Intel Coffee Lake Review Thread

[Majestic]

10 minutes ago, NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle said:

And Ryzen didn't have this problem?

Oh wait, it did.

lol please, nowhere near this extent. It's going to take weeks here in EU. And you have completely neglected to take into account the positions both companies were in at the time of launch. AMD was failing, Intel is booming. I'd say those circumstances add a heap of context.

[MyName13]

Aaaaand now I regret my r5 1600 purchase, it's FX all over again.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

no, it's for ''in the long run'' in 2 or 3 years down the road when the mid-range GPU will be nearly twice as fast as a GTX 1080...some people make purchases for a couple years you know...you want the better/faster product not only for what it can bring right now with current softwares, but also for the ''3 years down the line'' aspect of it.

 

If you look at it your way, then FX-8350 and i7-3770K were only a slight bit appart in games back in the day, because the best GPU was like a GTX 680 and HD 7970 or some shit like that...but today, if you bought a 3770K you can still max out a GTX 1080ti at 1440p and game at 120FPS+...if you bought a FX -8350 your best bet right now is a GTX 1050 for 1080p and even you'll struggle to get 40FPS in many titles.

I'm not commenting on what amounts to crystal ball predictions: far too many other things could end up weighting heavily on the results like games moving to more than 4 or even 6 threads usage in which all your scenario goes out of the window. Intel could release 8 core chips, AMD could still improve IPC on Ryzen 2, 4K gaming might become more prevalent than high refresh gaming in which case no even leapfrogging for 2 or 3 years in GPU performance wouldn't liberate resources for 4k gaming, etc.

 

You can revisit this in 3 years to see if AMD truly had no way to increase IPC, if games truly stagnated and didn't move past 4 core usage for most 6 core usage for a few, etc. But it's pointless to discuss if you ask me.

[Brainless906]

Just now, Majestic said:

lol please, nowhere near this extent. It's going to take weeks here in EU. And you have completely neglected to take into account the positions both companies were in at the time of launch. AMD was failing, Intel is booming. I'd say those circumstances add a heap of context.

This is a good point. For the powerhouse that is intel to have a launch and not have CPUS shipping for up to a month from vendors is pretty different from if AMD was in the same position. and though supply did struggle on the AMD side of it it was for a week at most, at least around me in the NE of the USA.

Intel chips being this hard to get isnt something i really remember in the last few years. Especially something as as common as the i5 or the i7

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

no, it's for ''in the long run'' in 2 or 3 years down the road when the mid-range GPU will be nearly twice as fast as a GTX 1080...some people make purchases for a couple years you know...you want the better/faster product not only for what it can bring right now with current softwares, but also for the ''3 years down the line'' aspect of it.

 

If you look at it your way, then FX-8350 and i7-3770K were only a slight bit appart in games back in the day, because the best GPU was like a GTX 680 and HD 7970 or some shit like that...but today, if you bought a 3770K you can still max out a GTX 1080ti at 1440p and game at 120FPS+...if you bought a FX -8350 your best bet right now is a GTX 1050 for 1080p and even you'll struggle to get 40FPS in many titles.

As with 540p & 720p projections, how things will scale into 1440p as "standard gaming" are likely to be less on the CPU for saturation for the better part of 5ish years. It's very likely to be a product cycle after Volta and Navi by the point that something like an 4c at above 3.7 Ghz won't saturate the "mainstream" GPUs. (1060/RX580 class.) 

 

But, yes, the 8700k should be able to saturate all GPUs for the next 5 years pretty easily. (Going beyond 8c for real utility in gaming pretty much won't happen for a long, long time.)

[Misanthrope]

4 minutes ago, Majestic said:

lol please, nowhere near this extent. It's going to take weeks here in EU. And you have completely neglected to take into account the positions both companies were in at the time of launch. AMD was failing, Intel is booming. I'd say those circumstances add a heap of context.

What extent? You're speculating on vendor rumors: we don't really know how supply will change over the next few weeks and it's on their best interest to cause panic and justify a price hike for the time being.

[Majestic]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

What extent? You're speculating on vendor rumors: we don't really know how supply will change over the next few weeks and it's on their best interest to cause panic and justify a price hike for the time being.

It being weeks already is damning enough. And why would they lie.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Majestic said:

It being weeks already is damning enough. And why would they lie.

1) It's really not it's just a normal product launch

2) I explained why: They would benefit from people buying their stock right now quickly and for a huge markup when they might get decent volume in just under a month but people would panic and just rush to buy for 500 euro or more because they think they might need to wait 4 months when it's more like 1 month.

[MyName13]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I'm not commenting on what amounts to crystal ball predictions: far too many other things could end up weighting heavily on the results like games moving to more than 4 or even 6 threads usage in which all your scenario goes out of the window. Intel could release 8 core chips, AMD could still improve IPC on Ryzen 2, 4K gaming might become more prevalent than high refresh gaming in which case no even leapfrogging for 2 or 3 years in GPU performance wouldn't liberate resources for 4k gaming, etc.

 

You can revisit this in 3 years to see if AMD truly had no way to increase IPC, if games truly stagnated and didn't move past 4 core usage for most 6 core usage for a few, etc. But it's pointless to discuss if you ask me.

Why does everyone say crap like "but but gtx 3050 ti will be as strong as gtx 1080 ti" as if everyone has 144 hz monitors.What should be talked about is future increase in CPU requirements, the better CPU will perform better.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, MyName13 said:

Why does everyone say crap like "but but gtx 3050 ti will be as strong as gtx 1080 ti" as if everyone has 144 hz monitors.What should be talked about is future increase in CPU requirements, the better CPU will perform better.

CPU requirement increase normally come far more sparingly than GPU requirements. What I do agree on however, is the over-stated importance of high refresh rate: People assume that most people are interesting in fairly shit image quality at silly high refresh rate but truth is people play more than CS:GO and Overwatch and 4k might become a lot more popular ahead of higher refresh rates.

[Brainless906]

9 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Why does everyone say crap like "but but gtx 3050 ti will be as strong as gtx 1080 ti" as if everyone has 144 hz monitors.What should be talked about is future increase in CPU requirements, the better CPU will perform better.

 

7 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

CPU requirement increase normally come far more sparingly than GPU requirements. What I do agree on however, is the over-stated importance of high refresh rate: People assume that most people are interesting in fairly shit image quality at silly high refresh rate but truth is people play more than CS:GO and Overwatch and 4k might become a lot more popular ahead of higher refresh rates.

 

And depending on how game development goes more core/threads could very well be better for higher resolution gaming in the future now that more cores/threads are much more common. In the end the 1800x already competes with the 8700k at 1440p/4k and if we push to more cores being more important then the extra 2 cores could potentially push it as being a better CPU for gaming when 1440/4k become more mainstream.

EDIT: I also agree with Misanthrope when it comes to high refresh rate gaming. Its doing almost nothing and honestly its not nearly as important as everyone thinks it is. I think most  would agree that unless you're top 500 in whatever competitive game you're playing the difference between 144 vs 60 is essentially negligible.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Brainless906 said:

And depending on how game development goes more core/threads could very well be better for higher resolution gaming in the future now that more cores/threads are much more common. In the end the 1800x already competes with the 8700k at 1440p/4k and if we push to more cores being more important then the extra 2 cores could potentially push it as being a better CPU for gaming when 1440/4k become more mainstream.

Another random thought: the consoles are pushing increasingly powerful GPUs but afaik didn't update the CPUs much for their "4k" console upgrades. The fact that they did went with a partial, incremental upgrade means that devs might need to squeeze a lot more out of the limited IPC yet more cores on the consoles which should result in games starting to use 8 cores a lot more so they can squeeze out whatever they can out of them to reach the 4k claims of the consoles.

 

I know I am now kinda speculating too (in fairness to what I said previously) but I don't think lazy shitheads like Ubisoft released Ghost Recon: Wildlands with a notable increase in CPU core utilization just for the benefit of PC gamers: this was just a happy accident of an upgrade bump intended for the consoles.

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

19 minutes ago, Majestic said:

lol please, nowhere near this extent. It's going to take weeks here in EU. And you have completely neglected to take into account the positions both companies were in at the time of launch. AMD was failing, Intel is booming. I'd say those circumstances add a heap of context.

At least I know you know nothing about anything.

[Haeking]

Why does this look like a dog fight waiting to happen, everyone has opinions just respect each other and talk within a decent stand point of one another

Also: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K/18.html

[pas008]

I dont understand why people always talk about last longer or futureproofing

to me its a crap shoot at times you buy for what you need/want now and near future

 

all it takes is quantum computing maybe even on the cloud

or a company to release a graphene chips

and render all this useless

 

 

[Brainless906]

4 minutes ago, Haeking said:

Why does this look like a dog fight waiting to happen, everyone has opinions just respect each other and talk within a decent stand point of one another

Also: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K/18.html

TechPowerups 1440p and 4k performance has me a bit confused. It even has the 1600x beating the 1800x in 4k which is not teh case in almost every other benchmark i've seen.

EDIT: Also has a 3.7ghz 8700k only 1.1 percent slower than a 5.0ghz one? Aggregate numbers are a weird way to present benchmarks.

[Majestic]

8 minutes ago, NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle said:

At least I know you know nothing about anything.

Well, atleast I have my charming looks.

 

[Taf the Ghost]

6 minutes ago, pas008 said:

I dont understand why people always talk about last longer or futureproofing

to me its a crap shoot at times you by for what you want now and near future

 

all it takes is quantum computing maybe even on the cloud

or a company to release a graphene chips

and render all this useless

 

 

2k to 3k system. Upgrade to faster SSDs (say, $150 USD after prices come down). Upgrade GPU for 300-500 USD in 2 years. That's generally what people mean in this case, and it does matter for purchasing advice. Or, in the case for a lot of us, "giving advice to others for purchases". Dead-end systems can have a lot less value when you're advising someone. "Spend $50 more and you'll get several years extra out of this PC" has meaning.

 

Edit: and it's a big reason why AMD's support for the AM4 through 2019 for new mainstream CPUs (2020 is the official date, but I'm pretty sure that's for APUs when we get there) matters to a good chunk of the Retail base. You can build a great Ryzen system right now. Then, in 2-3 years, simply swap in a new CPU & GPU, and you're back to utterly current. It's part of the reason Ryzen is an easy recommendation now. (After they fixed the BIOS issues.)

[pas008]

3 minutes ago, Brainless906 said:

TechPowerups 1440p and 4k performance has me a bit confused. It even has the 1600x beating the 1800x in 4k which is not teh case in almost every other benchmark i've seen.

EDIT: Also has a 3.7ghz 8700k only 1.1 percent slower than a 5.0ghz one? Aggregate numbers are a weird way to present benchmarks.

higher resolution less cpu matters

[mynameisjuan]

Just now, Taf the Ghost said:

Spend $50 more and you'll get several years extra out of this PC

Main reason why I hate budget builds. Cutting cost here and there actually makes you spend more in the long run.

[Princess Luna]

1 hour ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

.

You read so much bulls in this forums sometimes.... There was this guy early today writing on Coffee Lake threads that the reason why Linus benchmarks (and so far it only happened with Linus so he screwed up somewhere) was showing the i7 7700k still taking the lead on gaming was because Coffee Lake had INFERIOR IPC than Kaby Lake....

 

Any ways... LTT can be an awesome place, if you learn how to ignore certain people.

[Brainless906]

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

higher resolution less cpu matters

Fair on the 2nd point. First point still seems odd. Could be chip lotto i guess but.

[Taf the Ghost]

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

Main reason why I hate budget builds. Cutting cost here and there actually makes you spend more in the long run.

Most technology, beyond just PCs, there is "sufficient utility" levels. This is important, as you can run into situations where being given a product can be a "bad" purchase simply because of the lock-in costs and lack of options for improvements. Fixed Hardware (like cars) suffer from this problem. This is why causes people to purchase to their utility levels. (This is what killed Electric Cars for years.)

[MyName13]

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

Main reason why I hate budget builds. Cutting cost here and there actually makes you spend more in the long run.

Not really, I could have bought pentium g4560 and then some i3/r3 later when new consoles come out, I bought r5 1600 and if consoles get at least 6 zen 2 (or even worse, zen 3) cores my 1600 will be useless (if they put 8 cores it will be as good as fx was or worse).

[Taf the Ghost]

Just now, MyName13 said:

Not really, I could have bought pentium g4560 and then some i3/r3 later when new consoles come out, I bought r5 1600 and if consoles get at least 6 zen 2 (or even worse, zen 3) cores my 1600 will be useless (if they put 8 cores it will be as good as fx was or worse).

Ryzen will never be like FX. Not just because it's got >50% IPC and 3x the memory bandwidth. Stop saying that.

 

Zen 2 will be on AM4. Zen 3 looks to be on AM5 as DDR5 should be out by then. That will leave 3 generations of CPUs and 4 generations of APUs on the AM4 platform. Hopefully DDR4 prices come down at some point.