>mfw bought an 8700k

>more than twice as expensive as the 2600, worse performance, hotter
I fucked up, and I will never buy another Intel product again.

Attached: 1532275954615.jpg (625x415, 34K)

>worse performance
yet it has higher ipc and clock speeds...

Attached: 1541545252298.jpg (1080x1344, 865K)

Good decision

I'm still using a 2500k.

Attached: 1544390859942.png (933x720, 585K)

Now this is shilling I can get behind.

Attached: 1544463362804.png (620x573, 385K)

Yet it has lower performance in games and content creation.

Comparing clock speeds is like comparing RPM in cars. It has absolutely no bearing on performance, at all.

Intel wasn't nearly as bad back then. Extremely anti-consumer, sure, but at least their products were halfway decent.

>Yet it has lower performance in games and content creation.
whatever helps you sleep at night

It doesn't help me sleep at night, that's what I'm saying. The 8700K was the objectively worse choice here
>worse performance in games
>worse performance in productivity/content creation
>hotter
>and significantly more expensive

It does, literally, everything worse.

As a 2700x owner I LOVE this thread. Keep it up OP

I've also bought one and it literally never goes above 50°C no matter what I do
Maybe don't cheap out on coolers :)

>It does, literally, everything worse
if you say so

Attached: 1542369574915.png (1080x1077, 1.14M)

I don't say so, benchmarks do. This stuff is pretty easy to measure

Attached: 13066237318.png (550x375, 11K)

odd, the 8700k has better single-core and multi-core performance than the 2600. logically it should be faster for just about everything. It should also be hotter. Why you consider them alternatives is beyond me, though. The 8700k's price-point puts it next to the Threadripper 1920X so a comparison to the Ryzen 2600 seems meaningless and stupid - the 8700k costs more than 3 times what a 2600 costs.

>odd, the 8700k has better single-core and multi-core performance than the 2600
In synthetics, which sometimes (not always) match real-world performance. And, like I said before, the 8700K falls behind the 2600 in real-world performance.

I know synthetics don't matter but given that the 8700k has equal amount of cores and higher clockspeed - it should be faster than the 2600. That it should is specially true given that it costs 3 times as much as the 2600. I have no way of testing this since I have the Ryzen 2600 but I don't have the 8700k. It's just too ridiculously expensive in terms of performance per dollar. Can't say I need it either, the only thing the 2600 is ridiculously slow at to the point where it's annoying is encoding VP9 video files.

If you buy a 2600 now, you won't get over 3.9GHz without a pretty warm voltage (>1.35V), they bin them too hard. The 2600 came "close" in some benchmarks to the 8700k when it was overclocked to 4.2GHz with b-die

t. Recent 2600 purchaser feeling the regret of not getting 2600x

I'm still using my 3770k. 4.5ghz at 1.18v, never gets above 50c with my decent air cooler.

Thanks Intel :^)

That's what you get for listening to Jow Forums. The entire board has zero knowledge surrounding productivity and business. They also hate games, thus they base their CPU buying decisions entirely on how fast it starts Windows and Chrome. The board is also pro Intel and anti-AMD, going as far as justifying buying a 2 horsepower chiller to cool their chips. Intel is only for the most casual PC users.

That's odd, I have the same chip and a piddly 212 evo keeps it cool and it works great.

>buying a chiller with only 2 horsepower
lmao'ing at your life, fag

Attached: 1489529169476.jpg (204x204, 3K)

Worse multithreaded performance, but better single threaded. Sure, you may have fucked up value-wise, but you did get the best not-completely-retardedly-priced CPU for single threaded stuff and gaymen.

>$370
>0-2% faster than processors that cost 2/3 less
>not retarded
Hmmm, user.

HMMMM.

This is the worst amd shill thread I've seen in ages. The 2600 is amazing value, but pretending it's faster than the 8700k is just ridiculous.

>the b-die meme
Stop with this bulshit.

Same. Haven't found a reason to upgrade it yet.

Attached: 1544862319106.png (168x186, 9K)

>If I shitpost it enough, my lie will become truth
And you say it's me who's coping. I'm almost certainly ditching my i5 for zen 2 next year, but I don't have to lie to myself and others to do so. Keep to your designated shitting street, rajesh.

Attached: image0.jpg (405x205, 29K)

how is 8700k worse?
benchmarks say it beats anything in amd's line up on games and some on productivity when overclocked

COPE xD

>Yet it has lower performance in games
liar
it beats 2600 on fucking quad core and games don't even go above that

Attached: 1495137620842.gif (234x161, 1.99M)

based

A
FUCKING
CHILLER

I'm in love with that picture

I upgraded to a i7 4790 and i5 4570(from c2d e8400) a few months ago. Other than the exploits having a overhead of like 20%, I see no reason to look at anything newer.

How the fuck does 2600 beat 8700k in multi-thread LOL

Attached: Cinebench.png (1339x1473, 72K)

i'm still using a Phenom II quadcore

Attached: 00789.png (570x491, 659K)

AMDs implementation of SMT is actually better than hyperthreading most of the time.

2600k @ 4.5ghz here, i'll prob. buy either Ryzen 3000 or whatever intel puts out once they fix 10nm.

Still using my i5-3330, too. Though I upgraded to an SSD a couple of years back. Quad cores are still going to last a long time.

Attached: 1507239048598.jpg (598x626, 70K)

Hyperthreading is unsecured trash

>benchmarks say X
>never posts them
if you say so m8

>overclocked 2600 vs downclocked 8700k.
>this is what amdrones have to do to prove a point
very sad!

Attached: 1541157266080.jpg (788x685, 50K)

Bought a rma 2070 just fuck my shit up

>and I will never buy another Intel product again
nah ofc you will, like a good little goy