Friday, September 8th 2017

Intel Core "Coffee Lake" Desktop Processors Launch Date Revealed

by
btarunr
 Discuss (45 Comments)
Intel could launch the first wave of 8th generation Core "Coffee Lake" desktop processors in the retail channel, on the 5th of October, 2017. It's also becoming ominous that with increasing core counts across the lineup, Intel is also raising prices by anywhere between 12.5 to 25 percent. For example, the Core i7-8700K, which logically succeeds the $339 Core i7-7700K, could be priced upwards of $400. The i5-8600K, which succeeds the $249 i5-7600K, could be priced a little over $300. One can expect similar price-hikes across the board for other Core i5 six-core and Core i3 quad-core SKUs.

The first wave of 8th generation Core "Coffee Lake" desktop processor launches could be limited to certain overclocker-specific Core i7 and Core i5 SKUs. It is also launching just one compatible motherboard chipset option with this first wave, the Z370 Express, which supports CPU overclocking. Among the SKUs to look out for, are the top-dog Core i7-8700K six-core processor with HyperThreading enabling 12 threads, 12 MB of L3 cache; and the Core i5-8600K, which is also a six-core part but lacks HyperThreading, and comes with 9 MB of L3 cache.
Source: io-Tech.fi

Related News

Add your own comment

45 Comments on Intel Core "Coffee Lake" Desktop Processors Launch Date Revealed

#26
jabbadap
Afaik your source uses Finnish retailer prices, which includes VATs and quite usual starting price premium. Compare them to prices when kaby launched here in Finland: i7 7700k was 405€, i5 7600k was 285€ and i3 7350k was 215€ all including local 24% VAT.


Posted on Reply
#27
efikkan
noname00Well, it's all about how the cores work together. Per core performance will probably be similar to 7700k (if not better), and there are not many applications where the 1800x is more than 40-50% faster than a 7700k. It's pretty safe to assume a 40-50% performance increase threaded applications (rendering and encoding, to be more precise).
Performance per core will be identical to Skylake/Kaby Lake. Keep in mind this will boost to 4.3 GHz on all cores, or up to 4.7 GHz on a single core. This thing will perform like a i7-7700K with two extra cores.

And yes, the performance of Ryzen is very workload specific. Ryzen have a lot of computational power, but a inferior front end/prefetcher, so it scales well in a few applications, worse in others. In real workloads Skylake have ~30% better IPC. You'll have to have a very specific workload for Ryzen to offer a real world advantage.
Posted on Reply
#28
FrustratedGarrett
punaniRyzen 1600 (6C/12T) is 219€ in Finland atm, if intel has MSRP of 8800K at ~400$ it is sure to sell for >400€ in Finland .. I'm certain 8800K will be faster than the R5 1600, but at that price difference Intels offer is not tempting..
I will have to disagree with you on that bit. Look, the Ryzen 1600 is gonna be noticeably worse than the i5 8400 in single threaded tests, and it will have performance issues caused by its much slower L3 cache and memory subsystems, in addition to slower thread migration across CCX cores and TLB cache performance.

Ryzen is a mess; it's basically 2 quad cores glued together on a single substrate of silicon through an interconnect fabric. The result is many core CPUs that are hindered in many ways by that interconnect technology. They've been trying to optimize games for Ryzen for over half a year now by constricting threads to a single CCX (including the L3 cache) and they still haven't caught up to the i7 6800.
Posted on Reply
#29
jabbadap
efikkanPerformance per core will be identical to Skylake/Kaby Lake. Keep in mind this will boost to 4.3 GHz on all cores, or up to 4.7 GHz on a single core. This thing will perform like a i7-7700K with two extra cores.

And yes, the performance of Ryzen is very workload specific. Ryzen have a lot of computational power, but a inferior front end/prefetcher, so it scales well in a few applications, worse in others. In real workloads Skylake have ~30% better IPC. You'll have to have a very specific workload for Ryzen to offer a real world advantage.
How about bigger shared cache(12MB vs 8MB), yes they have same amount for cache/core but does it have any effect on single core performance?
Posted on Reply
#30
efikkan
jabbadapHow about bigger shared cache(12MB vs 8MB), yes they have same amount for cache/core but does it have any effect on single core performance?
Very marginally, yes. The L3 cache structure is very inefficient, and it includes a duplicate of all L2 caches, which is why it's redesigned in Skylake-X.
Posted on Reply
#31
dyonoctis
FrustratedGarrettI will have to disagree with you on that bit. Look, the Ryzen 1600 is gonna be noticeably worse than the i5 8400 in single threaded tests, and it will have performance issues caused by its much slower L3 cache and memory subsystems, in addition to slower thread migration across CCX cores and TLB cache performance.

Ryzen is a mess; it's basically 2 quad cores glued together on a single substrate of silicon through an interconnect fabric. The result is many core CPUs that are hindered in many ways by that interconnect technology. They've been trying to optimize games for Ryzen for over half a year now by constricting threads to a single CCX (including the L3 cache) and they still haven't caught up to the i7 6800.
Outside of gaming, Ryzen doesn't seems that bad, right now the frequency seems to be the bigger bottleneck, and the i5 8400 got low clock. Right now it looks like budget gamers gamers will go for the i5, and people using application scaling well with thread will go for ryzen.

However the 8600k might be trouble.

Posted on Reply
#32
jabbadap
efikkanVery marginally, yes. The L3 cache structure is very inefficient, and it includes a duplicate of all L2 caches, which is why it's redesigned in Skylake-X.
Yeah, I tried to find clock to clock ipc comparison between i5 and i7 and found nothing.
Posted on Reply
#33
BorisDG
Imagine 8775C with 128MB cache... OMG. This will be true killer since 5775C is still unbeatable in gaming even vs 7700K.
Posted on Reply
#34
efikkan
jabbadapYeah, I tried to find clock to clock ipc comparison between i5 and i7 and found nothing.
IPC is roughly the same. HT also means to threads might be sharing the same cache, HT CPUs have extra L3 cache to "compensate" for this, but there are edge cases where it matters.
Posted on Reply
#35
dirtyferret
These prices, if true, are beyond silly considering what AMD is offering with the Ryzen 1600. Makes me glad I picked up my i5-7600k and Asrock Z270 Killer (their name not mine) for a combined $225 these past two months.
Posted on Reply
#36
jabbadap
BorisDGImagine 8775C with 128MB cache... OMG. This will be true killer since 5775C is still unbeatable in gaming even vs 7700K.
Well, that would be Cannon Lake, if they ever release it. Intel is already talking about IceLake as generation after 8th. But maybe there's Coffee Lake die shrinked to 10nm Cannon Lake as 9th generation after all. One thing is sure, amd messed up Intel's roadmaps with Zen.
Posted on Reply
#37
Tomorrow
Intel's current biggest lead is not proccess node and not even IPC like people have wrongly assumed. It's high clockspeeds. 7700K is between 10-25% faster than R7 depending on game. Yet when both are overclocked - R7 to 4Ghz and i7 to 5Ghz that means i7 has a 20% clock advantage. When R7 would magically run at 5Ghz (or i7 downclocked to 4Ghz) then they would be equal. There are very few clock for clock tests unfortunately. Most of them have been run at Ryzen launch wich was half a year ago. Ryzen's performance has only improved since then and now matches Intel's when both are clocked the same.

Intel still maintains performance lead due to clockspeeds however and will continue to do so until Zen 2 comes. We don't know yet if and by how much Zen 2 will bump up the clock speeds. It is likely that Zen 2 will benefit much more from clockspeed increase than any tweaks or optimizationms they may do to improve IPC.
Results from here: wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-4-core-benchmarks-intel-core-i7-7700k/

Also Coffee Lake's performance advantage over 7700K will likely come mostly from CL's higher clock speeds. Not from magical 10-15% IPC increase. IPC may increase but up to 5% or so. Problably less.
Posted on Reply
#38
Gasaraki
3roldWhoa, price increase. This is like the next cockblock from Intel. So they're basically offering less than Zen for higher price. Sounds familiar? These will ofc be beasts, but let's be honest. The next Zen iteration will come with higher clock speed than 4GHz making it obvious that the winner will be Zen 2. Plus it will come on the same AM4 socket. While Intel keeps changing their platform every 1-2 years. While some implementations are welcome, most of the time we get superfluous to no changes, just like this new Z370 chipset. Thr only significant change I can think of, if implemented would be Thunderbolt 3.
The next Zen? When's that coming out? Oh then what about Cannon Lake? Intel is not offering less than Zen for a higher price because currently the 7700K is still the best. The 1800X can't touch it in games. Coffee is only going to be that much better with 7700K IPC and more threads.
Posted on Reply
#39
dyonoctis
Techspot did an interesting review: If you get a gpu around the GTX1060 speed, a Ryzen 3 is going to game just as well as a i5 7400.

www.techspot.com/review/1463-ryzen-3-gaming/

So apparently unless you get or plan to get a GTX 1070 and higher there is no need to go for a i7 at 400$/€
Posted on Reply
#40
dirtyferret
dyonoctisTechspot did an interesting review: If you get a gpu around the GTX1060 speed, a Ryzen 3 is going to game just as well as a i5 7400.

www.techspot.com/review/1463-ryzen-3-gaming/

So apparently unless you get or plan to get a GTX 1070 and higher there is no need to go for a i7 at 400$/€
Today it doesn't make sense but in two years from now you would probably be able to pick up GTX 1080 performance in a mid level card. Techspot's test shows a difference in those results as opposed to the 1060 results.
Posted on Reply
#41
Prima.Vera
dwade8700k will be such a beast.
Naah. I'm looking forward the 9700K with hopes and dreams that it will be an 8 Core CPU...
Posted on Reply
#42
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
The R5 1600 will still be the CPU to beat, which I doubt the will. Well, the i3s will be faster in games fo sho, but those extra threads are handy.
Posted on Reply
#43
haxzion
efikkani7-8700K will be trading blows with Ryzen 7 1800X ($500 MSRP, can be found lower). Six good cores will remain better than eight inferior cores in real workloads.
coffee Lake as far as i know will have zero IPC gain compared to kaby lake just extra cores.BTW a good core is one that overclocks without deliding a premium cpu and voiding guarantee.
I own a 7700K and i've had enough of Intel. I paid a good price for a cpu that can't do shit during summer 80C + while playing games with a good air cooler.This is just unacceptable...
Posted on Reply
#44
CandymanGR
noname00Well, it's all about how the cores work together. Per core performance will probably be similar to 7700k (if not better), and there are not many applications where the 1800x is more than 40-50% faster than a 7700k. It's pretty safe to assume a 40-50% performance increase threaded applications (rendering and encoding, to be more precise).
Sorry for not replying for so long. Listen, you cannot cover 50% less performance in multithreading by increasing cores by 25%. It is not so easy to close the gap with just small architectural improvements and better clocks (and how much improvement on clocks can they actually get? Thats another issue). The 7700K in my example was clocked at 5Ghz and still was 50% percent slower in multi. The 8700K will have more cores yes, but they will not be clocked at 5Ghz, so.. I can't think it is possible a 50% improvement in multi. I just can't.
I think maximum will be +30%-35% at multi. At best.
Posted on Reply
#45
StrayKAT
haxzioncoffee Lake as far as i know will have zero IPC gain compared to kaby lake just extra cores.BTW a good core is one that overclocks without deliding a premium cpu and voiding guarantee.
I own a 7700K and i've had enough of Intel. I paid a good price for a cpu that can't do shit during summer 80C + while playing games with a good air cooler.This is just unacceptable...
Not that I'm making any excuses (80c sucks), but I live in Spaghetti Western Texas Heat... and a wall unit AC still alleviates that. If you can do similar, you might be happy.

Of course, summer is almost over now.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 21st, 2024 14:01 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts