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

[Cvrk]

Release date : Exactly 1 month before you cave and buy a Ryzen cip.

 

[GreiverBlade]

Fixed it for ya.

did it look like i care to you?

R5 1600 can't do all cores turbo at 4.0 is not decisive.

re-fixed for you then

 

[Vayra86]

8 , 10 I don't remember exactly , it was some ridiculous number.



Pretty sure they can hit 4ghz.

Somebody really needs to explain to me why we are theorizing on stock frequencies when we talk about CPUs that have a markup specifically for being overclockable. Silicon lottery doesnt even apply here, going by how reliably virtually every 4- and 6 core on Intel Core 2xxx and up has clocked to past 4.0 on all cores.

This topic title says a 6 core on 4.0 is a beast. Effectively we've already had this for quite awhile, be it on AMD or Intel. Ryzen can push 8 cores to 3.9-4.1 and even that bottom end trumps this so called 'beast'.

Again, the feasible OCed clock averages are going make or break this CPU. As was said, the unique bit here is having hexacore Intel on mainstream platform, and for that to really count for much, it will need to be ableto clock high or the same arguments as with Ryzen apply, and that means it neefs pricing on par to be worthwhile.

 

[qubit]

I read somewhere that the IPC improvement will be significant. If so this will be a good reason for me to upgrade. Depending on price, I might be happy with the 4 core 8 thread version.

 

[Vayra86]

I read somewhere that the IPC improvement will be significant. If so this will be a good reason for me to upgrade. Depending on price, I might be happy with the 4 core 8 thread version.

Curious for a source on that, what arch change is going to make that happen?

 

[Vya Domus]

Somebody really needs to explain to me why we are theorizing on stock frequencies when we talk about CPUs that have a markup specifically for being overclockable. Silicon lottery doesnt even apply here, going by how reliably virtually every 4- and 6 core on Intel Core 2xxx and up has clocked to past 4.0 on all cores.

This topic title says a 6 core on 4.0 is a beast. Effectively we've already had this for quite awhile, be it on AMD or Intel. Ryzen can push 8 cores to 3.9-4.1 and even that bottom end trumps this so called 'beast'.

Again, the feasible OCed clock averages are going make or break this CPU. As was said, the unique bit here is having hexacore Intel on mainstream platform, and for that to really count for much, it will need to be ableto clock high or the same arguments as with Ryzen apply, and that means it neefs pricing on par to be worthwhile.

I don't think I have ever said the contrary in this thread to any of this. 90% people picking these new CPUs up will overclock them , and stock clocks will be irrelevant for the most part. Unless Intel squeezes out some IPC gain we are looking at a 7700K with an extra 2c/4t and perhaps lower OC headroom.

I read somewhere that the IPC improvement will be significant. If so this will be a good reason for me to upgrade. Depending on price, I might be happy with the 4 core 8 thread version.

Kind of doubtful there is going to be any improvement in IPC. And I thought there isn't going to be a quad core with HT anymore in their lineup or am I wrong ?

i3=4c/4t
i5=6c/6t
i7=6c/12t

 

[GreiverBlade]

I read somewhere that the IPC improvement will be significant. If so this will be a good reason for me to upgrade. Depending on price, I might be happy with the 4 core 8 thread version.

yep yep .... 5-10% as usual .... for Intel it's impressive .... and the norm for them ...

unless they do a "Piledriver to Zen" increase ...

I don't think I have ever said the contrary in this thread to any of this. 90% people picking these new CPUs up will overclock them , and stock clocks will be irrelevant for the most part. Unless Intel squeezes out some IPC gain we are looking at a 7700K with an extra 2c/4t and perhaps lower OC headroom.

exactly why Turbo is not a decisive argument for me ... my 6600K is 4.4 non turbo .... if i take a R5 1600 and can reach 3.9-4.1 non turbo ... then it's a better option than go 8600K or 8700K, in term of price mostly and not a big loss in term of performance ... unless Intel do a overly huge IPC improvement, although if they did .... the price would not suits me anyway ... my sweetspot is 6600K price or slightly lower and only the R5 1600 is in that range, the 7600K brings nothing to the table and cost more and the 8600K will bring 2C/2T more than the 6600K and will probably be more expensive, then again, the R5 1600 is the best option, will still get 2C more but also 12T (over the 6600K)

it's not like my 6600K is insufficient tho ... but AMD did good on the CPU side lately.

 

[hat]

If it's supposed to turbo to 4GHz on all cores, I don't see why it wouldn't, unless temps got in the way. This is what everyone wanted though, right? 6 core chip in the mainstream socket? Now those looking to upgrade and on the fence between AMD and Intel have a tougher decision to make than they did previously.

 

[Komshija]

The problem is that 6C/12T i7 LGA 11XX should came out three years ago as i7 4790K, continuing with 6C/12T i7 6700K and so on, while maintaining the same price tag of the current 4C/8T chips. Financially speaking, Intel would be in the big plus anyway, but their profit margins would be slightly lower.
For almost 10 years we had the same 4C/8T philosophy, where performance increased for 6-7% from generation to generation. So much about Intel respecting their customers...

Now when AMD has better solutions, they finally realized that i7 LGA 11XX CPU could be 6C/12T. WOW!

On the other hand, I assume that this chip will sell for more than 350$; possibly 379$ or 389$, which already makes it an extremely bad purchase. For the same price tag someone could get an Ryzen 7 1700X which will likely outperform 6C/12T i7 in most cases.

 

[Vayra86]

I don't think I have ever said the contrary in this thread to any of this. 90% people picking these new CPUs up will overclock them , and stock clocks will be irrelevant for the most part. Unless Intel squeezes out some IPC gain we are looking at a 7700K with an extra 2c/4t and perhaps lower OC headroom.



Kind of doubtful there is going to be any improvement in IPC. And I thought there isn't going to be a quad core with HT anymore in their lineup or am I wrong ?

i3=4c/4t
i5=6c/6t
i7=6c/12t

That was a misquote sorry, was mostly reference to @Frag Maniac who feels this is a beast somehow because it gets 4.3 on one core and his pre-Sandy i7 is a bad OCer (Followed by a bunch of people who consider OC capable CPUs should be best left on stock, or some strange reasoning)

 

[qubit]

Curious for a source on that, what arch change is going to make that happen?

You know how you read something and then have no idea where? Well, I did some frantic Googling and came up with the TPU article below. Looks like I was thinking of Cannon Lake which is likely to be 15% faster than the previous generation. This will make it way faster than my old 2700K and therefore worth upgrading.

https://www.techpowerup.com/230541/8th-gen-core-cannon-lake-over-15-faster-than-kaby-lake-intel

Having said that Coffee Lake and Cannon Lake seem to be used interchangeably for the 8th gen depending on what article you read, so that's a bit confusing.

 

[Vya Domus]

"these processors are expected to have a bigger performance gain over the preceding 7th gen Core "Kaby Lake" micro-architecture, than Kaby Lake had over its predecessor, the 6th gen Core "Skylake."

That's kind of vague , and you can assume that performance comes from the extra cores.

 

[qubit]

"these processors are expected to have a bigger performance gain over the preceding 7th gen Core "Kaby Lake" micro-architecture, than Kaby Lake had over its predecessor, the 6th gen Core "Skylake."

That's kind of vague , and you can assume that performance comes from the extra cores.

The article title says over 15%, but it's not repeated in the article, which is odd.

 

[GreiverBlade]

The problem is that 6C/12T i7 LGA 11XX should came out three years ago as i7 4790K, continuing with 6C/12T i7 6700K and so on, while maintaining the same price tag of the current 4C/8T chips. Financially speaking, Intel would be in the big plus anyway, but their profit margins would be slightly lower.
For almost 10 years we had the same 4C/8T philosophy, where performance increased for 6-7% from generation to generation. So much about Intel respecting their customers...

Now when AMD has better solutions, they finally realized that i7 LGA 11XX CPU could be 6C/12T. WOW!

On the other hand, I assume that this chip will sell for more than 350$; possibly 379$ or 389$, which already makes it an extremely bad purchase. For the same price tag someone could get an Ryzen 7 1700X which will likely outperform 6C/12T i7 in most cases.

to me it will probably be, as i wrote previously, 450$+ for the 8700K also 6C/12T mainstream socket .... well we already have 8C/16T for that ... and probably at the same price of future 6C/12T offer from Intel

assuming the pricing would be as rumored:
(using my country's currency)

in the range of 150chf R5 1500X 4C/8T
in the range of 225chf (probably higher for Intel's offer ) i5 8600K 6C/6T and R5 1600 6C/12T
in the range of 350chf (putting the i7 in two category due to the 7700K launch price) i7 8600K 6C/12T, R7 1700 8C/16T and R7 1700X 8C/16T (R7 are respectively 329 and 395chf putting the 1700 as a good option for the 350chf range)
in the range of 450chf i7 8600K 6C/12T and R7 1800X 8C/16T (479chf for the R7 and probably 489chf for the i7 if retailer behave as usual )

The article title says over 15%, but it's not repeated in the article, which is odd.

5 to 15% is small just as Intel accustomed us to .... over 15%? what, 15,1%? 20%? (if 20% it's slightly interesting but not in term of price prevision )

 

[Vayra86]

The article title says over 15%, but it's not repeated in the article, which is odd.

Reading the article critically, all I can distill is that a clock bump is predicted to cause the performance increase over previous gen.

Its vague rumor and has no basis as far as I can see within the architecture. Thanks for looking it up though

@GreiverBlade yes I agree both make sense in Intel marketing.

 

[GreiverBlade]

Reading the article critically, all I can distill is that a clock bump is predicted to cause the performance increase over previous gen.

Its vague rumor and has no basis as far as I can see within the architecture. Thanks for looking it up though

clock bump or core bump .... after all it's from 4C/4T to 6C/6T and 4C/8T to 6C/12T, that might also be the reason for the performances increase (both are logical, no? )

 

[Eric3988]

yep yep .... 5-10% as usual .... for Intel it's impressive .... and the norm for them ...

unless they do a "Piledriver to Zen" increase ...


exactly why Turbo is not a decisive argument for me ... my 6600K is 4.4 non turbo .... if i take a R5 1600 and can reach 3.9-4.1 non turbo ... then it's a better option than go 8600K or 8700K, in term of price mostly and not a big loss in term of performance ... unless Intel do a overly huge IPC improvement, although if they did .... the price would not suits me anyway ... my sweetspot is 6600K price or slightly lower and only the R5 1600 is in that range, the 7600K brings nothing to the table and cost more and the 8600K will bring 2C/2T more than the 6600K and will probably be more expensive, then again, the R5 1600 is the best option, will still get 2C more but also 12T (over the 6600K)

it's not like my 6600K is insufficient tho ... but AMD did good on the CPU side lately.

I would like to echo this. Next gen Intel is going to fine, like always, but AMD is simply going to offer more for less to get in that sweet market share. Capitalism, baby!

 

[erocker]

I'd be fine with 7700K IPC performance with 6 cores.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

did it look like i care to you?


re-fixed for you then

LOL, that's not a fix, that's you fixating on AMD. You'd been better off comparing to 1600X instead of 1600, because at least it turbos at 4GHz, but still not on all cores.

This topic title says a 6 core on 4.0 is a beast.

Given that it can do so without the user touching it, it is. No one has made a 6 core chip that turbos that high on all cores. No matter how much you harp about OCing, some don't care to, and some chips aren't very good at handling it, especially if you keep your core parts for over 5 years like many do.

I think it's obvious this thread wasn't intended for OCing and brand fanatics, but that's what these topics always devolve to. My question is, where are you guys when someone gets a lemon, low ASIC GPU that doesn't OC worth a damn. Oh, that's right, sitting there rubbing salt in the wound saying it's not a legit reason for refund. Same goes for CPUs, just the luck of the draw. So some of us prepare for that possibility with a chip that's at least guaranteed to turbo at 4GHz on all cores. I don't see why you don't get that. You'd rather wave your OCing epeen than use some common sense understanding the purchase decisions of those whom have had bad chips.

Having said that Coffee Lake and Cannon Lake seem to be used interchangeably for the 8th gen depending on what article you read, so that's a bit confusing.

If you look for articles that refer to chipsets, I'm pretty sure Coffee Lake will require Z370, and Cannonlake 390.

 

[notb]

For almost 10 years we had the same 4C/8T philosophy, where performance increased for 6-7% from generation to generation. So much about Intel respecting their customers...

Isn't this exactly respecting customers? Constant improvement?

 

[qubit]

If you look for articles that refer to chipsets, I'm pretty sure Coffee Lake will require Z370, and Cannonlake 390.

Yeah, could be. I only had a cursory check.

 

[agello24]

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.

Can you explain how a $350 dollar 6 core will compete with a $200 6 core ryzen?

 

[hat]

Isn't this exactly respecting customers? Constant improvement?

If you're okay with such measly improvements, then yeah... anybody who knows anything about this knows that Intel has been pulling punches for years now. They've offered minimal improvements across the board, with higher core counts at the top of the top end for years. They've only offered up to 6 core with the original i7, Sandy-E, and Ivy-E. They offered an 8 core with Haswell-E, a 10 core with Broadwell-E, and still 10 core with Kaby Lake-E. All those were available for exorbitant prices (for most). It was only after AMD came along with Ryzen that Intel started attempting to improve their product beyond tossing up marginally better products at continually higher prices.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Can you explain how a $350 dollar 6 core will compete with a $200 6 core ryzen?

That's subjective to what the buyer is looking for. Anyway, this thread isn't intended as a pissing contest, and if this kind of posting persists I'll ask that the thread be closed.

 

[GreiverBlade]

LOL, that's not a fix, that's you fixating on AMD. You'd been better off comparing to 1600X instead of 1600, because at least it turbos at 4GHz, but still not on all cores.

actually i am not fixated on AMD .... nope the 1600 is fine, the 1600X is a little more expensive 1600 and 1600X are the same 1700 and 1700X are the same .... nothing AMD did on the X version can't be achieved by the user on the non X version, granted that you won the silicon lottery tho my etailer/retailer did also understand that ... luckily they still have listing of the 1600 but only 1600X in stock, tho the 1700 is completely absent of the listing and only stock the 1700X, logically since priced higher albeit being both capable of the same performances, there is less than 1% difference between them in real life usage but the price difference is a little more higher than 1% .
and the only things i don't consider decisive indeed is the turbo, i am not a heavy OC'er but i always disable turbo (not that my 6600K works 100% of the time @ 4.4 but when i use it i use it fully most of the time and i saw issues with my 6600K and letting the turbo enabled.)

I think it's obvious this thread wasn't intended for OCing

actually... it's a little wrong .... we talk about a K chip...

i am neither a brand fanatic, i had enough CPU's from any known and less known manufacturer, but ... i still have to reckon that this year AMD did a far better job, if we put aside the issues needing BIOS/microcode revision, than Intel and offer some better alternative, either on the price side or the features side.

furthermore, why would i pay 250 for 6C/6T or 350/450 for 6C/12T when i can pay 225/269 for 6C/12T (1600/1600X)

That's subjective to what the buyer is looking for. Anyway, this thread isn't intended as a pissing contest, and if this kind of posting persists I'll ask that the thread be closed.

technically i understand that point, but well you label that future CPU a beast, that a bit asking for it

anyway, i'm off now, have fun and good luck