Intel's 8th Generation Core Family - Coffee Lake (LGA 1151, 6C/12T)

Where do you expect Core i7-8700K's Turbo to land?

  • 3.8/3.9 GHz

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 4.0/4.1 GHz

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • 4.2/4.3 GHz

    Votes: 6 46.2%

  • 4.4/4.5 GHz

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • 4.6/4.7 GHz

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
kalston said:
Could hyperthreading be hurting with 6 cores? or is it the cache speed? Or the low base clock? Almost all the reviews show instances of the 8700k falling behind the 7700k in several games (usually not by much but still). Tbh it's all over the place right now, I cancelled my pre-order and will wait it out. And I hate Intel for not giving detailed specs anymore. It's a complete lottery what voltage/frequency/temps you'll get at stock nowadays. Heck ASUS is even unstable at stock settings because of MCE...

Also I see Kyle wasn't able to get his RAM to run at 4000mhz with the motherboard I was purchasing. Not good.
Click to expand...

PhaseNoise said:
If an application forces all the cores active but doesn't use them well, I think the 8700k would drop in frequency to areas where it had no real advantage over the 7700k. If the cores aren't fully loaded, the developers are better off using fewer threads. It's a balancing act which is unbelievably annoying.
That should be pretty rare, as overwhelmingly most usages are either strictly single threaded or threaded pretty well (encoders, compressors, etc).

Games will be and always have been really difficult to get perfectly right on all CPUs, due to the pseudo-realtime nature of them. Getting all subtasks to finish at the same time for the frame is tough given core sharing (hyperthreading), timing changing as a function of core loading (turbo), and then of course differing architectures (AMD vs Intel). You miss things even a tiny bit and it is perceivable stutter, especially on fixed rate displays. Its wildly complicated and is why you only see a handful of titles that consistently run buttery smooth.
Click to expand...

tbh, i think its more to do because there are more cores, longer ring bus, waiting for more cores to respond for info means higher latency, so in general it should make sense if its a tiny bit slower. didn't they run bench test and its just below 1% which is well within margin of error, no need to care about that sort of stuff.
 
Newegg has "3000+" on order ariving in "3-5 weeks".

1k23ivzkdpqz.png
 
3-5 weeks is fine with me as the G.Skill ram I want is not coming out until next month anyway. Plus there will likely be few things to work out with BIOS updates over the next few weeks. I am always a little gun shy at first and I sure am I glad I was not one of those that bought the the P67 at launch and had to go through that nightmare.
 
Still rocking an i5-4690K @ 4.4GHz and a GTX 1070. Games run fine at max settings @ 1440p with some exceptions. Is CL a worthy upgrade?
 
dark_reign said:
Still rocking an i5-4690K @ 4.4GHz and a GTX 1070. Games run fine at max settings @ 1440p with some exceptions. Is CL a worthy upgrade?
Click to expand...
Well you are certainly more gpu limited than anything else so you are likely to see no fps difference whatsoever in most cases. Having a faster cpu can help with overall smoothness and min fps in some games though.
 
Read a couple of posts / reviews which seem to indicate with some Z370 bios I could force an i5-8400 to "lock" at the Turbo Freq (4ghz) but for ALL 6 cores, not just 1 - does anyone know about this trick, does it work on non K chips?

Does it work at all?
 
Bummer. Intel really fucked up on this launch. Big time. I had money in hand for an 8700K to dedicate to a 240hz gaming monitor and one of my 1080ti's and can't get the chip anywhere. So I am probably not going to get one now at all.
 
AbRASiON said:
Read a couple of posts / reviews which seem to indicate with some Z370 bios I could force an i5-8400 to "lock" at the Turbo Freq (4ghz) but for ALL 6 cores, not just 1 - does anyone know about this trick, does it work on non K chips?

Does it work at all?
Click to expand...

I remember that being possible in Sandy days but a non K haswell chip I have cannot be overclocked at all even turbo manipulation isn't possible
 
AbRASiON said:
Read a couple of posts / reviews which seem to indicate with some Z370 bios I could force an i5-8400 to "lock" at the Turbo Freq (4ghz) but for ALL 6 cores, not just 1 - does anyone know about this trick, does it work on non K chips?

Does it work at all?
Click to expand...
Some boards support bclk overclocking. Maybe just ASRock?
Something to look into.

What ur talking about is Multicore Enhancement
 
So the i5 8400 definately runs higher than 2.8 ghz as shown here with a small 1-2% boost in performance when running at 3.8 ghz:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_8400/18.html

PCgamer clarifies this a bit:
"Rest easy, as the CPU will actually run at 4.0GHz on one core, 3.9GHz with 2-4 cores loaded, and 3.8GHz with all six cores loaded to capacity"
http://www.pcgamer.com/intel-i5-8400-review-the-best-new-gaming-cpu-in-years/
They actually get a nice boost in performance compared to TPU.

This should have been painfully clear to TPU as the 8400 often was in spitting distance of the 8600k at stock clocks.
 
190USD which will be more like 280USD in my country is a huge premium to pay for a locked CPU on a designated high end chipset, granted that the swing of cheaper Z270 to most expensive ranges from 2500-10000 where I am this is almost a deal breaker for me.

On estimation this chip will roughly cost 3600 which is the price of the Ryzen 5 1600X but a B350 Mortar and other popular B350 boards like the Asus prime and Gaming 3 boards are 1200-1700 while the cheapest Z370 board will be close to 3K makes this a non starter. I don't think this can feasibly be called a budget build, ill await the results of the i3 which is basically the old i5's and Pentiums if purely just playing games at 1080P is required.
 
It should really be pointed out how little of a performance gain the 8600k has over the 8400, even when clocked at 4.8 GHZ:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_8600K/18.html

We see about a 20% boost in CPU tasks and MAYBE a 10% boost in 1080p gaming.

Let's look at what those gains will cost:
An 8400 with an H-370 (when it releases) and a $20 cooler will cost about $300
An 8600k with a Z-370 and a sufficient cooler ($80?) for overclocking will cost $450 AT LEAST.

That is a big difference for someone who already has the rest of the components.
Then there is the power draw difference.
Finally, the 8600k buyer will most likely convince himself that he needs "the good stuff" when it comes to RAM. The 8400 owner will be content with $150 worth of RAM saving another $50 for those starting from scratch.
Oh come on, you know it is true!

Yep, I realize this is a [H]ardcore enthusiast site, but the K series kinda lose their appeal (especially the 8350k) this gen when the other options look so much better.
 
Nightfire said:
It should really be pointed out how little of a performance gain the 8600k has over the 8400, even when clocked at 4.8 GHZ:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_8600K/18.html

We see about a 20% boost in CPU tasks and MAYBE a 10% boost in 1080p gaming.

Let's look at what those gains will cost:
An 8400 with an H-370 (when it releases) and a $20 cooler will cost about $300
An 8600k with a Z-370 and a sufficient cooler ($80?) for overclocking will cost $450 AT LEAST.

That is a big difference for someone who already has the rest of the components.
Then there is the power draw difference.
Finally, the 8600k buyer will most likely convince himself that he needs "the good stuff" when it comes to RAM. The 8400 owner will be content with $150 worth of RAM saving another $50 for those starting from scratch.
Oh come on, you know it is true!

Yep, I realize this is a [H]ardcore enthusiast site, but the K series kinda lose their appeal (especially the 8350k) this gen when the other options look so much better.
Click to expand...

The 8350K will be looked at and branded the best budget chip but anyone on a 4790K, 6700K or 7700K will be hard pressed to move to Coffee Lake to get old i5 spec. So yes the 8400 for people like you and I is good but far from cheap.

I prefer put in and go chips, my days of playing around overclocking are over so either I am watching movies, making music or playing games and I want a CPU out the box that does that well enough to sate my needs, the caveat is we are now in summer here and I get average room temps around 30+ degrees celcius, and the intel stock cooler is a load of balls, I know this as last summer I had a pump failure and had to move to a intel stock fan, as you can imagine a 4790K stock is far to much for an intel stock fan, temps in gaming reached a swelteringly high 80+ load, i had to disable turbo to stop thermal lock up.

I posted this video a while back. I have my doubts over any Intel stock fan right now 4ghz is over limit.
 
Nightfire said:
It should really be pointed out how little of a performance gain the 8600k has over the 8400, even when clocked at 4.8 GHZ:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_8600K/18.html

We see about a 20% boost in CPU tasks and MAYBE a 10% boost in 1080p gaming.

Let's look at what those gains will cost:
An 8400 with an H-370 (when it releases) and a $20 cooler will cost about $300
An 8600k with a Z-370 and a sufficient cooler ($80?) for overclocking will cost $450 AT LEAST.

That is a big difference for someone who already has the rest of the components.
Then there is the power draw difference.
Finally, the 8600k buyer will most likely convince himself that he needs "the good stuff" when it comes to RAM. The 8400 owner will be content with $150 worth of RAM saving another $50 for those starting from scratch.
Oh come on, you know it is true!

Yep, I realize this is a [H]ardcore enthusiast site, but the K series kinda lose their appeal (especially the 8350k) this gen when the other options look so much better.
Click to expand...
Even MOST enthusiasts will keep a cpu for many years but upgrade their gpu a few times. My 4770k looked like overkill 4.5 years ago and was with the gpus available then but I ignored the people that said it would be a waste and I am glad I did. 100 or even 150 bucks means nothing over a period of 4 to 5 years and it is nice to get the most you can out of every gpu upgrade. Now of course for some people getting the 8400 makes sense but certainly not for me.
 
Nightfire said:
Are we to believe that most i5 users have a 1080ti or better?
Click to expand...
Cut the obtuse act as you know what his point was. When you test a cpu then you need to have the fastest gpu out there as to eliminate any gpu bottlenecks and show what the cpu is capable of. Within a few years there will be mid range gpus that are as fast or faster than the 1080 ti is today.
 
We can also argue that even less people will be gaming at 1080p when those cards come out as well, so it will still be GPU bound at the higher resolutions anyhow.
 
tangoseal said:
Bummer. Intel really fucked up on this launch. Big time. I had money in hand for an 8700K to dedicate to a 240hz gaming monitor and one of my 1080ti's and can't get the chip anywhere. So I am probably not going to get one now at all.
Click to expand...

I doubt you were ever going to get it if having to wait an additional month will make you totally scrap your build plans.
 
EuphoricRage470 said:
I doubt you were ever going to get it if having to wait an additional month will make you totally scrap your build plans.
Click to expand...

Well its just im losing interest as time goes on. Its a satisfy the customer when they expect to be satisfied principle. If we were told it was a total paper launch the expectations would have aligned. But Intel really jacked this one up. Anyways if I still get one its better as the z390 is coming out soon too. Lets hope not on paper only.
 
tangoseal said:
Well its just im losing interest as time goes on. Its a satisfy the customer when they expect to be satisfied principle. If we were told it was a total paper launch the expectations would have aligned. But Intel really jacked this one up. Anyways if I still get one its better as the z390 is coming out soon too. Lets hope not on paper only.
Click to expand...

Z390 is 2H 2018.
 
EuphoricRage470 said:
Z390 is 2H 2018.
Click to expand...
Hah thats my point... According to Intel standards as of nowadays that is soon. Meaning nothing is new until then. Just rebranded z270 at a premium price and chips that are not upgrades over kaby lake in performance that dont exist anywhere onnEarth except on paper. So might as well say z390 is coming soon so ill just wait.
 
dark_reign said:
Still rocking an i5-4690K @ 4.4GHz and a GTX 1070. Games run fine at max settings @ 1440p with some exceptions. Is CL a worthy upgrade?
Click to expand...

Im on a [email protected] running the same video card. I ordered coffee lake. Really wanted it for a m.2 drive. I know the z97 supports it but wont get the full speed with nvme. Plus i do video conversions on occasion so the 2 extra cores will help. My monitor is 1440p so a 1070 is the sweet spot.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
I remember that being possible in Sandy days but a non K haswell chip I have cannot be overclocked at all even turbo manipulation isn't possible
Click to expand...

I have a 4670 (non-K) on an Asus Z87 TUF and it allows running the chip at the 3.8ghz turbo speed full time. Of course, I haven't updated the BIOS in literally years and I haven't run a benchmark lately to prove it's really running at that speed but I have no reason to not believe it.

Right now my dilemma is if I should upgrade to a 8600K, wait five months for a 8700K, or stick it to Intel and go 1600X (strictly for gaming). All of them OC'd as far as possible. I really regret not getting the K version before, and I wasn't even going to consider the i5 this time around but... isn't 6 cores enough? :rolleyes: I just refuse to have to replace this thing again in less than four more years, and the 4670 is already borderline for things like GTA:V.
 
wildfire99 said:
I have a 4670 (non-K) on an Asus Z87 TUF and it allows running the chip at the 3.8ghz turbo speed full time. Of course, I haven't updated the BIOS in literally years and I haven't run a benchmark lately to prove it's really running at that speed but I have no reason to not believe it.

Right now my dilemma is if I should upgrade to a 8600K, wait five months for a 8700K, or stick it to Intel and go 1600X (strictly for gaming). All of them OC'd as far as possible. I really regret not getting the K version before, and I wasn't even going to consider the i5 this time around but... isn't 6 cores enough? :rolleyes: I just refuse to have to replace this thing again in less than four more years, and the 4670 is already borderline for things like GTA:V.
Click to expand...
If your goal is to really keep the CPU for 4 years then going 8700k seems like the logical choice to me. Personally I may go 8600k as I want to jump to 8 cores Icelake and PCIe 4.0 as soon as it comes out in a year or so.
 
sanitarium16 said:
Im on a [email protected] running the same video card. I ordered coffee lake. Really wanted it for a m.2 drive. I know the z97 supports it but wont get the full speed with nvme. Plus i do video conversions on occasion so the 2 extra cores will help. My monitor is 1440p so a 1070 is the sweet spot.
Click to expand...

Sure you will...plug your m.2 drive into an PCIe adapter on a PCIe slot instead of the onboard slot. Works perfectly at PCIe 3 x4 speeds you'd expect.
 
Wonder if the 8400 will drop below $189 US at NewEgg?
It's $249 AUD before shipping to get it, wish I could see it a snap cheaper :/
 
How much of an upgrade is 8700k from 6800k? I am annoyed by my asus x99 board. Got it replaced brand new but my previous one killed my cpu. So I can sell a BNIB 6800k and replaced motherboard with all accessories for probably around 100 dollar loss as buying 8700k with a new board. The big issue i have with x99 is how slow it is to boot and that is one thing that makes me want to get out of x99 platform.
 
I am annoyed I can't get the chips at all right now? Really there was this much demand? I didnt even see that much marketing to be honest.

Yes my Threadripper is fine for gaming but I want to build a dedicated gaming rig that sits next to my threadripper that will run 24/7 as a server as well.
 
wildfire99 said:
I have a 4670 (non-K) on an Asus Z87 TUF and it allows running the chip at the 3.8ghz turbo speed full time. Of course, I haven't updated the BIOS in literally years and I haven't run a benchmark lately to prove it's really running at that speed but I have no reason to not believe it.

Right now my dilemma is if I should upgrade to a 8600K, wait five months for a 8700K, or stick it to Intel and go 1600X (strictly for gaming). All of them OC'd as far as possible. I really regret not getting the K version before, and I wasn't even going to consider the i5 this time around but... isn't 6 cores enough? :rolleyes: I just refuse to have to replace this thing again in less than four more years, and the 4670 is already borderline for things like GTA:V.
Click to expand...

If you can afford a 8700K it seems a logical choice on the other end of the spectrum if you wish to have money aside for non-pc related stuff then the extreme cost saver would be a 1600/8400 but that is ultimately down to your needs
 
Here we go! A bunch of this stuff just came in. This will become an 8th gen based computer this week. I am excited. i3 8350k for now, I plan to overclock the heck out of it. As soon as 8700k becomes widely available I'm switching it out for one of those. I need some time to get the thing configured for music making anyway. And gaming... Can't forget that part!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8133.JPG
    IMG_8133.JPG
    394.7 KB · Views: 38
MIDIBoss said:
Here we go! A bunch of this stuff just came in. This will become an 8th gen based computer this week. I am excited. i3 8350k for now, I plan to overclock the heck out of it. As soon as 8700k becomes widely available I'm switching it out for one of those. I need some time to get the thing configured for music making anyway. And gaming... Can't forget that part!
Click to expand...


I have the same PSU, case, and mainboard sitting next to me. You're going to have a great build!
 
lee0539 said:
How much of an upgrade is 8700k from 6800k? I am annoyed by my asus x99 board. Got it replaced brand new but my previous one killed my cpu. So I can sell a BNIB 6800k and replaced motherboard with all accessories for probably around 100 dollar loss as buying 8700k with a new board. The big issue i have with x99 is how slow it is to boot and that is one thing that makes me want to get out of x99 platform.
Click to expand...

Clockspeed is king so the 8700K trumps that, i have seen people take a 6800K to like 4.5ghz and at those clocks could be a good. X99 still has that "true extreme" feel to it while the 8700K is more "every man and his dog platform"
MIDIBoss said:
Here we go! A bunch of this stuff just came in. This will become an 8th gen based computer this week. I am excited. i3 8350k for now, I plan to overclock the heck out of it. As soon as 8700k becomes widely available I'm switching it out for one of those. I need some time to get the thing configured for music making anyway. And gaming... Can't forget that part!
Click to expand...


Nice rig, I ultimately decided not to pay the ridiculous premium out where I am on a Corsair SF series and went with a Superflower Gold series, fits a charm and saved about 1.1K for 150W extra.
 
Local pricing on Z370 boards came to distributors and Z370 boards are very expensive, at this rate it looks like a Ryzen ITX build is coming along, can buy a 1600 with board for less than the ROG strix, this doesn't bode well for the CPU prices, can see a i3 8350K costing more than the 1600 which is 3.6K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top