Coffee Lake scarce in Scandinavia, no K-models until 2018

[snortingfrogs]

According to retailers in Sweden the availability of the new Coffe Lake line from Intel is going to be very low and no of the Nordic retailers will get any of the unlocked K-models until the beginning of 2018.

 

In conversation with Swedish dealers, it appears that the availability of Intel Coffee Lake is low on launch day and that they only get a "handful of". In addition, one of SweClocker's contacts speaks that no Nordic distributor received the unlocked Core i7-8700K, Core i5-8600K, and Core i3-8350K without launching sales with the locked sibling models Core i7-8700, Core i5-8400 and Core i3- 8100.

 

Source: https://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/24514-intel-coffee-lake-bristvara-aret-ut-tillgang-nara-inpa-amds-nasta-generation

 

This might be true for the rest of Europe as well, we just have to wait and see.

[System Error Message]

just buy 8 core ryzen and be happy. Intel prices their 6 cores the same as the AMD 8 cores.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

intel's 6-core is a lot better in terms of sigle core, and multicore isn't it?

7 minutes ago, System Error Message said:

just buy 8 core ryzen and be happy. Intel prices their 6 cores the same as the AMD 8 cores.

 

[Jurrunio]

21 minutes ago, System Error Message said:

just buy 8 core ryzen and be happy. Intel prices their 6 cores the same as the AMD 8 cores.

For those who dont play games with the PC, that's true.

[Sakkura]

Is that so? Well, rend mig i røven Intel.

[samcool55]

So, basically no stock? Well that will have a nice effect on pricing...

[Dylanc1500]

8 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

So, basically no stock? Well that will have a nice effect on pricing...

Then come to find out they have warehouses stockpiled with them. Trying to get in on those GPU margins lol. 

 

Jk

[mynameisjuan]

31 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

For those who dont play games with the PC, that's true.

Benchmarks are showing it beating ryzen in even workstation use in some cases. Overall the 8700 is a better option.

[Jurrunio]

14 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Benchmarks are showing it beating ryzen in even workstation use in some cases. Overall the 8700 is a better option.

Ryzen 7 is much cheaper without being that much slower, so it still wins in value.  Also it's beaten by the 8700k, not the 8700.

[The Benjamins]

1 hour ago, firelighter487 said:

intel's 6-core is a lot better in terms of sigle core, and multicore isn't it?

 

Ya the single core is better but the leaks show a 8700k at 5Ghz OC is the same as a 1800x in multi core (cinebench, AVX workloads are better on intel) and a overclocked 1700 (and 1700x, 1800x) is faster then a OCed 8700k (according to leaks)

 

I personally would still go with AMD.

[System Error Message]

1 minute ago, The Benjamins said:

Ya the single core is better but the leaks show a 8700k at 5Ghz OC is the same as a 1800x in multi core (cinebench, AVX workloads are better on intel) and a overclocked 1700 (and 1700x, 1800x) is faster then a OCed 8700k (according to leaks)

 

I personally would still go with AMD.

Thats really simple. That means clock per clock they are equal. lets take their total frequency value.

6 cores at 5Ghz is 30Ghz total

8 cores at 4Ghz is 32Ghz total.

[mynameisjuan]

4 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

Ryzen 7 is much cheaper without being that much slower, so it still wins in value.  Also it's beaten by the 8700k, not the 8700.

Yeah the k is faster than the 1800 but its also cheaper and a little more than the 1700. But seeing how close stock speeds are with 2 less cores and on top of that the single core performance is a shit ton better, I still dont see how ryzen is a better value. Almost all apps are not utilizing cores so singe core is more important, but with the 8700 the multicore performance is there when needed.

[Jurrunio]

6 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Yeah the k is faster than the 1800 but its also cheaper and a little more than the 1700. But seeing how close stock speeds are with 2 less cores and on top of that the single core performance is a shit ton better, I still dont see how ryzen is a better value. Almost all apps are not utilizing cores so singe core is more important, but with the 8700 the multicore performance is there when needed.

1. Never buy the 1800x when 1700 is around.

 

2. Ryzen 7 1700 will be cheaper than 8700k for a huge margin. 8700k is a new chip, so at first launch it will cost at around $400, dropping to about $350 about a month or two after that.

The Z370 mobo will surely be more expensive than a B350 because Z370 is a high end chipset like X370, but since B350 supports overclocking already X370 is not needed.

The 1700 will happily run at 3.8GHz with the stock cooler while 8700k will need a aftermarket air cooler to get to about 4.7GHz where it performs similarly to the 1700 in multi-thread tests because it doesnt have a stock cooler in the first place. Pushing it to 5GHz level will guarantee the need for a water cooler. These dont come cheap (especially when compared to the free stock cooler that comes with the 1700).

 

3. Coffee Lake's IPC is better than Ryzen, but not to the point of "a shit ton".

 

4. Apps that do use many cores are the major point of going Ryzen 7 in the first place. I didnt deny that 8700k is the fastest chip within Coffee Lake and Ryzen 7. For buyers that dont use apps with good multicore support they are better of with Ryzen 5 1600 or Coffee i5/i7.

[LucidMew]

I doubt that's happening, at least here in the US/NA where a lot of the market is, since the 7700K (and to a lesser extent 7600K) made up the vast majority of intel's sell figures. https://imgur.com/a/O2O5C

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

2 hours ago, System Error Message said:

Thats really simple. That means clock per clock they are equal. lets take their total frequency value.

6 cores at 5Ghz is 30Ghz total

8 cores at 4Ghz is 32Ghz total.

 

[Alariel]

Well, that's one way to hurt your business I suppose...

Flot Intel, virkelig godt klaret...

[System Error Message]

31 minutes ago, NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle said:

 

 

8 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

no. You don't say 24133562 Usain Bolts run at the speed of light.

was talking about heavily multithreaded workloads. That was what i meant comparing the performance and value.

So to get an estimated performance, you can take the intel at 5Ghz to compare against ryzen at 4Ghz.

[PCGuy_5960]

Scarce?

[Misanthrope]

4 hours ago, Jurrunio said:

For those who dont play games with the PC, that's true.

Even for them just partially true: it depends first and foremost on your GPU (i.e. anything below a gtx 1080 or a Vega 64 are mostly fine with just Ryzen) and the now infamous case of high refresh rate.

 

And even then Ryzen can do high refresh rates on many of the competitive games you'd absolutely want that (assuming you're actually pro level and not just a delusional amateur, like most people) it just falls behind on AAA games if you want to push 120 or 144hz because Ryzen will mostly maintain just 100mhz (and yes I am putting lots of stink on that "just" since 100mhz for AAA games should suffice for almost all casual and amateur gamers)

 

But if you have a 1080 or 1080ti and most absolutely play difficult to run crap at 144hz consistently then yes you still need intel and you need to overclock it quite a bit.

[LAwLz]

I think it's cool how everyone goes around saying that Ryzen 7 is significantly cheaper, yet I am fairly sure there have been no prices announced.

Hell, we don't even know the performance (one poorly written review from a fairly unknown source does not count) and people are already talking about which chip performs the best.

 

Really interesting to see people talk about price:performance with high confidence when neither price nor performance are known yet...

[Ashiella]

@Princess Cadence just move to the sweeds

[Mihle]

Well, if I get a job/apprenticeship before that, I guess I still buy Ryzen..... (would probably do that anyway)

[MageTank]

3 hours ago, System Error Message said:

Thats really simple. That means clock per clock they are equal. lets take their total frequency value.

6 cores at 5Ghz is 30Ghz total

8 cores at 4Ghz is 32Ghz total.

Clock for clock, they are not equal. Ryzen brought haswell-level IPC, not Skylake/Kaby/CFL (which all 3 have the same IPC). You also cannot even remotely multiply cores by clock, and expect to get an accurate measurement of performance. You are completely ignoring important aspects of multi-threaded workloads, such as inner core latency, CCX to CCX cross communication, and their cache hierarchy. 

 

Need I remind you of Intel's vastly superior IMC? In applications that make better use of memory bandwidth (again, AVX is already superior on Intel, even more so when you have more bandwidth to throw at it), you are going to see an even higher uplift on Intel.

 

Let's not try to over-simplify architectural comparisons, it only serves to unintentionally mislead people. 

[System Error Message]

1 minute ago, VegetableStu said:

Maybe within the same generation and make, yes, but I don't think I'd do that to compare between generations let alone Intel vs AMD o_o

how do you think AMD beats intel at blender and cinebench?

Why do people think intel has higher IPCs than AMD? AMD beat intel despite being lower clocked and having less cores, that was actually in their demo. They beat intel in a math heavy workload. When it comes to simpler stuff and some of the instructions, intel is faster.

[Sauron]

Buy from amazon.de I guess?

3 hours ago, System Error Message said:

Thats really simple. That means clock per clock they are equal. lets take their total frequency value.

6 cores at 5Ghz is 30Ghz total

8 cores at 4Ghz is 32Ghz total.

#nothowthisworksatall

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I think it's cool how everyone goes around saying that Ryzen 7 is significantly cheaper, yet I am fairly sure there have been no prices announced.

Hell, we don't even know the performance (one poorly written review from a fairly unknown source does not count) and people are already talking about which chip performs the best.

 

Really interesting to see people talk about price:performance with high confidence when neither price nor performance are known yet...

Rumour has it the 8700k will be around 400$. I would be (pleasantly) surprised if it turns out to be the same price as the 7700k at launch, but I strongly doubt it. Even if that happens, the 1700 would still be cheaper. The previews we've had are not 100% reliable but their numbers would definitely make sense with what we know so far.

4 hours ago, Jurrunio said:

For those who dont play games with the PC, that's true.

For those who do, the i5 version will probably be a better offer anyway.