Looks like Intel's 8700k 6 core Coffee Lake might be quite a beast.

[Frag_Maniac]

Early rumors say it's turbo speeds are 4GHz on all 6 cores and 4.3GHz single core.

http://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lake-core-i7-8700k-6-core-cpu-specifications-details-leak/

Some are expecting it to cost no more than $350 too to compete with Ryzen 6 core sales.

Word is they're launching Z370 and Z390 chipset MBs, but from what I've read you need a Z370 for these. Z390 supposedly being for Cannonlake.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel/intel-z370-chipset

I think I may have found my new CPU.

 

[Vayra86]

Yeah doesn't look bad, but I'll be waiting for this launch to happen first.

Somehow my trust level of Intel not screwing something up about this isn't high.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Yeah doesn't look bad, but I'll be waiting for this launch to happen first.

Somehow my trust level of Intel not screwing something up about this isn't high.

The only thing that worries me is what the MB will cost. I will need a knew MB anyway, but I suppose if you need a new chipset to fit it, that will cheese some that just want to upgrade the CPU.

 

[Vayra86]

The only thing that worries me is what the MB will cost. I will need a knew MB anyway, but I suppose if you need a new chipset to fit it, that will cheese some that just want to upgrade the CPU.

What worries me is the 4.3 is only one core. Of course, overclockable, but I want to see how well it does on that. The six cores in here are going to have an influence, evident already by how many cores can stay over 4 Ghz within the TDP budget as it is - because that metric really doesn't look so great compared to previous offerings.

I mean how special is 6 cores at 4.0 when there is a Ryzen that has eight of them and can do the same.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The only number that matters is 3.7 GHz, stock clock. Put the chip under any sort of load, it falls from turbo fast. Certainly respectable but also not something to get excited about.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

I mean how special is 6 cores at 4.0 when there is a Ryzen that has eight of them and can do the same.

I'm talking Turbo speed, not OC speed. The 1800X turbos at 4GHz, yes, but only on ONE core. The 8700k does it on ALL 6 cores. BIG difference.

 

[Vya Domus]

Yeah , the clock speeds aren't that incredible , it's a six-core on the same 14nm process after all don't expect miracles in terms of overclocking. But it's good to see they are finally moving away from the same god damn lineup they had for the last decade almost.

Some are expecting it to cost no more than $350 too to compete with Ryzen 6 core sales.

That's still far from 6-core Ryzen prices.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Yeah , the clock speeds aren't that incredible...

The clock speed is slightly better than Ryzen's 6 core, and the Turbo speed obliterates it, so I don't agree. High factory clock speeds like 3.8 to 4 GHz are VERY hard to achieve on a 6 or 8 core, no one's done it.

This is the perfect answer for those not wanting to fiddle with AMD's finicky OCing, and RAM problems, and it hits high speed all by itself and throttles down when you're done gaming to save power and wear and tear.

That said, we'll see how it actually performs and what it costs. I don't want to get ahead of myself.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Have you *ever* seen Intel Turbo amount to much of anything on Core i7? I don't think I've ever seen my processor running at higher than stock clock (4.0 GHz). Nothing that requires any significant amount of CPU grunt these days runs on a single or dual core. They fairly easily load 3+ cores which means Turbo deactivates.

It's fundamentally marketing bullshit--a reason to spend significantly more money on a Core i7 compared to a Core i5.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Some are expecting it to cost no more than $350

where is this price coming from?

 

[RejZoR]

So, 2 years later and this is all they can muster together? A 6 core that's barely clocked any higher than my almost ancient 5820K made on older node. I know it's not the same since this one has GPU and better IPC, but one would expect a bit more after all this time. I bet these are even dual channel which makes it even worse quite frankly.

 

[Vayra86]

Have you *ever* seen Intel Turbo amount to much of anything on Core i7? I don't think I've ever got my processor running at higher than stock clock (4.0 GHz). Nothing that requires any significant amount of CPU grunt these days runs on a single or dual core. They fairly easily load 3+ cores which means Turbo deactivates.

It's fundamentally marking bullshit--a reason to spend significantly more money on a Core i7 compared to a Core i5.

I don't know man, you're too hung up on stock settings. You can easily OC 4 cores to max turbo on the box already and you can even do it within the base vCore it ships with, more often than not. Did you miss these are K-processors?

 

[Vya Domus]

The clock speed is slightly better than Ryzen's 6 core, and the Turbo speed obliterates it, so I don't agree. High factory clock speeds like 3.8 to 4 GHz are VERY hard to achieve on a 6 or 8 core, no one's done it.

This is the perfect answer for those not wanting to fiddle with AMD's finicky OCing, and RAM problems, and it hits high speed all by itself and throttles down when you're done gaming to save power and wear and tear.

That said, we'll see how it actually performs and what it costs. I don't want to get ahead of myself.

I didn't said it was bad or anything , just not incredible. Thing is it will probably not give much of a boost in gaming if it doesn't OC as much as the 7700K ( which is a possibility ) , actually it may even fall short of that in a few cases. In any multi-core application with perfect scaling you will see 40-50% more performance. At Intel typical prices in my opinion all of this wont be impressive. But it is better than the barley incremental uplift we've seen for quite some time now.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

I don't know man, you're too hung up on stock settings. You can easily OC 4 cores to max turbo on the box already and you can even do it within the base vCore it ships with, more often than not. Did you miss these are K-processors?

Easy to say if your last chip OCed well. I struck out on my last two processors. My i7-950 and 7970 both don't OC worth a damn. Plus I really feel with the 8700k's wattage and being 6 cores, I wouldn't have even wanted to clock it higher than 4GHz anyway. I've seen plenty 4700k users that leave their chip stock with zero problems, and it's even better if you can hit that on all cores via turbo.

As for the pricing, it's what a couple sites estimated based on how Ryzen 6 cores are selling and what Intel's current quad cores are selling for. I'll add that you can probably justify factoring in that even their 8 core pricing dropped 40% since Ryzen debuted. You apply that to their previous hex core pricing, and add that these are for mainstream vs enthusiast platforms, and it makes sense.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I don't know man, you're too hung up on stock settings. You can easily OC 4 cores to max turbo on the box already and you can even do it within the base vCore it ships with, more often than not. Did you miss these are K-processors?

That's overclocking. Turbo is a stock feature. Forcing the processor to always use Turbo frequencies is going to significantly increase the voltage/heat/power consumption.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

I didn't said it was bad or anything , just not incredible. Thing is it will probably not give much of a boost in gaming if it doesn't OC as much as the 7700K ( which is a possibility ) , actually it may even fall short of that in a few cases. In any multi-core application with perfect scaling you will see 40-50% more performance. At Intel typical prices in my opinion all of this wont be impressive. But it is better than the barley incremental uplift we've seen for quite some time now.

I can't believe you are talking like you expect a hex core to run at the same speed as a quad no problem, yet here we're talking a hex core that actually DOES match the 4700k's stock speed on turbo, and on ALL 6 cores.

It seems we have quite the gamut of everything from expecting super high OC speed, to expecting super high stock speed here. It's like you guys are still stuck in quad land.

I really think these chips will game fine. I wouldn't be surprised if they'll be hailed as the 4700k of hex cores. This thing in reality is only 200MHz slower than a 7700k, because a 7700k doesn't boost to 4.5 on all cores. Personally, going forward, I'll take 6 cores at 4GHz over 4 at 4.2. I'd trust it to play smoother, and work better on upcoming multi threaded games.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Long live socket 1366...........

7 years and counting

 

[Vya Domus]

I can't believe you are talking like you expect a hex core to run at the same speed as a quad no problem.

That's the thing , I don't expect it to run at the same clock speed as a 7700K that's why I said it's unimpressive. Whatever , we all have different opinions on what is impressive and what isn't.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

That's the thing , I don't expect it to run at the same clock speed as a 7700K that's why I said it's unimpressive. Whatever , we all have different opinions on what is impressive and what isn't.

I'm well aware that's what you said, but it doesn't account for the fact that NO ONE has made or can make a 6 or 8 core chip run as fast as a quad, so it's not unimpressive given that it's not plausible to do so. It comes down to whether you gamble the future will lean more toward 6 or 8 threaded games, vs quad threaded. Many are recognizing that it's already happening with several games. Plus consoles that PC games are ported from have been using 8 core APUs for some time. It's just a matter whether you foresee what that translates to going forward. Plus 6 and 8 core chips can obviously multitask better, IF you want your PC to be versatile too anyway. I really think going 6 or 8 will be beneficial to gaming too though going forward, just my two cents.

Yeah CAPS, I'm on 1366 myself, but with a measly 4 cores. Quite frankly I'm kinda surprised how well it's held up for so long.

 

[GreiverBlade]

oh well confirmation for a Ryzen R5 1600 then ...


350$? the 7700K launched around 450$, that's a wishful thinking 350$... also just in case if the i5-8600K will be priced above a R5 1600 ... then another point to AMD for my next move... if a 6C/6T goes around 225$ (i don't think so since the R5 is already 225$ where i live .... and that's still cheaper than my 6600K for a 6C/12T)

well not really a beast even at 350$ (that would put is close to the R7 1700X) if the launch price is closer to 450$ .... well that's rather the 1800X and if they do the usual (improving ipc by 5% ) then it's not that impressive .... keeping the same socket is nice but the chipset change (basically the same as changing all in the end)

so basically it's a R5 1600 (6C/12T) counterpart priced like a R7 1700X (8C/16T) and the performances are yet to be seen if it's a +5/10% ... not a beast

Long live socket 1366...........

7 years and counting

View attachment 90428

CAPS!!! your vinyl record is scratched you are repeating yourself over and over and over in each thread that still show a worthy replacement (my i7 920 was doing 4.2 4/8 but still gave me lower result compared to any following CPU i had ok not the same node fab and 2008 cpu but still )
so .... yep your build is obsolete, but still satisfy your need, no issues indeed

(not a rant not a sarcasm just tired )

but with a measly 4 cores.

still a 4C/8T while caps is on 6C/12T (tho at what price ... at the time it was literally 1 arm 1 leg)

 

[Vya Domus]

I'm well aware that's what you said, but it doesn't account for the fact that NO ONE has made or can make a 6 or 8 core chip run as fast as a quad. It comes down to whether you gamble the future will lean more toward 6 or 8 threaded games, vs quad threaded. Many are recognizing that it's already happening with several games. Plus consoles that PC games are ported from have been using 8 core APUs for some time. It's just a matter whether you foresee what that translates to going forward. Plus 6 and 8 core chips can obviously multitask better, IF you want you PC to be versatile too anyway. I really think going 6 or 8 will be beneficial to gaming to though going forward.

Yeah CAPS, I'm on 1366 myself, but with a measly 4 cores. Quite frankly I'm kinda surprised how well it's held up for so long.

Actually a game like Crysis 3 scales up to 16 threads/cores and that's a game from 2013. Game engines are there , what's on the market however not quite. Your 1366 platform held up fine because since then there hasn't been any major shift towards more cores/threads thanks to Intel and their i3s that flooded the market. The future is all about more cores no doubt. There is no choice literally , as you can see Intel finally gave in and upped their core count , although pricing wise they are still stubborn to think their chips should fetch a large premium.

 

[GreiverBlade]

as you can see Intel finally gave in and upped their core count , although pricing wise they are still stubborn.

and still gave 2C/4T less than the max price available to the "average joe" ( or 6 thread less if taking the R5 1600 versus i5 8600K )

totally agreed about Intel's stubbornness about pricing

 

[Frag_Maniac]

oh well confirmation for a Ryzen R5 1600 then ...

Oh really, a 1600 can turbo all cores at 4GHz? Don't think so.

And on pricing guys, don't forget Intel's octo cores used to cost $1000 until they came out with one that competes better on price with Ryzen. A lot has happened since that high launch price on the 7700k.

No need to live in the past, things are competitive now. If you ask me the only annoyance price wise lately is what the damn miners are causing on mid range GPU pricing. That and TV prices, but that's another topic.

 

[trog100]

pure sales hype.. when they hit a heat/clock speed ceiling and they cant run a given number of cores quicker (i still remember single core chips) they move to more slower cores.. mostly these extra cores do bugger all as regards extra real world performance and history will repeat..

my 7700K 4 core 8 thread chip has hit a heat ceiling for sure.. it happily runs at 5 ghz (or higher) but it gets too f-cking hot..

people assume that the software will use these extra cores.. some time in the distant future it might but at present it wont.. he he..

people will buy into the more core con just like they did the last time..

trog

 

[EarthDog]

What worries me is the 4.3 is only one core. Of course, overclockable, but I want to see how well it does on that. The six cores in here are going to have an influence, evident already by how many cores can stay over 4 Ghz within the TDP budget as it is - because that metric really doesn't look so great compared to previous offerings.

I mean how special is 6 cores at 4.0 when there is a Ryzen that has eight of them and can do the same.

remember the 7900x, 10c, max boost is 2 cores now. Not sure if that will trickle down, but... they are already there.

The thing with ryzen, you arent even guaranteed to hit 4ghz on all cores...then you can overclock the intel on too.

Long live socket 1366...........

7 years and counting