even dare to let my CPU touch 85C - 90C at all. Not a lot of us here are rich willing to spend $1000+ to build another PC in the next 2 years or so.

To Intel's credit, some users experiencing the issue have admitted to de-lidding their processors

Click to expand...

Or perhaps they have bad boards. The issue in your links seems to indicate something I haven't heard before, and that's odd random spikes. I've heard the rumor of the 7700 having bad TIM inside and they run hot, but the links you gave were talking about random spikes of temperature. To me, my first guess would be a bard board that is applying too much Vcore at times. These are two different issues. You don't need to delid your 7700K. If I had a chip that would randomly spike in temp even at stock settings I'd look at whats wrong, or see about returning the chip. But many of these people seemingly took the IHS off and voided their warranty.

Yeah which is weird. I thought it only affect i7 7700k only, and now it affect i7 7700 non k as well. Now, let's get back to the OP topic because I think we derailed this thread a lot lol.

Intel is making a lot of people angry, including myself. To add to the frustration, I pre-ordered the i7-8700k from a U.S. retailer online (name has two letters and an "&" in the middle) on the 8th. Then, two days later on the 10th I see they are refunding my money. BOTH the purchase and the refund are still "pending" in my credit card account! Why did they do this??? Because now I go online and see they jacked the price up $20. Apparently they cancelled my pre-order to weasel out of the price I already locked in. And there isn't even any email notification from them about what is going on. I am calling them up and complaining that my original purchase price AND my place in line (they indicated orders are filled in the order received) should be honored. If not, I'll call the BBB and I will not deal with them anymore. Intel was freaking out about AMD's major gains in market share and rushed out the energy hog X series chips and these 8th gen chips which turned out to be a paper launch because they aren't even in stock anywhere. Sad part is after all this I must confess I still want the Intel chip over AMD!

not really. ive seen benchmarks where even the 8400 beat the 7700k in most benchmarks gaining more fps

That's not in the Toms review. 7700 is always right behind the 8700, if not in front of it.

its in paul's hardware and linus review... go n check it out.. the 8400 beat the 7700k in a lot of benchmarks.

Who is Paul and Linus? If you care about their reviews, go hang out on their site.

I went and looked at Tom's review again. I'll toss the link in for histories sake. There is room in some games for a CPU to sit between them. This already happens in BF1 with the 7800X. But Toms didn't test any of the other new chips, just the 8700. If you look at BF1 there are only 4 frames between the 8700 and 7700. That doesn't really scream "beat the 7700K" to me. As a matter of fact I've told several people recently because they are outside the USA that because of the cost difference between the chips I wouldn't even bother with the 8700K. If you have to spend that much extra money to get it, it's not worth it in a gaming machine. When I look at the scores the 8700K doesn't really "beat" the 7700K. It's faster than the 7700K most of the time, but it doesn't have such a larger score that I think people should junk their 7700K and move up to the 8700K.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-i7-8700k-cpu,5252-5.html

I've seen some of these reviews that put the 8400 before the 7700k. I can't recall which I ones it were, I've read too many. BUT, one thing I do remember was thinking that something was off about those. I recall one or two reviews that put the 8400 before the 7700k (alright, 2 additional cores, whatever) and in front of the 8700k as well (can chew that, with Win10 firing up cores at random the boost will drop). But it also beat the 8600k in a review. And if that's the case, you know something's off. A lower clocked version of the same CPU can't be faster than a higher clocked one.
Furthermore based on these benchmarks the 8400 would be suitable for 144Hz gaming. That's another thing that I simply cannot believe.
The 8400 is a checkmate for Ryzen 5 for sure. But the 8400 can't be the best chip in the lineup. That would go against any logics, especially knowing Intel's sales politics. They simply wouldn't allow a 200$ chip to be this powerful.

Yes, I've seen the 8400 doing very well in benchmarks either (mainly dx12 & games that profit of the additional cores). But something is really weird about those.

Also I couldn't find a Linus review about the 8400?

what is so wrong that i watch their reviews and mention it here? is there a rule against tlking about other people's reviews? is there some kinda tech warr i dont know about? for a mod thats something bad to say. and as this thread survive. everyone is watching. either way.. i had to mention them because there were no 8400 in any of toms hardware benchmarks



its not a full review of it on its on.. it is in the 8700k review.

No, there is no rule. You aren't in trouble at all. What I was trying to say is that if you are posting on Tom's Hardware, then you must care and trust them. Meaning their reviews would trump all others. By sticking around and posting on their forums we basically agree that their reviews are correct. And as a long time reader before using the forums or becoming a mod I loved how open they are. I was reading a review another mod posted from a different site as we were talking about CPU power usage. He posted a link showing the 9590 using nearly 400W under load. But in reading the info I noticed they never said what they were measuring. Or how. Was this from a special board that read the power to the socket somehow? Or, what I suspect, a kill a watt measuring the power usage of the entire system. After pouring over the page 3 times I just gave up. The information I needed wasn't there. Unless the 7700K also uses nearly 300W under load I'm convinced it's just a kill a watt measuring the total system draw. But that's the awesome thing about Tom's. They are (usually) very clear about what they are doing and how.

So here is my issue. Anyone can start up a youtube channel or even a website. But what do they really know? There is an online personality that us mods love to bash in private. In their videos s/he does horrible things like pick up cards by the gold pins, just put a card in the machine and start benchmarking, and a host of other issues. How do you know they are remembering to make sure the ambient temps are the same between runs? Do you trust their house AC to do the job? Do you really think all these people on youtube reimage their OS and it's clean of other things? Most of the time they have so many icons on their task bar you have no way of knowing if any of that stuff is slowing their PC down. The 8400 might even be the new awesome sauce chip seeing as there aren't a lot of reviews on it yet. But as mentioned above why would Intel make it faster than the 8700? Or the 8600?

https://ark.intel.com/compare/97129,126687

Why would the 8400, which has nearly the same IPC performance as the 7700K seeing as the cores are nearly identical, be faster? It has two more real cores, with two less threads. It "can" turbo up to 4.0GHz if it has the power and thermal room. The 7700K STARTS at 4.2GHz and only goes up from there. As far as gaming goes I'd believe that the 8400 can come close to the 7700K. But beat it? As above, something fishy would be going on.