Intel 8700k 11% faster than 7700k

[NumLock21]

14 minutes ago, Nicnac said:

Stil no 4/4 Pentium? :,(

They already have

[Herman Mcpootis]

Wonder how AMD's gonna respond to kopi lake... maybe we might see some price cuts with ryzen? 

[Ganz]

IF this is true and the 8700k is 11% faster single core and a monster 51% faster in multi-threaded workloads than 7700k: then this might destroy the the r7 lineup.

 

However that is going to be highly limited in price.  I can't see Intel selling this for $350.  My guess this would be in the $450 range, which would make it more competitive with R7 in terms of $/per.

[MyName13]

1 minute ago, Ganz said:

IF this is true and the 8700k is 11% faster single core and a monster 51% faster in multi-threaded workloads than 7700k: then this might destroy the the r7 lineup.

 

However that is going to be highly limited in price.  I can't see Intel selling this for $350.  My guess this would be in the $450 range, which would make it more competitive with R7 in terms of $/per.

This is for consumers, there is no way they will raise prices.I highly doubt it will destroy r7, it still has 2 more cores.

[done12many2]

20 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?

 

Not sure how you can say with certainty that the 4.5 is indeed a 4.5.  

[Fire Yoshi]

Intel oftens likes to state rather big improvements between each generation (they said something like 20% faster for Kaby Lake on certain tasks), but it's almost always the very best-case scenario. If anything, Coffee Lake probably uses their new Mesh inter-core architecture and will be slower than Kaby Lake in some stuff (i.e. games), if the 7800X is anything to go by.

 

I would take those numbers with a (big) grain of salt.

[ravenshrike]

If Coffee Lake had an 11% gain in IPC they would have already been trumpeting that fact across the English speaking markets to blunt Threadripper impact. Not to mention I don't care how bad of a benchmark Geekbench is it's not going to be off by 9%+ on single threaded performance.

[TheRandomness]

4 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

Not sure how you can say with certainty that the 4.5 is indeed a 4.5.  

On the upper right side of that figure you can't see a connecting line going down in anyway, hence why I think it's a 5 instead of an 8.

[Ganz]

1 minute ago, MyName13 said:

This is for consumers, there is no way they will raise prices.I highly doubt it will destroy r7, it still has 2 more cores.

51% is a lot. This is by no means scientific but if we look at passmark cpu benchmarks, the 7700k comes in with a score of 12155, the 1800x comes in at 15419.  51% boost on 12155 = 18354.  That's higher than the 1800x AND if it stays at $350 it would be cheaper too.  

 

As for price increase I'm torn, part of me says they will increase, part of me says they won't.  I really would believe they would price it competitively with the 1800x or ~$450

[done12many2]

6 minutes ago, Fire Yoshi said:

Intel oftens likes to state rather big improvements between each generation (they said something like 20% faster for Kaby Lake on certain tasks), but it's almost always the very best-case scenario. If anything, Coffee Lake probably uses their new Mesh inter-core architecture and will be slower than Kaby Lake in some stuff (i.e. games), if the 7800X is anything to go by.

 

I would take those numbers with a (big) grain of salt.

 

Where do you get any indication that it will use mesh?  The only reason Skylake-X went to mesh is to support the HCC CPUs.  There's no reason to suspect a switch in mainstream chips.  

[done12many2]

2 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

On the upper right side of that figure you can't see a connecting line going down in anyway, hence why I think it's a 5 instead of an 8.

 

I know what you are talking about.  I just can't see how you can determine it's a 5.  No big deal.  I thought you saw something I didn't. 

 

 

[Ganz]

1 minute ago, done12many2 said:

 

I know what you are talking about.  I just can't see how you can determine it's a 5.  No big deal.  I thought you saw something I didn't. 

 

 

I see 3.6/4.3/4.5

[done12many2]

Just now, Ganz said:

I see 3.6/4.3/4.5

 

I guess I'm blind.  

 

I see two 4's and a bunch of blur open to interpretation.  I guess I need to improve upon my 20/20 vision.  

[Fire Yoshi]

2 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

Where do you get any indication that it will use mesh?  They only reason Skylake-X went to mesh is to support the HCC CPUs.  There's no reason to suspect a switch in mainstream chips.  

Most of the Skylake-X lineup is based on the LCC dies (6 to 12 cores), and they all use mesh.

[Ganz]

Just now, done12many2 said:

 

I guess I'm blind.  

 

I see two 4's and a bunch of blur open to interpretation.  I guess I need to improve upon my 20/20 vision.  

Just cause I see it doesn't make it correct

 

Best way I found to do it is quickly turn your head to look, and just go with first instinct as to what it is.

[Taf the Ghost]

28 minutes ago, porina said:

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

Considering "multi-thread" is 51% gain, it looks more like the 8700k simply turbos harder than the baseline 7700k. And probably a little bit of efficiency in its turbo. I made a joke about Speed Shift v3 being unannounced, but that might actually be true. There's room to pick up single-threaded performance in other spots beyond the main core. Maybe the memory system can feed a single core better.

 

I think when we get detailed testing, the single-core will be like 1-3% faster, but if the test was memory sensitive, it'd show more. 

 

Though this, hilariously, does confirm about the time Intel found out about Ryzen's performance. They new the Ryzen 5s would made the entire i3/i5 range terrible value. Suddenly, 6c for everyone!

 

Ain't competition grand.

[Taf the Ghost]

Duh. This is on a new PCH. What's the "baseline" memory speed moving to? Is it moving up to 2666? If so, that might explain the Single Core uplift with almost linear +2c increase.

[Guest]

This must be pretty good news for people who love Intel for maximum gaming and streaming peformance.

[done12many2]

5 minutes ago, Fire Yoshi said:

Most of the Skylake-X lineup is based on the LCC dies (6 to 12 cores), and they all use mesh.

 

As I said, there is no indicator at this point to even assume that this will apply to the Coffee Lake architecture.  Skylake-X needed to go to mesh to include the 14 - 18c parts as well.  That by no means indicates that this will happen in mainstream.  I guess we'll see, but what you are saying is that because they went to 6 cores on mainstream, they are probably going to mesh, when Intel has been able to do just fine up to 10 cores in the past without doing so.  

 

4 minutes ago, Ganz said:

Just cause I see it doesn't make it correct

 

Best way I found to do it is quickly turn your head to look, and just go with first instinct as to what it is.

 

Neck injury about to happen.  

[Shiv78]

27 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

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.

i3s won't be 8T though. Not yet.

[ZackBarletto]

34 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?

i've seen some slides where Intel has a base clock. Turbo Boost 1.0. then Turbo boost 2.0. All with different clocks.

 

I think I saw it on a LTT video recently. It confused me and made me wonder why stage it like that anyways.

 

From the FAQ below, turbo boost 2.0 is just a more efficient version of 1.0 for dynamic overclocking.

 

Turbo boost 3.0, you can supposedly direct applications to the boosted cores.

 

Short Wiki Article on Turbo boost in general

 

Intel FAQ on Turbo Boost

 

[TVwazhere]

31 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.

Was* 40% less, now it's more like 20% ($80-90[Used to be 65-70] vs $110) Intel finally realized what shit having a pentium that good was

26 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

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

 

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.

AFAIK, i3's have never had multi threading, and most likely never will. Definitely not 4c/8t, who'd buy an i5 then?

[goodtofufriday]

Ryzen refresh or ryzen 2 what you got for me

[Shiv78]

1 minute ago, TVwazhere said:

Was* 40% less, now it's more like 20% ($80-90[Used to be 65-70] vs $110) Intel finally realized what shit having a pentium that good was

30 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

yeah 

 

1 minute ago, TVwazhere said:

AFAIK, i3's have never had multi threading, and most likely never will. Definitely not 4c/8t, who'd buy an i5 then?

they probably will at some point once i7s are 8C/16T and i5s are 6C/12T 

[Sniperfox47]

39 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?

In past leaks the way we've seen them list it is:

Base clock/6-core boost/4-core boost.

 

This puts it about on par with the boost of the i7-7700k

53 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Intel is claiming their upcoming 8700k will be 11% faster compare to 7700k in single threaded operations

Do we know what that's based on? Iirc Coffee Lake has a revised GPU alongside it right? It wouldn't be the first time Intel has included iGPU performance in benchmarks of their CPU improvement.