Which Coffee Lake CPU are you buying?

  • Core i7-8700K - 6C/12 @ 4.3/4.4/4.6/4.7 GHz (95W)

    Votes: 109 78.4%
  • Core i7-8700 - 6C/12T @ 4.3/4.3/4.5/4.6 GHz (65W)

    Votes: 10 7.2%
  • Core i5-8600K - 6C/6T @ 4.1/4.2/4.2/4.3 GHz (95W)

    Votes: 12 8.6%
  • Core i5-8400 - 6C/6T @ 3.8/3./3.9/4.0 GHz (65W)

    Votes: 4 2.9%
  • Core i3-8350K - 4C/4C @ 4.0 GHz (91W)

    Votes: 2 1.4%
  • Core i3-8100 - 4C/4T @ 3.6 GHz (65W)

    Votes: 2 1.4%

  • Total voters
    139

-Sweeper_

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2016
Messages
184
I'm creating this thread for all of you interested in building a Coffee Lake rig (or upgrading an existing one) later this year. Right now we're still missing a clearer picture about motherboard compatibility/options and, of course, retail pricing... but we already have the specs and a August 21 date to look forward to. I'll keep the news and reviews in the existing thread, while this one will focus on component selection.

8th-gen-2x1.jpg


Let's start with a poll, which of the 6 leaked CFL-S CPU models are you interested in?
 

Raendor

Gawd
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
845
Buying? Not sure at all. Eyeing? Yes. I'm curious to see how my 6700k will stack against 6-core i5 and i7 in gaming only. If there's none or minimal difference - I have no need in new cpu. I mean after all I never see it being utilized more than 70% in cpu-intensive titles.
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
696
You forgot to add one to the poll: The 8700T. This is likely going to be a 6 core CPU pulling less than 65 watts. Maybe as little as 35 or 45. Even at 4 Cores it will probably push 4GHZ on turbo mode at 35 watts. Right now I'm planning to build into a Custom Mod 3.24L case with the 8700T and GeForce 1070 or 2070 depending on timing.

Depending on benchmarks, I may do an early retirement of my 6700K for the 8700K. If it can maintain my 6700K's (OC of 4.6GHZ) game performance, or thereabout, while giving me a good boost in streaming and media creation, I'm all for it. Since I build ITX exclusively now, Threadripper and Skylake/Kabylake X are out of the question. There are either no ITX boards (Threadripper) or boards that require too many sacrifices (Skylake X).
 

Gulvan

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 7, 2016
Messages
131
Yea I also am looking at itx boards and it takes them so long to get them out. And since this is a new platform too, ugg. If only it worked on z270 boards
 

AlexisRO

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Messages
235
Interested in the 8700K, but depending on how it will perform and prices, i might go on the x299 platform.
 

EvilViking

I Drank All Your Beer
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
1,341
Eyeing the 8700k. Waiting to see gaming results vs my overclocked 3770k. If it's a huge jump I'll upgrade. If not I'm going to delid my 3770k and beat on it.
 

jardows

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
2,200
Out of this list it would be the i3-8100. Here's my deal. I need to build a new office computer. It'll be light tasks, so don't need to spend much money, but a true quad-core is very appealing. I need MB, RAM, CPU, etc., so not compatible with Z/B2xx isn't a problem. I've been limping along mainly due to budget constraints, but also waiting to see what Ryzen APU will be like. Currently, R3 is very attractive compared to i3 7xxx, but with needing to add a GPU, then the price becomes non-economical for my needs. If i3-8100 continues the overall (slight though it may be) cpu performance, with the generally improved graphics performance, along with being a true quad-core cpu, it may just hit the spot.

For my main, home computer, I don't do anything now that would be worth spending the money to upgrade from my Xeon E3 1230 v2.
 

mdswish

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
88
I'm in a holding pattern at the moment. I haven't ran an AMD chip since around 2001. Had a 900MHz (Thunderbird?) CPU and I could NOT keep that thing cool at all. Tried 3 different CPU coolers, 2 different motherboards and removed and re-seated the cooler countless times to make sure I was getting a good mount, but the CPU would overheat and throttle under even the slightest loads. Since then I've been a loyal Intel customer. I wouldn't call myself a "fanboy". I've kept a close eye on AMD's offerings throughout the years to see if they ever released anything that offered the kind of gaming performance I was after while still providing a stable platform. But, given my prior AMD experience I just haven't seen anything yet that's really made me feel comfortable enough to jump ship and give AMD another shot. Threadripper may change all that. I want to see some reviews on Threadripper, specifically the 1900X (8c16t) model, and then compare those numbers to the 8700K. The price should be similar between the two, so depending on who wins that performance battle in gaming tasks, that's likely where my money will go. The extra PCI-E lanes TR offers are very appealing as well, especially given Intel's odd choice to do some weird stuff with the PCI-E lanes on Coffee Lake (16 GPU>CPU + 8 chipset DMI 3.0 only). Once I take all those things into account and see how the numbers look then I'll make a call for Team Red or Team Blue. Just have to play the waiting game......
 

bpizzle1

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 27, 2007
Messages
4,206
I'm interested in the 8700k, but I will be waiting for OC reviews to determine if it's worth the jump from my 5820k. If it can hit somewhere in the 4.7-4.8 range at decent temps, I think it might be enough to make me upgrade when combined with the IPC gains over my Haswell-E. I know in the grand scheme of things it probably won't make a huge difference over my current setup, but this is probably the last time I'll have some freedom to upgrade for a while.
 
D

Deleted whining member 223597

Guest
Out of this list it would be the i3-8100. Here's my deal. I need to build a new office computer. It'll be light tasks, so don't need to spend much money, but a true quad-core is very appealing. I need MB, RAM, CPU, etc., so not compatible with Z/B2xx isn't a problem. I've been limping along mainly due to budget constraints, but also waiting to see what Ryzen APU will be like. Currently, R3 is very attractive compared to i3 7xxx, but with needing to add a GPU, then the price becomes non-economical for my needs. If i3-8100 continues the overall (slight though it may be) cpu performance, with the generally improved graphics performance, along with being a true quad-core cpu, it may just hit the spot.

For my main, home computer, I don't do anything now that would be worth spending the money to upgrade from my Xeon E3 1230 v2.

Just buy a used sandy bridge desktop with either an i5-2400 or i7-2600, they are like $175-$250. Add an SSD, maybe some RAM and if you really want to something like a 1050/1050Ti and you’ve got a perfect office machine.

I’m looking forward to the 8700K, but we’ll see. I might just wait for whatever is next if it doesn’t show much improvement over my 3770K.
 

Cali3350

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2002
Messages
4,701
8700K for me. I want the best I can get.

Though im worried about the GPU side. I may be delaying my purchase until Volta (I wont buy a $500 GPU, and the $250 GPU will be refreshed too soon).
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
696
I'm interested in the 8700k, but I will be waiting for OC reviews to determine if it's worth the jump from my 5820k. If it can hit somewhere in the 4.7-4.8 range at decent temps, I think it might be enough to make me upgrade when combined with the IPC gains over my Haswell-E. I know in the grand scheme of things it probably won't make a huge difference over my current setup, but this is probably the last time I'll have some freedom to upgrade for a while.


Power wise it might be more efficient. Could quiet down your system by not having to run the fans as hard. I wouldn't expect much of a performance jump on multi-threaded apps though.
 

chenw

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
3,977
Only the 8700k out of that list interest me in anyway, and only if it has the same single core perf as 7700k, at least, if not better.

out of the rest, there are Ryzens to consider too.
 

kalston

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
1,365
Only the 8700k out of that list interest me in anyway, and only if it has the same single core perf as 7700k, at least, if not better.
.

How is that even in doubt? I mean it's already faster due to clocks alone, other improvements might push it a little bit higher even.
 

chenw

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
3,977
call me skeptical, but I am in doubt (until actual benchmarks at least) that Intel isn't giving us something without taking something back.

EG Skylake-X, they gave us more cores per $ spent, but they also moved up their 44 lane CPU compared to Broadwell-E (lowest 40 lane CPU costed $600 from Broadwell, but Skylake it now costs $999 for 44 lanes), so I am not entirely convinced that Intel will give us more cores without taking something back.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,948
call me skeptical, but I am in doubt (until actual benchmarks at least) that Intel isn't giving us something without taking something back.

EG Skylake-X, they gave us more cores per $ spent, but they also moved up their 44 lane CPU compared to Broadwell-E, so I am not entirely convinced that Intel will give us more cores without taking something back.

InB4 some 970esque 1.5 channel memory kek
 

kalston

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
1,365
call me skeptical, but I am in doubt (until actual benchmarks at least) that Intel isn't giving us something without taking something back.

EG Skylake-X, they gave us more cores per $ spent, but they also moved up their 44 lane CPU compared to Broadwell-E (lowest 40 lane CPU costed $600 from Broadwell, but Skylake it now costs $999 for 44 lanes), so I am not entirely convinced that Intel will give us more cores without taking something back.

Okay I hear you, it does seem a little too good to be true given Intel's history but I have a pretty good feeling about this one (because Ryzen is a better choice than Intel for some builds right now).
 

jardows

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
2,200
Just buy a used sandy bridge desktop with either an i5-2400 or i7-2600, they are like $175-$250. Add an SSD, maybe some RAM and if you really want to something like a 1050/1050Ti and you’ve got a perfect office machine.

Sigh. Really? Maybe I want new, with full warranty, and the assurance that I'm not buying someone else's abused, formerly coffee stained computer. Maybe I want native USB 3.0, or even USB 3.1, and an M.2 slot for my SSD. Maybe I'd rather not spend money on 7 year old technology. This thread is about which Coffee Lake processor we are interested in, and I stated which one and why. Based on your reasoning, no one should ever be the slightest interested in any new CPU's less than an i7, and just save money by buying used.
 
D

Deleted whining member 223597

Guest
Sigh. Really? Maybe I want new, with full warranty, and the assurance that I'm not buying someone else's abused, formerly coffee stained computer. Maybe I want native USB 3.0, or even USB 3.1, and an M.2 slot for my SSD. Maybe I'd rather not spend money on 7 year old technology. This thread is about which Coffee Lake processor we are interested in, and I stated which one and why. Based on your reasoning, no one should ever be the slightest interested in any new CPU's less than an i7, and just save money by buying used.

It was a suggestion, not an order. You can spend your money how you want.
 

Nexus6

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
326
Even though I'm long overdue for an upgrade, I'll still wait for reviews and final pricing before I make up my mind.

I don't think I've ever had a CPU or platform last as long as this sandybridge has.

If the 8700k is the same price range as the 7700k, and it overclocks well, then I'll probably go for it.
 

drescherjm

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
14,937
If the Ryzen7 linux bug is fixed (appears like this is a possibility on the AMD forums) I am likely to get a Ryzen7 1700. If the bug is not fixed I would be looking for the 6C / 12T xeon E3 version for my linux based PVR / fileserver. This time I want ECC.
 

King of Heroes

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
2,006
I'm going to break from the majority and say that those quad-core Core i3 chips are alot more interesting to me then the six core ones, especially if they are ECC enabled. I very much want to know how they stack against Ryzen 3 and 5.
 

SpeedyVV

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
4,210
I won't make the mistake of buying a non-HT CPU again.

Why is that?

I'm looking for a gaming only system, so if the i5-8600K OCs well, I will go for that.

I already have a workstation/server setup, so in that case would you still want HT?
 

kalston

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
1,365
Why is that?

I'm looking for a gaming only system, so if the i5-8600K OCs well, I will go for that.

I already have a workstation/server setup, so in that case would you still want HT?

Well HT used to be completely useless in games and to sometimes even hurt. Nowadays it either does nothing at all, or it gives a boost (not always a lot but I think ~25-30% has been seen on some games? I know for a fact it's a solid 10% boost in Arma 3 when you enable it in the game's launcher because I play that daily and have benchmarked it).
More and more games are getting a boost from it and the trend will surely continue.

For things other than games I find that HT often helps noticeably.

I do think a high clock 6 core CPU is excellent value for the money as far as gaming goes though, I'm pretty sure 2 extra physical cores is always better than 4 virtual ones.
 
Last edited:

SpeedyVV

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
4,210
lllllll
Well HT used to be completely useless in games and to sometimes even hurt. Nowadays it either does nothing at all, or it gives a boost (not always a lot but I think ~25-30% has been seen on some games? I know for a fact it's a solid 10% boost in Arma 3 when you enable it in the game's launcher because I play that daily and have benchmarked it).
More and more games are getting a boost from it and the trend will surely continue.

For things other than games I find that HT often helps.

I do think a high clock 6 core CPU is excellent value for the money as far as gaming goes though, I'm pretty sure 2 extra physical cores is always better than 4 virtual ones.

Thanks for your reply. Ah, Arma 3. I keep hearing about how that game is a rig killer and will eat all it's resources ;-)

I think that 6 high IPC cores will be enough for most of the games that I play, but will definately check out the [H] reviews when it is out.
 
D

Deleted whining member 223597

Guest
My 3770K sees usage in the 60%+ range in most newer titles, so HT does help. I won’t limit myself to less than 8 threads since I don’t upgrade my cpu very often. An i5 wouldn’t have been fun for the past 5 years.
 

kalston

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
1,365
My 3770K sees usage in the 60%+ range in most newer titles, so HT does help. I won’t limit myself to less than 8 threads since I don’t upgrade my cpu very often. An i5 wouldn’t have been fun for the past 5 years.

Yeah I haven't benchmarked many games with HT off (I just don't bother anymore) but I'm seeing 80-90% usage on my 4790k in titles like Witcher 3, GTA V, BF4, BF1... and many others. Poor i5 would choke there.
 

bjornb17

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
1,978
My 3770K sees usage in the 60%+ range in most newer titles, so HT does help. I won’t limit myself to less than 8 threads since I don’t upgrade my cpu very often. An i5 wouldn’t have been fun for the past 5 years.

I had an i5-3570K @4.7 that absolutely choked on Battlefield 1 and was a bit stuttery on Witcher 3. I swapped it out with an i7-3770K @ 4.7 and those games got much smoother. Although now with Titan XP SLI and high resolution scaling I'm 100% across all threads in many games. Hence whey I now have a 5 GHz 6-core 7800X :)
 

Shintai

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
5,678
Unless you are desperate to save 100$ the i7 is always a better pick. Higher clocks, more cache, HT option etc. And in these times your CPUs will last you a real long time.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2016
Messages
2,286
Unless you are desperate to save 100$ the i7 is always a better pick. Higher clocks, more cache, HT option etc. And in these times your CPUs will last you a real long time.
Yep. The only reason I'm even thinking of Coffee Lake is because I'm regretting my move from a 4790k to a 7600k. The 5GHz @1.345v on the 7600k is very impressive, but it slogs on occasion.

If Coffee Lake isn't an upgrade path on my Z270 board, I'll probably spring for a 7700k.
 

bjornb17

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
1,978
Yep. The only reason I'm even thinking of Coffee Lake is because I'm regretting my move from a 4790k to a 7600k. The 5GHz @1.345v on the 7600k is very impressive, but it slogs on occasion.

If Coffee Lake isn't an upgrade path on my Z270 board, I'll probably spring for a 7700k.
If you're going to buy 7700k buy a 5.2 or 5.3 GHz chip from silicon lottery.
 
Top