Intel Core i7-8700 Review: Stock Cooler Falls Flat
-
Page 1:The Core i7-8700 Review
-
Page 2:The Stock Cooler Dilemma & Test Setup
-
Page 3:VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation
-
Page 4:Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III
-
Page 5:Far Cry Primal, GTA: V & Hitman
-
Page 6:Shadow Of War & Project CARS 2
-
Page 7:Office & Productivity
-
Page 8:Rendering, Encoding & Compression
-
Page 9:Final Analysis
Great benchmark results and an attractive price also put Core i7-8700 up against AMD's revamped Ryzen 7 line-up. Specifically, it's forced to contend with Ryzen 7 2700's eight cores, 16 threads, unlocked multiplier, affordable motherboard support, and capable cooler. Particularly on that last point, Intel's solution is severely deficient.
You see, Intel's thermal design power specification applies to the CPU's base frequency. But its processors exceed that rating when they jump to higher Turbo Boost bins. We found that the Core i7-8700 can overwhelm Intel's bundled heat sink and fan during certain heavily-threaded workloads, negatively affecting performance. You'll have to purchase a better thermal solution for any chance at realizing Core i7-8700's highest Turbo Boost frequencies. Naturally, the CPU loses some of its luster as a result.
Intel's Core i7-8700 is surprisingly similar to the company's more expensive -8700K in our benchmarks. You do lose the ability to overclock, but save $50 dollars in the exchange. Unfortunately, Intel's bundled cooler isn't able to cope with the -8700's thermal output, which means you need an aftermarket solution to realize the CPU's peak performance.
Intel Core i7-8700 (8th Gen)
Intel Core i7-8700
Core i7-8700 may be destined to live in the -8700K's shadow. But again, it does feature the same complement of six cores, 12MB of L3 cache, and DDR4-2666-capable memory controller. Like all of Intel's Core i7, i5, and i3 models, the i7-8700 comes with an integrated UHD Graphics 630 engine that gives Intel a leg up over competing Ryzen 7 and 5 processors without any on-die graphics.
Unfortunately, due to Coffee Lake's lack of backward compatibility, you do need a 300-series motherboard if you're upgrading from an older platform.
| Intel Core i7-8700K | Intel Core i7-8700 | AMD Ryzen 7 2700X | AMD Ryzen 7 2700 | AMD Ryzen 5 2600X | Intel Core i5-8600K | AMD Ryzen 5 2600 | Intel Core i5-8400 | |
| MSRP | $359 | $303 | $329 | $299 | $229 | $257 | $199 | $182 |
| Process | 14nm++ | 14nm++ | GloFo 12nm LP | GloFo 12nm LP | GloFo 12nm LP | 14nm++ | GloFo 12nm LP | 14nm++ |
| Cores/Threads | 6/12 | 6/12 | 8/16 | 8/16 | 6/12 | 6/6 | 6/12 | 6/6 |
| TDP | 95W | 65W | 105W | 65W | 95W | 95W | 65W | 65W |
| Base Freq. (GHz) | 3.7 | 3.2 | 3.7 | 3.2 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.4 | 2.8 |
| Precision Boost Freq. (GHz) | 4.7 | 4.6 | 4.3 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 3.9 | 4.0 |
| Cache (L3) | 12MB | 12MB | 16MB | 16MB | 16MB | 9MB | 16MB | 9MB |
| Unlocked Multiplier | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 (1200 MHz) | UHD Graphics 630 (1200 MHz) | No | No | No | UHD Graphics 630 (1150 MHz) | No | UHD Graphics 630 (1150 MHz) |
| Cooler | No | Intel Stock | 105W Wraith Prism (LED) | 95W Wraith Spire (LED) | 95W Wraith Spire | No | 65W Wraith Stealth | Intel Stock |
Intel is infamous for aggressively segmenting its portfolio, meaning it trims frequencies, only makes overclocking available on premium models, turns Hyper-Threading on and off, and disables cores to create lower-priced models. Of course, the company did this with its seventh-gen Core CPUs, too. The Core i7-7700 was multiplier-locked, while the -7700K catered to enthusiasts. But Intel capped the -7700's top Turbo Boost bin at a mere 4.2 GHz. Core i7-8700 isn't as constrained. Its four-core ceiling is 4.4 GHz, while six active cores reach up to 4.3 GHz, just like Core i7-8700K. In most workloads, the 500 MHz base frequency difference between Core i7-8700 and -8700K quickly disappears as Turbo Boost kicks in.
| Frequencies | Base | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Intel Core i7-8700K | 3.7 GHz | 4.7 GHz | 4.6 GHz | 4.4 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| Intel Core i7-8700 | 3.2 GHz | 4.6 GHz | 4.5 GHz | 4.4 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| Intel Core i7-7700K | 4.2 GHz | 4.5 GHz | 4.4 GHz | 4.4 GHz | - |
| Intel Core i7-7700 | 3.6 GHz | 4.2 GHz | 4.1 GHz | 4.0 GHz | - |
MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content
In what context does it make sense to buy this CPU?
stock cooling is always less than prime.
I wouldn't sweat it, RyanTodd1. Your graphics card will be the gaming bottleneck before the CPU is.
When I got my first computer in 1997, it came with a Pentium II @ 233MHz. There were 266Mhz and 300Mhz models available at the time that I wished I had instead. Looking back 21 years later, I realized that it never made a difference which one I had. I think you'll feel the same way about your i7 8700.
*cough*
https://www.amd.com/system/files/AM4-Wraith-Cooler-Lineup-1920x631.jpg
http://www.relaxedtech.com/reviews/amd/wraith-max-and-wraith-spire-cooler/2
*cough*
you were saying? … yes those are copper plates on those coolers for the 65 and up lineup, yes they do have led and yes thost are actual copper heatpipes on the cooler that comes with the 2700x.
I know a lot of aftermarket coolers that look and perform a hell of a lot worse than what amd puts in the box.
it is only intel that puts half an ounce of third grade aluminium on top of their cpus (because they are too cheap to provide anything worthwhile I suppose …) and expects people to purchase actual cooling after the fact raising the total price of a system significantly.
I don't really agree. The difference between 8700 and 8700k is almost $100 CAD and yet the performance difference at default clocks is very small. So if I am building a machine for someone that will never overclock, save them some money and/or get the 8700 and get a good cooler instead.
The benchmarks paint a pretty nice picture of the 8700. I believe you, Tom's, when you say that the cooler can be overwhelmed, but your benchmarks don't really seem to indicate much of a loss when/if it is happening, especially in gaming.
Honestly though, why don't they differentiate the designation. Intel should have the 8700 at stock 8700K speeds, but just have the K unlocked. It isn't exactly deserving of the 8700 designation if it is clocked 500MHz lower. Just another thing Intel does that irks me.
Hopefully this is the case, although tech has come a lot further since 1997! I wasnt even born then!
Intel should have not included a cooler at all ... its like buying a car with a turbo that is supposed to make 300 hp, but then when it doesn't run at that speed and you take it back they tell you, "oh, that's just the max hp if you buy a better turbo to put on it than the one we sold it with". Would that be acceptable? No.
If my CPU says it runs at certain frequencies, and I buy it for that reason, I expect it to work as advertised on the cooler it comes with.
For 90% of the people, 90% of the time, it simply won't matter. For the few people in the limited circumstances where it matters, a better cooler is always an option.
Article idea: "Typical" case, with two fans, front intake and rear exhaust; stock mobo fan profiles. Same parts, same clocks. Long scripted workload (8-10 hours' worth; a typical work day). The only difference is the coolers. Is there a real difference?
I think the 8700 has it's place. Plus, you can get an even better deal on it when it goes on sale. It's great for those who don't intend to overclock, and for those on a tight budget. Still a quality CPU, if you ask me. And yes, an aftermarket cooler is the way to go.
My i7-7700K@4.8GHz can barely score 152xx!
That is all true except you are missing one crucial point: Intel knows their buyers of K-series chips already plan on overclocking which is why they stopped including that junk cooler with them, and as we all know, AMD's chips don't even overclock well even with high end aftermarket water AIO or air coolers. But yes, Intel is chumping buyers of non-K chips out with such a lame stock cooler product. VERY lame for Intel. The root fail here is that Intel's previous generation non-K GPUs ran just fine under the stock fans. But the last few generations starting with Skylake with terrible thermal dissipation management showed they needed to step it up for the stock cooler. But Intel didn't give a damn.
Anyway, if I were building a new gaming rig and only wanted Intel, I'd probably opt to save the $50 and go for the non-K version here knowing full well that at 1440p or 4K gaming, the CPU means little compared to the GPU in those resolutions. A $25 Cryorig H7 will cool it just fine with a proper air flow case. If you had a K-series and overclocked, you are looking at nearly a $100 (or more) cooler solution to hit 5+Gz. Which again, offers extreme diminished returns at higher resolution over stock speed (in gaming).
i didn't buy a expensive high end cooler either, i guess normally 40 bucsk i got it for like 26 cool master (same cooler i used for my prior pc).
idle temps range 35-40, don't get above 80-85 when video encoding
i don't do real gaming of anykind so what i do do would be a laughting stock (really its one browser based game).
i do have a radeon rx 560 oc 4gb edition.
other than that cpu fan my case has 5 other fans, 3 intake and 2 exhaust plus the power supply fan.
i am happy with the running temps and that of the pc
it is overclosed to 4.7ghz i think
I wonder how many people buy these and actually use the iGPU, except as a backup in case the dGPU dies. For me, the iGPU has never been a consideration when picking a CPU.
Since I haven't seen any previous descriptions of how the physics works before, I will attempt to lay out an explanation that covers your question, and more:
It should easily be understood that without metallic solder under the lid that the thermals will build up on the die. So far so good.
However, that also provides a singular benefit... the average temperature of the die will quickly be pretty close to temperatures measured at any given point on the die. This is helped by how modern OSes move threads from core to core. But, we should not expect temperature sensors all over the die to confirm that what I have said or to micro-manage the throttling behavior.
Therefore, the throttling will always happen in a reasonably narrow thermal envelope across the entire die. This throttle point is based on careful testing of the die to determine the required throttle-point to guarantee the CPU integrity for years. This should even be good for a thermal overload situation (e.g. CPU fan stopped). Again, so far so good, I hope.
Now enter the normal OCer who is not going to de-lid the CPU. They are already covered, as they haven't brought anything special to the table that would interfere with the throttle-point, except making it harder to reach (e.g. higher GHz).
Finally, we have the hard-core OCer who is going to de-lid the CPU and extract heat directly from the die or add metal paste. This is the special case, as now the temperature measured at different points on the die (if we could measure it) at extreme OC is entirely dependent on the vertical thermal extraction at each point across die. This presents no issue as long as the thermal contact is perfectly even. A good OCer takes care in making sure this is the case.
However, the average person (you and I both) may make mistakes in thermal compound or metallic paste/solder application (de-lidded or not) that would create an uneven extraction of heat into the heatsink. When there is a more direct but uneven thermal path to the CPU die, we can get hot-spots that 'might' cause the die temperatures most remote from the thermal sensor(s) to push the die beyond its safe limits in those locations when a 'seemingly' good OC has been achieved. Increase the voltage too far and now we have a problem, as the transistor gates/junctions begin to break down at an accelerated rate.
So, in effect, we might (jokingly) suggest the current Intel thermal design to be: CPU with very-difficult to remove training-wheels / airbags.
It seems that AMD has taken a different bent, and attempts to put more-than-adequate cooling solutions in the hands of its customers to head off issues that might occur, but still has to carefully manage throttling to prevent damage to the die.
Exactly. Reviewers use open air test benches and thus you need a saltshaker handy for every review. This has become industry standard practice, regardless of the applicability of the results to real-world cases (pun intended).