8 core version of 8700k is coming this Fall!

[Cookybiscuit]

14 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Well nobody but hard core fanboys ever considered the FX series to be very good, so that's kind of impossible.

 

I'm concerned about the heat output. Coffee Lake isn't that much better than Kaby Lake in that regard, and I feel like an 8 core one will be a space heater.

The 8700K is already sucks up a bunch of power, will be interesting to see if an eight core version sets fire to the socket like X299 does.

 

Shitposting aside, I don't think the average consumer really cares about power consumption that much, it's really only vitally important for mobile platforms (including laptops). I much prefer this universe where a manufacturer is willing to produce a CPU with a silly TDP in the name of competition rather than one where they don't because "muh power draw would be too high".

 

Products like this and for example 7990 are stupid, but they are on the enthusiast side of things anyway, people who buy them don't really care if they consume 400W or 500W, in much of the world electricity is cheap as chips. 

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, NelizMastr said:

Yep. Seeing how the 8086K is already 400+ with 6 cores, I'd expect the 8800K or whatever to cost $500+.

The 8086K isn't really a replacement for the 8700K,another $75 for binning is already expensive but for an 8 core to be competitive it would have to be $450 or less IMO.

[Cookybiscuit]

6 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

new APIs.

People have been saying super dooper optimisation will be a thing forever and it still hasn't happened. If you read much of anything back when AMD FX was a thing you'd be lead to believe it would be outperforming Sandy Bridge by now, but it hasn't happened yet and it likely never ever will.

[NelizMastr]

3 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

The 8086K isn't really a replacement for the 8700K,another $75 for binning is already expensive but for an 8 core to be competitive it would have to be $450 or less IMO.

That's not happening, though. It's Intel we're talking about. You want a flagship part? Better pay through the anus, back up through your nose and back down through the anus again.

[Princess Luna]

Any one who knows me knows my brother and I have been waiting for the i7 8790K for a good handful of months already, we were pissed at Intel decided to milk people even more by selling the i7 8700K with a re-label as 8086K and 75$ extra just to profit some extra from their 8700K before ditching it as a flagship.

 

If the i7 8790K works for z370 and yes I do still have some hope it will we'll be getting 2 of them if it doesn't then only 1 for my brother and I'll remain with the i7 8700 until some 10nm++ CPU.

[laminutederire]

1 hour ago, Humbug said:

LOL.

 

Now it's at the point where I would rather buy AMD who are executing their roadmap plan properly and gives me and upgrade path.

 

Rather than buying Intel who are chopping and changing their roadmap everyday in a reactive manner trying to piece together competitive products.

Especially since they are on point with their roadmap with Zen and they announced 5GHz parts and their mainstream is already 8 cores.

Anyone wanting those 8 cores should wait on Zen 2 which won't disrupt performance but should be close enough to Intel to disrupt prices. When you think about it, they know AMD will push up clocks with similar IPC at a lower cost.. so their 8 cores part should perform better than Intel's 6 core parts, hence this move to try and steal AMD's thunder. Just like with the 28 cores. And everyone is falling for that and still buy Intel blindly...

[asus killer]

intel cpu's and chipsets seem to last fewer and fewer time. I vote AMD's strategy over this Intel mess. 

[Princess Luna]

17 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

8700K,another $75 for binning is already expensive

If you can call it binning at all, the only ONLY difference between them aside the different name is the 1 core, the single 1 core boost to 5ghz instead of 4.7ghz and every thing else is identical, same 2/3/4/5/6 cores boosts, all core of 4.3ghz all the same... so honestly achieve what they did barely needs binning, for all I know your chances to get stuck on an overclock of 4.8ghz/4.9ghz all cores is about the same as with the 8700K.

[asus killer]

5 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

If the i7 8790K works for z370 and yes I do still have some hope it will we'll be getting 2 of them if it doesn't then only 1 for my brother and I'll remain with the i7 8700 until some 10nm++ CPU.

i would be very surprised if you wouldn't have another chipset for it. It's Intel after all.

[Blademaster91]

3 minutes ago, asus killer said:

intel cpu's and chipsets seem to last fewer and fewer time. I vote AMD's strategy over this Intel mess. 

I still dislike completely copying the "Z" chipset naming, and claiming 100% compatibility while releasing new boards with a refresh that have features that won't work on older boards is also a bit misleading.

[asus killer]

5 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I still dislike completely copying the "Z" chipset naming, and claiming 100% compatibility while releasing new boards with a refresh that have features that won't work on older boards is also a bit misleading.

it's better to released a binned 8700k for a couple more $ and literally a couple of days after announce yet another top CPU. Still free country and all that

 

Guys at Intel "you know that top CUP, the Core i7 8086K you just bought.... it will be the top dog until fall, enjoy"

[Cookybiscuit]

17 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

If the i7 8790K works for z370 

Great joke, got a good laugh out of that.

[Dabombinable]

58 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

I hope this trend continues and in 2-3 years the 8700K is considered like we consider the FX-8350 now, but I doubt it. I just hope GPUs don't follow the same shitty stagnating trend as CPUs did between Sandy Bridge and Kaby Lake.

 

Either way, a eight-core 8700K is pretty fucking great, such a thing makes one wonder why the mesh bullshit was ever necessary.

 

I doubt an i7 8700K would ever be thought of in the same light as the FX-8350. The 8350 released alongside the far better i7 2600K, and at the time was slower than the 2500K.

[Taf the Ghost]

28 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

People have been saying super dooper optimisation will be a thing forever and it still hasn't happened. If you read much of anything back when AMD FX was a thing you'd be lead to believe it would be outperforming Sandy Bridge by now, but it hasn't happened yet and it likely never ever will.

It's not really optimization. The real issue in Gaming is that, at the end of it all, it's a singular result end-point, where most everything else in computing is massively parallel. There are just big hurdles for the type of result needed, such that it's quite difficult to actually leverage all of a CPU & GPU for it.

[Humbug]

36 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

People have been saying super dooper optimisation will be a thing forever and it still hasn't happened. If you read much of anything back when AMD FX was a thing you'd be lead to believe it would be outperforming Sandy Bridge by now, but it hasn't happened yet and it likely never ever will.

Multi threaded optimizations have happened big time. The landscape now is very different than it was a few years ago. Sure more can be done and will be done, there is tons of legacy code to rewrite, but it is already happening.

 

e.g. I still run an i7 3770k ivy bridge CPU. When I purchased this and even years after people used to say that anything more than an i5 is a waste for gaming workloads. And at the time my CPU used to be neck and neck with the i5 3570k in benchmarks. But as time marched on a clear gap emerged between i5 and i7 because of the additional threads.

[Deli]

2 hours ago, Some Random Member said:

Just looked at amazon.com and damn the 1920x is so expensive in usa. 800$?

In amazon.de you can get it for under 599€.

Local shop Alternate.nl sells it for 499 euro.

[ravenshrike]

3 hours ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

"but the socket can't take the extra power needed for the extra cores huuur duuuur" 

 

4 hours ago, Droidbot said:

Remember, 300-series PCH is required for 8th gen CPUs, goyim! They totally don't work on 100/200-series PCH.

In fairness 8 cores and 16 threads OCed to 5 Ghz would probably push most 100 and quite a few 200 series boards pretty hard.

3 hours ago, WereCatf said:

If it's still based on Coffee Lake, does that mean that all the branching- and prediction-vulnerabilities are still there? If yes, then I see no reason to get excited.

Yes

2 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Given it'll be an expanded Ring Bus, unless Intel is rolling out more tweaks, expect this to be no different than the 8700k in gaming. And possibly worse in some instances, given the bigger ring will introduce some more latency compared to the 6c model.

This is actually the interesting part. AMD is at most 5% behind intel in IPC outside of AVX workloads and generally closer to 3% at this point on mesh. It will be enlightening to see if the expanded ring bus actually hits performance worse than the mesh would. 

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

The 8086K isn't really a replacement for the 8700K,another $75 for binning is already expensive but for an 8 core to be competitive it would have to be $450 or less IMO.

Heh, you know that Silicon Lottery has got to be pissed at that since parts that can hit 5 Ghz in spec without delidding are all 5.1 parts with the delid and most are probably 5.2.

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

I still dislike completely copying the "Z" chipset naming, and claiming 100% compatibility while releasing new boards with a refresh that have features that won't work on older boards is also a bit misleading.

I mean what did people expect? None of the new features are huge and they are still allowing you to use your existing motherboard for their new cpus which is really all that matters imo. People just want to not have to upgrade their motherboards to be able to use the newer cpus that are being released. 

[Ginger_]

I think everyone owes amd a huge thank you at this point, no matter where on the fanboy scale they sit

[Dabombinable]

BTW, this is also more than likely going to be a case of the first Pentium III 1000 all over again-vapourware for several months if not over a year past the initial launch.

[hobobobo]

4 hours ago, Rakanoth said:

Cascade Lake would be been postponed towards 2019.

 

Its a thing of beauty! Poor volta intel, not so long ago it was q4 18. Literally cant stop laughing, at this pace even the future 20% of the server market they already conceded to amd sounds like wishful thinking and living in denial. God, please let there be a reality tv show about amd intel and nvidia competition, it will be gold

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Deli said:

Local shop Alternate.nl sells it for 499 euro.

i would even consider buying it at that price, the 16threads of my r7 1700 is too little for me. (not really)

But if i want to upgrade i would consider going straight to 32 thread 1950x.

[DocSwag]

4 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

But it will have a monolithic die and thus be quite expensive for a CPU designed to fit a mainstream socket.

 

4 hours ago, NelizMastr said:

Yep. Seeing how the 8086K is already 400+ with 6 cores, I'd expect the 8800K or whatever to cost $500+.

That's because they're getting higher profit margins. The die size of the 6 core is around 150 mm^2, and that's including the iGPU. That's compared to the 8 core Ryzen being around 200 mm^2 without an iGPU. I wouldn't be surprised if the 8 core used the same graphics as the current 6 cores that we could see the die size be around 200 mm^2, pretty similar to ryzen.

 

Obviously, different fabs costs different amounts and have different yields, but I don't think the difference would be too large. Plus, intel owns its own fabs so it doesn't have to have a third party, Glofo, suck up some of their money. I think that it's more of the case that right now intel is making more profits per sale than amd.

[Dabombinable]

17 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

 

That's because they're getting higher profit margins. The die size of the 6 core is around 150 mm^2, and that's including the iGPU. That's compared to the 8 core Ryzen being around 200 mm^2 without an iGPU. I wouldn't be surprised if the 8 core used the same graphics as the current 6 cores that we could see the die size be around 200 mm^2, pretty similar to ryzen.

 

Obviously, different fabs costs different amounts and have different yields, but I don't think the difference would be too large. Plus, intel owns its own fabs so it doesn't have to have a third party, Glofo, suck up some of their money. I think that it's more of the case that right now intel is making more profits per sale than amd.

That's only because the Ryzen die is of a lower density, which means less chance of manufacturing defects and a lower manufacturing cost. Remember that Intel is trying to cram as many transistors into their designs as the manufacturing node of theirs will allow.

[Taf the Ghost]

24 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

 

That's because they're getting higher profit margins. The die size of the 6 core is around 150 mm^2, and that's including the iGPU. That's compared to the 8 core Ryzen being around 200 mm^2 without an iGPU. I wouldn't be surprised if the 8 core used the same graphics as the current 6 cores that we could see the die size be around 200 mm^2, pretty similar to ryzen.

 

Obviously, different fabs costs different amounts and have different yields, but I don't think the difference would be too large. Plus, intel owns its own fabs so it doesn't have to have a third party, Glofo, suck up some of their money. I think that it's more of the case that right now intel is making more profits per sale than amd.

AMD's cores are actually smaller, physically, than Intel's, but the Intel node has much denser caches. Even then, a Ryzen design that wasn't built to be MCM'd would be a chunk smaller. By AMD's own presentations on the topic, it costs them a little over 15% of die space as "overhead" to produce a MCM design like Epyc. However, given yield realities, it increases yield by about 2x.

 

Zeppelin is bigger than it needs to be for Desktop, but the way it powers Servers makes the desktop space worth it. (I also don't think they'd get that many more out of a wafer if it was 160 mm² or so.)