Intel Core "Coffee Lake" Desktop Processors Launch Date Revealed

[SARVAMANGALAM]

LOL .. just skip all this from intel.
msi x370 gamming plus + i buy cheap ryzen1700 with amd W.cooler 363 usd. can work on some cheaper b350 mobo also for 88 usd.. and i push that cheap 1700 on 3500 mhz. work great on 100% load 27/7/365 with max 90C.. depend on room temperature. gamers and easy users can go higher maybe 3700.. without NO more money to cpu cooler to keep budget cheap and strong on pc power
and i have 16 threads cheap but strong pc .
really intel will need years to make new arch. to get over amd.. we see this just now when we have wait for "flag ship" 18 core to...?

 

[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.

Spoiler: Price trends for intel kaby K processors in Finland

 

[efikkan]

Well, 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.

 

[FrustratedGarrett]

Ryzen 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.

 

[jabbadap]

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.

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?

 

[efikkan]

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?

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.

 

[dyonoctis]

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.

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.

 

[jabbadap]

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.

Yeah, I tried to find clock to clock ipc comparison between i5 and i7 and found nothing.

 

[BorisDG]

Imagine 8775C with 128MB cache... OMG. This will be true killer since 5775C is still unbeatable in gaming even vs 7700K.

 

[efikkan]

Yeah, 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.

 

[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.

 

[jabbadap]

Imagine 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.

 

[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: http://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.

 

[Gasaraki]

Whoa, 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.

 

[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.

https://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$/€

 

[dirtyferret]

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.

https://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.

 

[Prima.Vera]

8700k will be such a beast.

Naah. I'm looking forward the 9700K with hopes and dreams that it will be an 8 Core CPU...

 

[Frick]

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.

 

[haxzion]

i7-8700K 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...

 

[CandymanGR]

Well, 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.

 

[StrayKAT]

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...

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.