No, the i7-8700K is not the same as the i7-2600K. They are different processor models.
No, the i7-8700K is not the same as the i7-2600K. They are different processor models.
Focused on gaming, the situation remains unchanged since October—still matching the 9700k/9900k performance at the same clock speed. Upgrading from an overclocked 8700k hasn’t delivered meaningful gains. The 3600/x setup is slightly faster but still lags, having launched just six months ago. Will the i7-8700k fade into history like the i7-2600k, and could some enthusiasts cling to 8700k models until 2025 without much upgrade potential?
I share your thoughts, but I'm curious about how close it will get to the 2600K standard. The latest Intel CPUs haven't pushed overclocking as much as the older ones, so I'm wondering if it can match the durability of the 2600K.
It's curious to see how many I7-2600K enthusiasts moved to the 8700K in 2017. That would make for a fascinating trend analysis.
Coffeelake represents the pinnacle of Skylake design. The 8700k, along with its successors, sets the benchmark for high-performance clocks globally. The key distinction lies in the 8700k's extended lead time compared to the 9700k and 9900k models.
I don't believe it's as famous as the 2600k model. Modern CPUs offer more cores and soldered IHS, which explains why newer ones are worth buying. In comparison, the 3770k isn't necessarily superior to the 2600k, and later quad-core i7s don't provide much extra value to justify the cost.
I made the change in 2016 from my Q9550 to an i7 6700k. I compared it with my i7 2600k and realized it wouldn’t be beneficial. After the i7 8700k arrived, I thought it would be ideal for my 2600k setup, and it proved to be true. My games played much better with the 8700k, so I avoided using the 6700k. When the i7 8086k launched, I swapped it in too. My 8700k is now finished with its case, but it might move to another system next year. If you think an 8086k is similar to an 8700k, my experience with the 6700k has been limited since gaming CPUs don’t support further upgrades. I’ve already benchmarked them against an overclocked i9 9900k, showing only a tiny or no difference. If neither offers significant improvement, I’ll stick with them until gaming demands eight cores.
No, the 2600k included 50% overclocks on many CPU samples from its generation. This wasn't common, but it happened with some samples when paired with high voltages and aggressive LLC designs, leading to eventual wear. This situation hadn't occurred since the Pentium 3 Celeron/coppermine 600e at 900 MHz and early Pentium 4 1.8C at 3.4 GHz. It remained viable for gaming for over six years. The 8700k is quite different. It's the first mainstream consumer chip with more than four cores, though earlier Nehalem chips had six cores.
The 2600k boost was at 3.8, meaning a 50% overclock would reach around 5.7ghz? Or are you referring to the base frequency of 3.4? Even then... a 50% increase would be 5.1ghz, which seems unusual. Most users stayed in the middle range, about 4.5ghz. I’ll mention an old Celeron model. The key point was that many people kept these CPUs longer than others during their peak periods, not just the speed.
It varies; a 2600K might not perform as well as higher temps like 8700K under those conditions. Check your specific setup and environment for accuracy.