Intel Coffee Lake Core i5-8600K vs 7600K at 5GHz Review @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
54,434
Intel Coffee Lake Core i5-8600K vs 7600K at 5GHz Review

If you were waiting for huge IPC gains out of the new Coffee Lake CPU from Intel, you might be waiting for a very long time. We take the Intel Coffee Lake Core i5-8600K CPU and match it up GHz to GHz with the Intel Core i5-7600K Kaby Lake processor. And we throw in a Ryzen 7 at 4GHz just for fun.
 
ZLoth said:
My feeling after reading this article.... no really big compelling reason to upgrade from my Devil's Canyon i7-4790k configuration. Sure, there is a performance improvement, but it's yet another small improvement.
Click to expand...

You and me in the same boat, I am inclined to believe that one should never believe in FUD regardless of your colour of choice.
 
Did some rewrites on the conclusion page to be a bit more clear and sound less wishy washy. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: drklu
like this
Wow... Ryzen has some sweet ass Handbrake numbers.

Pretty much what I expected out of Coffee Lake's IPC. I'm banking on the two extra cores and the 15% increased clock speed (going from 4.5Ghz to ~5Ghz) making the upgrade worth it for me (coming from a 4770k and going to an 8700k).
 
Last edited:
The one thing I didn't like about all the intel chips from i5-3570k was the lottery aspect of how well it would overclock.
Well, okay, there are more than just that, like TIM and lack of improvement, but it is nice to finally have an improvement over the previous gen.

Now the hard part is... R7 or six core i5...
Ryzen matx mobos are just... ugh...
 
I'm building a rig for the GF for Destiny 2 so I was pretty excited to see how these stacked up. I was hoping for great performance so I could update my rig and give her my Ryzen 7 rig on the sly. From this though I might go base I3 with a cheapo board and just wait on Zen+/2 for my own rig later. Lets see how benchmarks shake out on the other lower end cpus.
 
It's time for me to upgrade my 3770k, I was holding on for Coffee Lake in the hopes there'd be an actual performance increase for normal users, but once again it's just: "MASSIVE 15% performance increase! ... for the tiny slice of the PC market that just encodes video all day and/or run 70 applications at once and want to shave 50c off their electricity bill while doing that..."

Ultimately I guess CPU performance simply isn't a bottleneck for general PC use (i.e, anything that doesn't rely heavily on on having more than 2-4 cores), and hasn't been for years, and likely never will be again, which isn't exactly a terrible problem to have, but it feels a bit scam-like that I need to buy a whole new system at this point to get stuff like nvme and M.2 support without getting any meaningful CPU gains
 
Last edited:
Junkboy said:
I'm building a rig for the GF for Destiny 2 so I was pretty excited to see how these stacked up. I was hoping for great performance so I could update my rig and give her my Ryzen 7 rig on the sly. From this though I might go base I3 with a cheapo board and just wait on Zen+/2 for my own rig later. Lets see how benchmarks shake out on the other lower end cpus.
Click to expand...

Going from a R7 to 8700K would have been more expenses on top of what already cost a fair amount to build.

Have you considered a R3 1300X or Pentium G4560 build for the girl? I built my step brother a gaming rig to play NewZ, DayZ, Unturned with me, used a Ryzen 3 1200 on the BIostar ITX board and tossed in a M.2 and GTX 1060 6GB and that thing games well.
 
rgMekanic said:
But I have a blue CPU.... in every PC I own... But fuck me Intel hasn't done anything impressive since Nehalem/Sandy
Click to expand...

There are those that refuse to see anything bad and will bash you for your reason irrespective of whether you use Intel or not, I am seriously considering building a ryzen setup but will rather wait for Pinnacle Ridge before deciding, right now my 4790K is still looking very good.
 
We weren't expecting any IPC increase, were we?

Sky/Kaby/Coffee should all look the same normalized for clockspeed, from what I've seen. Kaby was more of a clockspeed/overclocking thing on desktop, but a nice boost for sustained clocks on mobile, and Coffee just added cores and more power on the desktop, right?
 
IdiotInCharge said:
We weren't expecting any IPC increase, were we?

Sky/Kaby/Coffee should all look the same normalized for clockspeed, from what I've seen. Kaby was more of a clockspeed/overclocking thing on desktop, but a nice boost for sustained clocks on mobile, and Coffee just added cores and more power on the desktop, right?
Click to expand...

I think IPC gains are forgone conclusions, but 15% tout looks like bum fluff
 
IdiotInCharge said:
We weren't expecting any IPC increase, were we?

Sky/Kaby/Coffee should all look the same normalized for clockspeed, from what I've seen. Kaby was more of a clockspeed/overclocking thing on desktop, but a nice boost for sustained clocks on mobile, and Coffee just added cores and more power on the desktop, right?
Click to expand...
I guess since we are talking about Intel next-gen chips, we should assume no IPC increases ever again.
 
Not
OrangeKhrush said:
You are going to get bashed by the blue boys
Click to expand...

Not by this guy, have blue is every system, wanted to replace my Xeons with Threadripper but held onto team blue since they passthrough better than Ryzen/Threadripper... However I might be building an 1700x/1800x as an upgrade to my main PC.
 
Thanks Kyle. Im NOT impressed as you seem to also not be. I am waiting on a proper 8700k review. I want to see what the extra cache and hyper threading offer in the productivity environ before buying one as a second machine.

After this I am truly happy with my 1950x.

Since IPC is not gaining momentum, AMD has a little catching up, it would appear we have truly entered a long term core war. MOAR CORES please sir.
 
tangoseal said:
Thanks Kyle. Im NOT impressed as you seem to also not be. I am waiting on a proper 8700k review. I want to see what the extra cache and hyper threading offer in the productivity environ before buying one as a second machine.

After this I am truly happy with my 1950x.
Click to expand...

AVX512 man, AVX512
 
IdiotInCharge said:
But Coffee isn't 'next gen', is it?

I thought it along with Kaby were more of a 'filler' as Intel was having trouble with nodes, so we got four on 14nm instead of two, with Skylake being the only architecture change (the 'tock'), and following two being minor tweaks and core increases.
Click to expand...

Intels own slides call it next gen, irrespective of whether it is just another process on the same node it is still next gen.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
Going from a R7 to 8700K would have been more expenses on top of what already cost a fair amount to build.

Have you considered a R3 1300X or Pentium G4560 build for the girl? I built my step brother a gaming rig to play NewZ, DayZ, Unturned with me, used a Ryzen 3 1200 on the BIostar ITX board and tossed in a M.2 and GTX 1060 6GB and that thing games well.
Click to expand...

I was thinking i3 8100 so still a quad as long as some cheap 300 series boards pop up. Otherwise yeah looking at 1300x or 1400 just for the HT and have a old 780 that can still run things well enough. I would love a 1600 but since trying to keep costs down and she wouldn't really need it and hard to swing it on the budget. Hoping for a sale or something on things in the coming weeks.
 
Yeah, I'll ignore the 'marketing' slides. Those aren't for us.

I want to know what it is.
 
Wow, not sure if I'm happy or upset with Intel.

I was sure Intel was sandbagging because of lack of AMD competition.

Now it looks like they were not. I was expecting a 15% IPC increase to be real. Silly me.

I think I will still get an 8700k since it is still going to be the fastest single threaded CPU around.
 
Shintai said:
Its been known for quite a long time the first changes for the desktop comes with Icelake in terms of core IPC and CFL would use the exact same cores as SKL and KBL.

If you match SKL/KBL/CFL with the same core count, same clock and same memory you are pretty much going to get the exact same performance. But that's not the difference, unless you want it to be.

CFL gives you 50% more cores within the same TDP and higher stock clocks. And by the looks of it, higher OC clocks too.

Any "IPC" changes would have to come from the L3 size increase for CFL.
Click to expand...

And people claim that it's the AMD crowd that does the "just wait for X" argument
 
Shintai said:
Intel already got the fastest CPU, now you get 2 cores more without any sacrifice for the same price. I can see the let down there. :eek:
Click to expand...

480P results have the mystery Ryzen 7 delivering performance close or better than the Kaby and CFL with about 40% lower clocks, and granted they are now under 300USD it just seems like a let down. If you factor in that the 8600K will have no cooler the added costs make this more of a 320+ dollar experience.
 
Shintai said:
Its been known for quite a long time the first changes for the desktop comes with Icelake in terms of core IPC and CFL would use the exact same cores as SKL and KBL.

If you match SKL/KBL/CFL with the same core count, same clock and same memory you are pretty much going to get the exact same performance. But that's not the difference, unless you want it to be.

CFL gives you 50% more cores within the same TDP and higher stock clocks. And by the looks of it, higher OC clocks too.

Any "IPC" changes would have to come from the L3 size increase for CFL.
Click to expand...

Also don't forget -- 50%-100% more cores for the same $. The value proposition is important too!
 
OrangeKhrush said:
480P results have the mystery Ryzen 7 delivering performance close or better than the Kaby and CFL with about 40% lower clocks, and granted they are now under 300USD it just seems like a let down. If you factor in that the 8600K will have no cooler the added costs make this more of a 320+ dollar experience.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You're going to broad-brush those results?

That's a horrific counter-argument for Coffee-Lake being faster.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
Is it the same price? if $380 is real then that is 50USD more and Z370's needed for all overclocking are also not consumer conscious price points
Click to expand...

$380 is because of gouging by retailers. MSRP is $359, just $20 more than the 7700K MSRP.

That's a pretty good deal.

Also, anybody who can't afford to pay $125 for a Z370 motherboard (https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813145041&cm_re=z370-_-13-145-041-_-Product) probably isn't going to have an easy time affording a $360 CPU + a good graphics card + a good amount of DRAM, etc.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
Well it was 480P and there were clock speed advantages, Intel is faster but Ryzen already games well enough for a value proposition.
Click to expand...

I won't disagree with 'value', especially if you have other uses for the extra threading on Ryzen. But at the enthusiast points, Intel has retaken the lead. Maybe AMD will drop prices to maintain their 'value' position?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top