8 core version of 8700k is coming this Fall!

[Bananasplit_00]

57 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

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.

unless its a disaster for power draw im still putting my money on that pretty much all the Z series 100 and 200 boards would have been fine. 140W should be fine tbh

[DocSwag]

43 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

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.

I'm no expert in this field but I don't think it's as simple as higher density means lower yields... If so then we would be seeing 14nm having much lower yields than 22nm, for example.

[PianoPlayer88Key]

4 hours ago, Cookybiscuit said:

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. 

Not in my part of the world! ??

I'm a bit east of San Diego, CA.  Summer on-peak (mid afternoon) can reach 53¢(US)/kWh!

34 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

unless its a disaster for power draw im still putting my money on that pretty much all the Z series 100 and 200 boards would have been fine. 140W should be fine tbh

Yeah, I wish I could have put a 6+ core CPU in my laptop's LGA 1151 Z170 socket  and also upgrade the GPU past Maxwell.  Still hoping just a little that I could maybe put in an 8-core i7-8790 or 9700, and GTX 1160 or 2060 or whatever they'd be called.  It has an i7-6700K and GTX 970M now.  (I'd probably go for a locked CPU for lower TDP, can't really do any overclocking with my current laptop config as it is.)

[Syfes]

3 hours ago, Deli said:

Local shop Alternate.nl sells it for 499 euro.

Alternate.be has it at 749 euros, wth!? Coolblue across the street has it close to 500 euros though... 

 

Oh well, I'm still not in the market for a new CPU anyways, all I need is decent gaming performance and my 2600k still does well enough. I'll keep using it until it or the motherboard dies, and then I'll switch to the best performer around at that time.

[Misanthrope]

Meh.

 

I mean this might be somewhat good news for some video editors who's budget keeps them from Threadripper or X299 platforms but it's not like they couldn't go but a 2700 like, right now and get 8/16 with solid clocks.

 

Sure it will be better with the likely higher boost clocks this chip will have but I am really hard pressed to see how any gamers will benefit from the current 6/12 5.0ghz chips. And before you say yes some streamers that might demand 144hz will probably benefit for their personal experience, not for the experience of their audience since 60 FPS is about as good as refresh rates will stay for the foreseeable future for streamers so yeah the 2700 can already do all that. By the time there's volume for this new 8/16 cheap Zen 2 will be near too so I must renew my initial reaction: meh.

[DildorTheDecent]

kek

[aezakmi]

6 hours ago, WereCat said:

Why? CPUs are fairly cheap these days. Especially on the AMD side.

depends where you live lol

 

I paid $300 for my 8350k while the R5 1600 was around 320 just because if "it has more cores it's more expensive"

by that logic an 8700k should be cheaper than a R7 2700

 

and... it is. ~485 for the 2700 and ~428 for the 8700k. no kidding just checked, blue team wins

[Brooksie359]

2 hours 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.

Idk they said the cost savings of their architecture compared to monolithic is 40%. That is comparing what monolithic would cost them so I would think that it is still a bit cheaper for amd.

[Centurius]

Meh, at this point even if Intel is the better performer. I'll still get an AMD CPU

[WereCat]

11 minutes ago, aezakmi said:

depends where you live lol

 

I paid $300 for my 8350k while the R5 1600 was around 320 just because if "it has more cores it's more expensive"

by that logic an 8700k should be cheaper than a R7 2700

 

and... it is. ~485 for the 2700 and ~428 for the 8700k. no kidding just checked, blue team wins

R7 2700X is €300

R7 1700 is €225

 

i7 8700k is €320

 

I paid around €350 for my i7 4770k when it released.

RAM prices were also sky high back then, I paid €120 for 2x8GB 1600MHz CL9 kit.

 

 

[DocSwag]

36 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Idk they said the cost savings of their architecture compared to monolithic is 40%. That is comparing what monolithic would cost them so I would think that it is still a bit cheaper for amd.

What are you referring to? Epyc? If you're talking about Epyc I agree, but I was referring to the 8 core consumer Intel CPUs

[Brooksie359]

10 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

What are you referring to? Epyc? If you're talking about Epyc I agree, but I was referring to the 8 core consumer Intel CPUs

One if the main advantages of their designs isn't just that the cpu is made up of a bunch of 4 core clusters that are fabricated individually but also that they are produced on a massive scale and are being used in their entire product stack. This means that they can take the cpu cores that aren't as good and release them as r7 and r5 while they use the nice ones for epyc and threadripper. That makes the cost of a 8 core r7 actually much lower than a monolithic die ring bus i7, 8 core. They are only producing one product and not in as large if scale as what Zen is. They also have to deal with imperfections being much more detrimental to them than for ryzen. All in all this makes r7 cpus much cheaper as they are just the lower binned modules that have all working components. I would suspect that their 8 core is going to be more expensive than the r7 by a large margin to make up for increase in cost. It also makes me wonder what they will do with semi faulty 8 cores that they make.  

[bcredeur97]

instead of releasing something there is little demand for because they are enraged at AMD.... can't they just wait for the next sku lineup? iX-9xxx

I mean sheesh

it'd be less confusing... It's been too hard to keep up with Intel Lately.. it's like skylake was released and then it was just arch after arch. I'm borderline lost

[Jito463]

So, Intel is finally launching an 8-core part for their desktop.  After 7 generations of 4-core max, they've finally released a 6-core and now preparing an 8-core for mainstream.

2 hours ago, PianoPlayer88Key said:

I'm a bit east of San Diego, CA.

The downsides of living in Commiefornia.

44 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

It also makes me wonder what they will do with semi faulty 8 cores that they make.

Assuming they don't require a new chipset for the 8-cores, they could disable 2 cores and make it an 8700.

[AnonymousGuy]

Mmmm now I have to decide between staying with my 4.2'Ghz Haswell 6 core, getting a 5.2Ghz 8086k, or 8 cores.

 

I'm leaning towards the 8086.

[bcredeur97]

almost makes you too scared to buy it; because watch they'll release a 12 core a year later

[The Benjamins]

2 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Mmmm now I have to decide between staying with my 4.2'Ghz Haswell 6 core, getting a 5.2Ghz 8086k, or 8 cores.

 

I'm leaning towards the 8086.

Why a 8086 vs 8700k? I am assuming your going to OC it, and at that point they would be the same.

[AnonymousGuy]

4 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Why a 8086 vs 8700k? I am assuming your going to OC it, and at that point they would be the same.

The 8086 appears to be an on-average better binned part so more likely to eek out that extra .1 or .2Ghz.  

 

Moving to Z270 off X99 isn't a sure thing for me yet though.  Buying a new motherboard that won't be as good as my X99 board sours the deal.  

[Brooksie359]

18 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

The 8086 appears to be an on-average better binned part so more likely to eek out that extra .1 or .2Ghz.  

 

Moving to Z270 off X99 isn't a sure thing for me yet though.  Buying a new motherboard that won't be as good as my X99 board sours the deal.  

Better off just buying a binned cpu from silicon lottery at that point as they actually test the oc.

[Jito463]

22 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Why a 8086 vs 8700k? I am assuming your going to OC it, and at that point they would be the same.

In theory, the part could be potentially valuable to a collector years down the road.  As such, it may retain its value longer in that regard than technology typically does.

[AnonymousGuy]

22 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

In theory, the part could be potentially valuable to a collector years down the road.  As such, it may retain its value longer in that regard than technology typically does.

It worked out that way for the G3258, they didn't really depreciate as much as a normal non-special chip would.

 

In general you always want to buy the highest model i5 or i7 since they hold value better than lower models.  ie a 4790k is forever more desirable than a 4770k, by about $50 right now used ($210 vs $160).

 

I live in a special place anyways where I don't ever lose money on selling CPUs years later, so for me I don't care about the cost so much as I care about the hassle vs. benefit of doing an upgrade.  Also the motherboard pricing factors hugely in.

[ravenshrike]

1 hour ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Mmmm now I have to decide between staying with my 4.2'Ghz Haswell 6 core, getting a 5.2Ghz 8086k, or 8 cores.

 

I'm leaning towards the 8086.

Wait till it drops and siliconlottery is forced to dump their pricing then pick up a delidded 5.2Ghz 8700k.

[Coaxialgamer]

10 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

Would be funny if AMD decided to move down the pricetier for threadripper 2. You know...... 500$ for a 12 core part. 

They most likely will. I don't see AMD selling their 32 core for 1000$, but 1500$ seems reasonable. 

Given this, an 500$ 12 core and an 800$ 16 cores seems totally reasonable. 

[LukaH]

what if AMD saved the ryzen 7 2800X for such an occasion. I'm not sure what they could do with it since ryzen maxes out at 8 cores per die and anything beyond is TR territory... but a man can dream.

[GoldenLag]

10 minutes ago, LukaH said:

what if AMD saved the ryzen 7 2800X for such an occasion. I'm not sure what they could do with it since ryzen maxes out at 8 cores per die and anything beyond is TR territory... but a man can dream.

so your dream is a binned 2800x that can boost to 4,8 ghz using XFR2?