Intel Coffee Lake Review Thread

[Fardin]

hardware unboxed & jayztwocents seem precisely elaborated & benchmarked in every aspect possible & its undoubtedly seen that the 8700k, not only in gaming but also in multitasking & productivity going ahead of  ryzen 1700 while giving 1800x a good sweat. accept it as truth whether like or not. btw it's so pathetic to see some just got hurt & never cease to justify their "fixed mindset" even if seeing intel has done something better for price comparing with it's previous gen, bring out like "tim issue, why intel didnt send a cpu at their home on launch, why 8700k performs better (!)". complainers will always complain & one thing they don't get, at the end of day whether amd or intel, it wont be free & consumer wont get free any either. so appreciate competition both are bringing, that's good for us.      

[pas008]

20 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

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.

are all the pins on am4 and r7 currently used?

[Taf the Ghost]

Since we're on the LTT forum, has anyone else seen any i5-8400 benchmarks where they're getting comparable performance to the 7700k or 8700k? In GPU bound situations, sure, but it seems like the 8400 is performing above about where it should while the 8700k was testing low. (Maybe some wonky BIOS issue?) 

[knightslugger]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Since we're on the LTT forum, has anyone else seen any i5-8400 benchmarks where they're getting comparable performance to the 7700k or 8700k? In GPU bound situations, sure, but it seems like the 8400 is performing above about where it should while the 8700k was testing low. (Maybe some wonky BIOS issue?) 

Aren't the i5's non HT CPUs? so how would that work?

[porina]

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

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 7800X owner, I think it far from dead. It's actually cheaper than 8700k at the moment, although I'd expect 8700k to drop as supply actually happens to any significant degree. 8700k will be bottlenecked AF in compute uses. Already a stock 6700k will use up dual channel dual rank 3200 ram bandwidth. Going to 6 cores at even more clock is not going to be pretty. Quad channel will relieve that. Also AVX-512 should give a nice boost, once anything actually uses it.

 

The only drawback from the 7800X being a general recommendation is the rebalanced cache doesn't seem to play well in home user cases, particularly gaming.

 

I had hoped to get a 8700k ASAP and do my own direct tests between them, but supply is practically non-existent for the K skus at nominal pricing. The few you see out there are priced to milk those with more money than sense.

[pas008]

9 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Since we're on the LTT forum, has anyone else seen any i5-8400 benchmarks where they're getting comparable performance to the 7700k or 8700k? In GPU bound situations, sure, but it seems like the 8400 is performing above about where it should while the 8700k was testing low. (Maybe some wonky BIOS issue?) 

like tweaktowns results?

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 hours 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.

it's alright man...i'll keep buying the better products, because in my experience a better CPU tend to age better than a worse one.

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 hours ago, MyName13 said:

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

Where it differ from AMD FX is that YOU bought the best CPU/$ you could at the time of purchase where as WE when we bought the AMD FX trash it was NOT the best CPU/$...it simply had the best numbers in terms of ''core count'' which turned out to be ''fake cores'' and gigahertz (which turned out to be irrelevant because back then IPC was not as well documented back then and in our minds there was no way an ''8 core'' CPU running at ''4ghz'' could be slower than a 4 core CPU running at 2.5ghz...and AMD FX stuff was pretty expensive as well back then...where as Ryzen at least is cheap.

 

The R5 1600 is by no mean a bad CPU, but intel did launch some pretty sweet stuff at good price with coffee lake which is great for anyone...now...R5 1600...179$ in a few months from now...yeah...and probably a ryzen quad-core for 99$.

[Misanthrope]

6 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

it's alright man...i'll keep buying the better products, because in my experience a better CPU tend to age better than a worse one.

 

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

Where it differ from AMD FX is that YOU bought the best CPU/$ you could at the time of purchase where as WE when we bought the AMD FX trash it was NOT the best CPU/$...it simply had the best numbers in terms of ''core count'' which turned out to be ''fake cores'' and gigahertz (which turned out to be irrelevant because back then IPC was not as well documented back then and in our minds there was no way an ''8 core'' CPU running at ''4ghz'' could be slower than a 4 core CPU running at 2.5ghz...and AMD FX stuff was pretty expensive as well back then...where as Ryzen at least is cheap.

 

The R5 1600 is by no mean a bad CPU, but intel did launch some pretty sweet stuff at good price with coffee lake which is great for anyone...now...R5 1600...179$ in a few months from now...yeah...and probably a ryzen quad-core for 99$.

You seem to change your tone quite a bit depending on who makes the argument. But well the second quoted post is far more reasonable than "I can see the future and know AMD will fail in exactly the same way"

[DocSwag]

1 hour ago, Majestic said:

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.

I can't really speak on this, all I can speak on is results I've seen and the results I've seen have indicated the main issue is with the adhesive.

[Taf the Ghost]

41 minutes ago, pas008 said:

like tweaktowns results?

Those results were interesting. There wasn't a lot of people that got sampled the 8400 it seems, and LTT's seems to be running on the high-side of results anyway. Though the TweakTown results did confirm to me that ROTR and GTA5 really shouldn't be used as benchmarks. (Though testing GTA5 because of popularity makes sense.)

[AnonymousGuy]

Need a overclocking performance summary.  That's where the money shot is.  Yeah yeah yeah blah blah 6 cores that's cool and all but how high do they clock.

[MageTank]

2 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Need a overclocking performance summary.  That's where the money shot is.  Yeah yeah yeah blah blah 6 cores that's cool and all but how high do they clock.

Der8auer has one that can clock like 5.2 at 1.37V, under Prime95 lol. He won the lottery on that though. Most people seem to be achieving 5-5.1, while GamersNexus hit 4.9 with a "bad overclocker". Either way, it's in line with what I was told before CFL's launch, and while I certainly doubted my friends that had their hands on these chips beforehand, I am eating my words now. These chips actually let people have their cake and eat it too. 

[AnonymousGuy]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

Der8auer has one that can clock like 5.2 at 1.37V, under Prime95 lol. He won the lottery on that though. Most people seem to be achieving 5-5.1, while GamersNexus hit 4.9 with a "bad overclocker". Either way, it's in line with what I was told before CFL's launch, and while I certainly doubted my friends that had their hands on these chips beforehand, I am eating my words now. These chips actually let people have their cake and eat it too. 

If that's the case then it looks like a 200Mhz bump over 7700K overclocking where 4.8 or so was a "average".  Maybe on the high end with delid and waterblock we'll see 5.4-5.5Ghz.  Noyce.

[MageTank]

Just now, AnonymousGuy said:

If that's the case then it looks like a 200Mhz bump over 7700K overclocking where 4.8 or so was a "average".  Maybe on the high end with delid and waterblock we'll see 5.4-5.5Ghz.  Noyce.

Yeah, der8auers was delidded, as was GN, but GN did not test their OC after delidding. Their 4.9 number came pre-delid. I imagine they will get 5ghz just fine after delidding. Still, 12 threads at 5ghz being easily achievable, that's pretty significant. I cannot wait to see the 8600k. 

[AlwaysFSX]

3 hours 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.

Whoa, wait a minute. Weren't you an Intel shill like.. two months ago?

 

I wouldn't put it past Intel to restrict the launch to milk more money out of these processors in case they don't sell too well in the long run.

[pas008]

15 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Whoa, wait a minute. Weren't you an Intel shill like.. two months ago?

 

I wouldn't put it past Intel to restrict the launch to milk more money out of these processors in case they don't sell too well in the long run.

so hold on to a product instead of sellling as many as they could?

 

lol wow

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

so hold on to a product instead of sellling as many as they could?

 

lol wow

While I don't agree with his reasoning, I think he meant that they would intentionally produce less out of fear that they may not sell that many. Restricting the supply to increase the demand, out of fear that the product will not sell naturally. Now, that does not make sense to me, but it also wouldn't be the first time Intel has done this. Anyone remember Broadwell's 5775C and 5675C? Broadwell was a smash hit in the mobile markets, but did not sell well in the desktop market, nor did Intel put a lot of effort into trying to sell it in the desktop market either, so he is not entirely unfounded with his opinion.

 

Just offering a bit of clarification in case that is what he meant. 

[pas008]

Just now, MageTank said:

While I don't agree with his reasoning, I think he meant that they would intentionally produce less out of fear that they may not sell that many. Restricting the supply to increase the demand, out of fear that the product will not sell naturally. Now, that does not make sense to me, but it also wouldn't be the first time Intel has done this. Anyone remember Broadwell's 5775C and 5675C? Broadwell was a smash hit in the mobile markets, but did not sell well in the desktop market, nor did Intel put a lot of effort into trying to sell it in the desktop market either, so he is not entirely unfounded with his opinion.

 

Just offering a bit of clarification in case that is what he meant. 

yeah but he should word it like that,

many here love to be conspiracy theorist and anti whatever instead of enjoying all

[MageTank]

Just now, pas008 said:

yeah but he should word it like that,

many here love to be conspiracy theorist and anti whatever instead of enjoying all

I accept criticism as long as it's a valid critique to make. Sadly, it's hard to find valid criticism on any forum. People tend to bolster their preferred brands by tearing others down. Now, I do not think that was his intention at all, I just think his wording was slightly off. Happens to the best of us. 

[AlwaysFSX]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

While I don't agree with his reasoning, I think he meant that they would intentionally produce less out of fear that they may not sell that many. Restricting the supply to increase the demand, out of fear that the product will not sell naturally. Now, that does not make sense to me, but it also wouldn't be the first time Intel has done this. Anyone remember Broadwell's 5775C and 5675C? Broadwell was a smash hit in the mobile markets, but did not sell well in the desktop market, nor did Intel put a lot of effort into trying to sell it in the desktop market either, so he is not entirely unfounded with his opinion.

 

Just offering a bit of clarification in case that is what he meant. 

Part of it being that, part of it being something like artificially limiting stock to increase prices. They'll still have people paying over average prices, it'd become a guessing game of who's still willing to pay extra for stock early on.

 

It seems Intel might be rushed considering their roadmaps didn't have Coffee Lake being sold this early last I checked, so it wouldn't surprise me either way with Intel trying to increase margins on a product they may or may not have available, just going with what people think is happening.

Just now, pas008 said:

yeah but he should word it like that,

many here love to be conspiracy theorist and anti whatever instead of enjoying all

..what

[AlwaysFSX]

Just now, MageTank said:

I accept criticism as long as it's a valid critique to make. Sadly, it's hard to find valid criticism on any forum. People tend to bolster their preferred brands by tearing others down. Now, I do not think that was his intention at all, I just think his wording was slightly off. Happens to the best of us. 

My wording is always off.

[MageTank]

Just now, AlwaysFSX said:

Part of it being that, part of it being something like artificially limiting stock to increase prices. They'll still have people paying over average prices, it'd become a guessing game of who's still willing to pay extra for stock early on.

 

It seems Intel might be rushed considering their roadmaps didn't have Coffee Lake being sold this early last I checked, so it wouldn't surprise me either way with Intel trying to increase margins on a product they may or may not have available, just going with what people think is happening.

..what

That's not how it works though. They sell at a specific price to the retailers, and it is up to the retailers to price accordingly to supply/demand. That is why you typically see a standard MSRP price (per unit sold for consumers) and a tray price (for bulk retail purchases). On top of that, some retailers get additional discounts based on events and other promotional deals with companies, so they can sell products even below MSRP while still making money (or just to get customers into the store). Intel can't really get away with charging retailers more for the chips, as retailers already know how thin their margins are.

 

What is more likely to be the case, is Intel is using CFL to test the waters on higher core counts for the consumer lineup, before they go all in once CNL/ICL comes around. This will give them valuable data as to whether or not consumers want more threads, and exactly how much they would be willing to pay for said threads, before eventually settling on the enthusiast platform. Demand for CFL is quite high, so I expect the prices to reflect that demand. Give it a month or two, and prices will drop back down to normal, assuming Intel is more invested in CFL than what they were in broadwell (which seems to be true, given we have more than 2 SKU's this time around). 

[Dabombinable]

Still going to be telling my friend to just upgrade their i5 4440 (my old one) to a 4790K.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

Still going to be telling my friend to just upgrade their i5 4440 (my old one) to a 4790K.

Considering all other alternatives get much more expensive rather fast it's still mostly sufficient. However once we get the cheap mobos he might be better suited updating to h310 (or whatever the lower end mobo ends up being) and the i3 8100 but that's still several months away afaik.