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

  • bug77 - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    So what happened here? It looks like Intel's play with frequencies made this throttle more often. At least that the only explanation I can find for 8700k ending up better in so many tests.
  • Tkan215215 - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    As always its called milking and wallet ripper they know people still Buy them anyway
  • bug77 - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    I wasn't expecting this to be a cost-effective part, but rather a collector-oriented one.
    But mostly worse than a standard part is surely unexpected.
  • AutomaticTaco - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    I don't think it's worse as much as the silicon lottery exists regardless of it. In other words, even among speed binned parts some OC better than others. And that's true for both the 8086K, the 8700K or any others.
  • just4U - Wednesday, June 13, 2018 - link

    I agree bug,

    I'd be very interested in this processor if it brought something to the table to justify it's cost. The 4790K did with a better thermal design. They could have added a kick ass cooler, or a factory delid and redo for better thermals. Something .. anything besides a small bump in clocks.
  • Drumsticks - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    It might be milking, but I kind of have a hard time believing that. They're only making 50,000 of them, and only at about a 21% markup over the 8700k. But they're flat out giving away 16% of the chips. I doubt Intel is going to milk much money beyond their regular business from this. It's the companies 50th anniversary year, so I'm going to guess it's just positive fanfare and a collector's item related to that and it happening to be an anniversary for a well known processor at the same time.
  • Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    I enjoy hating Intel as much as the next guy but this is a good point.

    Revenue from 41,914 8086Ks: $17,813,450
    Revenue from 50,000 8700Ks: $17,500,000 (at $350 apiece)

    The remaining $313,450 doesn't really feel like a lot of money when you factor in binning the chips and dealing with all the other overhead of the promotion, especially since Intel isn't getting all of that money anyway.
  • SanX - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    This was actually not the revenue but the PROFIT you blind people with easily effed brains. The production cost for this chip was probably less then 20 bucks. 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.
  • mkaibear - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link

    What are you smoking?

    His maths is bang on, although he neglects the cut the retailer will be taking off the top for that. They aren't making that much profit off each chip.
  • SanX - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link

    They aren't making that much profit off each chip? If they aren't making huge profits then all mobile chip factories lose money by selling the same transistor count processors like the one in Apple or Samsung phones for just $25

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now