i7-8700k & Coffee Lake CPUs

[Brooksie359]

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Not really. Logical processors don't scale quite as well as physical cores. Some members have speculated that the best a 4C/8T i3 could do to a 6C i5, at the same clocks, is match it at some workloads. That's ignoring any additional cache the i5 would have, and any disabled features. And that is best case scenario to them, and that it won't manage that under most scenarios.

That is pure speculation. And even then like I said it would be the better buy for most people who are doing moderate workloads. If you need more power for productivity you would get the i7 or even a ryzen gpu but the i5 would make basically zero sense. Again the i3 would essentially be a kabylake i7 so there would be no reason to get above the i3 for a large portion of the gaming market. 

[Drak3]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

That is pure speculation.

No, it's not. It's applying what people have observed with existing products, as recent as Kabylake, and applying it to a "new" product stack that is really, just yet another tweak to Haswell, which isn't that much different from Sandy Bridge.

The only speculation is that Intel didn't improve HTT on the newest iteration, but that's extremely unlikely.

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

If you need more power for productivity you would get the i7 or even a ryzen gpu but the i5 would make basically zero sense. Again the i3 would essentially be a kabylake i7 so there would be no reason to get above the i3 for a large portion of the gaming market.

Again, physical cores > logical processors in most workloads. Priced decently, the i5 will continue to be a good option for the mainstream market. This isn't the first time that anm i3 'outperformed' an i5, just to have things remain the status quo.

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, it's not. It's applying what people have observed with existing products, as recent as Kabylake, and applying it to a "new" product stack that is really, just yet another tweak to Haswell, which isn't that much different from Sandy Bridge.

The only speculation is that Intel didn't improve HTT on the newest iteration, but that's extremely unlikely.

Again, physical cores > logical processors in most workloads. Priced decently, the i5 will continue to be a good option for the mainstream market. This isn't the first time that anm i3 'outperformed' an i5, just to have things remain the status quo.

show me the math and then you can say it isn't speculation and  even then it is still debatable if that is firm evidence or speculation. the i3 would have 2 more threads and while they don't scale as well as physical cores they do have the potential to scale well enough to make it better in certain scenarios. if it was a 3c6t cpu then it would be no contest between the two but because it is a 4c8t it is going to basically make the i5 irrelevant. if they release an i3 with 4c8t they are going to have a supply issue just like with the g4560 because there would be little reason to get anything else until the i7. I mean you say there would be reasons for the i5 but i honestly cant think of a single use case where they wouldn't opt for the i7 instead or the i3 because it will get the job done but will be cheaper.

[Scitesh]

On 8/12/2017 at 9:53 PM, tom_w141 said:

Wasn't the 4c/8t i3 proven fake?

 

If true then go clean yourselves up 7700k owners because you've been FUCKED. i7 -> i3 in 8 months

I feel bad for the guy who bought i7-6700K of me

On 8/12/2017 at 10:00 PM, TechyInAZ said:

Just like other's have said, what's hularious is Coffee Lake will completely RIP X299 4-6 core CPUs. LOL

Wasn't that already RIPped by Ryzen

On 8/12/2017 at 11:44 PM, done12many2 said:

 

My kids' computers all use them so I'm definitely glad to have the feature.  This buys me plenty of time before I have to start buying them GPUs too.  

Not only you but also think of businesses and institutes that can get away not buying a gpu that's a pretty significant part of market 

 

Ps :this is what I hope happens

Pentiums:2c/4t and 4c/4t

I3 :4c/4t (with k skews) 

I5 :6c/6t

I6 :4c/8t... Jk

I7 :6c/12t

I7-x and i9 :8c+

[MrTiC]

I would still take the 1600x over the I7 .... cause of the price diffrence of 50% (if it still is the same price wich i doubt for the worse) 

[tom_w141]

On ‎14‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 3:11 AM, Brooksie359 said:

That is pure speculation. And even then like I said it would be the better buy for most people who are doing moderate workloads. If you need more power for productivity you would get the i7 or even a ryzen gpu but the i5 would make basically zero sense. Again the i3 would essentially be a kabylake i7 so there would be no reason to get above the i3 for a large portion of the gaming market. 

 

On ‎14‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 3:15 AM, Drak3 said:

No, it's not. It's applying what people have observed with existing products, as recent as Kabylake, and applying it to a "new" product stack that is really, just yet another tweak to Haswell, which isn't that much different from Sandy Bridge.

The only speculation is that Intel didn't improve HTT on the newest iteration, but that's extremely unlikely.

Again, physical cores > logical processors in most workloads. Priced decently, the i5 will continue to be a good option for the mainstream market. This isn't the first time that anm i3 'outperformed' an i5, just to have things remain the status quo.

Both of you above your discussion is rather irrelevant as the leak is wrong, the i3s are 4 threads.

10 hours ago, MrTiC said:

I would still take the 1600x over the I7 .... cause of the price diffrence of 50% (if it still is the same price wich i doubt for the worse) 

You disgrace us with your cut off avatar, shame!

[iiNNeX]

Lol intel...

[MrTiC]

On 15-8-2017 at 4:33 PM, tom_w141 said:

You disgrace us with your cut off avatar, shame!

Ryzen is too big for my avatar ... 

[done12many2]

3 minutes ago, MrTiC said:

Ryzen is too big for my avatar ... 

 

Well played sir.  Well played. 

 

I hate to see what you'd do if you had a TR.

[MrTiC]

10 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

Well played sir.  Well played. 

 

I hate to see what you'd do if you had a TR.

Good thing i dont have one, but if i had one ... 

[Trik'Stari]

Any chance these will work on Z-270?

 

I find myself doubting that.

[porina]

https://videocardz.com/72112/intel-claims-i7-8700k-to-be-11-faster-than-7700k

 

Can't be bothered to start a news thread on above, but we have some leaked comparisons between 7 and 8th generation. 

 

8700k claimed to be 11% faster than 7700k in single thread. Do the math, assuming same IPC, 7700k turbo at 4.5 implies 8700k turbos to 5 GHz. The multi-thread is claimed at 51%, so that's the same clock as 7700k all cores loaded then, just with 2 more of them.

 

Also it seems to show i3 will be 4c4t only, no 8t models indicated.

[MyName13]

So will hexa i5 really boost from 2.8 GHz to 3.6 GHz?How is such big boost even possible on all six cores?

[done12many2]

28 minutes ago, porina said:

8700k claimed to be 11% faster than 7700k in single thread. Do the math, assuming same IPC, 7700k turbo at 4.5 implies 8700k turbos to 5 GHz. The multi-thread is claimed at 51%, so that's the same clock as 7700k all cores loaded then, just with 2 more of them.

 

Stock, I think the 8700k boosts to 4.7 GHz on one core, which we all know is just a starting point.  

 

2 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

So will hexa i5 really boost from 2.8 GHz to 3.6 GHz?How is such big boost even possible on all six cores?

 

The stock turbo 2.0 boost is supposed to be 4.3 GHz on the 8700k so any board that has "Enhanced Multicore" will lock the CPU to 4.3 if that option is enabled.  

[MyName13]

4 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

Stock, I think the 8700k boosts to 4.7 GHz on one core, which we all know is just a starting point.  

 

 

The stock turbo 2.0 boost is supposed to be 4.3 GHz on the 8700k so any board that has "Enhanced Multicore" will lock the CPU to 4.3 if that option is enabled.  

Doesn't turbo boost work on all motherboards since it doesn't depend on them (it's a CPU technology after all)?

[porina]

4 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

So will hexa i5 really boost from 2.8 GHz to 3.6 GHz?How is such big boost even possible on all six cores?

Doesn't seem difficult to me. 7800X already does faster than that all cores at stock, and Ryzen does around 3.6 all cores stock voltage (may require OC).

 

1 minute ago, done12many2 said:

Stock, I think the 8700k boosts to 4.7 GHz on one core, which we all know is just a starting point.  

I was looking at it in that 7700k turbos to 4.5. There is a claimed 11% increase in single thread. 4.5x1.11=5 GHz near enough, assuming IPC remains constant. The scary implication here is that overclockers might be able to do 5 GHz+ on all cores... that would be some fearsome power (and in my use cases, be seriously ram bandwidth bottlenecked!)

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, porina said:

I was looking at it in that 7700k turbos to 4.5. There is a claimed 11% increase in single thread. 4.5x1.11=5 GHz near enough, assuming IPC remains constant. The scary implication here is that overclockers might be able to do 5 GHz+ on all cores... that would be some fearsome power (and in my use cases, be seriously ram bandwidth bottlenecked!)

 

Yeah, I think they are factoring in improved memory performance on top of the additional turbo clock speed to come up with the 11%.  Then there's the manufacturer fluff/hype and the truth ends up somewhere in the middle.  

 

I have no doubt that we'll be seeing some 6 core 5 Ghz monsters out of these batches!

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, done12many2 said:

 

Yeah, I think they are factoring in improved memory performance on top of the additional turbo clock speed to come up with the 11%.  Then there's the manufacturer fluff/hype and the truth ends up somewhere in the middle.  

 

I have no doubt that we'll be seeing some 6 core 5 Ghz monsters out of these batches!

Considering what the 14nm++ node should bring, I would expect the 8700k to hit 5 Ghz on most chips. Maybe some need a delid.  However, you're going to actually need a decent AIO to handle 6c at that speed.

[done12many2]

3 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Considering what the 14nm++ node should bring, I would expect the 8700k to hit 5 Ghz on most chips. Maybe some need a delid.  However, you're going to actually need a decent AIO to handle 6c at that speed.

 

If you do delid and manage to run all 6 cores at 5 GHz, it's going to be one nasty gaming chip.

 

My 7700k delidded runs 5.3 GHz on a custom loop, which is limited by silicon and not thermals.  I have plenty of thermal head room left, I just run out of silicon speed.  If the 8700k, is of the same quality, we'll definitely see 5 GHz chips, but thermals will be a bigger factor for sure.  

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, done12many2 said:

 

If you do delid and manage to run all 6 cores at 5 GHz, it's going to be one nasty gaming chip.

 

My 7700k delidded runs 5.3 GHz on a custom loop, which is limited by silicon and not thermals.  I have plenty of thermal head room left, I just run out of silicon speed.  If the 8700k, is of the same quality, we'll definitely see 5 GHz chips, but thermals will be a bigger factor for sure.  

My suspicion is that the 8700k is going to be the best gaming CPU for the next 3-4 years. I think Icelake is going to change enough that the current hyper-specific optimizations won't scale as well. (I don't think Icelake will be an IPC regression, I just think the clocks will probably be lower and some of the extra 10-15% uplift in gaming won't carry over.)

 

Though it should be noted that I don't know exactly what AMD might do in that time frame. Zen2 could be a lot better at single-core in gaming. No clue!