Overclocking Performance: CPU Tests

In the third page of the review we showed our overclocking results, with our CPU managing to hit 5.1 GHz stable with a sizeable increase in voltage. Running at 5.1 GHz incurred rather high temperatures however, so for our benchmark suite we dialed back to 5.0 GHz and run a number of our tests again at this fast speed. We also ran some benchmarks at stock frequency but with increased DRAM frequencies. We ran the DRAM in our ASRock provided system at DDR4-3466, slightly overclocked beyond its DDR4-3200 sticker value.

For this page (and the next), we’ll show the overclocked results of the Core i7-8086K using the fast memory kits as well as the 5.0 GHz overclocked setting (at base memory). The Core i7-8700K numbers are also included for reference.

FCAT Processing

System: FCAT Processing ROTR 1440p GTX980Ti Data

3DPM v2.1

System: 3D Particle Movement v2.1

Dolphin v5

System: Dolphin 5.0 Render Test

DigiCortex v1.20

System: DigiCortex 1.20 (32k Neuron, 1.8B Synapse)

Blender

Rendering: Blender 2.78

POV-Ray

Rendering: POV-Ray 3.7

Cinebench R15 ST

Rendering: CineBench 15 SingleThreaded

Cinebench R15 MT

Rendering: CineBench 15 MultiThreaded

7-zip

Encoding: 7-Zip Combined Score

TrueCrypt

Encoding: AES

GeekBench 4 ST

Office: Geekbench 4 - Single Threaded Score (Overall)

GeekBench 4 MT

Rendering: CineBench 15 MultiThreaded

For everything except the most lightly threaded workloads, overclocking the 8086K to a flat-out 5GHz shows some reasonable gains. These results aren't you couldn't already extrapolate based on the clockspeeds, but it's nice to put theory to practice. It also highlights the unfortunate shortcoming of the CPU: being able to turbo one thread to 5GHz just isn't that useful, since you'll very rarely have a complete system workload that allows it, even if the heaviest workload is single-threaded. The 8086K simply begs to be run at a flat-out 5GHz to get the most out of its capabilities.

GPU Tests: Grand Theft Auto V Overclocking Performance: GPU Tests
Comments Locked

111 Comments

View All Comments

  • peevee - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    8086 being slower than 8700 just indicates an error in your methodology.
    For example, one has updated microcode for exploits and another does not.
  • TheinsanegamerN - Monday, June 18, 2018 - link

    OOORrrrr....its a different motherboard, not the usual test bed. The motherboard used for this is an asrock board, which explains the difference in performance.
  • Memo.Ray - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    As I mentioned in my comment in the other article a couple of days ago:

    Intel managed to give away 8086 "binned" 8700K (AKA 8086K) and still make some money on top of it. win-win situation :D

    https://www.anandtech.com/comments/12940/intels-co...
  • Xenphor - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    How did they get such a lower score on the Dolphin benchmark with a 5ghz overclock on the 8086k? Isn't the benchmark single core only and considering the 8086 already turbos to 5ghz on a single core, why would there be that much of a difference? I tried it on my 8700k at 5ghz and only get a score of about 265-270 with 2666mhz ram.
  • Ian Cutress - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    The 5.0 GHz turbo, at stock, doesn't kick in that often. Depends on how the software sets its own affinity, and most do not. This is the danger with only single core turbo - with all the modern software in the background, even with Windows and scheduling, you rarely hit single core Turbo.
  • Xenphor - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    I suppose but even on the Dolphin forums spreadsheet the highest score is a 249 which is a 7700k at 5.2ghz.
  • Ian Cutress - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link

    I'll retest when I'm back home at the end of the week and recovered from jet lag
  • Xenphor - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link

    Well don't feel like you have to. Just thought it was weird.
  • Vatharian - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    7 years ago, first batches of Core i7-2600K (like mine) were able to reach stable 5.0-5.2 GHz on water, on all 4 cores. Given 7 years difference and 32 vs 14 nm, I am maybe not disappointed (there are +2 cores, half a CPU more), but rather not amused. IPC is higher, that's one, DDR4 can reach 3 times higher frequencies than DDR3, that's two, so there are improvements, but given the bovine excrement that goes on chipset side and PCI-Express connectivity it's clear to see the stagnation.
  • SanX - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    Total flop. The processor in your phone is probably more hi-tech, has more transistors, more cores, and was made on more advances factories with 10nm litho being all sold below $25.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now