I78700K: Intel Core i7-8700K Desktop Processor 6 Cores up to 4.7GHz Turbo Unlocked LGA1151 300 Series 95W : Electronics

Intel Core i7 8700K review: Coffee Lake beats Ryzen, but proves games don’t care for cores

The Intel Core i7 8700K CPU was the first processor from Intel’s 8th generation of chips. And, despite the myriad rumours of future Core i9 octa-core CPUs, and refreshed lower-end variants, the vanguard of Coffee Lake is still an intriguing proposition. The CPU benchmarks are in, so how does it compare to AMD’s Ryzen?

Now the new AMD Ryzen 2 CPUs are making life rather uncomfortable for top Intel gaming CPUs. With this chip topping out at 12 threads and its main rival hitting 16 threads it’s got a fight on its hands. But the 8700K represented the first genuinely relevant Intel processor launch since AMD got back into the CPU game with their Ryzen chips back in 2017 and was the first of its standard desktop chips to give us more than four cores in our rigs.

Of course, we had the mine’s-bigger-than-yours playground scuffle between the ultra-enthusiast (read: willy-waving) server-derived Threadripper and Core X parts, but they represent such a tiny percentage of the processors us normal humans will buy that they’re essentially supercar-like chips for the super-rich.

Well, except the poor li’l hexcore i7 7800X. That’s turned out to be more like a kit-car, with the body of a Lamborghini Countach and the engine of a Mini Metro, because this hot Intel hatchback chip had it beat on the drag strip less than three months after launch.

Pricing has settled down now, as stock filtered back into the channel, with the Core i7 8700K now shipping for $347 (£313).

Intel Core i7 8700K specs

These Intel 8th Gen, Coffee Lake CPUs are the ones meant to form the bedrock of our gaming rigs for the next year (give or take a few months) and they’re a great barometer of the processor market circa 2018. The fact that Intel introduced a new generation of chips less than a year after the 7th Gen Kaby Lake CPUs shows its unwillingness to cede the mainstream market to AMD’s multi-core Ryzen offerings. The 8th Gen wasn’t meant to launch last year; Intel pulled in pretty much every single CPU release since AMD unveiled their Zen processor architecture, and getting an early start on Coffee Lake was worthwhile given that the AMD Ryzen 2 CPUs landed in April this year.

Coffee Lake, represented here by the top processor in the Intel 8th Gen lineup, the six-core i7 8700K, is a necessary reaction by the chip giant to its rivals massively upping the core-count of its latest processors. But it’s almost just a temporary bandage for Intel’s CPU range while it continues to struggle with its main focus, getting those darned 10nm transistors functional, affordable, and reliable.

The big news for the Intel Coffee Lake range is that this is the first time the mainstream core-count has been boosted in nearly ten years. The Core i7 8700K is the six-core / 12-thread flagship for the 8th Gen, delivering another pair of full Intel cores compared with the quad-core / eight-thread Core i7 7700Kreleased in January 2017.

It is, however, still essentially the same base architecture as the Kaby Lake – and therefore Skylake – processors we’ve already seen. There are some minor revisions, with a more mature 14nm production process, laughably referred to as 14nm++, and the extra cache those two extra cores bring with them. But at the heart of this is a further optimisation of the same aging Intel Core architecture we’ve been using for a good few years now.

Cores Threads Base Turbo Cache TDP Price
Core i7 8700K 6 12 3.7GHz 4.7GHz 12MB 95W $359
Core i7 7700K 4 8 4.2GHz 4.5GHz 8MB 91W $350
Core i7 7800X 6 12 3.5GHz 4GHz 8.25MB 140W $389
Core i7 8700 6 12 3.2GHz 4.6GHz 12MB 65W $303
Core i5 8600K 6 6 3.6GHz 4.3GHz 9MB 95W $257
Core i5 7600K 4 4 3.8GHz 4.2GHz 6MB 91W $243

The clockspeed has both been dropped and boosted in terms of the base clock and Turbo frequencies. While the outgoing 7700K sported a 4.2GHz base, the 8700K has a surprisingly low 3.7GHz clockspeed out of the box. That’s doesn’t tell the whole story, however, as the maximum Turbo frequency has been boosted from 4.5GHz on the top Kaby Lake core to 4.7GHz. Those are only the maximum speeds you’ll see when a single core is stressed as opposed to what you’ll see in terms of all-core speeds.

It breaks down so the CPU’s dual-core max speed is 4.6GHz, the quad-core is 4.4GHz, and in our MSI Z370 Pro Carbon we had the 8700K sitting pretty at a standard 4.3GHz when we were pushing all of its six cores to their limits.

Elsewhere it’s pretty much the same story as with Kaby Lake. We’re still talking about the same 16 lanes of PCIe 3.0 support from the CPU itself, with a further 24 on offer from the Z370 chipset, and the same LGA 1151 CPU socket. Well… kinda.

The Z370 chipset does use the same socket as Kaby Lake and Skylake’s Z270 and Z170 chipsets respectively but there is no inter-compatibility between them. You can’t yet buy a Coffee Lake CPU and drop it into your existing 200- or 100-series motherboard, or vice versa. On the surface that seems like an arbitrary, artificial restriction put in place by the chip maker to force people into an unnecessary upgrade. But, in reality, I think it was an absolute necessity because Coffee Lake had to beat Ryzen.

The new socket has been designed specifically to deliver the extra power those six-core CPUs demand over the old quad-core design. A quick look at the TDP rating of 91W vs. 95W between the Kaby and Coffee Lake processor might have you performing an incredulous spit-take, but this extra power was never about the stock performance of the relative CPU generations, it’s all about overclocking.

The original Coffee Lake engineering samples were tested using the Kaby Lake chipset, which would indicate the new processors could still run on a Z270 board if Intel wanted to. But if I were a betting man I’d gamble that a Z270 wouldn’t be capable of delivering the overclocking performance the Coffee Lake processors need to in order to match AMD’s eight-core and six-core Ryzens. The 8700K needs all that improved, consistent power delivery the Z370 is pushing its way.

If Intel hadn’t created the overclocking support for Coffee Lake they would represent nothing more than a six-core version of Kaby Lake. That would probably not be enough to convince people the Core i7 8700K was still worth a look in the face of the cheaper Ryzen 5 1600X and its six-core / 12-thread configuration. At least with the 300-series chipset they’ve got more serious overclocking chops to offer too.

It’s still rather galling that the non-K-series, and lower core-count, parts remain incompatible with the last-gen chipsets. But I guess once Intel had made the decision to limit one part of the Coffee Lake puzzle to the Z370 it had to stick to its guns and refuse access to the other chips too.

Intel Core i7 8700K benchmarks

PCGamesN Test Rig: Asus ROG Strix Z370-F Gaming,
Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR4, Corsair HX1200i,
Philips BDM3275

It’s all going to be different now, with Intel shipping a hexcore CPU in the mainstream market, it’s going to make all its old Core i7 quad-core / eight-thread chips look utterly laggard, right? Yeah, you probably see where I’m going…

If nothing else, the 8700K is capably highlighting exactly how much difference having six cores over four cores actually makes when it comes to gaming. Practically none. Put cheek-by-jowl with a Kaby Lake 7700K – itself hardly a revolutionary chip – there’s almost nothing to choose between them. In fact, at stock settings we actually see a couple of instances where the higher-clocked Kaby Lake CPU delivers a few extra frames per second.

I – foolishly, it turns out – thought the DirectX-12-based Hitman and Rise of the Tomb Raider might deliver some performance differential because of the extra cores, but neither they, nor the Vulkan-powered version of Doom, could offer any multi-core succour.

The only game that really shows any genuine benefit from the extra Coffee Lake cores is the DX12 version of Civilization VI. This is game which greedily gulps down as much CPU power as you can feed it. While the performance of the other titles in our benchmarks is far more reliant on the pixel-pushing prowess of your graphics card, Civ VI takes full advantage of every bit of hardware you have to offer it.

So, as far as Intel’s claims about it being it being its best gaming CPU go, it’s a bit of a stretch. Civ’s increased performance isn’t really enough to make us go weak at the knees over the potential frame rate increases it could offer. Certainly anyone sitting on a 14nm i7 has no reason to be worried.

There is, of course, still Intel’s latest buzzword: mega-tasking. Can you feel that acid taste burning at the back of your throat? Yeah, that’s mega-tasking. Makes me want to rip out my own intestines so I’ve got something to loop over the rafters and string me up once I kick away the stool.

Anyways, mega-tasking is the abhorrent term Intel uses to mean gaming, recording, and streaming at the same time. For the ultra-niche that potentially makes the extra four threads of the 8700K a more interesting prospect than the old 7700K was. Maybe not as interesting as AMD’s much cheaper, still six-core / 12-thread Ryzen 5 2600, or an equivalently priced eight-core / 16-thread Ryzen 7 2700X, though. Not at stock clockspeeds at least.

Ah yes, Ryzen. The 2600 has the same core configuration as the more expensive Core i7 but Intel’s historic per-core gaming performance is still in evidence with Coffee Lake. But it’s getting to the point, with increased DirectX 12 support from modern games, where there isn’t such a huge difference between the Intel and AMD gaming results any more. Certainly not when there’s a pretty hefty price differential between them.

On the straight CPU performance metrics, however, Intel’s new chip has far more going for it. Its stock performance is well in advance of the AMD processor’s maximum overclocking results, with the Cinebench rendering and X264 video encoding tests highlighting where the Intel architecture has got the goods. It’s the same story looking at the compression and extraction figures too, with the 8700K taking a third less time to compress a 5GB folder of mixed media and 13% quicker at extracting the same thing.

And when you throw in the mouth-watering overclocking performance of the Coffee Lake chip you get performance that bests even the $320(£278) Ryzen 7 2700X, well in gaming anyways. But that’s why Intel had to get the peak overclocking performance into the new platform, and had to lock out any hope of getting a Coffee Lake CPU running in a 200-series motherboard. They needed the extra power because they hadto beat Ryzen.

Intel Core i7 8700K verdict

Intel’s Coffee Lake lineup has been created with a very clear objective: beat AMD’s Ryzen processors and do it quickly. To that end they’ve pulled in the launch date of this 8th generation of their Core architecture so they arrive before the end of the year and have finally delivered the first Intel hexcore to the mainstream end of the market. But while they’ve largely succeeded in their key objectives, that’s both a boon and a detriment to the Core i7 8700K.

The six-core / 12-thread i7 is capable of outperforming the best the eight-core / 16-thread AMD’s Ryzen 7 can offer, once you pull some overclocking shenanigans. The cheaper Core i5 8600K does the same job on the Ryzen 5 2600, despite having half the thread-count. That’s all great, but it has come at the cost of cross-generational compatibility, and only really bests the Ryzen 2 chips by the smallest amount.

It’s likely this need to best Ryzen, at all costs, which resulted in the latest chips not being compatible with the 200-series boards that launched at the start of the year. Because they needed that overclocking performance Intel required a new chipset capable of delivering enough power to get those extra cores well over 5GHz.

It also means we’re essentially looking at a stop-gap solution, another 14nm ‘optimisation’ on the way to potential octacore CPUs next year sitting in a new Z390 chipset. As Intel’s capability to deliver consistent die-shrinks is on the decline, the rate at which top-end chips are being replaced seems to be rapidly increasing. The i7 8700K has arrived, cannibalising the 7th Gen processors in both standard and Core X-series trim.

I’d feel bad for Kaby Lake, only allowed ten months of life, if it didn’t represent such an utterly uninspiring set of CPUs. I do feel much worse for the Skylake-X mayfly, the Core i7 7800X, which lasted a scant three months in the wild before being castrated by its makers, and most of all I feel for anyone who spent actual money on getting that chip into their X299 rig. I don’t feel sorry for any of the mugs who bought either the i7 7740X or i5 7640X, however, they deserve everything they get… except for sympathy.

But what does this impressive Coffee Lake core upgrade mean for gamers? Almost nothing. Only Civ VI delivers any performance boost over the Kaby Lake i7, showing once more how little relevance an increased thread-count has for most gamers. The i7, then, is overkill for us, more so than with any previous Intel generation. It’s also likely to rather expensive with global stock shortages likely to artificially inflate the price of the entire Coffee Lake range.

But still, the fact remains that your new Coffee Lake i5 is able to deliver more than enough performance for our gaming needs, and so does the much cheaper Ryzen 5 2600, so that’s where the smart money goes.

Intel Core i7 8700K

The Core i7 8700K is a powerful Intel design, necessarily topping Ryzen’s finest in pure gaming, but despite its unprecedented overclocking performance it doesn’t actually deliver anything new for gamers.

The Old King of Gaming: Intel Core i7-8700K Revisited

It’s time we revisited the good old Core i7-8700K, an Intel CPU we’re rather fond of after it remained at the top of the game for quite some time, and maybe even today.

But not everyone may have the same kind of feeling towards it. If you were building a gaming PC around four years ago, it was a bit of a slap in the face for some Core i7 owners. That’s because less than a year after the release of the 7700K, Intel pushed out the 8700K on an incompatible platform for roughly the same price.

Basically if you bought a 7700K upon release or anytime before October 2017, you were in for a shafting once the 8700K dropped. For the first time in half a decade Intel finally upgraded their flagship Core i7 from 4 cores and 8 threads, to 6 cores and 12 threads. And while that might sound like a trivial upgrade today that we have 8, 10, 12 and even 16-core desktop CPUs, at the time it was a big deal and in many ways still is.

That’s because after six years of quad-cores the industry is finally moving on and games are now clearly benefiting from more cores. That also means games can suffer from poor performance when limited to just 4 cores.

Looking back, it meant that for about the same kind of money, Intel was offering 50% more cores and this all happened within the same year, which is why we called the 7700K the worst CPU purchase of 2017. This may sound bad and anti-Intel, but it’s not, they were just rising to the competition. You could argue they should have made these moves years earlier than they did, which would have made Ryzen’s splash onto the scene more of a drop, like a little trickle, not as splashy.

But they didn’t, and what we ended up with was a somewhat rushed 8th generation Core series with two more cores tacked on at the high-end. The results were very impressive though.

The 7700K was already a gaming beast, but with more cores the 8700K was set to retain that title for a much longer period. From day one we called it ‘The King of Gaming’ and although it was technically superseded by the 9900K and then the 10900K, it’s still a very capable gaming processor. If you happen to own it, we doubt you’ll be feeling the need to upgrade any time soon.

If you follow our CPU coverage you’ll know we have picked the new Core i5-10600K as the best value option for high refresh rate gamers. The i5-10600K is clocked more aggressively out of the box, but it shares its specifications with the 8700K. Both are unlocked parts that typically hit similar clock speeds once overclocked.

The 10600K is $100 cheaper, but it was released roughly two and half years later, so we can safely say 8700K owners got their money’s worth in that time.

To see how the Core i7-8700K handles itself in 2020, we’ve tested it on the Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra. The new 10th-gen Core processors were tested on the Asus ROG Maximus XII Extreme and all Ryzen on the Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master. All PC configurations were completed with an RTX 2080 Ti, 32GB of DDR4-3200 CL14 memory and a Corsair Hydro h250i Pro 360mm AIO liquid cooler.


As usual we’ll start with Cinebench R20 multi-core and as you’d expect, the 8700K with 50% more cores is almost 50% faster than the 7700K. Out of the box we’re looking at a 45% performance increase and once overclocked that margin does reach 50% as our 8700K clocks to 5 GHz much more easily. Overclocked, the 8700K is rightly on par with the Ryzen 7 2700X, so a very solid result for the 6-core processor. Of course, the newer 3rd-gen Ryzen series fairs better as you’d expect.

Single core performance is roughly on par with the 7700K and with both overclocking to a similar frequency, the OC results are also much the same.

Here we’re seeing just over a 40% improvement in compression performance with the 7-Zip file manager, so another significant performance uplift seen within the same year of the 7700K release.

The decompression margins are similar, here the 8700K was 37% faster out of the box and when overclocked to 5GHz couldn’t quite catch the Ryzen 5 3600 in this workload.

Performance in Blender was boosted by 46%, it’s actually a 32% reduction in render time making it 46% faster. This often confuses people and we tend to go with faster, being 46% here as it’s in line with the higher is better percentages, so please keep that in mind as we continue to look at the rest of the results.

For code compilation work the 8700K is just shy of 40% faster than the 7700K and that actually made it slower than the Ryzen 5 3600, even once overclocked to 5GHz. That said when compared to the Ryzen 5 2600, it was a good bit faster.

The 8th-gen Core i7 processor delivered excellent results in DaVinci Resolve Studio 16 and while there are certainly faster options available today, it has aged well.

The same is also true of the Adobe Premiere Pro 2020 results, stock we’re looking at Ryzen 5 2600-like performance while overclocked it was able to match the stock R5 3600.

The Adobe Photoshop 2020 performance is very respectable and the stock 8700K was able to match the Ryzen 7 2700X.

Adobe After Effects 2020 mostly relies on single core performance, though the extra cores of the 8700K do give it a small advantage over the 7700K. But as this application predominantly just a few cores, the overclocked 8700K scores very well.

The 8700K is a 14nm processor running at aggressive clock speeds, yet the power consumption figures are very good. Of course, once overclocked it becomes a bit of a power pig, but even so we’re talking about total system consumption south of 300 watts, which is not bad at all.

Gaming Performance

Now it’s time to look at gaming performance and we’ll start with Battlefield V which has been tested at 1080p using the ultra quality preset with an RTX 2080 Ti.

Remarkably we see an almost 30% improvement in 1% low performance when comparing stock performance between the 8700K and 7700K. Then once overclocked that margin increases to 37%, so clearly as games become more CPU demanding, the 8700K will become considerably faster than the 7700K and more importantly, provide a smoother gaming experience.

Even in Far Cry New Dawn which we don’t think of as a core-heavy title, is seeing some benefit from the 6-core 8700K and with both parts overclocked the 8700K is up to 22% faster.

We see a small ~10% gain when comparing 7th and 8th-gen Core i7 processors in Gears Tactics. The 8700K can match the new Core i9-10900K once overclocked to 5GHz in a very impressive result, proving why it’s still one of the best gaming CPUs.

Ghost Recon Breakpoint isn’t very CPU sensitive so we’re looking at similar performance across the board, particularly with the Intel CPUs and again the 8700K performs exceptionally well.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider like Battlefield V can provide telling results, and it gives us a clear indication of where things are heading. Stock we’re seeing a 21% increase in frame rate from the 7700K to the 8700K, a significant increase given the CPUs are based on the same design. The stock 8700K is also on par with the Ryzen 5 3600 and this is how we expect these processors to compare in future demanding titles.

Last up we have Red Dead Redemption 2 where we see up to an 18% performance advantage in favor of the 8700K over the 7700K when comparing stock out of the box performance. The 8700K is also comparable in this title with newer and more expensive Intel processors such as the 10700K and 10900K.

And Still ! … What We Learned

As you may have expected, 2017’s king of gaming CPU is still a very capable gamer.

While piecing this content together we went back and read our original 8700K review. We found the conclusion quite interesting given how everything played out over the past few years. Here’s the bulk of that conclusion…

“Intel’s new mainstream flagship Core i7 processor is a beast. For gamers seeking the ultimate solution there is simply nothing better than the Core i7-8700K. Out of the box performance is incredible, overclocking is even more incredible, power consumption is impressive for a CPU running at over 4 GHz by default and needless to say, this chip is going to find its way into my new gaming rig.”

Gaming aside, what about productivity? Still from that review…

“… the Core i7-8700K has the Ryzen 7 1800X beat and it almost wasn’t even a contest. (…) Compared to the R7 1700 the 8700K is at best on par in terms of value but with both overclocked to the max the Ryzen 7 has a little more to give.

Still the 8700K has proven to be much more of an all-rounder than the 7700K ever was. Overall I really like Intel’s new Core i7-8700K.”

A positive review then, and if you pulled the trigger on a Core i7-8700K you’ll be looking back thinking you made the right choice, especially for a gaming machine. AMD made the choice a little harder with 2nd-gen Ryzen chips, but for high refresh rate gaming Intel’s been the more obvious choice and the Core i5-10600K continues that tradition today.

Shopping Shortcuts:
  • Intel Core i5-10600K on Amazon
  • AMD Ryzen 7 3700X on Amazon
  • AMD Ryzen 5 3600 on Amazon
  • Intel Core i7-10700K on Amazon
  • Intel Core i9-10900K on Amazon
  • AMD Ryzen 9 3900X on Amazon
  • GeForce RTX 2060 Super on Amazon
  • GeForce RTX 2080 Ti on Amazon

Core i7-8700K [in 17 benchmarks]

Core i7-8700K

  • Interface
  • Core frequency
  • Video memory size
  • Memory type
  • Memory frequency
  • Maximum resolution


Intel started selling the Core i7-8700K on January 5, 2017 at a suggested price of $359. This is a desktop processor based on the Coffee Lake-S architecture, primarily designed for office systems. It has 6 cores and 12 threads and is manufactured using 14nm process technology, the maximum frequency is 4700MHz, the multiplier is unlocked.

In terms of compatibility, this is an FCLGA1151 socket processor with a TDP of 95W and a maximum temperature of 72°C. It supports DDR3, DDR4 memory.

It provides poor benchmark performance at


from the leader AMD EPYC 9654

Information about the type (for desktops or laptops) and architecture of the Core i7-8700K, as well as when sales started and cost at that time.

Performance ranking 642
Value for money 8.22
Type Desktop 900 41
series Intel Core i7
Architecture code name Coffee Lake-S (2017−2018)
Release date January 5, 2017 (6 years ago)
Release price $359 out of 305 (Core i7-870) 900 55
Price now $319 (0. 9x) of 14999 (Xeon Platinum 9282)

Value for money

To obtain an index, we compare the characteristics of processors and their cost, taking into account the cost of other processors.


Core i7-8700K quantitative parameters such as number of cores and threads, clock speeds, manufacturing process, cache size and multiplier lock state. They indirectly speak about the performance of the processor, but for an accurate assessment, you need to consider the results of the tests.

9005 4 256K (per core)

9006 3

900 63

9005 4

Core 6
Base frequency 3.70 GHz of 4.7 (FX-9590)
Maximum frequency 4. 7GHz of 6 (Core i9-13900KS)
Cache 1 64K (per core) of 7475. 2 (Apple M2 Pro 10-Core)
L2 cache of 36864 ( Apple M2 Max)
L3 cache 12288 KB of 786432 (EPYC 7373X)
Process 14 nm of 4 (Ryzen 9 7940HS)
Chip size 149 mm 2
Maximum core temperature 100 °C of 110 (Atom x7-E3950)
Maximum Case Temperature (TCase) 72°C of 105 (Core i7-5950HQ)
Support 64 bit +
Compatible with Windows 11 +
Free multiplier +


Information on Core i7-8700K compatibility with other computer components. Useful, for example, when choosing the configuration of a future computer or to upgrade an existing one.

Please note that the power consumption of some processors can significantly exceed their nominal TDP even without overclocking. Some may even double their claims if the motherboard allows you to adjust the power settings of the processor.

Max. number of processors per configuration 1 of 8 (Opteron 842)
Socket FCLGA1151 90 041
Power consumption (TDP) 95 W of 400 (Xeon Platinum 9282)

Technology and additional instructions

Technology solutions supported by the Core i7-8700K and additional instruction sets are listed here. This information is needed if the processor is required to support specific technologies.

Extended instructions Intel® SSE4. 1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
vPro 53

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) +
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) +
Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 9 +
TSX + 9 0055
Idle States +


Safety technology

Technologies built into the Core i7-8700K that enhance system security, such as hack protection.

Secure Key 900 MPX +
Identity Protection +
SGX 53

OS Guard +

Virtualization technologies

Technologies supported by Core i7-8700K that speed up virtual machines are listed.

VT-d +
VT-x +

RAM support

Types, maximum size and channels of RAM supported by Core i7-8700K. Higher memory frequency may be supported depending on the motherboard. Ryzen 9 7940HS 0053

Permissible memory size 128 GB of 786 (Xeon E5-2670 v3) Number of memory channels 2 900 41 out of 12 (Xeon Platinum 9221) Memory bandwidth 41.6 Gb/s of 460.8 (EPYC 9124) ECC support – 900 41

Embedded Video Specifications

General parameters of the integrated graphics card in Core i7-8700K.

900 54 64 GB

90 053

Video core Intel UHD Graphics 630
Video memory
Quick Sync Video +
Clear Video +
Clear Video HD +
Max GPU Clock 1.20 GHz 90 055
InTru 3D +

Integrated video interfaces

Interfaces and connections supported by the integrated graphics card in the Core i7-8700K.

Maximum number of monitors 3

Integrated video – image quality

Resolution available for the graphics card built into the Core i7-8700K, including through various interfaces.

9005 4 4096 x 2304@24Hz

4K Resolution Support +
Maximum Resolution via HDMI 1.4
Maximum resolution via eDP 4096 x 2304@60Hz
Maximum Resolution via DisplayPort 4096 x 2304@60Hz 90 041

Integrated video – API support

APIs supported by the Core i7-8700K integrated graphics card, including their versions.

DirectX 12
OpenGL 4.5


Core i7-8700K supported peripherals and how to connect them.

PCI Express revision 3.0 of 5 (Core i9-12900K)
Number of PCI-Express lanes 16 out of 128 (EPYC 7551P)

Benchmark tests

These are the results of the Core i7-8700K performance tests in non-gaming benchmarks. The overall score is set from 0 to 100, where 100 corresponds to the fastest processor at the moment.

Overall benchmark performance

This is our overall performance rating. We regularly improve our algorithms, but if you find any inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in the comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.



    Passmark CPU Mark is a widely used benchmark, consisting of 8 different tests, including integer and floating point calculations, extended instruction tests, compression, encryption and game physics calculations. Also includes a separate single-threaded test.

    Benchmark coverage: 68%


    GeekBench 5 Single-Core

    GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application designed as CPU benchmarks that independently recreate certain real world tasks that can accurately measure performance. This version uses only one processor core.

    Benchmark coverage: 37%


    GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

    GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application designed as CPU benchmarks that independently recreate certain real world tasks that can accurately measure performance. This version uses all available processor cores.

    Benchmark coverage: 37%


    Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

    Cinebench R10 is a very outdated ray tracing benchmark for processors developed by the authors of Cinema 4D – Maxon. The Single-Core version uses a single CPU thread to render a futuristic motorcycle model.

    Benchmark coverage: 20%


    Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

    Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 that uses all processor threads. The possible number of threads in this version is limited to 16.

    Benchmark coverage: 19%


    3DMark06 CPU

    3DMark06 is an outdated set of benchmarks based on DirectX 9 by Futuremark. Its processor part contains two tests, one of which calculates the pathfinding of game AI, the other emulates game physics using the PhysX package.

    Benchmark coverage: 19%


    Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

    Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 that uses all processor threads. This version supports a maximum of 64 threads.

    Benchmark coverage: 17%


    Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

    Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 that uses all CPU threads.

    Benchmark coverage: 14%


    Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

    Cinebench R15 (Release 15) is a benchmark created by Maxon, the creator of the popular Cinema 4D 3D modeling package. It has been superseded by later versions of Cinebench using more modern variants of the Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes referred to as Single-Thread) uses only one CPU thread to render a room full of mirror balls and complexly shaped lights.

    Benchmark coverage: 14%


    Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

    Cinebench R11.5 is an old Maxon development benchmark. authors of Cinema 4D. It has been superseded by later versions of Cinebench which use more modern variants of the Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads one CPU thread with ray tracing, rendering a glossy room full of crystal spheres and lights.

    Benchmark coverage: 14%


    TrueCrypt AES

    TrueCrypt is a deprecated program that was widely used to encrypt disk partitions on the fly. It contains several built-in benchmarks, one of which is TrueCrypt AES. It measures the speed of data encryption using the AES algorithm. The result of the test is the encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

    Benchmark coverage: 13%


    x264 encoding pass 1

    The x264 benchmark uses the MPEG 4 x264 compression method to encode the HD (720p) sample video. Pass 1 is a faster option that produces an output file at a constant bit rate. Its result is measured in frames per second, that is, how many frames of the source video file were encoded in one second on average.

    Benchmark coverage: 13%


    x264 encoding pass 2

    x264 Pass 2 is a slower MPEG4 x264 video compression benchmark, resulting in a variable bit rate output file. This results in a better quality of the resulting video file, as a higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. The benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.

    Benchmark coverage: 13%


    WinRAR 4.


    WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of the popular archiver. It contains an internal speed test using maximum compression by the RAR algorithm on large amounts of randomly generated data. Results are measured in kilobytes per second.

    Benchmark coverage: 12%


    Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core

    Benchmark coverage: 3%


    Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core

    Benchmark coverage: 3%


    Relative capacity

    Core i7-8700K overall performance compared to its nearest competitor desktop processors.

    Intel Core i3-12100

    AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G

    Intel Core i5-10600

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    Intel Core i5-11500T
    98. 81

    AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5350GE

    AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2600

    Competitor from AMD

    We believe that the nearest equivalent to Core i7-8700K from AMD is Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G, which is 1% faster on average and higher by 7 positions in our rating.

    Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G


    Here are some of AMD’s closest competitors to the Core i7-8700K:

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700E

    AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

    AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5350GE

    AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2600

    AMD Ryzen 3 3300X

    Other processors

    Here we recommend several processors that are more or less similar in performance to the reviewed one.

    Ryzen 5 2600X


    Ryzen 5 PRO 2600


    Core i9 9900T


    Core i7 9700F

    Compare 90 005 Core i7 9700

    045 Compare

    Best graphics cards for Core i7-8700K

    We have 5087 configurations based on Core i7-8700K in our database.

    According to statistics, these video cards are most often used with the Core i7-8700K:

    GeForce GTX
    1080 Ti


    GeForce GTX


    GeForce GTX
    1060 6GB


    GeForce GTX


    GeForce GTX
    1050 Ti


    GeForce GTX
    1070 Ti


    GeForce RTX

    3. 2%

    GeForce RTX


    GeForce RTX


    GeForce RTX


    Here are the most powerful graphics cards used with the Core i7-8700K according to user statistics:

    GeForce RTX

    0.7% (37/5087)

    GeForce RTX

    0.1% (7/5087)

    GeForce RTX
    4070 Ti

    0.2% (10/5087)

    Radeon RX
    7900 XTX

    0.02% (1/5087)

    GeForce RTX
    3090 Ti

    0.4% (19/5087)

    Radeon RX

    0.02% (1/5087)

    Radeon RX

    0.06% (3/5087)

    GeForce RTX
    3080 Ti

    1% (51/5087)

    GeForce RTX

    0. 1% (6/5087)

    Radeon RX

    0.04% (2/5087)

    User rating

    Here you can see the rating of the processor by users, as well as put your own rating.

    Tips and comments

    Here you can ask a question about the Core i7-8700K processor, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.

    Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

    Overview of the Intel Core i7-8700K

    Many users for some reason are still convinced that only the top processor in the line is the most suitable for installation in a gaming system, and the final performance in three-dimensional applications depends on it. The profile resources of the Runet willingly hang the gaming label on multi-core CPUs, in the name of which there is the letter “K”. But after all, regularly conducted tests of modern stones prove that the most budget device with 2-4 physical cores is enough for games. The Intel Core i7-8700K has already been dubbed the “best gaming processor” on the market, although it was created for completely different purposes and tasks.

    The Intel Core i7-8700K looks decent against the background of processors based on Socket LGA 2066.

    How many games do you know that lack 4 physical cores and the same number of computational threads? In the monitored solution, there are as many as 6/12 of them. Plus, an extremely high clock frequency, which affects heat dissipation to a greater extent than average fps.

    The top of the line Coffee Lake CPU is designed for enthusiasts, owners of liquid cooling systems and professionals who use programs that can use the maximum number of computing threads in their work.


    Intel Core i7-8700K with 6 physical cores and 12 computing threads (Hyper-Threading technology) operates at a frequency of 3700 MHz (Intel Turbo Boost automatically accelerates one core to 4700 MHz).

    L3 cache size – 12 MB, integrated graphics core is called Intel UHD Graphics 630 (only suitable for simple profile operations), 16 PCI-E lanes are provided for an external video card.

    Supported memory standard is DDR4-2666, but we highly recommend using high frequency RAM kits with this CPU, preferably at least DDR4-3000.

    Intel Core i7-7700K Intel Core i7-8700K Intel Core i7-7800X
    Socket LGA 1151 LGA 1151 LGA 2066
    Process 14 nm 14 nm 14 nm
    Cores/Threads 4/8 6/12 6/12
    Rated clock frequency 4200 MHz 3700 MHz 3500 MHz
    Turbo clock speed 4500 MHz 4700 MHz 4000 MHz
    Cache 8 MB 12 MB 8. 25 MB
    TDP 91W 95W 140W
    Memory support DDR4-2133/2400
    DDR4-2666 DDR4-2400
    Number of memory channels 2 2 4
    Integrated graphics Intel HD Graphics 630 Intel UHD Graphics 630 No
    PCI-E lanes 16 16 28
    Intel Optane Memory support Yes Yes Yes
    Intel Hyper-Threading Yes Yes Yes
    Cost $339-350 $359-370 $383-389

    The Intel Core i7-8700K has an unlocked multiplier, which means that the owner has the right to experiment well with overclocking, since the potential of the reviewed model is impressive.

    Before us is not the coldest and far from the hottest processor in the range of Intel. The real TDP, judging by the data of monitoring programs, during stress tests does not go beyond 85 W (at the nominal frequency).

    To cool the Core i7-8700K, we used Cooler Master MasterAir MA610P (the maximum TDP of this cooler is 180 W). At the standard frequency (3700 MHz, voltage – 1.136 V), both fans operated at 1000 rpm (virtually silent version), the maximum temperature of the processor in this format is 57 degrees.

    Test bench:

    Motherboard – ASUS TUF Z370-Pro Gaming
    RAM – Kingston HyperX Fury DDR4-2666 8 GB
    Video card – ASUS ROG Strix GTX 1080 Ti
    Storage – Intel Optane SSD 900P 280 GB
    Block power supply – Seasonic Focus Plus Gold 650W

    Performance and test results

    Obviously, the Intel Core i7-8700K is an extremely powerful processor; it’s hard to find a task that this CPU can’t handle (we mean operations that a home user or gamer faces). Do not forget that we have stone oriented to the mainstream segment.

    For games, we recommend choosing something simpler.

    The competitive alignment is as follows: the direct rival of the Intel Core i7-8700K is the AMD Ryzen 7 1700. In professional computing (for example, rendering), where it is possible to use the maximum number of threads, both CPUs show approximately equal performance (plus / minus).

    The power of one core is expectedly higher for the Intel Core i7-8700K, and therefore in single-threaded operations and tasks (users have to deal with them quite often), this processor is more powerful than AMD Ryzen 7 1700. In games, both solutions are equally good.

    Intel Core i7-8700K and Core i7-8700 (with locked multiplier) are approximately equal in nominal value, which is generally obvious. The technical arsenal of two stones is identical, the clock frequency differs insignificantly. Therefore, if a CPU without the “K” index is enough for your tasks, it’s better not to overpay for the top option (which is at least an additional $50).

    Intel Core i7-8700K and DDR4-3000 memory

    Intel Core i7-8700K looks worthy against the background of processors based on Socket LGA 2066. In our opinion, the leader of the Coffee Lake family is a more interesting product compared to, for example, the Intel Core i7-7800X with the same 6 physical cores.

    Core i7-8700K is another grow-out from Intel. For the current tasks of the mainstream segment, it is too good.

    In the Corona 1.3 benchmark, which gives a clear indication of CPU speed (in minutes and seconds), the Intel Core i7-8700K draws the scene about half as fast as the 16-core Intel Core i9-7960X, but four times faster than the Pentium G4620.

    The high performance of the Intel Core i7-8700K is useless for modern games. Absolutely equal results (in terms of frame / s) are demonstrated by much more affordable processors, for example, Core i3-7100 or the same Pentium G4620.

    Any modern Intel CPU with two physical cores and 4 processing threads is enough to unleash the potential of a top-end graphics adapter (for example, GeForce GTX 1080 Ti) in high resolution (1440p and 2160p).

    Optimization for 6 physical cores in toys is a matter of the future. Now in additional resources, if the PC is needed mainly for entertainment, there is no point.


    Overclocking the Intel Core i7-8700K to 5 GHz is very easy, especially if you have an ASUS motherboard based on the Intel Z370 chipset. AT BIOS ASUS TUF Z370-Pro Gaming has an OC Tuner option for this purpose. It is enough to press one button, and after rebooting the CPU will start at 5000 MHz, with all six cores absolutely stable.

    After overclocking, the results in benchmarks have grown significantly, which means that this simple operation makes sense. But along with the increase in frequency (and voltage), TDP also jumped, and hence the temperature.

    5000 MHz

    5200 MHz

    Intel Core i7-8700K at 5GHz consumes at least 156W (1.344V operating voltage). Cooler Master MasterAir MA610P during stress tests started to the maximum, both fans functioned at the limit of 1700 rpm. The final temperature of the CPU is 88 degrees.

    The Intel Core i7-8700K started up at 5200 MHz without problems (it would start at 5500 MHz too), but overheating caused any test to crash. Conclusion: for values ​​above 5 GHz, an appropriate cooling system is required, preferably water, the TDP of which is above 200-250 W.


    Intel Core i7-8700K enthusiast processor; the first thing to do with it immediately after installing it in Socket LGA 1151 is to overclock it well, the main thing is to take care of serious cooling.

    Intel Core i7-8700K at 5 GHz consumes at least 156 watts.

    Before the release of the Coffee Lake family, the computer community had some concerns about the overclocking potential of 14 nm products, but they were not confirmed. New items of the eighth generation conquer high clock speeds almost better than the variants from the Kaby Lake and Skylake lines.

    The cost of the Intel Core i7-8700K in domestic retail has fallen to an acceptable (and actually recommended) mark.