This line by wizard from the i5-8400 review is what sticks out to me about all these coffee lake chips.
For gaming, things are different. Here, the i5-8400 breezes past all AMD Ryzens thanks to its high per-thread performance and the boost clock of 4.0 GHz. I find it surprising that there is very little difference between the i5-8400, i5-8600K, and i7-8700K in gaming, even at the highly CPU-limited scenario of 720p. This suggests that today's games see limited gains from more than four cores. It is good news for gamers on a budget because a Core i5-8400 will be completely sufficient to not bottleneck even the fastest graphics cards.
That's pretty much a wrong conclusion then, because if the i5 8400 which only has 6 low clocked cores can match the 8700K which has 6 very high clocked cores, it essentially means, most games are indeed using 6 cores today. It also makes sense because consoles use over 6 cores too, and most games are ports anyway.
So many falsehoods from blind AMD fanboys it's just staggering.
1) No, Intel couldn't have released these 6 core parts several years ago. They absolutely needed a new refined 14nm process, because you can easily see that 8700(K) is a lot more power efficient than 7800X. Most users will never want 140W TDP in their desktop computers (6 core SkyLake-X CPUs).
And you're the Intel fanboy coming to attack those AMD fanboys / defend Intel, huh? Pretty obvious. 8700K is more efficient because it's still on ring bus and not on mesh - mesh is basically not efficient, hence the reason why X299 CPUs suck. There's also more lanes and quad channel - your comparison basically just sucks. There's no comparing MSDT with HEDT, you're making no sense here.
2) 6 core Coffee Lake parts were on Intel roadmaps way before AMD released Zen.
Still AMD forced Intel to pull it to 2017 instead of releasing it 2018. That's a fact, go and check old marketing stuff of Intel. So Ryzen helped indeed. I also bet 8700K would've cost more without Ryzen, maybe 500 bucks - no competition sucks.
3) For games Coffee Lake CPUs are unconditionally better than any Zen based CPUs because even in 2017 most games are bottlenecked by single core CPU performance where Intel is unrivaled due to higher performance per clock (IPC) and also higher attainable frequencies.
Better yes, but just by small, largely irrelevant amounts. We're talking about 8% in 1080p and basically 0% in 1440p and higher here. Obvious Intel fanboy comment btw. and simply debunked too. Ryzen is great for gaming, you can repeat that Intel superiority crap all day, it doesn't change the fact, that AMD is a great alternative and Intel isn't a "must" for gaming anymore. Ryzen changed everything. And for work Ryzen is even better.
There's only thing I don't like about Coffee Lake CPUs: Intel is mum about the 300 series chipset compatibility with Cannonlake and Ice Lake CPUs. I've never actually upgraded CPUs but it's important for many other users.
Only one thing? So you don't care Intel is milking its customers because of some shady difference between sockets to release a guaranteed new chipset every year? The difference between doing what AMD is doing and Intel, is, Intel is milking their buyers who switch from gen to gen (1 gen at a time), while AMD is not doing that. Both earn money on chipset sales, while Intel earns extra money on chipset sales on buyers who already own a CPU from them, eg 7700K or 6700K. It's simply capitalism at the extremes and anti-consumer.
Thanks to the cheap glue Intel is using, the temps are terrible once again and pretty much a hindrance for OC. Not a big one, but still.
As many have mentioned already, this chip has been known to the public for years, and planned for even longer. The release of this chip has nothing to do with Ryzen. It's also impossible for Intel to have developed this since February.
Pretty much wrong. 6 core Intel CPUs were planned for 2018 still and not 2017, go and check the facts, there's PR stuff from Intel, roadmaps, that say otherwise. Ryzen changed that, so it has a lot to do with Ryzen. The pricing of 8700K as well - I bet it would've been around 500 bucks without AMD having released very competitive Ryzen CPUs.
And my own opinion: nice CPU, but nothing special. It's basically 7700K + 2 cores, old trusty ring bus and cache hierarchy etc. IPC gain 0%, overclocks are a tad better vs 7700K and 6700K, thats it. Prices are also higher so you pay for it. Thanks to AMD the prices are still in check though, I bet without Ryzen Intel would've released it mid 2018 at 500$.
one of the biggest stores in Denmark
