Leaked Review of i7-8700K.

[FratStar]

5 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

Similar price to a 7800X, similar performance to a 7800X. The line between the mainstream platform and the HEDT one is getting REALLY vague at that point...

The Ryzen Effect ^TM

 

At the end of the day I'm happy to see intel moving finally. CPUs are a little more exciting nowadays albeit still not VERY exciting but ignoring the market is no longer an option.

[MageTank]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I know I sound like a broken record but I don't care: This chip is useless vs the 8600k at 6 cores: Hyperthreading isn't going to justify the 400 price tag.

What about the actual $360 price tag? Can it be justified then?

[samcool55]

Just now, FratStar said:

The Ryzen Effect ^TM

 

At the end of the day I'm happy to see intel moving finally. CPUs are a little more exciting nowadays albeit still not VERY exciting but ignoring the market is no longer an option.

Hmm well for gamers it's indeed not THAT exiting but looking at raw power, holy crap. 8 cores on the mainstream platform, intel is finally bumping up core count and for the HEDT guys they can suddely go all the way up to 16-18 cores and if you are all for MOAR COREZ you can get a 32C/64T cpu for a little over 2k which is compared to everything a really good deal!

 

If i had the money i would get an epyc build and look at task manager all day.

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, MageTank said:

What about the actual $360 price tag? Can it be justified then?

Depends entirely on the price tag of both the Ryzen 1700 (which we know, but could potentially be slightly lowered by AMD once Intel goes to street with the new chips) and the aforementioned 8600k: If the 6 core unlocked i5 ends up being similarly increased in price but still at say 260 to 280 MSRP then no the 8700k wouldn't be justified: For raw speed IPC dependent applications the 8600k wins for the price and for multithreaded workloads the 1700 still wins, both at lower prices.

 

 

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Depends entirely on the price tag of both the Ryzen 1700 (which we know, but could potentially be slightly lowered by AMD once Intel goes to street with the new chips) and the aforementioned 8600k: If the 6 core unlocked i5 ends up being similarly increased but still at say 250 to 280 MSRP then no the 8700k wouldn't be justified: For raw speed IPC dependent applications the 8600k wins for the price and for multithreaded workloads the 1700 still wins, both at lower prices.

 

 

The 8600k is $260.

 

This makes the HT tax $100, the same as it's always been for years. If people were buying i7's before, I imagine that trend will continue. Granted, 6 threads should be plenty for applications that could take advantage of more than 4, but your average consumer tends to go with the higher number regardless of whether or not it helps.

 

I personally think the 8400 at $182 is the true deal here. 6 threads on a board with enhanced turbo, running 4ghz for that price? Very compelling deal. 

[FratStar]

1 minute ago, samcool55 said:

Hmm well for gamers it's indeed not THAT exiting but looking at raw power, holy crap. 8 cores on the mainstream platform, intel is finally bumping up core count and for the HEDT guys they can suddely go all the way up to 16-18 cores and if you are all for MOAR COREZ you can get a 32C/64T cpu for a little over 2k which is compared to everything a really good deal!

When you put it that way it is a little more exciting that I initially made it seem An 8 core jump on the HEDT platform is huge the 2 core jump on coffee lake honestly I feel like they weren't planning on it until cannon lake, but knew they could make the jump anyway. The bench marks for the 8700K while not groundbreaking is actually a little more than I expected if some of these numbers are to be believed.

 

4 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

If i had the money i would get an epyc build and look at task manager all day.

You and me both! I'll settle for the 1700X until I can afford the HEDT platform. I have too many expensive hobbies. 

[Taf the Ghost]

Looks to be perfectly in line with a 6700k/7700k w/ 2 more Cores and slightly higher clocks. Maybe a little better IMC, as well, but that'll take some memory scaling tests.

 

Since we know what the central core design does already, most of this is pretty predictable. Still, this is far & away the best "gaming CPU" for the foreseeable future. Just put an AIO on it if you're planning to OC. That's not really something I'd want to do on Air.

[Misanthrope]

23 minutes ago, MageTank said:

The 8600k is $260.

-pic was here-

This makes the HT tax $100, the same as it's always been for years. If people were buying i7's before, I imagine that trend will continue. Granted, 6 threads should be plenty for applications that could take advantage of more than 4, but your average consumer tends to go with the higher number regardless of whether or not it helps.

 

I personally think the 8400 at $182 is the true deal here. 6 threads on a board with enhanced turbo, running 4ghz for that price? Very compelling deal. 

At $260 it's basically the ideal gaming chip.

 

Hyperthreading has helped intel before but I remember when I started to browse this forums a few years ago the general consensus was that the 4690k was the best gaming chip because games hardly took advantage of anything beyond 4 threads.

 

As the years went by we started to see games where either the games were maxing out 4 threads or using more if available so the 6700k and then 7700k became the defacto gaming recommendation because well you needed more than 4 threads so there was a real performance advantage to the chips specially when it came to minimum framerates.

 

Right now however, we're about to revisit the "Hyperthreading is not worth it for gamers" Territory since 6 strong cores will make virtually no difference with or without hyperthreading. Now until we actually manage to need more than 6 threads as the commonplace the i7s will just not be as compelling.

 

Last (but not least) the 8400 is looking to be a very compelling chip, but it's locked status and lower clocks means that it has to compete with the unlocked Ryzen 1600 which at that price actually can overclock even with a similarly priced board. I'm sure the 8400 will probably win or tie most benchmarks with the 1600 but only by a fairly slim margin (basically just the IPC advantage which isn't as pronounced without the substantially higher clocks of the unlocked chips)

 

Where there will be no contest for gamers is the 8600k which will probably overclock to at least 4.5ghz and with 6 cores it will be enough for even high end gaming rigs. Maybe streamers will continue to get the recommendation for the 1700 since 2 extra cores will probably work out better for streaming and rendering but pure gaming for high end it's gonna be 8600k.

[MageTank]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

At $260 it's basically the ideal gaming chip.

 

Hyperthreading has helped intel before but I remember when I started to browse this forums a few years ago the general consensus was that the 4690k was the best gaming chip because games hardly took advantage of anything beyond 4 threads.

 

As the years went by we started to see games where either the games were maxing out 4 threads or using more if available so the 6700k and then 7700k became the defacto gaming recommendation because well you needed more than 4 threads so there was a real performance advantage to the chips specially when it came to minimum framerates.

 

Right now however, we're about to revisit the "Hyperthreading is not worth it for gamers" Territory since 6 strong cores will make virtually no difference with or without hyperthreading. Now until we actually manage to need more than 6 threads as the commonplace the i7s will just not be as compelling.

 

Last (but not least) the 8400 is looking to be a very compelling chip, but it's locked status and lower clocks means that it has to compete with the unlocked Ryzen 1600 which at that price actually can overclock even with a similarly priced board. I'm sure the 8400 will probably win or tie most benchmarks with the 1600 but only by a fairly slim margin (basically just the IPC advantage which isn't as pronounced without the substantially higher clocks of the unlocked chips)

 

Where there will be no contest for gamers is the 8600k which will probably overclock to at least 4.5ghz and with 6 cores it will be enough for even high end gaming rigs. Maybe streamers will continue to get the recommendation for the 1700 since 2 extra cores will probably work out better for streaming and rendering but pure gaming for high end it's gonna be 8600k.

I don't believe the impact of HT will be as pronounced as it was before, due to the reasons you mentioned. We have 2 additional cores, with identical IPC and overclocks (a delidded 8600k will hit 5ghz, mark my words, even quote me on it in the future). On top of that, every person I have ever spoken to with detailed insight into CFL, tells me of an even more refined IMC (not on the 8350k, that is legit a rebranded 7600k) so even more potential gains in that department when heavily I/O bound by the CPU. HT, for most, won't be worth the 40% price difference for 10% (give or take) higher minimum framerates under best case scenarios. This 10% number is assuming it scales similarly to how the quad cores scaled with HT in that regard, which I highly doubt.

 

As for the 8400 against Ryzen, Ryzen still has a few hurdles to overcome. Yes, it has the thread advantage, but you also need binned memory and a decent board to use overclocked ram which adds a slightly higher cost to the platform. On Intel, the cheapest $80 Z-Series board can OC any ram to 3000mhz with relative ease. That's not to say the 1600X isn't the better buy at that price point (i personally think it is, due to the extra lifting power), it just won't be a bad idea to get the 8400 if you are looking for a gaming CPU for a comparable price. 

 

Hopefully Intel learns a thing or two from AMD, and unlocks their entire product stack. That would be far more impressive than X299, or any other recent release they've done. 

[Terryv]

I see the 8700 (no k) as the value leader here. You're getting all the threads and a 4.3 all core turbo. The k version has a 60$ premium and likely no cooler (100$ish for a good AIO), and will probably clock around 4.6-4.8. a 300-500 MHz difference won't be worth the extra cost imo.

[samcool55]

40 minutes ago, FratStar said:

You and me both! I'll settle for the 1700X until I can afford the HEDT platform. I have too many expensive hobbies. 

Well that's actually not that bad, i'm stuck with an i5...

 

Meanwhile at school there's a massive server farm that i use almost every day with like 100 cores and 300GB ram.

 

They also did some "small" upgrades for 1 subject. They went from i7-2600 with 16GB ram to i7-7700's with 32GB ram and a 512GB ssd... Ryzen would be a much better option because they are mainly going to run VM's, but nope... But then again it would require ryzen pro because they are dell systems and they are probably not available yet. Anyway the ram and cpu stared at me for 3 hours today and it annoys me a LOT... Also they are stupidly fast which annoys me even more.

[Techhog]

Uh

 

 

You know what? I'm good with what I have.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, Techhog said:

Uh

 

 

You know what? I'm good with what I have.

Skylake cores are thirsty. The 7800X's power draw was known, and this will be right in line with that.

[Rune]

I sincerely hope the 5.3ghz OC rumor was not false. I want to overclock the hell out of this. My 6850k can only do 4.9

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

Can someone explain to me this new turbo boost 2.0, cause I'm a bit confused.

I know it used to boost the frequency of one core to whatever number, and some processors have the possibility to boost two cores, but I saw someone not sure if it was the tech deals guy or tech of tomorrow mention that now with coffee lake all cores boost up to whatever frequency.

Is that how it works now?

[Taf the Ghost]

28 minutes ago, Rune said:

I sincerely hope the 5.3ghz OC rumor was not false. I want to overclock the hell out of this. My 6850k can only do 4.9

They got about 300 Mhz OC room with the move from Skylake to Kaby Lake, so the top-binned 8700k getting 5.3 Ghz wouldn't surprise me. Though that's going to be a delid.

9 minutes ago, NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle said:

Can someone explain to me this new turbo boost 2.0, cause I'm a bit confused.

I know it used to boost the frequency of one core to whatever number, and some processors have the possibility to boost two cores, but I saw someone not sure if it was the tech deals guy or tech of tomorrow mention that now with coffee lake all cores boost up to whatever frequency.

Is that how it works now?

Turbo Boost 3.0.

 

1.0 is a dynamic auto-overclocking by TDP room.

2.0 had more refined steps, which improves the all-core OC by a bit.

3.0 is "best 2 cores" that's set at the bios level. When it auto-OCs, the OS will be aware of which cores to push high single-thread demand to.

 

At least, that's about what I can figure out. Turbo Boost 3.0 is, however, hardware not software side.

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

5 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

1.0 is a dynamic auto-overclocking by TDP room.

2.0 had more refined steps, which improves the all-core OC by a bit.

3.0 is "best 2 cores" that's set at the bios level. When it auto-OCs, the OS will be aware of which cores to push high single-thread demand to.

 

At least, that's about what I can figure out. Turbo Boost 3.0 is, however, hardware not software side.

Thank you.

[Taf the Ghost]

15 minutes ago, NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle said:

Thank you.

It's surprisingly difficult to find information on the difference between Turbo Boost 1.0 & 2.0. 2.0 is simply an improved version of 1.0, with much tighter increments for OC. At least, that's what I can gather.

[handymanshandle]

10 hours ago, Techhog said:

No, it's a completely different die and doesn't have the mesh bus. What they did was slap two more cores on a 7700K.

To me it seems underwhelming, considering it sounded like Coffee lake wasn't going to support Z270 or Z170 boards through a BIOS update. If I have to buy a new motherboard why wouldn't I just go with Ryzen where I can spend about $100 less to get a 6c/7t CPU or for about the same get a 8c/12t CPU.

[handymanshandle]

2 hours ago, Techhog said:

Uh

 

 

You know what? I'm good with what I have.

Interesting, then that would make me take my comment back but I still feel like this is false. I guess we'll see.

 

Lol I didn't realize that was temps lol

[ravenshrike]

What's interesting are the games where performance dropped between the 7700 and 8700.

[Techhog]

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Skylake cores are thirsty. The 7800X's power draw was known, and this will be right in line with that.

That's temps, not power consumption.

[handymanshandle]

7 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Looks to be perfectly in line with a 6700k/7700k w/ 2 more Cores and slightly higher clocks. Maybe a little better IMC, as well, but that'll take some memory scaling tests.

 

Since we know what the central core design does already, most of this is pretty predictable. Still, this is far & away the best "gaming CPU" for the foreseeable future. Just put an AIO on it if you're planning to OC. That's not really something I'd want to do on Air.

Well how I see it is that AMD has something with way better value and when more games optimize for multithreaded workload it will benefit both current 4c/8t i7 owners and future coffee lake i5 and i7 owners but I can see it benefiting AMD R5 and R7 owners even more. Just because R5 for most people is very affordable and the boards aren't crap and are pretty affordable.

[thorhammerz]

2 hours ago, Techhog said:

Uh

 

 

You know what? I'm good with what I have.

I'd say that's a actually pleasant surprise: considering the 8700k only is only burning a snug 27% hotter than the 7700k despite having 50% more cores (assuming ambient temperature of 20C); but I suppose those numbers are stock clocks with a just moderate workload.

 

It'd be interesting to see how thermal headroom are on those things without a delid & 280mm(+) radiator setup.

[Techhog]

3 minutes ago, thorhammerz said:

I'd actually say that's a pleasant surprise, considering the 8700k only burning a snug 27% hotter than the 7700k despite having 50% more cores (assuming ambient temperature of 20C); but I suppose those numbers are stock clocks with a just moderate workload.

 

It'd be interesting to see how thermal headroom are on those things without a delid & 280mm(+) radiator setup.

You need a delid to use Multicore Enhancement. Don't even bother getting RAM faster than 2666MHz if this runs THAT FREAKING HOT at stock.

 

It used to be that delidding was needed to push Intel CPUs to the limit. Now it's just plan needed... I'm not even confident that my NH-D15 can handle thing thing at stock. 

 

Also, heat doesn't scale linearly with cores. You were expecting temps to increase by 50%? Don't be silly. The 7980XE would hit over 250C based on that logic.