Building new computer-CPU choice-need help/info overload!

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
L

lottaphotos4

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2013
35
2
18,535
OK, I've gotten almost as much out of my existing computer system as I can.
I'm looking to do my first, ever, full computer build.
In the past I've upgraded every part on my existing PC, except for the MOBO, so I have some experience with hardware upgrades, although I still sweat every time I touch a CPU chip.

I've got two main goals going into this build:
1) Build a computer that's a significant upgrade on what I'm currently running
2) This new system needs to be viable for at least five years, if not longer.
Budget is not unlimited, but I'll spend a little more if it helps meet these goals.

I have questions on several components that I need answered before I can finalize the parts list. I plan on posting a question in each related thread, so they will all start like this more or less, then get to the component questions.

What I'd like is to narrow down my options. There will always be another option, a "better way to go", or a "more cost efficient component". I get that, but what I really want your help with is to NARROW IT DOWN to the best of what I'm looking at, not to add five new components to compare and contrast.

Thank you for your time.

Current system:
Originally a Dell Inspiron 530
-Still using 0RY007 factory motherboard
-Still using stock Dell Inspiron 530 Computer Case
-CPU upgraded to Intel E8600
-Stock CPU fan (CPU generally running <-60 degrees C
-4x1GB RAM DDR2 400MHz
-Samsung SSD 840 Pro 250GB
-Windows 7x64 PRO
-500w Power Supply
-Sapphire 7770 Vapor-x 1GB DDR5 GPU

So, that's the starting point. Now for the CPU questions:

For most of the year, I was looking at the i7700K.
Lately I've also looked at the i8700K.

-I will not be overclocking. Ever.
-I will be using this PC for a lot of FPS gaming (7 Days to Die, Fallout 4, Payday 2, etc).
-On my current system I run 7 Days and PD2 with graphics setting turned down.
-On my new system, it would be wonderful to run with graphics turned up.
-I will also use this system for some video editing/rendering.
-Most days this system will be in use for 12+ hours straight.

I believe the "K" versions of the i7700 and i8700 are geared more to overclocking, which, as I mentioned, I won't be doing. My thought is that the "K" versions, geared to handle the more demanding requirements of overclocking, would more easily handle what I'll be doing, and I'm fine paying a little extra for the "K" versions if they give me a little margin.

1) "K" or "no K"? Are there any large negatives to using the i7700K instead of the i7700, (or i8700K vs 8700) if I'm not going to be overclocking? Again, not concerned about the cost difference. I want the chip that will run better at stock speeds, handle the things I do, and run more reliably...maybe even a little cooler?

2) 7700 & 8700 vs E8600? Going back to my two main goals the first thing I ask (and I think the answer is YES, but would like confirmation) is will either the i7700 or 8700 be a solid upgrade to the E8600 I'm currently running? Noticeable performance upgrade with either of the two?

3) 7700 vs 8700? Now, how about between the two new CPUs? Is there much of a difference? Enough that one is definitively better than the other? I know the i7700 has 4 cores and the i8700 has 6, but performance wise, both now with the things I do, and over the next 5+ years, is the i8700 that much of a better choice, or---if I go with an i7700---will I get a good solid five years out before I feel the need to upgrade again, especially since I know that upgrading from either the i7700 or the i8700 will require another new MOBO at that time due to chipsets.

4) Heat---I've heard horror stories about both the 7700 and 8700 running very hot. Realistically, if I'm not overclocking, is this an issue with either of these CPUs, "K" versions or no? I'll ask cooling questions in that portion of the forums, once I've narrowed down the CPU. Current thought is either a Noctua 15 or an AIO Liquid CPU Cooler----but I'd reallllllly prefer a fan to liquid if these CPUs will let me get away with it. Aboslutely hate the thought of running liquid through an electronic device, even if they're "well tested at this point". So, will either or both of these new chips let me use air cooling? (And I'm talking about when they're running, under load, with me playing Fallout 4 on, say medium or better graphics settings or 7 Days to Die on high graphics settings, not just when they're at idle.)

Thank you again for your time and thoughts.

I'm hoping that with your help I can narrow things down. Going into this, I'd have to say I'm between the i7700K or the i8700K unless somebody gives me a sound reason not to (again keeping in mind my goals above). I'm not interested, at this time, in going Ryzen or AMD, so would appreciate no such tangents.
 
Solution
herrwizo
OK, so let's narrow it down then.

7700k is end of the line, and I don't recommend it (it is a great CPU, but there is 0 reason to get it over the latest tech, especially when you are buying new rig).

As for i7 8700k, good luck finding one in stock. Situation will surely change with time, but at this point you will most likely not be able to get your hands on it.

So, what are your options then, given that you need a fast (Intel only, as you say) CPU, with great gaming capabilities, and some rendering/video editing, and which is actually in stock? To be good for 5+ years to come? Without overclocking?

I'd say get Core i5 8400. It has 6 very fast cores, and satisfy all your requirements. And no, you won't need water cooling with it...
Sort by date Sort by votes
herrwizo

herrwizo

Illustrious
Feb 17, 2009
5,152
43
40,240
OK, so let's narrow it down then.

7700k is end of the line, and I don't recommend it (it is a great CPU, but there is 0 reason to get it over the latest tech, especially when you are buying new rig).

As for i7 8700k, good luck finding one in stock. Situation will surely change with time, but at this point you will most likely not be able to get your hands on it.

So, what are your options then, given that you need a fast (Intel only, as you say) CPU, with great gaming capabilities, and some rendering/video editing, and which is actually in stock? To be good for 5+ years to come? Without overclocking?

I'd say get Core i5 8400. It has 6 very fast cores, and satisfy all your requirements. And no, you won't need water cooling with it, even the stock air cooler is good enough (an aftermarket cooler is even better for lower noise, of course). Search for reviews, and you will clearly see that this is a great option by all accounts.

Now to answer all your questions:

1) "K" versions have higher stock clock, even without overclocking, due to better binning, so they are generally a slightly better buy regardless of your overclocking aspirations. However, 7700k is last-gen, 8700k cannot be purchased, and there is also i5 8600k which is mostly out of stock (worth considering if you can find one). That's why I vote for "no K" at this point.

2) No comparison. i5 8400 absolutely destroys E8600; for that matter, there are 10-year old CPUs that also destroy it (like Core 2 Quad Q9650, for example).

Here, see for yourself:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Duo-E8600-vs-Intel-Core-i5-8400/m124vs3939

3) Neither, i5 8400. Should last you 5 years for sure. For gaming almost as fast as i7 8700k, and can actually be purchased. i7 is better for video editing, though, due to hyperthreading.

4) Stock air cooler is good enough for i5 8400, let alone Noctua :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
guanyu210379

guanyu210379

Illustrious
Mar 30, 2007
7,684
25
38,115
If you are planning to buy a new PC or to pick parts for big overhaul, always avoid taking older generation of components!
By doing this, you already narrowed down the proc possibilities to eihter Intel Coffee Lake (i5 or I7 8xxx) or AMD Ryzen.
Everything is a big upgrade from your old system :)

As for start you can simply pick the followings based on best value for the money:
I5 8400, I5 8600k, I7 8700k, Ryzen 5 1600, Ryzen 7 1700.
I see already you tend to pick I7 8700k :) This is a good pick.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
spdragoo

spdragoo

Splendid
Ambassador
Oct 17, 2011
3,166
8
27,115


    ■ The plus to getting the "K" is, even if you're not going to OC, their stock/Turbo speeds are slightly higher than the non-"K" versions (usually, the stock "K" speed is equal to the max Turbo on the non-"K"). The negative, however, is that not only is the "K" chip more expensive, but it doesn't come with its own cooler, so you have to spend another $30-50 USD on top of that.
    ■ Oh, most definitely. Heck, an i3-3250 (2C/4T, 3rd-tier CPU) would be a solid upgrade over a Core 2 Duo E8600 (2C/2T, 6th-tier CPU), let alone one of the much newer Kaby Lake or Coffee Lake Core i7 CPUs. The actual performance difference may depend on the game or application (for example, games/apps that only needed 1 or 2 cores/threads may not see as much of an increase with the newer multi-core CPUs), but if nothing else you'll have better multi-tasking performance on your system. And, of course, there's the major increase in RAM speed you'll have moving from DDR2 to DDR4.
    ■ i7-7700K is a 4C/8T CPU. i7-8700K is a 6C/12T CPU. Per Tom's Hardware's review (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-i7-8700k-cpu,5252.html), the 8700K shows noticeably higher performance in highly multi-threaded applications that can take advantage of those extra cores/threads...like video transcoding, file compression, & computations that scale better with core/thread count instead of clock frequency. But there are some applications (& especially in games) where the 8700K shows little to no edge in performance over the 7700K.

    Whether or not the 7700K can provide "5 years" of upgrade-free performance is always difficult to predict. Consider, however, that when it comes to gaming, I've seen a number of benchmarks that compare the performance of Sandy Bridge (6 years old), Ivy Bridge (5 years old), & even Haswell (4 years old) CPUs to the current Kaby Lake & Coffee Lake CPUs...& the general consensus is that the only reasons to upgrade to Kaby Lake or Skylake from any of those i a) the older system broke, b) there's a feature on the 200-/300-series chipset that you want to take advantage of (i.e. M.2 SSD, Intel Optane support, PCIe 3.0, USB Type C connector, etc.), c) you can't find a better CPU that's compatible with your existing motherboard, or d) you actually have an application you are going to use that will take major advantage of the extra 2 cores/4 threads that Coffee Lake brings to the table.

    So, yeah, Kaby Lake is technically already "end of life" because, once you have a Kaby Lake Core i7, you can't use anything faster in that system. But chances are very good that if you go with Kaby Lake, by the time you're looking to replace your system again we'll have some other tech available that isn't included with Coffee Lake anyway (maybe USB5.0, DisplayPort 4, PCIe v6.0...who knows)?
    ■ Yes, temperatures can potentially be a problem, but it appears that the issues come more into play in heavy rendering situations, where all of the cores are running (or especially when the AVX codecs are used -- http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-i7-8700k-cpu,5252-12.html). I can see why it would be more of an issue for the 8700K, since it has 50% more cores on roughly the same silicon, so you've got more heat sources under the same size of cooler (& why they strongly recommend a liquid-cooling solution if you're going to do a lot of video rendering). For gaming purposes, though, a decent air cooler should be just fine.
    [/list]
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom