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

[notb]

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.

But in the end they've offered the same improvement AMD did.
However, at any point buying Intel means getting something faster than what was available ~1 year earlier.
You're advocating AMD's +50% a lot, while what this actually means is that for the last 5 years choosing AMD meant buying something dating back to 2011. They were constantly loosing ground to Intel's "measly" +5% yearly.
Also the platform is regularly refreshed, so you're getting all the latest features as well.

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.

Now this is some twisted logic.
Imagine what would happen if Intel was marginal and AMD had majority of market. You'd have to use a Bulldozer forever.

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

By performing better, I suppose.
Also keep in mind 6-core something-lake will have an IGP. Zen-based APUs will be limited to 4C in this generation (most likely).

 

[Frag_Maniac]

...granted that you won the silicon lottery

Well at least you recognize that, some others, not so much.

By performing better...

Exactly, it's as if some are still in denial that has been the case for some time. The bottom line is many prioritize performance over price, as long as the price is somewhat reasonable.

 

[hat]

But in the end they've offered the same improvement AMD did.
However, at any point buying Intel means getting something faster than what was available ~1 year earlier.
You're advocating AMD's +50% a lot, while what this actually means is that for the last 5 years choosing AMD meant buying something dating back to 2011. They were constantly loosing ground to Intel's "measly" +5% yearly.
Also the platform is regularly refreshed, so you're getting all the latest features as well.


Now this is some twisted logic.
Imagine what would happen if Intel was marginal and AMD had majority of market. You'd have to use a Bulldozer forever.

By performing better, I suppose.
Also keep in mind 6-core something-lake will have an IGP. Zen-based APUs will be limited to 4C in this generation (most likely).

It's not difficult to hazard a guess that if Intel wanted to, they could have done better than they have been these past several years. They've just coasted along because AMD hasn't had anything besides faildozer for years.

What do you mean if AMD had the majority of the market? Do you mean that it would be different if AMD and Intel were in opposite places the past several years? If so, I'd be bashing AMD while trying to support underdog Intel. I've said many times before that if the shoe was on the other foot, the same would happen. Business is business and Intel is doing what AMD would have been doing if they were so comfortably in the lead. AMD is not without their thousand dollar "extreme" processors, either. They charged exorbitant prices for the best of the best when they were in a position to, as well. Intel has locked down overclocking, passed along marginal improvements (and some... not so improvements, like the crappy thermal paste) with higher prices each generation, while making real innovation (namely higher core count) available only at the top end of the price spectrum. They were making the most money with the least effort because they could, and they didn't have to do much to stay ahead of AMD. I believe AMD probably would have done the same if they were in Intel's position. They're the underdogs, not magical saviors of the PC world who would continually produce stellar products at low prices because they're so righteous.

 

[notb]

It's not difficult to hazard a guess that if Intel wanted to, they could have done better than they have been these past several years. They've just coasted along because AMD hasn't had anything besides faildozer for years.

Of course!
But should they? Is there really a need for more performance in gaming, office and multimedia PCs? Is LGA1151 not enough for the tasks it's used for?

Intel could have improved this platform a lot more. But they decided to move resources elsewhere.
Just look how notebooks have changed in last 5 years. Intel also dominated server/supercomputer segment, where IBM is their main competitor, not AMD.
And they got into AI / autonomous cars business as well.

So we got quite a lot of useful things instead of more fps in games.
I'm not saying I'm glad that my CPU isn't faster. But out of 2 possible scenarios (assuming they couldn't do everything), this is the more appealing one.

What do you mean if AMD had the majority of the market? Do you mean that it would be different if AMD and Intel were in opposite places the past several years? If so, I'd be bashing AMD while trying to support underdog Intel.

So you're not really against a company or a business strategy. You admit that it's the way things are, but you simply like bashing big corporation. Correct?

Intel has locked down overclocking, passed along marginal improvements (and some... not so improvements, like the crappy thermal paste)

Sorry, but this is the issue with geeks. A normal user (who Intel makes this CPU for) will be glad that it works, that it's faster than the last one, that notebooks are getting smaller and smaller.
But you can't appreciate any of that, because you can only think about the paste (which is pretty awesome, BTW).

with higher prices each generation, while making real innovation (namely higher core count) available only at the top end of the price spectrum.

How is "higher core count" an innovation at all? It's the lazy way. Why are people praising this instead of working on IPC and keeping the CPU size down?
Look where this has taken us. Look how vast are the latest CPUs on both X299 and X399.

There hasn't been a car analogy for a while. So which is more innovative: more cylinders or smaller efficient engines?

 

[Vayra86]

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.

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.

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

If you had noticed you'd see that I pointed out NOT having a good OC'er myself atm, and where did I frown at your chip? Mine is Ivy Bridge, a 77W TDP package, notable for getting hot, and mine likes to drink too. So, 4.4 @ 2 C is all I could eek out of it, 4.2 on 4 core turbo - and that is on a simple air cooler no less. Now can you see where I'm coming from? The fact still is, and you handily omitted that from the quote, its still a K-CPU. 6 cores @ 4.0 past the Sandy Bridge days has been very doable for quite some time now.

And let's not forget, 8700k is what, 95W? Improvements over the last 5 years and going from 22 > 14nm? Hello?

 

[Hood]

There hasn't been a car analogy for a while. So which is more innovative: more cylinders or smaller efficient engines?

Depends on whether you're driving a dragster, or a grocery-getter...

 

[yotano211]

Depends on whether you're driving a dragster, or a grocery-getter...

Good thing I drink a Prius

 

[hat]

Of course!
But should they? Is there really a need for more performance in gaming, office and multimedia PCs? Is LGA1151 not enough for the tasks it's used for?

Intel could have improved this platform a lot more. But they decided to move resources elsewhere.
Just look how notebooks have changed in last 5 years. Intel also dominated server/supercomputer segment, where IBM is their main competitor, not AMD.
And they got into AI / autonomous cars business as well.

So we got quite a lot of useful things instead of more fps in games.
I'm not saying I'm glad that my CPU isn't faster. But out of 2 possible scenarios (assuming they couldn't do everything), this is the more appealing one.


So you're not really against a company or a business strategy. You admit that it's the way things are, but you simply like bashing big corporation. Correct?

Sorry, but this is the issue with geeks. A normal user (who Intel makes this CPU for) will be glad that it works, that it's faster than the last one, that notebooks are getting smaller and smaller.
But you can't appreciate any of that, because you can only think about the paste (which is pretty awesome, BTW).

How is "higher core count" an innovation at all? It's the lazy way. Why are people praising this instead of working on IPC and keeping the CPU size down?
Look where this has taken us. Look how vast are the latest CPUs on both X299 and X399.

There hasn't been a car analogy for a while. So which is more innovative: more cylinders or smaller efficient engines?

They may have been doing other things, but there's still a clear lack of innovation as far as desktop CPUs go. Say what you want about the paste, there's no argument to be made when it comes to paste vs solder, solder wins, it's just fact. I am a PC hobbyist, this is what I enjoy doing with my free time, and my free dollars where applicable. I'm not the type to be happy it just works, since I take a heightened interest in these things. If I could have easily gotten a better product if it wasn't for cheap and or lazy manufacturing, I'm going to want the better product. I'd pay Intel $5 more for a soldered CPU (not that it would cost them that much to do it).

Of course higher core count is an innovation. My quad core turbos to a measly 3.2GHz... how easy do you think it would be to make a 12.8GHz single core processor? Not very easy, I'm guessing. That said, I'm all for faster cores, because single threaded performance is still a very important factor... but it's much more practical and efficient to produce processors with multiple cores than processors with fewer cores, which would have to run much faster than a multi core processor to keep up in threaded applications, or simple multitasking. There's a balance to be struck here. I do things that can take advantage of loads of threads... but I don't always need multi threaded performance, I also need single thread performance. That's why a 6 core CPU is a nice balance. In the year 2017, it's possible to make a 6 core CPU with enough multithreaded grunt to be fast at transcoding video, for example, but still be strong enough per core to handle applications that rely heavily on single thread performance.

When it comes to their business practices, I don't mind them incrementally improving their processors, honestly. I was okay with small generational performance gains. They were getting a little faster while being a little more efficient. What I didn't like was locking down the overclocking options. They deliberately made it difficult or impossible to overclock unless you bought the K series processor. That's just a total cash grab right there, by a company that already earns billions per year. I believe that's also the reason they use crappy paste now instead of solder. Cheaper to manufacture, save a buck on each processor.

Meanwhile, AMD, a company with far less resources in every way than the giant Intel, has no problem manufacturing soldered chips with unlocked multipliers. Now like I said before, I believe if the shoe was on the other foot similar things would have happened. AMD would be coasting along, pushing out marginal improvements year after year while underdog Intel tries to keep up. That's just how people are. AMD is giving people what they want because they've been listening to what people don't like about Intel, and there's money to be made offering X, Y and Z that Intel currently doesn't.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

If you had noticed you'd see that I pointed out NOT having a good OC'er myself atm, and where did I frown at your chip? Mine is Ivy Bridge, a 77W TDP package, notable for getting hot, and mine likes to drink too. So, 4.4 @ 2 C is all I could eek out of it, 4.2 on 4 core turbo - and that is on a simple air cooler no less. Now can you see where I'm coming from? The fact still is, and you handily omitted that from the quote, its still a K-CPU. 6 cores @ 4.0 past the Sandy Bridge days has been very doable for quite some time now.

And let's not forget, 8700k is what, 95W? Improvements over the last 5 years and going from 22 > 14nm? Hello?

I was already aware of your current CPU by looking at your spec chart, well before you posted this. It's just that you keep insisting everyone only look at potential OC limit, which as has already been correctly pointed out, in reality is a lottery.

 

[Komshija]

Isn't this exactly respecting customers? Constant improvement?

It's rather making fools out of customers and laughing behind their backs. Improvement would be 25+% more performance from generation to generation. If AMD didn't release Ryzen, there would be 4C/8T i7 8XXX K, than 4C/8T i7 9XXX K (LGA 11XX sockets) and so on.

 

[Vayra86]

I was already aware of your current CPU by looking at your spec chart, well before you posted this. It's just that you keep insisting everyone only look at potential OC limit, which as has already been correctly pointed out, in reality is a lottery.

No, in reality even the worst chips can clock this high. That is the point. You can harp on about how unlucky lottery can get, but there are also some certainties, you having a bad (and super old) chip with 3.06 base clock right now is an N= 1 metric that has no value whatsoever. I am telling you to adjust your frame of reference regarding clocks. Also I never said OC 'limit', the whole time this has been about a relaxed 24/7 air OC on a K series, while you keep acting like 4.0 is some magical number to hit on a 6 core proc and thank god Intel for giving us this wizardry.

If you want to keep living in pre-Sandy lala land be my guest, but you'd do well to look around a bit and see how K series have been clocking across the board. Not the good exceptions, take the worst, and be amazed. And when you take this in to account, along with the clear fact that since Kaby Lake, Intel has been eating into the OC headroom by bumping clocks and with it package TDP budgets, you can not possibly conclude this 8700k stock being 'beast'.

Get with the times, its not 2009 anymore.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

No, in reality even the worst chips can clock this high. That is the point. You can harp on about how unlucky lottery can get...

Really getting sick of your epeen attitude. You buy the way you want to, I have no problem with that. Just don't try to tell me how to.

 

[qubit]

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

I was right about the performance increase, but it looks like it's mostly coming from high clock speeds as this new article out today, based on final specs, explains.

http://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lake-core-i7-8700k-core-i5-8600k-6-core-cpu-leak

Looks like the prices are pretty good too, so I might well want to upgrade to the 8700K which is gonna be $349.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

I was right about the performance increase, but it looks like it's mostly coming from high clock speeds as this new article out today, based on final specs, explains.

http://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lake-core-i7-8700k-core-i5-8600k-6-core-cpu-leak

Looks like the prices are pretty good too, so I might well want to upgrade to the 8700K which is gonna be $349.

AWESOME! This only further confirms this (8700k) is the chip I'm going to get. And to those insisting Intel is being lazy with stock speeds, please, can you not see how they're comparing to AMD in that regard, especially on boost clocks. It's damn near the same speed as a 7700k, and on SIX cores! Plus it's a sign Intel is willing to be more backwards compatible with not only 1151, but Z100 and Z200 support as well. I'll probably wait and see how the Z370 price and performance is though. At this point I'm even wondering if it will be compatible with Z390 as well.

 

[Solaris17]

7640K/7740K and how they overclock since its the bottom of the barrel X299...

my 7640x hits 4.5 ghz no problem on an msi arctic. which is only like $270

 

[Bones]

If you had noticed you'd see that I pointed out NOT having a good OC'er myself atm, and where did I frown at your chip? Mine is Ivy Bridge, a 77W TDP package, notable for getting hot, and mine likes to drink too. So, 4.4 @ 2 C is all I could eek out of it, 4.2 on 4 core turbo - and that is on a simple air cooler no less. Now can you see where I'm coming from? The fact still is, and you handily omitted that from the quote, its still a K-CPU. 6 cores @ 4.0 past the Sandy Bridge days has been very doable for quite some time now.

And let's not forget, 8700k is what, 95W? Improvements over the last 5 years and going from 22 > 14nm? Hello?

Must have a bad one - My 3770K can hit 4.5 on air all day long with all 4 cores going. I always disable turbo so that's not a factor here, where it runs is what it's always running at, no up and down speeds with turbo.
Yes, there is a lottery of sorts in that the exact results you get can vary between chips and there's no way to really know before testing, hence the lotto part of it. Even my 2600K can hit 4.5 with ease under the same conditions but walls suddenly not much higher than that, normally around the 4.8 mark.

Nothing wrong with older chips either, run 'em all the time myself and as long as they do what I want it's all good.
You guys spend your $$ as you see fit, you earned it so you should get what you want - I certainly do regardless of what year it may be.

 

[Melvis]

It will be a beast of a CPU when it comes out at stock clock settings but then 6-12months later Zen 2 will be out and might have the same turbo or clock speed as this new 6 core from Intel then the "beast" of a CPU will just be another CPU. Bla Bla Bla. Buy what you can afford at the time you can afford it.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

It will be a beast of a CPU when it comes out at stock clock settings but then 6-12months later Zen 2 will be out and might have the same turbo or clock speed as this new 6 core from Intel then the "beast" of a CPU will just be another CPU. Bla Bla Bla. Buy what you can afford at the time you can afford it.

That only verifies AMD is behind 12 months, and even struggling to match at that, just like Vega.

 

[RejZoR]

If I were buying a new system now, I'd still go with Ryzen, most likely 1800X. But already having a 5820K at 4.5GHz kinda makes buying of either Intel or AMD kinda pointless at this moment unless I'd need even more threads, in which case 1800X would make even more sense.

 

[erocker]

I was right about the performance increase, but it looks like it's mostly coming from high clock speeds as this new article out today, based on final specs, explains.

http://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lake-core-i7-8700k-core-i5-8600k-6-core-cpu-leak

Looks like the prices are pretty good too, so I might well want to upgrade to the 8700K which is gonna be $349.

Just scroll down past that article and you will see some similar articles that are wrong. WCCF seems to just throw guesses out as articles. Maybe a 50/50 chance the clock speeds are correct.

 

[Vya Domus]

That only verifies AMD is behind 12 months, and even struggling to match at that, just like Vega.

Struggle ? You can buy 8c/16t with the same IPC as Intel and slightly lower clocks for 300$. You call that struggle ? Well I guess people deserve the crap Intel does. I would not touch anything Intel right now , it's 2017 and core count should be above all else , I am tired of seeing quad cores and hyperthreaded dual cores for the past decade. Which is why I am still holding on my FX6300 , I wouldn't gain much in terms of gaming since I only want 60hz but I would very much like extra cores for the things I do besides gaming. Even you probably agree with that because otherwise why pick these new 6 core CPUs and not a get a 7700K ?

 

[Hood]

Struggle ? You can buy 8c/16t with the same IPC as Intel and slightly lower clocks for 300$. You call that struggle ? Well I guess people deserve the crap Intel does. I would not touch anything Intel right now , it's 2017 and core count should be above all else , I am tired of seeing quad cores and hyperthreaded dual cores for the past decade. Which is why I am still holding on my FX6300 , I wouldn't gain much in terms of gaming since I only want 60hz but I would very much like extra cores for the things I do besides gaming. Even you probably agree with that because otherwise why pick these new 6 core CPUs and not a get a 7700K ?

Same IPC? Not true. Ryzen averages 5-10% behind Skylake/Kaby Lake in IPC. Slightly lower clocks? Ryzen 7 1700 = 3,7GHz, i7-7820 = 4.5GHz - about 20% lower clocks on Ryzen, hardly "slight". So it's actually much slower than anything Intel makes. That's why people don't mind paying twice as much for the same core count. Why do people who love AMD always find it necessary to make up phony specs to try to prove their point?

 

[Vya Domus]

Same IPC? Not true. Ryzen averages 5-10% behind Skylake/Kaby Lake in IPC. Slightly lower clocks? Ryzen 7 = 3,7GHz, 7820 = 4.5GHz - about 20% lower clocks on Ryzen, hardly "slight". So it's actually much slower than anything Intel makes. That's why people don't mind paying twice as much for the same core count. Why do people who love AMD always find it necessary to make up phony specs to try to prove their point?

There are no phony specs , it's a reality. IPC is a match do some research , as match as 2 different architectures can be (we know Intel does better in AVX instructions but that's about it ).

I call a big difference in clocks when it's bigger than 30% , by the way you missed the fact that Ryzen 7 has 4 extra cores than the 7820 , yeah a little detail you know. I know ya'll Intel lovers think even 1 extra Mhz is huge and don't care about core count at all but I do.

Define slower mate , slower in single thread ? Yeah , however nothing Intel has beats a 8c/16t CPU at 300$ , it just doesn't like it or not.

You want to pay 100$ more for half as much cores but higher clocks , cool go ahead. I don't care , no one is more entitled to justify their preferences .

 

[qubit]

Just scroll down past that article and you will see some similar articles that are wrong. WCCF seems to just throw guesses out as articles. Maybe a 50/50 chance the clock speeds are correct.

Well, not really. I initially found that TPU article reporting a speed increase and posted it here, but that one was quite vague. This new article is based on hard data as reported in the wccf article. The other articles might have been rumours they were reporting on, which of course can be inaccurate. You'd have to click each article and look at the article tag at the top to tell.

 

[notb]

It will be a beast of a CPU when it comes out at stock clock settings but then 6-12months later Zen 2 will be out and might have the same turbo or clock speed as this new 6 core from Intel then the "beast" of a CPU will just be another CPU. Bla Bla Bla. Buy what you can afford at the time you can afford it.

The key word here is "might". Intel's new offer is around the corner.
But it's not just about being 12 months behind in performance, like @Frag Maniac pointed out. Think about the technologies.
Zen is a pinnacle of AMD technology at the moment, a huge investment that took them years to develop. They might update it a bit next year and move to a smaller node afterwards, but it'll still be Zen with all it's pluses and minuses.
Intel's 2017 offer, seen as "an answer" to Zen, is just an update of old stuff, built from pieces they had. Their new architecture is coming and it could be a real revolution, not just matching the competition with lower price tags. And even if it's nothing special - just a huge boost in performance - it'll be 2013 all over again for AMD.

Struggle ? You can buy 8c/16t with the same IPC as Intel and slightly lower clocks for 300$. You call that struggle ? Well I guess people deserve the crap Intel does. I would not touch anything Intel right now , it's 2017 and core count should be above all else , I am tired of seeing quad cores and hyperthreaded dual cores for the past decade. Which is why I am still holding on my FX6300 , I wouldn't gain much in terms of gaming since I only want 60hz but I would very much like extra cores for the things I do besides gaming. Even you probably agree with that because otherwise why pick these new 6 core CPUs and not a get a 7700K ?

Have you already e-mailed AMD asking why are they releasing 4-core Zen "crap"?
And I really doubt you're still using your FX6300 because of anything performance-related. It's 2017 and best of Intel's 2C/4T (i3-7300) have matched your 6-core FX in multicore performance (consuming half as much power). And I'm not talking about some esoteric real-world tests, because that could result in a bloodbath. They're performing similarly in Cinebench R15.