i7-8700k & Coffee Lake CPUs

[TechyInAZ]

3 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

i7 8700k vs i7 7800x will be interesting.

If Cannon Lake doesn't use the new Mesh technology on all Skylake-X CPUs, then the 8700K will kick the snot out of the 7800X.

[PCGuy_5960]

2 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

i7 8700k vs i7 7800x will be interesting.

We already know who will win, the 8700K. Unless you use AVX-512 or applications that benefit from quad channel.

[Bananasplit_00]

10 minutes ago, deXxterlab97 said:

 

 

I feel like doing that to screw with people... 

 

5 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Still top to the bottom of the mainstream stack in 8 months thats a colossal dick move, + R.I.P the resale value on a 7700k

I'm pretty happy *laughs in used market*

[Princess Luna]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

We already know who will win, the 8700K. Unless you use AVX-512 or applications that benefit from quad channel.

Is it confirmed that AVX-512 is stayin on HEDT only? For now that is

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, Princess Cadence said:

Is it confirmed that AVX-512 is stayin on HEDT only?

No, but:

1. If the 8700K supported AVX-512, the 7800X would become *completely* useless
2. AVX performance would still be worse than a 7800X, because AVX benefits from more memory bandwidth 

[Bananasplit_00]

I'm still hopeful for a 3c/6t I3 and a 3c/3t Pentium, tri core chips are awesome

[Princess Luna]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

If the 8700K supported AVX-512, the 7800X would become *completely* useless

For what is worth it wouldn't be the first time Intel end up making useless processors, cough 7350k cough cough, though true enough they might leave it with AVX2 only due to memory bandwidth limitations.

[TechyInAZ]

1 minute ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

I'm still hopeful for a 3c/6t I3 and a 3c/3t Pentium, tri core chips are awesome

I can pretty much guarantee you that is not going to happen. Uneven core counts are nowhere to be found anymore.

[Firecheetah13]

Rip 9nm

[Princess Luna]

2 minutes ago, TechyInAZ said:

I can pretty much guarantee you that is not going to happen. Uneven core counts are nowhere to be found anymore.

Defective 6c/6t i5's could still end up being 3c/3t Pentiums.

[TechyInAZ]

Yeah true, but Intel seems to be quite solid on even core counts. I wouldn't mind a hyperthreaded tri core cpu on the market (as long as the CPU has at least 4 threads, i'm happy) though.

[Bananasplit_00]

2 minutes ago, TechyInAZ said:

I can pretty much guarantee you that is not going to happen. Uneven core counts are nowhere to be found anymore.

I can still hope, if they make one I'm getting one. There has to be quite a few half dead ones they can make them from. 

[TechyInAZ]

Just now, VegetableStu said:

So should I be taking in more salt, or did ASRock misspeak that other time? o_o

Wow amazing. hmmmm... I wonder how board makers are doing that.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

45 minutes ago, aradetsky42 said:

 

 

Let me know what you think. My biggest concern for Intel is everyone who had a system that was a few years old switch/upgrade to Ryzen, and I'm not sure how many people are left in that category who would be heading in Intel's direction. Just food for thought.

I think there may be quite a few users of high single-core performance CPUs willing to jump to a higher core count without giving up IPC. Another quad-core wouldn't make sense without substantial IPC improvements, even if they have something older than Kaby Lake, but a 6-core i7 may be more enticing.

 

 

39 minutes ago, themctipers said:

is there a IPC gain at least? or is intel just slapping 2 more cores on mainstream to get at least some new market share 

I'd say it is enough for the above stated reasons. To be honest, what wasn't really appealing was Kaby Lake, being just some sort of Skylake redux. Even if Coffee Lake has the same IPC as Kaby Lake, it would still be a reasonable progress from Skylake: marginal IPC improvement and higher core count at the same price (not confirmed, but if they don't do in the mainstream the same they did in HEDT... RIP ). It's really Kaby Lake that starts to look as an unnecessary intermediate step. I wonder what sales are telling Intel, though.

 

10 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

No, but:

1. If the 8700K supported AVX-512, the 7800X would become *completely* useless

They did release 7740 and 7640, though, so this sort of 1151 vs 2066 comparison doesn't seem to concern Intel much  

[Dash Lambda]

I can't be the only one who thinks a tri-core chip finally makes sense, right?

If the i7 and i5 are really 6c/12t and 6c/6t, then a quad-core i3 would have more threads than the i5 and a dual-core i3 would be no improvement. Only a 3c/6t i3 can fit in the same product stack.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, TechyInAZ said:

(probably need a bigger socket since they also want the IGPU still on the die.)

I wonder if it's not time for Intel to ditch the iGPU in the i7 series.  Virtually anyone buying an i7 has no use for integrated graphics, and those few use cases can just make do with a cheap graphics card.  A case (albeit marginal) could be made for iGPU in the i5, and it still makes sense in the i3/Pentiums, but there's almost no reason at all to have it in the i7.

6 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

If the i7 and i5 are really 6c/12t and 6c/6t, then a quad-core i3 would have more threads than the i5

You're assuming they'd have HT, which they most likely will not.  Current i5 to i3 makes sense (i3 becomes 4c/4t), current i7 to i3 does not make sense.

[done12many2]

Just now, Jito463 said:

I wonder if it's not time for Intel to ditch the iGPU in the i7 series.  Virtually anyone buying an i7 has no use for integrated graphics, and those few use cases can just make do with a cheap graphics card.  A case (albeit marginal) could be made for iGPU in the i5, and it still makes sense in the i3/Pentiums, but there's almost no reason at all to have it in the i7.

 

I sure don't hope so.  While I don't generally use iGPUs, they do come in handy.  

[TechyInAZ]

Yes they come in handy for sure.

[Dash Lambda]

4 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I wonder if it's not time for Intel to ditch the iGPU in the i7 series.  Virtually anyone buying an i7 has no use for integrated graphics, and those few use cases can just make do with a cheap graphics card.  A case (albeit marginal) could be made for iGPU in the i5, and it still makes sense in the i3/Pentiums, but there's almost no reason at all to have it in the i7.

You're assuming they'd have HT, which they most likely will not.  Current i5 to i3 makes sense (i3 becomes 4c/4t), current i7 to i3 does not make sense.

I'm working off the assumption that the current distinctions for i3/i5/i7 aren't discarded. Intel's been getting a little wonky, but they haven't gone that far yet.

[dcgreen2k]

Looks like Intel has finally decided to get their act together...

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, thegreengamers said:

Looks like Intel has finally decided to get their act together...

 

You do realize that this all started a long time ago.  If they release a 6 core mainstream chip by the end of September, it will not have been in response to anything AMD currently did.

[Jito463]

7 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

I sure don't hope so.  While I don't generally use iGPUs, they do come in handy.  

6 minutes ago, TechyInAZ said:

Yes they come in handy for sure.

 

As a computer tech, I can certain make a case for iGPU's for testing purposes (there's been a few times I wished Ryzen had it), but I really don't see much of a point in a daily use machine paired with a high end processor.

[Jito463]

Just now, done12many2 said:

You do realize that this all started a long time ago.  If they release a 6 core mainstream chip by the end of September, it will not have been in response to anything AMD currently did.

Well, yes and no.  While this has been in the works for a while, I'm sure Intel was aware of the upcoming Ryzen chips long before they hit market.  None of us can say with any certainty (since we don't work there), but Intel certainly could have been motivated to finally move beyond quad-cores based on the premise of competition again from AMD.

 

Again, that's just speculation, though.

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

 

As a computer tech, I can certain make a case for iGPU's for testing purposes (there's been a few times I wished Ryzen had it), but I really don't see much of a point in a daily use machine paired with a high end processor.

 

My kids' computers all use them so I'm definitely glad to have the feature.  This buys me plenty of time before I have to start buying them GPUs too.  

[done12many2]

Just now, Jito463 said:

Well, yes and no.  While this has been in the works for a while, I'm sure Intel was aware of the upcoming Ryzen chips long before they hit market.  None of us can say with any certainty (since we don't work there), but Intel certainly could have been motivated to finally move beyond quad-cores based on the premise of competition again from AMD.

 

Again, that's just speculation, though.

 

That's kinda my point.  It's pure speculation either way we tell the story.  It's still just a story.