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 .
If fifty to a hundred bucks in higher RAM costs is going to stop your entire Coffee Lake build, best that you don't look at GPU pricing...

The DDR4 prices are putting me off and the only GPU I care about is built into the chip itself.

K models fits fine in quiet ITX setups :)

Sure but for what extra? What extra do I actually get for my $70 AUD?
it's 65W vs 95W - those 30W are enticing if the speed diff is 5% and I save $
 
I'm not going to get into a debate here but there's plenty of proof and benchmarks that show faster Ram most certainly helps out. I went through the same nonsense with people back when I got 2133 DDR3 RAM and luckily sites like techspot and digitalfoundry actually started testing this and completely validated what I said back then and that holds true now for faster ram. Of course back then though the fastest Ram was hardly any more expensive than the slowest Ram unlike now.


Digital foundry have definitely made the case for faster ram the past 12 months. It's such a shame that for the 4'th year running and 3'rd computer, I might STILL end up with god-damned 16GB of memory because 32GB of nice stuff is insane expensive.

These bastards.... sigh
 
Digital foundry have definitely made the case for faster ram the past 12 months. It's such a shame that for the 4'th year running and 3'rd computer, I might STILL end up with god-damned 16GB of memory because 32GB of nice stuff is insane expensive.

These bastards.... sigh

I hear ya, I'd definitely could use some 32GB ram capacity due daily video encoding and the more cores the more ram needed, with 16GB I can do 12 threads with 1GB ram per core/thread or 6 (real cores probably more efficient) and 2GB ram allocation, 3GB is out of the question per core or 2GB in case of 6C/12T and AE do likes using as much RAM as possible, at least 2GB is heavily preferred over 1GB per core allocation...

But with the current pricing, I just think 32GB is too costly still that I don't see myself spending that much money on RAM at this point.
 
Last edited:
good to see some leaks but as expected, no ipc increase over 7700k. CB15 ST show similar results within error margin. all we can get out of this is more cache, more cores at same price. and hope that 14nm++ will allow average higher overclock.

Where are the CB15 ST results?
 
1151 cpus have 20 CPU lanes but 4 of those are dedicated to the DMI 3.0 Link to the PCH (chipset) those 4 lanes get multiplexed by the chipset to create the additional 24 lanes you see with Z270 and now Z370.

for consumer use nobody ever hits full bandwidth saturation in this setup still, it basically takes crazy NVME raid setups to do it (see HEDT/Server) one could argue quad gpu needs it but quad gpu is dead besides on older cards, even SLI 1080 Ti has no issues with running perfectly fine at 8x/8x direct to cpu thanks to the SLI bridge helping out with cross communication, if and when dx12 mGPU ever is really a thing it could however become a problem but the fact that tech is extremely reliant on game developers to implement and optimize and I honestly don't see it ever taking off but only time will tell.
depends what consumer is.....Do you have a 10GbE NIC, 950 PRO, 980TI, 2x1TB MX200, 3xBD drives, and maybe future optane or whatever the hell other cool shit comes out???

Well I do and 16x+4x lanes sucks fat fucking balls.......
 
depends what consumer is.....Do you have a 10GbE NIC, 950 PRO, 980TI, 2x1TB MX200, 3xBD drives, and maybe future optane or whatever the hell other cool shit comes out???

Well I do and 16x+4x lanes sucks fat fucking balls.......

sounds like x299 or x399 is for you then..

i get on just fine with a 960 evo, sata ssd and a 4tb drive in my rig.
 
sounds like x299 or x399 is for you then..

i get on just fine with a 960 evo, sata ssd and a 4tb drive in my rig.
except 99% of everything is single thread limited.....so HEDT is not for me for my main desktop...for my server it is....
.......see below (sorta out dated).......
 
typically on most motherboard designs the primary x16 slot gets the 16 CPU lanes, everything else is off the 4 lanes to the PCH. alternatively on most boards if there is two GPU's in the correct slots the lanes get split 8x to primary gpu 8x to secondary, rest stays the same.

  • 985 MB/s (×1)
  • 15.75 GB/s (×16)
that is the bandwidth of PCI-E 3.0 so on your typical platform you have 15.75 GB/s available for GPU(s) and 3,940 MB/s split up for storage/network/audio/whatever expansion card you might have in the system (these days usually none)

depends what consumer is.....Do you have a 10GbE NIC, 950 PRO, 980TI, 2x1TB MX200, 3xBD drives, and maybe future optane or whatever the hell other cool shit comes out???

Well I do and 16x+4x lanes sucks fat fucking balls.......

I would be nice to have more bandwidth dedicated to storage devices in a mix-and-match scenario, for example, if only 1 card is detected, then give those lanes to n other devices etc. But I suppose that would drive up costs and complexity quite a bit. Looking at the Z170 vs Z270 vs Z370 (could not find a detailed slide for Z370 just yet) slide decks I see:

- Same PCIE 3 configuration options (16, 2x8, 8+2x4)
- Dual channel DRAM but higher BW.
- Same SATA options from the chipset.
- Same NIC options
- Same USB options (Gen 1 USB 3, USB 2)

Does Z370 have anything more to offer or are we paying more for the same thing? Plus, locking out Gen 7 owners, if true, is very bad.
 
The godlike has a 6-pin power connector on it...

I still have my fingers crossed for a non-wifi ASUS X Hero.
 
Hmm, I can't decide what mobo I want to go with. I think I want to give MSI a try this time since I've never used one of their boards before.
 
I would be nice to have more bandwidth dedicated to storage devices in a mix-and-match scenario, for example, if only 1 card is detected, then give those lanes to n other devices etc. But I suppose that would drive up costs and complexity quite a bit. Looking at the Z170 vs Z270 vs Z370 (could not find a detailed slide for Z370 just yet) slide decks I see:

- Same PCIE 3 configuration options (16, 2x8, 8+2x4)
- Dual channel DRAM but higher BW.
- Same SATA options from the chipset.
- Same NIC options
- Same USB options (Gen 1 USB 3, USB 2)

Does Z370 have anything more to offer or are we paying more for the same thing? Plus, locking out Gen 7 owners, if true, is very bad.
huh? thats how the PCH works...he has like 20/24 ;lanes but only has 4 real lanes. It switches 20 or 24 lanes to fill a 4x bottle.....

so:
1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19/20(21/22/23/24?)
switch (on off)
and share
4x total lanes

someone else can post the diagram since i am too lazy.

that is how switches/PCH works
 
btw i wanna ask, you guys who have had 7700k, the iGPU works right? for when dGPU fails etc
 
yeah fair enough but both of those things will only net minor increases in certain tasks thats it.

Very true, an estimation on the low single digit percent was made in the former pages, it was ~4% if I remember correctly.

http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-8700k-review/

both 7700k and 8700k clocked at 4.5ghz, in CB15 8700k is behind in 1 point, wthin margin of error.

I see, thank. Note that the CoffeeLake chip was tested with RAM below stock clocks, which invalidates one of the arguments given to why it would have slightly higher IPC.

It is also possible that was tested with non-final BIOS, because it get 1--2% lower scores in several ST benches, when it would be at least on pair when using same memory on all chips.
 
so basically its a 7700k with 2 more cores.....Well so much for those people that said it would have higher IPC. Looks like the only reason he had bigger scores was because of the higher boost clock.

I still will get one. But hopefully people will now realize the Bullshit spewed by the 2 main Intel guys who post nonsense.
 
so basically its a 7700k with 2 more cores.....Well so much for those people that said it would have higher IPC. Looks like the only reason he had bigger scores was because of the higher boost clock.

I still will get one. But hopefully people will now realize the Bullshit spewed by the 2 main Intel guys who post nonsense.
no one claimed IPC increase but better process is used so higher clocks on 4 core should be possible and keeping same clocks on 6 ccore as kaby 4 core should be do able.
 
so basically its a 7700k with 2 more cores.....Well so much for those people that said it would have higher IPC. Looks like the only reason he had bigger scores was because of the higher boost clock.

I still will get one. But hopefully people will now realize the Bullshit spewed by the 2 main Intel guys who post nonsense.

Who claimed IPC increases? Everyone got told over and over again its the same cores. Any changes comes from more cache, higher clocks and faster stock memory.
 
no one claimed IPC increase but better process is used so higher clocks on 4 core should be possible and keeping same clocks on 6 ccore as kaby 4 core should be do able.
O yea some people did. I remember. Either way just shows intel hasnt increased IPC since the 6700k was released. Now doesnt mean the 8700k sucks on the contrary, i think its going to be the best mainstream CPU since the 2600k was released.
 
MyDrivers managed a 5.0 GHz OC

Sd23d0bce-bfab-4b72-b8d4-26053dd5fc94.png


http://news.mydrivers.com/1/549/549978_all.htm
 
The fact that its within a few % of an 1800X in the most pro-Zen benchmarks ever (CB R15 and 3DMark Physics) with only 6C hints that it might actually lead MT application performance with varied software @ stock (probably a given after OC). And that's only part of the story, because we all know Intel's performance per core advantage will be very visible in CPU limited gaming, even a non-K 6700 is frequently ahead of Ryzen in 2017 titles @ GameGPU.

10017885_5_thumb.jpg


10017885_4_thumb.jpg


10017885_9_thumb.jpg


10017885_11_thumb.jpg


10017885_7_thumb.jpg


10017885_14_thumb.jpg
 
Last edited:
8700K is the gaming and mainstream king and much cheaper :D

No compromise chip.

Would like to know if they really do 4.7Ghz with MCE on.
 
The fact that its within a few % of an 1800X in the most pro-Zen benchmarks ever (CB R15 and 3DMark Physics) with only 6C hints that it might actually lead MT application performance with varied software @ stock (probably a given after OC). And that's only part of the story, because we all know Intel's performance per core advantage will be very visible in CPU limited gaming, even a non-K 6700 is frequently ahead of Ryzen in 2017 titles @ GameGPU.

A stock 1800X vs a possible suicide overclock of a 8700K on a questionable site and you want to call that a win..ok. As for the gaming advantage that is mostly in twitch games on 144hz monitors at the pro level, so that .02% of the gaming market that Intel is better in. More to life then just games but I understand why you cling to them, just like you guys dont want to see the Serve the Home review of EPYC anymore since they recommended them. You also have the pro of not having to delid you cpu on the Zen side of things to overclock it or pay someone else to do it. There is a much smaller difference in performance from Intel to AMD then you guys like to represent, heck even pro Intel guys see right through those posts.
 
Back
Top