Thread replies: 16
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5
Anonymous
Rumored leaked i7-8700K results 2017-08-08 09:34:12 Post No. 61804683
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Rumored leaked i7-8700K results 2017-08-08 09:34:12 Post No. 61804683
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: 1502219498252.jpg (84KB, 663x684px) Image search:
[Google]
84KB, 663x684px
Compare with this vid showing an i7-7700K w/ same version of CPU-Z at stock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3xR7kJ4O7s
Single core 2200
Multicore 9650
2323/2200=5% increase
13980/9650=45% increase
I'm guessing 4.7 GHz single core and 4.2 GHz all core. Pretty impressive numbers if true.
However it remains to be seen if they can actually keep this beast cool using TIM and if they're going to charge the same price as the i7-7700K, or if it'll be more expensive.
>>
>>61804683
>I'm guessing 4.7 GHz single core and 4.2 GHz all core
Which would be exactly what the last leaks claimed. /g/ was so certain that they were fake too. Do you guys ever get tired of being wrong?
>>
File: 1501291029674.jpg (494KB, 1242x1121px) Image search:
[Google]
494KB, 1242x1121px
>>61804713
There were two leaks, and one of them was completely wrong.
>>
>>61804770
I know. The more recent leak listed 4.2GHz on all six cores out of the box though, and the experts on here claimed that it was just a fake edit of the previous one.
>>
File: 5QpkNjW.jpg (114KB, 1235x1036px) Image search:
[Google]
114KB, 1235x1036px
>>61804839
The same guy was posting them everywhere, also it listed all core turbo of 4.3 GHz. Not 4.2 GHz.
>>
>>61804882
Then I guess you're wrong.
>>
Expected results from 50% more cores, gonna need to see how long before clocks throttle though, 6 cores at those clocks at 95W TDP(assuming Intel isn't ignoring it like with Sky-X) isn't gonna last long.
>>
>>61804683
>for 30 seconds until it throttles to 1Ghz
>>
>>61805086
3.7
>>
>>61804683
why didn't these fgts bench with the new cpu-z so we could get a more accurate picture of how bad
AYYMD IS ETERNALLY BTFO, EARLY ADOPTFAGS ON SUICIDE WATCH
for the ensuing shitposts?
>>
>>61806358
New CPU-Z is trash for making any sort of comparison between Intel and AMD. http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/new-cpu-z-upgrade-lowers-ryzen-performance.html
>>
>>61806358
We can assume if these leaks are true (and there's still plenty of room for doubt, this could all still just be fake as fuck) the i7-8700K will be 29% faster singlecore and 15% faster multicore than a 1600X.
>>
I wonder how much this is going to cost.
>>
>>61806394
more like
>Adjusted Ryzen performance
It's pretty spot on for the sc/mc performance compared to Intel now. Games don't lie.
>>
>>61806450
>chad.jpg
I would take WCCFturd more seriously than you.
>>
File: 1491258311162.jpg (39KB, 443x332px) Image search:
[Google]
39KB, 443x332px
>>61806484
I take Wccftech more seriously than any adolescent 4chan poster. You should too.
Thread posts: 16
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5