Intel Claims i7-8700K to Be 11% Faster Than 7700K

Stimpy88 said:
That would certainly fit in with the lazy kind of IPC gains that intel has provided with each very minor architecture revision they put out with each "new" generation.
Click to expand...

I don't quite get this attitude. We all know, from many manufacturers, that dropping node size is costly and difficult and with very little IPC change. If Intel decided to never release another chip until they could provide a very large increase you would all be bitching that they haven't released a new chip in ages. Because of this slowdown they have had to start adding new features surrounding power states, as an example.
 
auntjemima said:
I don't quite get this attitude. We all know, from many manufacturers, that dropping node size is costly and difficult and with very little IPC change. If Intel decided to never release another chip until they could provide a very large increase you would all be bitching that they haven't released a new chip in ages. Because of this slowdown they have had to start adding new features surrounding power states, as an example.
Click to expand...

It normally wouldn't be a big deal, but now Intel has some real competition. If they want to continue to compete, they will have to work a lot harder. Otherwise AMD will be beating them up and taking their lunch money.

(For the price of an i7-8700K + new motherboard, I could lay hands on an 8-core ThreadRipper + motherboard AND kick Intel's electronic butt on a dozen levels)
 
That's a pretty modest jump...especially compared to my 3770K.

I've been tooling around with the idea of doing an overhaul next Spring, but I may just do a next gen GPU then hold out for either Zen 2 (Ryzen/Threadripper successors) or Cannon/Ice Lake. The 3770K still packs a punch, which is blowing my mind this far after release.
 
Shintai said:
Zen 14nm Now
Zen 14nm+ 2018
Zen2 7nm 2019-2020
Zen3 7nm+ 2020-2021

Dont expect much besides the process to be the driver. Zen2 is still 4 cores per CCX as well.
Click to expand...

To be honest, clock speed is pretty much the only reason anyone still cares about Intels offerings at the moment. If an 8 core Ryzen or a 16 core Threadripper could get up to 4.6GHz without too much heat, most people wouldn’t give a crap about Intel anymore.
 
Stimpy88 said:
To be honest, clock speed is pretty much the only reason anyone still cares about Intels offerings at the moment. If an 8 core Ryzen or a 16 core Threadripper could get up to 4.6GHz without too much heat, most people wouldn’t give a crap about Intel anymore.
Click to expand...

And THAT is the big issue, right? Their speed is low and they put out too much heat. Pretty much like every AMD chip, whether its a graphics card or a cpu for nearly a decade
 
auntjemima said:
And THAT is the big issue, right? Their speed is low and they put out too much heat. Pretty much like every AMD chip, whether its a graphics card or a cpu for nearly a decade
Click to expand...

Yeah, for sure that’s been a huge problem for them, they almost get drunk on success, when they eventually have one, then they spend all their time acting like it’s all one big party until they start loosing market share, and then they realise that they don’t have anything on the drawing board to react with fast enough.

Now they have a good CPU architecture, instead of doing what they always do, throwing it all away, I hope they actually execute on time, and have clear goals to reach, and reach them quickly, and on time.

Zen+ should be an interesting test that’s coming up quite soon, as it should deliver higher clocks and slightly lower heat, let’s see if that’s what they actually deliver, because if this one slips into next year, Intel will beat them, and AMD will loose traction again. AMD of the past would certainly not get Zen+ out the door on time, if AMD has learned anything, we will soon find out.
 
Last edited:
as it should deliver higher clocks and lower heat
Click to expand...

That is a hard one. After 32nm shrinking the node has tended to reduce the clock a little. Well at lest until the process matures.
 
Last edited:
http://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_core_i7_8700k-763-vs-intel_core_i7_7700k-664

From this the result is:

Cinebench 11.5 ST
- Core i7-7700K: 2.36
- Core i7-8700K: 2.57 (+8.9%)

Cinebench 11.5 MT
- Core i7-7700K: 10.4
- Core i7-8700K 16.72 (+60.8%)

Cinebench R15 ST
- Core i7-7700K: 200
- Core i7-8700K: 218 (+9%)

Cinebench R15 MT
- Core i7-7700K: 995
- Core i7-8700K: 1523 (+53%)

Passmark CPU Mark
- Core i7-7700K: 13.098
- Core i7-8700K: 20.020 (+52.9%)

Geekbench 3 64-bit Single-Core
- Core i7-7700K: 5130
- Core i7-8700K: 5605 (+9.25%)

Geekbench 3 64-bit Multi-Core
- Core i7-7700K: 18.702
- Core i7-8700K: 28.581 (+52.8%)
 
Shintai said:
http://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_core_i7_8700k-763-vs-intel_core_i7_7700k-664

From this the result is:

Cinebench 11.5 ST
- Core i7-7700K: 2.36
- Core i7-8700K: 2.57 (+8.9%)

Cinebench 11.5 MT
- Core i7-7700K: 10.4
- Core i7-8700K 16.72 (+60.8%)

Cinebench R15 ST
- Core i7-7700K: 200
- Core i7-8700K: 218 (+9%)

Cinebench R15 MT
- Core i7-7700K: 995
- Core i7-8700K: 1523 (+53%)

Passmark CPU Mark
- Core i7-7700K: 13.098
- Core i7-8700K: 20.020 (+52.9%)

Geekbench 3 64-bit Single-Core
- Core i7-7700K: 5130
- Core i7-8700K: 5605 (+9.25%)

Geekbench 3 64-bit Multi-Core
- Core i7-7700K: 18.702
- Core i7-8700K: 28.581 (+52.8%)
Click to expand...

Great now lets do those comparisons with maximum overclock and see where they fall. This is a K chip after all.

*crickets*

The fact is you have 60.8, 53, 52.9, 52.8 with multi core. This averages to 54.8% in highly threaded task. Well you have 50% more cores So 0.81% IPC improvement isn't that impressive. That's assuming same clocks. Sorry to disappoint. (154.8%/6 - 100%/4= .81% improvement)

Intel has been hitting the thermal headroom top for years. Unless they somehow changed the physics of #D transistors not to exponentially consume power with voltage increases.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So
Shintai said:
http://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_core_i7_8700k-763-vs-intel_core_i7_7700k-664

From this the result is:

Cinebench 11.5 ST
- Core i7-7700K: 2.36
- Core i7-8700K: 2.57 (+8.9%)

Cinebench 11.5 MT
- Core i7-7700K: 10.4
- Core i7-8700K 16.72 (+60.8%)

Cinebench R15 ST
- Core i7-7700K: 200
- Core i7-8700K: 218 (+9%)

Cinebench R15 MT
- Core i7-7700K: 995
- Core i7-8700K: 1523 (+53%)

Passmark CPU Mark
- Core i7-7700K: 13.098
- Core i7-8700K: 20.020 (+52.9%)

Geekbench 3 64-bit Single-Core
- Core i7-7700K: 5130
- Core i7-8700K: 5605 (+9.25%)

Geekbench 3 64-bit Multi-Core
- Core i7-7700K: 18.702
- Core i7-8700K: 28.581 (+52.8%)
Click to expand...

Some strange old benchmarks being used there... I wonder why? (Intel friendly cough)

But we are looking at 9% single threaded performance increase, due mostly to higher clocks, and a 3% possible increase in MT scores? Not much to bother about, especially as we also know that it will be hotter and may not clock so well using all threads, versus a 4 core design. Also new motherboard and chipset needed, again for whatever reason. Price will be interesting, as Intel will probably have to lower it to be competitive.
 
Stimpy88 said:
So


Some strange old benchmarks being used there... I wonder why? (Intel friendly cough)

But we are looking at 9% single threaded performance increase, due to higher clocks, and a 3% possible increase in MT scores? Not much to bother about, especially as we also know that it will be hotter and may not clock so well using all threads, versus a 4 core design. Also new motherboard and chipset needed, again. Price will be interesting.
Click to expand...

3% in MT? You mean 50-60%? Will it be hotter? Its a bigger die and the same TDP. Price is 350-370.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Great now lets do those comparisons with maximum overclock and see where they fall. This is a K chip after all.

*crickets*

The fact is you have 60.8, 53, 52.9, 52.8 with multi core. This averages to 54.8% in highly threaded task. Well you have 50% more cores So 0.81% IPC improvement isn't that impressive. That's assuming same clocks. Sorry to disappoint. (154.8%/6 - 100%/4= .81% improvement)

Intel has been hitting the thermal headroom top for years. Unless they somehow changed the physics of trigrate not to exponentially consume power with voltage increases.
Click to expand...

Multithreading rarely scales perfectly. And its 100Mhz less on all cores as well with 6vs4. There is no IPC change. Any change is simply cache, memory, clocks.
 
Shintai said:
3% in MT? You mean 50-60%? Will it be hotter? Its a bigger die and the same TDP. Price is 350-370.
Click to expand...

Only due to having more cores. We are comparing IPC here, and laughing at intels “new” cores. These offer nothing, other than 2 more cores.
 
Shintai said:
3% in MT? You mean 50-60%? Will it be hotter? Its a bigger die and the same TDP. Price is 350-370.
Click to expand...

And that's the problem. Same TDP limits it's overclockability with all those cores. Intel has had the same issue for years and why everyone is stating "Stick with 4 core" for games.
 
Stimpy88 said:
Zen+ should be an interesting test that’s coming up quite soon, as it should deliver higher clocks and slightly lower heat
Click to expand...

I really, really hope that this is the case...the crazy high power draw and heat are the only things that would hold me back from getting a TR platform, if I were to be upgrading.



drescherjm said:
That is a hard one. Since 32nm shrinking the node tends to reduce the clock. Well at lest until the process matures.
Click to expand...

Sandy Bridge (32nm)
i7-2600K = 3.4/3.8 GHz (4c/8t)
i7-2700K = 3.5/3.9 GHz (4c/8t)

Ivy Bridge (22nm)
i7-3770K = 3.5/3.9 GHz (4c/8t)

Haswell (22nm)
i7-4770K = 3.5/3.9 GHz (4c/8t)
i7-4790K = 4.0/4.4 GHz (4c/8t)

Skylake (14nm)
i7-6700K = 4.0/4.2 GHz (4c/8t)

Kaby Lake (14nm)
i7-7700K = 4.2/4.5 GHz (4c/8t)

Coffee Lake (14nm)
i7-8700K = 3.7/4.7 (6c/12t)

The only decrease in base speed since 32nm is the upcoming Coffee Lake, but that can be extrapolated to it having 50% more cores.
 
Perhaps that (move from 14nm+ to 14nm++) explains this a little. I mean the improved silicon could be part of the reason.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
And that's the problem. Same TDP limits it's overclockability with all those cores. Intel has had the same issue for years and why everyone is stating "Stick with 4 core" for games.
Click to expand...

I dont follow you. At 95W you get 6 cores at 4.3Ghz.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
And that's the problem. Same TDP limits it's overclockability with all those cores. Intel has had the same issue for years and why everyone is stating "Stick with 4 core" for games.
Click to expand...

Be careful, he will be back with some more marketing speak.

I got banned for inferring that he worked for Intel a couple of months ago. But he constantly states how good Intel are, and how shit AMD are, and he has a mod here as backup. The mod never even warned me, he just banned me.
 
Shintai said:
I dont follow you. At 95W you get 6 cores at 4.3Ghz.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that this chip will overclock with all 6 cores as well or better than a 4 core chip, within the same power and thermal envelope?
 
To the people who go on and on about IPC: Performance = Clock frequency * IPC.

If you increase EITHER clock frequency or IPC, you get a performance increase.

You can also throw in more cores for additional performance gains in MT applications.
 
Stimpy88 said:
So are you saying that this chip will overclock with all 6 cores as well or better than a 4 core chip, within the same power and thermal envelope?
Click to expand...
Overclocking have to be seen. But if its behind 7700K I doubt it will be by much, thanks to 14nm++. You get a 4.7Ghz all core OC out of the box guarantee due to the turbo testing.
 
Stimpy88 said:
So are you saying that this chip will overclock with all 6 cores as well or better than a 4 core chip, within the same power and thermal envelope?
Click to expand...

I think what he means is that the momentary 6 cores utilized turbo boot frequency is 4.3 GHz, before any potential thermal throttling kicks in which would throttle it back down to around the base 3.7 GHz mark). Still impressive for stock clocks at this core count, imo.
We should see some crazy-assed cooling setups and, hopefully, some impressive OC's in the appropriate subforums here, here, and here when these hit the market. I'm not holding my breath for Celeron 300A, Sandy Bridge, Venice, or Denmark kind of OC's (as just a few examples of historical great OC potential), but we'll see. Shit, I don't even OC my 3770K anymore because the fucker runs so damn hot...thanks for the shitty IHS paste, Intel.
 
Last edited:
Intel has always been claiming something like 7-11% performance improvement in IPC performance per generation since Sandy Bridge's introduction. The reality of the situation is that we've seen increases that are more like 3%. That 11% boost usually coincides with the use of a new AVX type instruction set and encoding performance. Any claims Intel has ever made that come out to 20% or thereabouts have always been about performance per watt or coincides with much higher factory clocks compared to the last generation. Intel has never claimed a 20% IPC improvement since Sandy Bridge was released.
 
Dan_D said:
Intel has always been claiming something like 7-11% performance improvement in IPC performance per generation since Sandy Bridge's introduction. The reality of the situation is that we've seen increases that are more like 3%. That 11% boost usually coincides with the use of a new AVX type instruction set and encoding performance. Any claims Intel has ever made that come out to 20% or thereabouts have always been about performance per watt or coincides with much higher factory clocks compared to the last generation. Intel has never claimed a 20% IPC improvement since Sandy Bridge was released.
Click to expand...

Thanks for getting us back on track. I felt like I had the whole of Intels marketing and sales department on my back. ;)
 
DejaWiz said:
I really, really hope that this is the case...the crazy high power draw and heat are the only things that would hold me back from getting a TR platform, if I were to be upgrading.





Sandy Bridge (32nm)
i7-2600K = 3.4/3.8 GHz (4c/8t)
i7-2700K = 3.5/3.9 GHz (4c/8t)

Ivy Bridge (22nm)
i7-3770K = 3.5/3.9 GHz (4c/8t)

Haswell (22nm)
i7-4770K = 3.5/3.9 GHz (4c/8t)
i7-4790K = 4.0/4.4 GHz (4c/8t)

Skylake (14nm)
i7-6700K = 4.0/4.2 GHz (4c/8t)

Kaby Lake (14nm)
i7-7700K = 4.2/4.5 GHz (4c/8t)

Coffee Lake (14nm)
i7-8700K = 3.7/4.7 (6c/12t)

The only decrease in base speed since 32nm is the upcoming Coffee Lake, but that can be extrapolated to it having 50% more cores.
Click to expand...

Lets keep in mind that with the exception of Skylake and Kaby Lake, we've seen around a 100MHz-200MHz clock speed ceiling loss while overclocking K series parts compared to the previous generation. Kaby Lake-X is the only one that really gets us back to the 5.0GHz mark where Sandy Bridge was on the high side. I don't think I've ever seen a Sandy Bridge chip that couldn't do 4.8GHz and I saw plenty that did 5.0GHz or better. I'm now seeing that with Kaby Lake-X, but not even standard Kaby Lake could achieve that reliably for me. Now that Kaby Lake-X hits 5.0GHz, no one hardly gives a shit about it because it's still a fucking quad core and its on a platform it has no business using in its current form.
 
Stimpy88 said:
I got banned for inferring that he worked for Intel a couple of months ago. But he constantly states how good Intel are, and how shit AMD are, and he has a mod here as backup. The mod never even warned me, he just banned me.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?
 
Dan_D said:
Intel has always been claiming something like 7-11% performance improvement in IPC performance per generation since Sandy Bridge's introduction. The reality of the situation is that we've seen increases that are more like 3%. That 11% boost usually coincides with the use of a new AVX type instruction set and encoding performance. Any claims Intel has ever made that come out to 20% or thereabouts have always been about performance per watt or coincides with much higher factory clocks compared to the last generation. Intel has never claimed a 20% IPC improvement since Sandy Bridge was released.
Click to expand...

This.

I held out for IB, knowing that the IHS paste may have been a detractor to OC potential, but was willing to guinea pig the 22nm process to get PCIe 3.0 and native USB3. I recall reading early speculation of 15-20% IPC gains, then the "leaked" claims of around 10-11%, and then finally the real-world reviews showing an average of 3-5%, depending on the suite of benchmarks/games being used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top