Intel Coffee Lake Review Thread

[mynameisjuan]

3 minutes ago, 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).

But if you read your own post you are saying you are buying one thing, then buying another thing to replace it. If you just bought what you replaced it with your wouldnt of needed to spend money on the the first thing. 

 

And CPUs dont become useless just because something better comes out.

[Terryv]

So far the 8700k is a marginal to small improvement in gaming vs the 7700k (gains are mostly in minimums) and a large improvement in productivity tasks

 

Vs ryzen, the 8700k is behind for productivity vs r7  in most cases (falls between the 1700 and 1800x at stock, an overclock on the 1700 makes it pull ahead) and the 8700k is ahead in gaming for most titles.

 

The CPU market for me at the moment leaves a lot of choice for prices and workloads, there's no clear winner unless your usage is very specific.

 

What happens to the 7800x now? It's been rendered pointless in just a few months.

[Spenser1337]

Just now, Terryv said:

So far the 8700k is a marginal to small improvement in gaming vs the 7700k (gains are mostly in minimums) and a large improvement in productivity tasks

 

Vs ryzen, the 8700k is behind for productivity vs r7  in most cases (falls between the 1700 and 1800x at stock, an overclock on the 1700 makes it pull ahead) and the 8700k is ahead in gaming for most titles.

 

The CPU market for me at the moment leaves a lot of choice for prices and workloads, there's no clear winner unless your usage is very specific.

 

What happens to the 7800x now? It's been rendered pointless in just a few months.

Pretty sure the 8700k is only ahead of the 1700 in productivity when it's clocked at 4.7ghz

[pas008]

6 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

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.

this is what could actually hold them back too trying for compatibility instead of just starting fresh for max performance

 

not saying it will but I think you know what I mean

[Brainless906]

2 minutes ago, Terryv said:

So far the 8700k is a marginal to small improvement in gaming vs the 7700k (gains are mostly in minimums) and a large improvement in productivity tasks

 

Vs ryzen, the 8700k is behind for productivity vs r7  in most cases (falls between the 1700 and 1800x at stock, an overclock on the 1700 makes it pull ahead) and the 8700k is ahead in gaming for most titles.

 

The CPU market for me at the moment leaves a lot of choice for prices and workloads, there's no clear winner unless your usage is very specific.

 

What happens to the 7800x now? It's been rendered pointless in just a few months.

Its a good time to be looking at CPUs

unless you own a 7800x, then you're jsut sad.

[MyName13]

4 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

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.

 I bought the 1600 with the intention to keep it until the end of AM4 (without upgrading), keep in mind that r5 1600 performs like i7 7700k (a cpu with 2 cores less) while i7 8700k performs like AMD's octa core (again, 2 cores less).Besides, how worse was FX when compared to intel's counterparts (FX 4xxx vs i5 for example, both are quad cores).

Quote

But if you read your own post you are saying you are buying one thing, then buying another thing to replace it. If you just bought what you replaced it with your wouldnt of needed to spend money on the the first thing. 

 

And CPUs dont become useless just because something better comes out.

 

What I meant was that pentium + something in the future would be far better because of:

1) cheaper in the short run

2)both options would cost the same in the long run (either r5 1600 or pentium + r3/i3)

3)future r3/i3 would probably perform better or 1600 would be useless so I'd have to buy an i5/r5 (more expensive in the long run)

 

It will be enough until new consoles come out, but after that....

[Princess Luna]

Personally speaking I don't know why people are expecting miracles with Zen2, being on the exact same platform as Ryzen already gives quite the solid idea this will end up like Skylake -> Kaby Lake, it will be a polishing, nothing ground breaking, future proof motherboards/platforms is dumb, especially because realistic speaking the cost is not that high to upgrade every thing and always have the best TODAY if you're a true enthusiastic.

 

Otherwise either will also work and be sufficient if you're not the bleeding edge type, people Kaby Lake can upgrade on Ice Lake, in one year worth of savings it is impossible not consider redundant the saving on having stick to AM4 and like it or not but Ice Lake 10nm 8c/16 mainstraem processors will outperform Zen 2, at a higher Intel price tag though as always as has always been.

[Princess Luna]

2 minutes ago, Spenser1337 said:

Pretty sure the 8700k is only ahead of the 1700 in productivity when it's clocked at 4.7ghz

You haven't watch enough benchmarks yet then because the 8700k is clearly trading blows with the R7 1800x on pretty much any content creation software that we see as "multi-threaded optimized"

[Spenser1337]

1 minute ago, Princess Cadence said:

You haven't watch enough benchmarks yet then because the 8700k is clearly trading blows with the R7 1800x on pretty much any content creation software that we see as "multi-threaded optimized"

Yes but if you listen to the reviewers they say "by the way, the i7 is tested on a 4.7ghz overclock"

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, MyName13 said:

keep in mind that r5 1600 performs like i7 7700k

No it does not? =0

 

You need a R5 1600x at 4ghz with 3200mhz ram to match it with an i7 6700 (which for  the price still is great don't get me wrong)

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, Spenser1337 said:

"by the way, the i7 is tested on a 4.7ghz overclock"

Setting Turbo Boost to all cores on any z370 is hardly an "overclock", so far I seen as long as you don't pair it with a cheapo cooler you should be able to stable up at 5ghz.

[Terryv]

5 minutes ago, Spenser1337 said:

Pretty sure the 8700k is only ahead of the 1700 in productivity when it's clocked at 4.7ghz

I forgot to mention that.

 

4 minutes ago, Brainless906 said:

Its a good time to be looking at CPUs

unless you own a 7800x, then you're jsut sad.

Pretty much this.

[Taf the Ghost]

Just now, Terryv said:

So far the 8700k is a marginal to small improvement in gaming vs the 7700k (gains are mostly in minimums) and a large improvement in productivity tasks

 

Vs ryzen, the 8700k is behind for productivity vs r7  in most cases (falls between the 1700 and 1800x at stock, an overclock on the 1700 makes it pull ahead) and the 8700k is ahead in gaming for most titles.

 

The CPU market for me at the moment leaves a lot of choice for prices and workloads, there's no clear winner unless your usage is very specific.

 

What happens to the 7800x now? It's been rendered pointless in just a few months.

7800X got murdered in a dark alley the day after it got launched. There's one or two use cases for it, as you never quite know with stuff (it does have Quad Channel Memory & 28 PCIe lanes, so there might be someone with a 2 computer cards and a 10 gig networking card that could use it), but it's pretty much been superseded by Intel's own CPU in a matter of weeks. SKL-X just went so poorly for Intel, and it wasn't actually bad planning on their part. KBL-X or CFL-X parts next year would really help the platform.

 

As for productivity, it really depends on the task. Intel is the Adobe kings, and more clocks + better memory efficiency make it even better there. The 8700k is going to be a beast of a workstation CPU.

 

Gaming Performance, after they revise BIOS issues, should be the top of the heap for a while. AMD should close the gap with Pinnacle Ridge, but it'll be the best pure Gaming CPU (mostly for high FPS 1080p) until at least Icelake in late 2018 or early 2019. 

 

 

[MyName13]

3 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

No it does not? =0

 

You need a R5 1600x at 4ghz with 3200mhz ram to match it with an i7 6700 (which for  the price still is great don't get me wrong)

Yes it does,

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1600/6.html

besides, it would be pretty bad to overclock a hexa core with very fast ram to match intel's quad core 

[DocSwag]

54 minutes ago, Majestic said:

What? It's an easy -15/20 degrees when you apply it on the DIE->IHS. If you're talking about between the heatspreader and heatsink, that's because you're using a much larger surface area compared to the DIE->IHS. Ofcourse it's going to be more effective at smaller surface area's.

 

And if you're talking about applying it to the LID-> Heatsink on a stock chip, the bottleneck is not elleviated, so ofcourse you won't notice a difference. Honestly, I feel like you've watched Linus' video on this and bought into his horseshit. No experience, whatsoever.

I don't think you're really reading what I'm saying.

 

I don't deny the difference is 15-20C. However, that difference isn't entirely because of the TIM itself. The majority of it is, as I already said, because of gaps. Which is evidenced by LM still having horrible temps in the source I listed initially before some adhesive was scraped away.

 

By itself maybe it'll make a 5C difference at most. The real difference is because of the gaps. Oh, and about Linus's 6700k delid video, I think that was a really bad an unrepresentative video.

[Princess Luna]

3 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

,

Do you really want to cherry pick random banchmarks to prove your point? I could just get Adobe Photoshop benchies and show both the Skylake and Kaby Lake i7's sweeping the floor with Ryzen 7, but then what is the point? each CPU is better at specific software it is working with, Ryzen is not bad by any means, it is a great processor, but Kaby Lake was not bad facing it at all, it just lacked further multi-threading and multi-tasking and now the i7 8700k has brought it to the table.

[Majestic]

2 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

I don't think you're really reading what I'm saying.

 

I don't deny the difference is 15-20C. However, that difference isn't entirely because of the TIM itself. The majority of it is, as I already said, because of gaps. Which is evidenced by LM still having horrible temps in the source I listed initially before some adhesive was scraped away.

 

By itself maybe it'll make a 5C difference at most. The real difference is because of the gaps. Oh, and about Linus's 6700k delid video, I think that was a really bad an unrepresentative video.

Speaking from my own experience, I don't find this to be true. Using 5 w/mk paste didn't make much of a difference. Using the LM did. It could be different for different generations though. Mine was done on Haswell.

[MyName13]

1 minute ago, Princess Cadence said:

Do you really want to cherry pick random banchmarks to prove your point? I could just get Adobe Photoshop benchies and show both the Skylake and Kaby Lake i7's sweeping the floor with Ryzen 7, but then what is the point? each CPU is better at specific software it is working with, Ryzen is not bad by any means, it is a great processor, but Kaby Lake was not bad facing it at all, it just lacked further multi-threading and multi-tasking and now the i7 8700k has brought it to the table.

Check all the benchmarks on the link i posted

[Taf the Ghost]

5 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Personally speaking I don't know why people are expecting miracles with Zen2, being on the exact same platform as Ryzen already gives quite the solid idea this will end up like Skylake -> Kaby Lake, it will be a polishing, nothing ground breaking, future proof motherboards/platforms is dumb, especially because realistic speaking the cost is not that high to upgrade every thing and always have the best TODAY if you're a true enthusiastic.

 

Otherwise either will also work and be sufficient if you're not the bleeding edge type, people Kaby Lake can upgrade on Ice Lake, in one year worth of savings it is impossible not consider redundant the saving on having stick to AM4 and like it or not but Ice Lake 10nm 8c/16 mainstraem processors will outperform Zen 2, at a higher Intel price tag though as always as has always been.

Pinnacle Ridge is Zen+. Or Zen on "12nm". (We don't know what they're calling it at this point.) Zen 2 is a uArch upgrade/big improvement on 7nm in 2019. We are likely to see even more Cores with Zen2, but that's not as important.

 

What's important with the refreshed Ryzen is if the Ryzen 5 1600 is clocked at 4.4 to 4.5 Ghz, it's going to saturate everything below a Titan XP (whatever the most recent one is) at 1080p gaming. It just needs a little more in the way of clocks to saturate everything. It's the reason the refresh is actually important for AMD. It's only 10% more clocks, but that 10% actually matters in this case for enthusiasts. 

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

.

Want and Need are completely different, just because Ryzen is sufficient for majority of user cases it won't stop people from wanting above that, it is how luxury market works, any car can drive you some place, Ferraris exist because there's people who want more than just "drive to someplace".

 

Discuss price-to-performance on luxury items meant to offer the best possible even if not necessarily needed for the end result makes no particular sense... if people want to make the most out of their money they can and should get a Ryzen 7 1700 on a b350, it is an absurd great value.

 

But I don't want that, I want the best since I already spend so much of my life in front of a PC any ways might as well do it in style, so Intel it is for me

[Exotath]

Prob gonna switch over to this. Bought this 5820k setup when it came out and then the mainstream platform overall ended up doing better in games by a fair bit.

 

Will stick the 5820k in the office.

[Taf the Ghost]

9 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Want and Need are completely different, just because Ryzen is sufficient for majority of user cases it won't stop people from wanting above that, it is how luxury market works, any car can drive you some place, Ferraris exist because there's people who want more than just "drive to someplace".

 

Discuss price-to-performance on luxury items meant to offer the best possible even if not necessarily needed for the end result makes no particular sense... if people want to make the most out of their money they can and should get a Ryzen 7 1700 on a b350, it is an absurd great value.

 

But I don't want that, I want the best since I already spend so much of my life in front of a PC any ways might as well do it in style, so Intel it is for me

We're talking past each other. The point about Pinnacle Ridge is that was that it puts Ryzen has the competitive purchasing option for all but the most high-end of buyers. 

 

Zen 2 is a major uArch upgrade with possibly more cores on a much smaller node. So that's a completely different beast.

[lvh1]

Looks like the 8700K will be my next CPU, since my 3770K is showing its age in games. Now if only I could actually buy it...

[Princess Luna]

2 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

.

I just meant that, even if that is the case, to who wants the best today and not promises of a better future are still more likely to keep Intel as Coffee Lake beats Ryzen and Ice Lake will beat Zen 2... that's all... Who is more concerned about value $$$ will still go AM4 regardless as well... same market but at the same time 2 totally different markets

[Misanthrope]

41 minutes ago, pas008 said:

this is what could actually hold them back too trying for compatibility instead of just starting fresh for max performance

 

not saying it will but I think you know what I mean

I'm unsure how much of what intel claims is actually compelling reason to refresh the platform so damn often and how much is basically just a reach-around for their hardware partners who have a vested interest in continued motherboard sales.

 

In all honestly even if AMD had far more market share I'd be a lot more lucrative to partner with intel: overclocking restricted to far more expensive SKUs, far more frequent platform updates, etc. 

 

But I guess we'll see.