Intel 8700k 11% faster than 7700k

[NumLock21]

Intel is claiming their upcoming 8700k will be 11% faster compare to 7700k in single threaded operations, as they held a training event for retailers in China. The slide also shows that, it will be the very first time, where their i3, i5, and i7 will have a cpu core bump. Where i3 are quad cores and both i5 and i7 are hexa cores with i7 having hyper thread, total to 12 threads. 

 

 

 

 

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

 

[PlayStation 2]

I'm trying to figure out the clock speeds of the chips in the slide. I'm wondering if it can be chalked up to that or improvements in Coffee Lake.

[Merp83]

2 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Intel is claiming their upcoming 8700k will be 11% faster compare to 7700k in single threaded operations, as they held a training event for retailers in China. The slide also shows that, it will be the very first time, where their i3, i5, and i7 will have a cpu core bump. Where i3 are quad cores and both i5 and i7 are hexa cores with i7 having hyper thread, total to 12 threads. 

 

 

 

 

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

 

If this is true, it will disrupt ryzen - however i Have a feeling ryzen has a dirty update to give more performance...

[Enderman]

That's great, I'm always looking for more single core performance rather than more cores

I wonder if the pricing will stay the same, $350 for the top end consumer i7...since now it will have 12 threads instead of 8.

[NumLock21]

1 minute ago, Merp83 said:

If this is true, it will disrupt ryzen - however i Have a feeling ryzen has a dirty update to give more performance...

Enable moar cores!

 

 

 

[porina]

I was too lazy to post this, and there is less here than what I wrote in another thread

 

7700k boost of 4.5, add 11% = 5 GHz. Could Intel be angling trying to sell the first 5 GHz consumer CPU? OR any CPU for that matter... this assumes no IPC change and performance is due only to clock. 51% more multithread could simply be from same clocks but more cores.

 

Similar exercise could be performed for lower models in time.

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I'm trying to figure out the clock speeds of the chips in the slide. I'm wondering if it can be chalked up to that or improvements in Coffee Lake.

I wouldn't put to much faith in Intel's claims. 

 

I'm pretty sure they also said there was a gain from Skylake to Kaby Lake. 

[TheRandomness]

Just now, Dan Castellaneta said:

I'm trying to figure out the clock speeds of the chips in the slide. I'm wondering if it can be chalked up to that or improvements in Coffee Lake.

8700k - 3.8/4.3/4.5

8700 - 3.6/4.0/4.2 - Unsure
8400k (8600k?) - 3.x/4.0/4.2 - Unsure
8400 - 2.0/3.0/3.5 - Very unsure. Reading these is hard.

8350k (I wonder how many people would buy an FX CPU by accident) - 4.0

8100 - 3.0

 

All of these are probably wrong but w/e

[MyName13]

2 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Enable moar cores!

 

 

 

Holy sheet, imagine if they just released a new bios that unlocks cores, maybe that's why all ryzens have identical power consumption

Anyway this might make ryzen obsolete, especially r3 and r5.

[Tiwaz]

5 minutes ago, Merp83 said:

If this is true, it will disrupt ryzen - however i Have a feeling ryzen has a dirty update to give more performance...

yea, for gaming its all about single threaded performance, the latest frostbite engine is the only one to use up to 8 threads

[Shiv78]

If the i3 doesn't start at $100-$120 Intel is fucked by R3... if the unlocked i5 isn't the same as a R5 1600 they are also fucked because although the i5 might have better single thread the R5 will still have 2x the threads...

1 minute ago, MyName13 said:

Holy sheet, imagine if they just released a new bios that unlocks cores, maybe that's why all ryzens have identical power consumption

doubt it, that would fuck over all the Ryzen 7 and 1600 buyers...

[porina]

1 minute ago, TheRandomness said:

8700k - 3.8/4.3/4.5

That would blow a big hole in my 5 GHz theory... but then would imply there is some other IPC gain.

[TheRandomness]

Just now, porina said:

That would blow a big hole in my 5 GHz theory... but then would imply there is some other IPC gain.

Looking over that picture again, the 3.8 is unclear but the 4.3 and 4.5 can be seen. Which begs the question, why are there 3 listings for frequency? Base, turbo and single core turbo?

[NumLock21]

2 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Holy sheet, imagine if they just released a new bios that unlocks cores, maybe that's why all ryzens have identical power consumption

Anyway this might make ryzen obsolete, especially r3 and r5.

Moar cores and name change to threadripper.

 

[Nicnac]

Stil no 4/4 Pentium? :,(

[Dietrichw]

Hasn’t intel claimed this kind of IPC improvement before but when tested in real world cases it isn’t close to the improvement that they claimed.

[Shiv78]

1 minute ago, Nicnac said:

Stil no 4/4 Pentium? :,(

that would cannibalize the i3 even MORE than the HT Kaby pentiums

though I think an unlocked 2C/4T Pentium for like $90 would be a decent budget Ryzen 3 alternative if there were Z270 boards for $70ish

[MyName13]

3 minutes ago, Shiv78 said:

If the i3 doesn't start at $100-$120 Intel is fucked by R3... if the unlocked i5 isn't the same as a R5 1600 they are also fucked because although the i5 might have better single thread the R5 will still have 2x the threads...

doubt it, that would fuck over all the Ryzen 7 and 1600 buyers...

1400 and 1500x still have more threads than i5 and yet perform almost the same in gaming (r5 actually loses sometimes).I don't see why i3 would have different prices, an igpu alone will bury r3.

 

2 minutes ago, Nicnac said:

Stil no 4/4 Pentium? :,(

Maybe in a year or two, probably not from Intel.

[MyName13]

1 minute ago, Shiv78 said:

that would cannibalize the i3 even MORE than the HT Kaby pentiums

though I think an unlocked 2C/4T Pentium for like $90 would be a decent budget Ryzen 3 alternative if there were Z270 boards for $70ish

I'd still buy i3 over pentiums, pentiums didn't cannibalize i3s when they had HT disabled so why would they cannibalize them now?

[PCGuy_5960]

If Intel gets the pricing right, Coffeelake is going to be amazing!

[Shiv78]

1 minute ago, MyName13 said:

1400 and 1500x still have more threads than i5 and yet perform almost the same in gaming (r5 actually loses sometimes).I don't see why i3 would have different prices, an igpu alone will bury r3.

 

people buy CPUs for reasons other than gaming

 

and yeah kind of will for budget light gaming rigs but once Raven Ridge is out that space will be AMD's again like the days of the old APUs

[Shiv78]

1 minute ago, MyName13 said:

I'd still buy i3 over pentiums, pentiums didn't cannibalize i3s when they had HT disabled so why would they cannibalize them now?

G4560 is like 10% slower than an i3 for like 40-50% less. G4600 is literally almost identical to a i3-6100 but is Kaby Lake instead of Skylake.

[Ganz]

12 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

Looking over that picture again, the 3.8 is unclear but the 4.3 and 4.5 can be seen. Which begs the question, why are there 3 listings for frequency? Base, turbo and single core turbo?

That would be my guess.  On intel's site explaining turbo boost they have 3 numbers listed.

 

 

 

So my guess is 6C, 2C 1C, turbo boost.

[MyName13]

4 minutes ago, Shiv78 said:

people buy CPUs for reasons other than gaming

 

and yeah kind of will for budget light gaming rigs but once Raven Ridge is out that space will be AMD's again like the days of the old APUs

Which is why I mentioned gaming, I didn't say that i5 is better than r5 in everything

 

3 minutes ago, Shiv78 said:

G4560 is like 10% slower than an i3 for like 40-50% less. G4600 is literally almost identical to a i3-6100 but is Kaby Lake instead of Skylake.

I was talking about 2c2t pentiums and 2c4t i3s, pentiums didn't cannibalize i3s before Kaby lake so the same could be true for 4c4t pentiums and 4c8t i3s.

[Dylanc1500]

18 minutes ago, porina said:

I was too lazy to post this, and there is less here than what I wrote in another thread

 

7700k boost of 4.5, add 11% = 5 GHz. Could Intel be angling trying to sell the first 5 GHz consumer CPU? OR any CPU for that matter... this assumes no IPC change and performance is due only to clock. 51% more multithread could simply be from same clocks but more cores.

 

Similar exercise could be performed for lower models in time.

IBM has a POWER8 CPU that would clock at 5ghz. That neither here nor there though lol.