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 .
Shintai said:
I cant believe how much more a Ryzen 4C chip is going for vs a Celeron/Pentium Atom with 4C.
Click to expand...
This is a pretty dumb comment. The difference between those low end CPU's and the Ryzen is huge. The difference between the new Intel and the Ryzen is a few hundred MHz.

Point is, I was hoping some competition would lower the cost of Intel's CPUs. I guess not. But you seem happy to keep paying much higher prices.
 
bigdogchris said:
This is a pretty dumb comment. The difference between those low end CPU's and the Ryzen is huge. The difference between the new Intel and the Ryzen is a few hundred MHz.

Point is, I was hoping some competition would lower the cost of Intel's CPUs. I guess not. But you seem happy to keep paying much higher prices.
Click to expand...

You are trying to compare apples and oranges while you complain I do the same. And IPC is anything but the same.
 
bigdogchris said:
This is a pretty dumb comment. The difference between those low end CPU's and the Ryzen is huge. The difference between the new Intel and the Ryzen is a few hundred MHz.

Point is, I was hoping some competition would lower the cost of Intel's CPUs. I guess not. But you seem happy to keep paying much higher prices.
Click to expand...

intels prices will drop with coffee lake, the current i5's will now be i3's with the corresponding price, you just iwll get better CPU's for the old price points at i5 and i7 models
 
Denpepe said:
intels prices will drop with coffee lake, the current i5's will now be i3's with the corresponding price, you just iwll get better CPU's for the old price points at i5 and i7 models
Click to expand...

Maybe easier to say it as SKUs change, not pricepoints since its already into fixed segments. The Pentiums with 2C/4T was previously low end i3 as well.
 
oleNBR said:
did it come out 2014-2015? yea its hardcore m!lking. thank you AMD for pushing intel, now i can get tiger/icelake w/e lake it is called 8 cores in a laptop.
Click to expand...

8-core was originally planned for 10nm. But there was issues with the 14nm node which obligated Intle to move engineers from the 10nm node to the 14nm node, delaying 10nm, which obligated to introduce 14nm+ and 14nm++ refreshes. Now Intel 10nm is ready and 8-core appears again in roadmaps. Is it so difficult to get that AMD is not at the center of the Universe?
 
juanrga said:
8-core was originally planned for 10nm. But there was issues with the 14nm node which obligated Intle to move engineers from the 10nm node to the 14nm node, delaying 10nm, which obligated to introduce 14nm+ and 14nm++ refreshes. Now Intel 10nm is ready and 8-core appears again in roadmaps. Is it so difficult to get that AMD is not at the center of the Universe?
Click to expand...

is the 8 core now 14nm? i thought its 10nm. donno anything anymore except 1 thing.

intel had all these routine and guideline they follow but it clearly shows if they really wanted to do something they could have easily done so and still come out ontop with a lot of money. just shows much they m!lked the industry. CFL maybe originally planned but bringing out 8cores mainstream is likely due to AMD, face it. we have had 4cores for almost a decade, they can easily milk 6 cores for a decade, they dont do it because theres AMD.

never the less, i still gonna buy intel because of higher IPC and thats majority of software i use are legacy software with no update/optimization.
 
Huh? Where did he say the 8 core was now 14nm?He said Intel had problems with 14nm which made Intel take 100% focus off 10nm, then they had bigger problems with 10nm than 14nm it seems, thus they introduced 14nm+ and 14nm++.
profile_large.png


Here's the reference for 8 core cannonlake.

Originally we were meant to have (desktop)

Skylake -> Cannonlake -> Icelake -> Tigerlake

Instead, due to 10nm problems we got

Skylake -> Kaby lake -> Coffee Lake -> Icelake -> Tigerlake
 
oleNBR said:
is the 8 core now 14nm? i thought its 10nm. donno anything anymore except 1 thing.

intel had all these routine and guideline they follow but it clearly shows if they really wanted to do something they could have easily done so and still come out ontop with a lot of money. just shows much they m!lked the industry. CFL maybe originally planned but bringing out 8cores mainstream is likely due to AMD, face it. we have had 4cores for almost a decade, they can easily milk 6 cores for a decade, they dont do it because theres AMD.

never the less, i still gonna buy intel because of higher IPC and thats majority of software i use are legacy software with no update/optimization.
Click to expand...

I just said you that Intel originally planned an 8-core 10nm chip for mainstream, and then I said you that now that 10nm is finally ready, Intel is going to release a 10nm 8-core chips for mainstream. Where you get that it is 14nm?

The 10nm 8-core was planned years before Zen was even tapped out.
 
I think its because it read that it will work on 300 series motherboards, so one would think it would work on the new z370. But the new z390 is probably the board its for. Or the reason the z370 cant run kaby/skylake is that it has to be compatible with icelake which the z270s will not be.
 
My problem with Coffee Lake is that you're literally $150 or so dollars away with just going with a a 7820X 8 Core. For that you get quad channel memory, extra cores, etc etc.
 
SixFootDuo said:
My problem with Coffee Lake is that you're literally $150 or so dollars away with just going with a a 7820X 8 Core. For that you get quad channel memory, extra cores, etc etc.
Click to expand...

The platform cost will be significantly higher, because:

TaintedSquirrel said:
350 to 600 is $250. Also, x299 mobos and quad kits are more expensive.

Better off with a $250 R7 1700 sorry. Full Ryzen 8C setup is like half the cost of skylake-x 8C.
Click to expand...

And 8-core vs. 6-core at (let's assume) the same speeds are going to perform about the same in games, while the extra memory channels and PCIe lanes of aren't going to do anything. If you have other uses for the extra cores, then it may make sense to build a system that is top-shelf for gaming and also quite fast for well-threaded compute workloads. Of course, as pointed out, unless you need top-shelf gaming performance, Ryzen is a much better deal for now.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
350 to 600 is $250. Also, x299 mobos and quad kits are more expensive.

Better off with a $250 R7 1700 sorry. Full Ryzen 8C setup is like half the cost of skylake-x 8C.
Click to expand...

But far from the same performance and platform.

CFL alone kills the entire Ryzen series in terms of price/performance and we can expect to see big price cuts for the same reason.
 
-Sweeper_ said:
They found it because Intel already released the specs and platform info about ICL-S to motherboard manufacturers.

PMdMTDC.png


2018 launch is looking like a real possibility now. Desktop first, just like Skylake.
Click to expand...
Says Icelake PCH. Z390 is Cannonlake.
 
Shintai said:
But far from the same performance and platform.

CFL alone kills the entire Ryzen series in terms of price/performance and we can expect to see big price cuts for the same reason.
Click to expand...

Hard to use the term kills it when we literally have nothing on CFL that is cast in stone.
 
Shintai said:
But far from the same performance and platform.

CFL alone kills the entire Ryzen series in terms of price/performance and we can expect to see big price cuts for the same reason.
Click to expand...

Any bet "price/performance" will no longer be a relevant metric for the ADF? ;)
 
Last edited:

I dislike transistor measurements. I prefer other metrics

Slide4.png


Slide5.png


SRAM HD densities are

Intel 14nm: 0.0499 µm²
TSMC 10nm: 0.042 µm²
Samsng 10nm:0.040 µm²

Check how TSMC and Samsung 10nm are essentially Intel 14nm. Glofo canceled the 10nm because was even worse.
 
Nightfire said:
Wouldn't 5nm have 4x the transistor density as 10nm since it is a square?
Click to expand...

Right, what makes more laughable than Glofo 7nm is only providing twice the density of Glofo 14nm. Shintai was kidding and suggesting that Intel would use the same kind of nonsensical PR that other foundries are using those days...
 
juanrga said:
I dislike transistor measurements. I prefer other metrics

Slide4.png


Slide5.png


SRAM HD densities are

Intel 14nm: 0.0499 µm²
TSMC 10nm: 0.042 µm²
Samsng 10nm:0.040 µm²

Check how TSMC and Samsung 10nm are essentially Intel 14nm. Glofo canceled the 10nm because was even worse.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And its the same story with the so called "7nm" nodes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top