Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 26 Oct 2017.
Even i was building that absolutely, positively *had* to be Intel, I'm struggling to see why i'd buy this over the 6c, i5 8400 for a whole £15 extra.
It's just another 4 core CPU at the same price Sandy launched at. So they are still coining it in.
I think I would plump for the 1600 myself.
Just depends on your needs really although I can't find the 8400 for £174 anywhere . Multi-threaded stuff, the 8400 is the way to go. Even overclocked the 8350K can't keep up. But in lightly threaded workloads, 5.1GHz on four cores is going to be better. The 8400 will definitely be the better option when cheaper boards come out. AFAIK H370 etc aren't due till next year so you're paying over the odds for a board that can overclock when you don't need to.
Well yes and no. It performs the same as the Core i7-2600K and they're both quad cores, but the 2600K cost £250 when new. You're getting the same performance for £90 less.
Now you are yes. What I meant is that they are fabbing quad core CPUs and still charging the same for the equivalent years ago. Plus more per wafer etc.
Scan have sneakily bumped the price since i made the comment, at the time i posted they had it listed at £175, it's now £182 [£18 more than they have i3 listed for]
Still have an i5 2500K. Overclocked, just love it. See no reasons to upgrade. yet.
Good review but it would be nice to see some temperature graphs comparing the chips, lots of these coffee lake reviews seem to gloss over the temps. Maybe it’s just me but 80 deg c on a water cooler seems a trifle high.
i5 2600k in conclusion section?
Good spot, thanks!
Separate names with a comma.