Intel Core i7-11600H vs Intel Core i7-8700K Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database shows that the Intel Core i7-11600H and the Intel Core i7-8700K both land at the 73rd percentile among all CPUs, yet they achieve that standing through very different profiles. The 11600H wins 14 of the 19 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the 8700K takes 5. The average benchmark score for the 11600H is 19921, slightly ahead of the 8700K's 19238. The data indicates the 11600H is the stronger all-round performer, particularly in single-threaded and encryption workloads. However, the 8700K retains advantages in specific memory-sensitive and physics-based tasks, making it relevant for users who prioritize those particular workloads. The 11600H is the better pick for modern multi-core rendering, encryption, and integer-heavy tasks. The 8700K remains the choice for scenarios where its higher base clock, unlocked multiplier, and desktop platform advantages in Geekbench multicore and random string sorting matter more.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-11600H dominates the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, it wins both single-core and multi-core runs by a consistent 15.2% to 15.3% margin. This is a clean sweep across every render test in the database. The 11600H also wins decisively in PassMark data encryption with a 103.5% advantage, meaning it more than doubles the 8700K's score of 4776 with its own 9718. Prime number finding shows a 66.7% gap in favor of the 11600H, and floating point math runs 15.5% ahead. Integer math is 20.8% higher, and multithread performance is 18.5% better. The single-thread PassMark result favors the 11600H by 11%.

The Intel Core i7-8700K wins where memory bandwidth and certain algorithmic patterns matter. Geekbench multicore goes to the 8700K by 8.1%, with a score of 7140 against 6563. PassMark data compression favors the 8700K by 4.1%, extended instructions by 4.3%, random string sorting by 12.1%, and physics by 5.9%. These wins cluster around tasks that benefit from the 8700K's higher base clock of 3.70 GHz versus 2.50 GHz, and its desktop-oriented memory configuration. The 8700K also carries an unlocked multiplier, which the 11600H lacks, though the database does not include overclocked results.

The split is clear: the 11600H wins every Cinebench variant, all encryption and math tests, and the single-thread Geekbench. The 8700K wins Geekbench multicore and four PassMark subtests. Users running render workloads, encryption, or integer math should favor the 11600H. Users running compression, physics simulation, or random sorting should favor the 8700K.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and process nodes. The Intel Core i7-11600H uses Tiger Lake-H architecture on a 10 nm process with a die size of 190 mm². The Intel Core i7-8700K uses Coffee Lake on a 14 nm process with a die size of 154 mm². Both have 6 cores and 12 threads, so the core count is identical. The L1 cache differs: the 11600H has 80 KB per core, while the 8700K has 64 KB per core. L2 cache shows a larger gap: 1.25 MB per core on the 11600H versus 256 KB per core on the 8700K. L3 cache is 18 MB shared on the 11600H versus 12 MB shared on the 8700K.

The 11600H has a lower base clock of 2.50 GHz but a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The 8700K has a higher base clock of 3.70 GHz and a slightly higher boost of 4.70 GHz. The 11600H has a TDP of 35 watts, while the 8700K is rated at 95 watts. The 11600H uses the Intel BGA 1787 socket, a mobile platform, while the 8700K uses Intel Socket 1151 for desktop. The 11600H supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU; the 8700K supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. Memory bandwidth favors the 11600H at 51.2 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s, though both are dual-channel DDR4. The integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 750 on the 11600H versus UHD Graphics 630 on the 8700K. The 11600H is an active production mobile chip; the 8700K is end-of-life and desktop-only. The 8700K has an unlocked multiplier; the 11600H does not.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-8700K boosts to 4.70 GHz, while the Intel Core i7-11600H boosts to 4.60 GHz.

Q: How much faster is the 11600H in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The 11600H scores 13286 against the 8700K's 11527, a 15.3% advantage.

Q: Where does the 8700K beat the 11600H by the largest margin?

A: The 8700K wins PassMark random string sorting by 12.1%, with 25270 versus 22217.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both have 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the biggest single-test win for the 11600H?

A: The 11600H wins PassMark data encryption by 103.5%, scoring 9718 versus 4776.

Q: Which chip supports PCIe Gen 4?

A: The Intel Core i7-11600H supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The 8700K supports only PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench series is a total victory for the 11600H. In R15 multi-core, it scores 1339 against 1161, a 15.3% lead. R15 single-core shows 188 versus 163, again 15.3%. R20 multi-core is 5580 versus 4841, and R20 single-core is 787 versus 683, both around 15.2% to 15.3%. R23 multi-core is 13286 versus 11527, and R23 single-core is 1875 versus 1627, maintaining the same 15.2% to 15.3% gap. This consistency across three generations of Cinebench suggests an architectural advantage in the 11600H's rendering pipeline, likely tied to its larger L2 and L3 caches and newer instruction handling.

Geekbench splits the pair. The 8700K wins multicore with 7140 versus 6563, an 8.1% margin. But the 11600H wins single-core with 1924 versus 1575, a substantial 22.2% lead. The single-core result is the largest percentage win for the 11600H outside of encryption. The multicore result for the 8700K is notable because it contradicts the Cinebench pattern, indicating that Geekbench's workload mix favors the 8700K's higher base clock and desktop memory latency profile.

PassMark reveals a mixed bag. The 11600H wins data encryption by 103.5%, a dramatic doubling. It also wins find prime numbers by 66.7%, floating point math by 15.5%, integer math by 20.8%, multithread by 18.5%, and single-thread by 11%. The 8700K wins data compression by 4.1%, extended instructions by 4.3%, physics by 5.9%, and random string sorting by 12.1%. The 8700K's wins are narrower than the 11600H's biggest wins, but they are consistent across memory-bound and specific instruction patterns.

The overall record is 14 wins for the 11600H and 5 for the 8700K. The 11600H's wins include all three Cinebench generations, both single-core Geekbench, and the majority of PassMark math tests. The 8700K's wins are concentrated in Geekbench multicore and four PassMark subtests that appear to favor its clock speed and platform characteristics.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in every major specification except core count, thread count, memory type, and ECC support. Both have 6 cores and 12 threads. Both support DDR4 memory in dual-channel mode, and neither supports ECC memory. Beyond that, the differences are extensive.

Base clock: 2.50 GHz on the 11600H versus 3.70 GHz on the 8700K. Boost clock: 4.60 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. TDP: 35 watts versus 95 watts. Socket: Intel BGA 1787 versus Intel Socket 1151. Architecture: Tiger Lake versus Coffee Lake. Process node: 10 nm versus 14 nm. Die size: 190 mm² versus 154 mm². L1 cache: 80 KB per core versus 64 KB per core. L2 cache: 1.25 MB per core versus 256 KB per core. L3 cache: 18 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. Memory bandwidth: 51.2 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 4 with 20 lanes versus Gen 3 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 750 versus UHD Graphics 630. Market segment: Mobile versus Desktop. Production status: Active versus End-of-life. Multiplier unlocked: No versus Yes. Launch MSRP: $395 for the 11600H, $359 for the 8700K.

The 11600H offers a smaller process node, more cache at every level, higher memory bandwidth, newer PCIe, and a much lower TDP, at the cost of a lower base clock and a locked multiplier. The 8700K offers a higher base clock, a slightly higher boost, an unlocked multiplier, and a desktop socket, but older PCIe, less cache, and significantly higher power draw.