The Intel i7-8700K and i7-8086K CPUs are both extremely similar. They’ve got the same
core count, but the 8086K comes with higher clock speeds out of the box and costs a fair
bit more, but as a better binned chip should in theory be able to reach higher overclocks
and perform better, so let’s compare the two and find out which is worth buying.
Let’s start with the differences in specs.
Both CPUs have the same 6 cores and 12 threads and are based on Coffee Lake. They’ve got
the same TDP, same cache and same everything except for the clock speeds, where the 8086K
appears to have higher clock speeds. I say appears because there’s more to it than
what first meets the eye.
These are the clock speeds each CPU will run at based on the number of CPU cores that are
in use. Both the 8086K and 8700K have the same clock speeds when they’ve got between
two and all six cores active. The only time we get a difference is in single core, where
the 8086K can boost to 5GHz while the 8700K boosts to 4.7GHz. That’s the key difference
in clock speeds. The 8086K is apparently a better binned chip though, so we may be able
to manually overclock it better, otherwise for the most part the main idea behind the
8086K is that it’s a limited edition collectors item to celebrate Intel’s 40th anniversary
of the 8086 processor.
To see how these differences practically affect games and applications I’ve tested them
both in the exact same system. I’m using the MSI Z390 Gaming Pro Carbon motherboard,
as both CPUs use the same socket there’s no need to swap. I’ve got 16GB of T-Force
Night Hawk CL16 memory running at DDR4-3200 in dual channel, and for the graphics I’m
using my Aorus 2080 Ti in order to minimize any GPU bottlenecks. I’m cooling the CPUs
using my Fractal S36 360mm all in one liquid cooler with the same Noctua NT H1 thermal
paste, so the exact same PC was used for testing both the 8700K and 8086K CPUs, as apples to
apples as things come.
As for overclocks I was able to get the 8700K to 5.0GHz on all 6 cores with 1.33 volts,
and with the same 1.33 volts I could get the 8086K to 5.1GHz.
With that in mind let’s check out the games first, followed by CPU specific benchmarks
like Cinebench and Adobe Premiere afterwards. I’ve tested all games at 1080p, 1440p, and
4K resolutions using the same Nvidia driver version and Windows updates installed.
Fortnite was tested using the replay feature, starting at 1080p we're seeing very high frame
rates with either CPU. At stock the 8086K was performing 5% better in average frame
rates compared to the 8700K, but with both CPUs overclocked it was just 2% ahead. Stepping
up to 1440p still saw very high frame rates, although almost no difference between them
now regardless of overclocks as the CPU becomes less important at higher resolutions, at 1440p
in all cases the 8700K was actually ahead here. At 4K the game was still playable as
it is pretty well optimized, at stock the results were very similar and then while overclocked
the 8086K was 1.2% ahead.
Battlefield 5 was tested with and without ray tracing enabled. At 1080p with high settings
it was still very playable with RTX on, averaging high 80 FPS with either CPU, although the
8700K was ahead. With RTX off the average frame rate is around twice as high, shown
by the blue bars, but again slightly better results with the 8700K. At 1440p the game
was still playable at high settings with ray tracing on, averaging over 60 FPS. At stock
the 8700K was slightly ahead, but once both CPUs were overclocked the 8086K was getting
1.8% higher average frame rates with RTX on and 1.6% better with RTX off. At 4K RTX wasn’t
playable any longer with high settings, and at stock the 8700K was ahead of the stock
8086K, while the overclocked 8086K was then ahead of the overclocked 8700K.
Far Cry 5 was tested using the built in benchmark. At 1080p with the CPUs at stock the 8086K
was getting 2.2% higher average frame rates, but a much larger 5% improvement to 1% lows
when compared with the 8700K. Once overclocked though there's much less of a difference to
1% lows between the two CPUs, however we can see a fair improvement when comparing the
stock and overclocked results. At 1440p the difference starts to become less obvious as
we get more GPU bound, with the 8086K now 2% ahead of the 8700K at stock speeds and
just 0.9% higher average FPS once both have been overclocked. At 4K the differences are
quite minimal, especially while overclocked. At stock settings we saw a 2.6% higher average
frame rate with the 8086K but then almost no difference with both overclocked, with
the 8086K now just 0.1% ahead in average FPS.
CS:GO was tested with the ulletical benchmark, and at 1080p there was almost no difference
at stock, with a slightly larger 1.6% improvement to the 8086K once the overclocks are applied.
At 1440p the 8086K was 1.1% in front of the 8700K at stock, and then 1.3% ahead once both
have been overclocked, but slightly better 1% low results from the 8700K. At 4K the frame
rates are still quite high for this test, basically the same average frame rates at
stock and then largest improvement out of all games tested at 4K with the 8086K 2.2%
ahead of the 8700K.
Rainbow Six Siege was tested using the built in benchmark, at 1080p with the CPUs at stock
the 8086K was just 0.3% ahead in terms of average frame rate, and then a slightly higher
1.4% difference with the 8086K in front. Similar deal at 1440p, the 8086K was just 0.08% ahead
at stock, so margin of error realistically, then the 8086K is 0.2% ahead with both CPUs
overclocked. At 4K there was almost no difference between both CPUs, regardless of if they were
running at stock speeds or overclocked, as higher resolutions tend to be more GPU bound.
Overwatch was tested in the practice range, at 1080p even with ultra settings we're still
hitting the 300 FPS cap, although we can see some improvements to the 1% lows with the
CPU overclocks applied. At stock the 1% low from the 8086K is 3% ahead of the 8700K, but
then once overclocked the results are closer together with the 8086K now just 0.2% ahead.
Even at 1440p we're only just below the 300 FPS cap, and the averages are all very close
together still with more differences noted between 1% low results. Similar results to
1080p in that sense, where once overclocked results move closer together. At 4K with stock
settings the 8086K was actually consistently slower, though at 160 FPS and ultra settings
at this resolution this will of course make no real difference. With both CPUs overclocked
though the 8086K is now just 0.9% ahead of the 8700K.
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was tested with the built in benchmark. At 1080p the 8086K
was just 0.2% ahead in terms of average frame rate, and then this increases slightly to
0.4% ahead with both CPUs overclocked. At 1440p the 8086K was just ahead in all tests,
interestingly even at stock it was beating the 8700K in 1% low and very close in averages.
At 4K the results get even closer together, no real difference between either CPU but
still pretty good frame rates at this resolution with high settings thanks to the 2080 Ti and
these powerful CPUs.
PUBG was tested using the replay feature, and at 1080p we can see straight away that
overclocking is making a fair difference. Not so much of a change between the two CPUs
though, while overclocked both are performing very closely, while at stock the 8700K was
scoring 4.7% higher average FPS. At 1440p the 8700K was still giving higher average
frame rates at stock, although a smaller 1.2% gap this time and then extremely close with
both overclocked, too close to call. Finally at 4K there's much less of a difference between
all results now as we become GPU bound, even at high settings with this hardware these
are pretty decent results for this resolution.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested using the built in benchmark. At 1080p with high
settings there was almost no difference between both CPUs, 1 FPS difference at stock then
the same results once both are overclocked. Similar results at 1440p, still high frame
rates but the 8700K was slightly ahead at stock, but with both overclocked they were
identical. Again quite similar at 4K, although while overclocked the 8086K was now 1 frame
per second ahead, and this was consistent over multiple test runs.
Watch Dogs 2 was tested as it’s a fairly resource demanding game. At stock the 8086K
was achieving 1.2% higher average frame rates compared to the 8700K, although a much larger
comparatively 8.6% improvement to 1% low. With both overclocked the 8086K is now a massive
6.8% ahead of the 8700K, and I use the word massive there sort of jokingly, but it is
the largest improvement we see throughout all games tested. At 1440p the results start
getting closer together, with the 8086K being just 0.6% ahead of the 8700K at stock settings
but once both are overclocked it's the 8700K which is now 1.2% ahead of the 8086K. At 4K
the results get much closer together as the difference in CPU is less of a factor, all
performing around 60 FPS.
So as we’ve seen the differences are pretty minimal.
Starting at 1080p with both CPUs at stock on average there’s almost no difference,
with the 8086K on average coming out 0.01% ahead in terms of average frame rate. This
of course varies depending on the game, for instance Fortnite seemed more sensitive to
the difference in CPU while Overwatch was basically the same. If we swap over to the
overclocked results we can see that the 8086K is now just 0.55% better on average. In almost
all cases now it is performing slightly ahead of the 8700K compared to both at stock, most
likely as the overclock was 100MHz higher, but still realistically these differences
wouldn’t even be noticeable while playing the games.
Looking at results from 1440p with stock settings, again there was basically no difference, on
average the 8086k was actually behind the 8700K in these games. With the overclocks
in place the scales tip towards the 8086K being slightly better, coming out 0.5% ahead
of the 8700K with most games seemingly favouring that slight 100MHz overclock.
At 4K with both CPUs at stock there was once more no major differences, although on average
the 8086K was slightly behind the 8700K, either way yet again it depends on the specific game.
With both CPUs overclocked the 8086K is now just 0.7% ahead of the 8700K with most games
favouring it now compared to the stock results we just saw.
As you’ve hopefully been able to see there’s no real difference between these two CPUs
when it comes to gaming performance, they both trade blows with each other depending
on the game and if overclocks are applied.
I didn’t expect the 8700K to come out ahead in as many tests as it did given the lower
clock speed, though realistically a lot of the results are within margin of error ranges
anyway, I did of course try to reduce this by taking averages from multiple test runs,
but I think this just further illustrates that there’s minimal difference between
the two when it comes to gaming.
Now let’s move away from gaming and check out some CPU specific benchmarks, I’ve tested
both CPUs at stock speed and with the same overclocks, so 5.0GHz for the 8700K and 5.1GHz
for the 8086K.
Starting out with Cinebench I’ve taken the average of 5 runs. I’ve got the 8700K at
stock at the bottom of the graph, followed by the 5GHz all core overclock, then same
with the 8086K above it, stock then with its 5.1GHz overclock. In the multicore test at
stock I was actually getting slightly better scores with the 8700K, but with both overclocked
the 8086K is 2.4% ahead of the 8700K. In terms of single core performance at stock the 8086K
is 3.1% ahead of the 8700K, but then with both overclocked just 1.3% ahead, which makes
sense when you consider that at stock the 8086K has a 300MHz higher single core turbo
speed, then only a 100MHz difference once overclocked.
Adobe Premiere was tested using the newest CC 2019 version, I’ve just exported one
of my laptop reviews at 1080p using the built in high bitrate preset. At stock speeds the
8086K is able to complete the task almost 6% faster than the 8700K, and then with both
overclocked the gap closes significantly, completing within a second of each other.
I’ve also Adobe Premiere’s warp stabilizer just stabilizing one 4K clip at a time, and
this task seems to favour single core performance. At stock speeds the 8086K is completing the
task just 5 seconds faster, or 1.7% quicker compared to the 8700K. With both CPUs overclocked
the difference was just a couple of seconds, or 0.7%, so almost no practical difference
here.
Blender was tested using the BMW and Classroom benchmarks, and the 8086K was just a few seconds
quicker than the 8700K in all tests. In most cases we’re talking less than a percent
improvement, with the largest difference seen once overclocked in the Classroom benchmark,
where the 8086K at 5.1GHz was 1.9% faster than the 8700K at 5.0GHz.
7-Zip was used to test compression and decompression speeds, and the differences here were very
small between the two chips. There was a decent boost by applying the overclocks though, for
instance the 8700K scores 15% better for decompression and 17% better for compression once overclocked
to 5GHz on all cores. Interestingly the compression speed at stock with the 8086K was a fair bit
lower compared to the 8700K, I’m not sure what the deal was there but this was always
reproducible in my test system.
Veracrypt was used to test AES encryption and decryption speeds, and I saw lower results
on both CPUs with the overclocks replied, I’ve seen this in the past though I’m
not really sure why it happens with this application. In any case the 8700K was actually slightly
faster here, and while I did take the average of 5 test runs the results can be fairly sporadic.
Handbrake was used to convert a 4K video to 1080p, and then a separate 1080p file to 720p.
At stock speeds both CPUs were performing very closely with a slight edge to the 8700K,
and this was the case for both the 4K file shown in the blue bar and 1080p file shown
in the purple bar. Once they’re both overclocked though the 8086K pulls out ahead, now 2.5%
ahead of the 8700K in the 4K test and 3% faster in the 1080p test.
The Corona benchmark uses the CPU to render a scene, and there was only a second difference
at stock speed, putting the 8700K just ahead. With both overclocked the 8086K was now completing
the same task just over 3% faster than the 8700K.
The V-Ray benchmark gave us very similar results to what we just saw in Corona, exactly the
same results between both CPUs at stock, and then just 2 seconds quicker once both CPUs
are overclocked, making the 8086K 2.5% faster now.
Interestingly in many cases at stock speeds the 8700K is slightly ahead of the 8086K,
although once overclocked the 8086K comes out ahead in all tests with the superior clock
speed that I was able to run it at with the same voltage, as it’s probably a better
binned chip.
These are the temperatures of both CPUs at stock and while overclocked while running
a Blender benchmark with an ambient room temperature of 25 degrees celsius. At stock the 8086K
was just slightly cooler, my guess is as a better binned chip it may be better in that
regard, however once both were overclocked the same 90 degrees Celsius was reached, but
again worth remembering my 8086K did have a higher overclock.
I’ve measured total system power draw from the wall, and with Blender running at stock
the system was using the same amount of power. There was just an extra 10 watts in use by
the 8086K once overclocked as it had an extra 100MHz on all 6 cores.
For updated pricing for either CPU check the links in the description, as prices will change
over time. At the time of recording, the 8700K goes for around $370 USD while the 8086K is
$490, so an extra $120 USD or a 32% price increase. At this point you might as well
get the 9900K for $40 extra.
Here’s a quick price to performance graph based on the Cinebench multicore results,
we can see that there’s basically no major difference between the two in terms of score
but a fair bit of extra cost for the 8086K.
If you’ve got the cash and either want a limited edition CPU or otherwise want to roll
the dice on a potentially better overclock then it may be worth it, but for most people
I think the 8700K is offering extremely similar levels of performance for quite a fair bit
less money.
Basically when it comes down to it, for most people just get the 8700K and save the money
as they perform very similarly. Most people just want best performance for their dollar
and likely aren’t all that interested in buying a collectors item.
With that said let me know which of these two CPUs you’s pick and why down in the
comments, and don’t forget to subscribe for more CPU comparisons, I’ve got the 9600K
and 9700K here for testing, as well as future tech videos like this one.