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

IdiotInCharge said:
...and you'll want a better Ryzen board with Ryzen-specific memory too. Congratulations, argument two failed!
Click to expand...

Think about this, Intel made 340USD for years selling 4 cores, today they are selling 6 for lets just assume 340USD, that is operational loss, they are selling added resources for same money, terrible for business overheads. This is the effect of Ryzen upsetting the market balance by offering more for less.

And a B350 board is very capable of taking a Ryzen to max and they are significantly cheaper than the X370 boards so yeah its not that big a problem on value for AMD, intel mid level H boards are semi clockable normally have no VRM cooling and generally bad propositions for any K chip.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
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?
Click to expand...

AMD never had the lead, they had a product which people wanted, lots of cores for low amounts of money with no ristrictions to PCIe/NVME support, AMD rapped 5 months of market space for people wanting 300-500USD 8 core parts, something intel only offered at 1200USD until the Skylake X dropped price which again Intel giving more and making less money is indicative of how bad a position AMD put intel in.

Then there is the issue that intels R&D is running debts into the tens of billions of dollars.
 
EuphoricRage470 said:
$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.
Click to expand...

VAT per country stocked and reseller markup laws will always make the price higher, Newegg are resellers and taking their cuts.

340USD is expensive and that is without a cooler, given that CPU's are not the limiting factor they once were I would rather pay 600USD for a 1080ti and make 40% gains over my 980ti than pay 340USD for maybe 10% gains on my 4790K
 
OrangeKhrush said:
VAT per country stocked and reseller markup laws will always make the price higher, Newegg are resellers and taking their cuts.

340USD is expensive and that is without a cooler, given that CPU's are not the limiting factor they once were I would rather pay 600USD for a 1080ti and make 40% gains over my 980ti than pay 340USD for maybe 10% gains on my 4790K
Click to expand...

The 4790K is a great chip, so it's not surprising that the 8700K still isn't enough of an improvement for you.
 
EuphoricRage470 said:
Please elaborate on this.
Click to expand...

In 2016 an financial publication covered intels R&D costs broke 17billion for the year, in 2017 that number increased. To produce bulk stocks it costs money, to make new gnerations ie: Skylake, kabylake, Sklyake/KabylakeX, Coffelake on same process costs money that is 4 odd generation or uarch changes in under a year.
 
So essentially a brand new socket 6 months after kaby lake's launch and no real performance gain... is it just me or intel acting like this

in response to amd's launches as of late across its entire product stack.

Another issue i believe at play here is intel has idle fab problem unless they pull an 09 amd and spin them off to keep them running 100% 24/7 they are loosing money so they push out meaningless refresh products to keep the fab running at 100% eco system be damned.
 
Last edited:
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...

That's not true...as extensively covered, the sacrifice is you buy a new motherboard that is probably only good for this chip. Plus, "Intel already got the fastest CPU" is dependent upon exactly what you're doing with it.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for putting in the time and effort, [H]!

CFL feels like it was rushed...nothing more than a KBL with two more cores smashing in under the hood as a panicked response to Ryzen/Threadripper.

For those that want to stick with the Intel ecosystem, then it's a pleasant bonus to now get 6 cores in a mainstream $250-260 i5 and 12 threads in a mainstream $370-380 i7. It wasn't that long ago that one was forced to get the Extreme Edition on an entirely separate (and significantly more expensive) platform for the same core/thread count as the new CFL i7.
 
DejaWiz said:
Thanks for putting in the time and effort, [H]!

CFL feels like it was rushed...nothing more than a KBL with two more cores smashing in under the hood as a panicked response to Ryzen/Threadripper.

For those that want to stick with the Intel ecosystem, then it's a pleasant bonus to now get 6 cores in a mainstream $250-260 i5 and 12 threads in a mainstream $370-380 i7. It wasn't that long ago that one was forced to get the Extreme Edition on an entirely separate (and significantly more expensive) platform for the same core/thread count as the new CFL i7.
Click to expand...

dont forget the new board you will need.
 
Peter2k said:
Well in applications that can make good use of multithreading then I'd expect the CPU with about 270% more threads to win
Click to expand...

gaming and 480P gaming isn't one of those, Clockspeed affects results more than threads, the same reason why the 7800 falls behind here.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
gaming and 480P gaming isn't one of those, Clockspeed affects results more than threads, the same reason why the 7800 falls behind here.
Click to expand...

Civilization threads better

AotS obviously does as well

Heaven doesn't

Looking at the tests, hmm
Yup



Not sure anyone is 480p gaming
It' just to remove the GPU as bottleneck or we wouldn't see diference

Maybe you mean 1080p

If people where playing AotS with Ryzen at 1080p, then those frames would be high enough for high refresh rate gaming as well

Except I'm not sure people play AotS
Found it personally a boring RTS
 
Peter2k said:
Civilization threads better

AotS obviously does as well

Heaven doesn't

Looking at the tests, hmm
Yup



Not sure anyone is 480p gaming
It' just to remove the GPU as bottleneck or we wouldn't see diference

Maybe you mean 1080p
Click to expand...

I am just saying in general Intel have the clock speed advantage, but that said Ryzen does deliver a lot of performance on lower clocks and that is fine, some will tell you that AMD is bad but in reality AMD have produced worrying results for Intel and do so at much lower frequencies, if AMD find a way to squeeze clockspeed out of Pinnacle Ridge especially higher all cores, like 4ghz all cores and 4.3.4.4 lower cores counts then the resulted gains are high given that most stock ryzen parts all cores are basically base clock.
 
Peter2k said:
Well i think for many a 8700k would be quite the sweetspot for gaming
If you're overclocking at least
And deliddng, again

Threads and frequency with great IPC
Click to expand...

Yes for gaming and overclocking it will have its appeal, but to run 5.1ghz to get sort of close to Ryzen 7 performance stock is not efficient and its hot just for production loads, basically its kaby all over games well crap at everything else
 
OrangeKhrush said:
Yes for gaming and overclocking it will have its appeal, but to run 5.1ghz to get sort of close to Ryzen 7 performance stock is not efficient and its hot just for production loads, basically its kaby all over games well crap at everything else
Click to expand...

A 8700K at 5Ghz is unmatched by any Ryzen 7. It was nice to see 4/4 and 6/6 vs 8/16 being benched ;)

And how much does Zen pull again at 4Ghz?
 
Shintai said:
A 8700K at 5Ghz is unmatched by any Ryzen 7. It was nice to see 4/4 and 6/6 vs 8/16 being benched ;)

And how much does Zen pull again at 4Ghz?
Click to expand...

benched against it in single threaded domains, it is one that is known that AMD's ST performance is more around first gen Haswell and Broadwell E levels which is largely down to clockspeed.

in more parallel loads the 8600K with 40% higher clocks was producing much less output making it not very efficient in that domain as a 5ghz 6 core CPU will drain a lot of power and output a ton of heat.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
benched against it in single threaded domains, it is one that is known that AMD's ST performance is more around first gen Haswell and Broadwell E levels which is largely down to clockspeed.

in more parallel loads the 8600K with 40% higher clocks was producing much less output making it not very efficient in that domain as a 5ghz 6 core CPU will drain a lot of power and output a ton of heat.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that, but its not really getting that :D

You can try disable SMT on Ryzen and see where it puts you. There is a 8700K for a reason ;)

If slowpoke cores was all that mattered, we be using Atoms, ARM, Jaguar or Xeons Phis now in droves.

But we can thank Intel for big price cuts coming to AMD :)
 
OrangeKhrush said:
benched against it in single threaded domains, it is one that is known that AMD's ST performance is more around first gen Haswell and Broadwell E levels which is largely down to clockspeed.

in more parallel loads the 8600K with 40% higher clocks was producing much less output making it not very efficient in that domain as a 5ghz 6 core CPU will drain a lot of power and output a ton of heat.
Click to expand...


Uses only 1.2v in the test

Also OC'ing a Ryzen to 4ghz with ALL cores isn't cold running either

We're also talking bananas and apples in my mind

To me Ryzen is a great content creation platform that can also game well

The Intel desktop (not HEDT) is a gaming platform first
 
Shintai said:
You keep saying that, but its not really getting that :D

You can try disable SMT on Ryzen and see where it puts you. There is a 8700K for a reason ;)

If slowpoke cores was all that mattered, we be using Atoms, ARM, Jaguar or Xeons Phis now in droves.
Click to expand...

if you disable SMT on Ryzen then you should run the 8700K at 3.6ghz which is basically the all core turbo limits on Ryzen then you are comparing a 6/12 to a 8/8 chip lol
 
OrangeKhrush said:
if you disable SMT on Ryzen then you should run the 8700K at 3.6ghz which is basically the all core turbo limits on Ryzen then you are comparing a 6/12 to a 8/8 chip lol
Click to expand...

You do know the 2 Intel chips used didn't have SMT? if you want more threads I am sure you get one WITH SMT ;)

Even a 8700 non K at 65W would run around a 200W 4Ghz Ryzen 7.
 
Shintai said:
But we can thank Intel for big price cuts coming to AMD :)
Click to expand...

Depends I guess

Gonna be intereting to see where a Ryzen 5 ends up in price and performance vs the 8600k

Still

I think people would be better off with the i7 instead the i5

I5's always leave you that "I wish I'd taken the i7" feeling a few months later
 
Peter2k said:
Uses only 1.2v in the test

Also OC'ing a Ryzen to 4ghz with ALL cores isn't cold running either

We're also talking bananas and apples in my mind

To me Ryzen is a great content creation platform that can also game well

The Intel desktop (not HEDT) is a gaming platform first
Click to expand...

That is correct, ryzen is more adaptive to work loads, the 4ghz Ryzen can run on the wraith cooler safely so AMD's head tolerances are better than Intels, toms had their 1800x running 80* while the 7700K hit 100* before shutting down.

AMD produce high performance at low clocks limited by the nodes ability to do anything more than 4.2ghz tops on some boards.
 
I suspect the 6C/12T 8700K at 5GHz will take the performance crown back from a 4GHz Ryzen 7 CPU. That's the primary driver of the Coffee Lake launch.

But I will continue recommending a Ryzen 7 + B350 board over the 8600K + Z370 combo.

The real winners from the Coffee Lake launch are budget gamers who used to have to spend $200 on a real quad core but will be able to get one for $140ish soon. At that price point, $60 is the difference between a 1050 Ti and a 1060 3GB, or the latter and a 1060 6GB.
 
Shintai said:
You do know the 2 Intel chips used didn't have SMT? if you want more threads I am sure you get one WITH SMT ;)

Even a 8700 non K at 65W would run around a 200W 4Ghz Ryzen 7.
Click to expand...

The MT score on the stock 8700K was around 1260 the 7800K was 1296, that is still a long way off given that a 3.6ghz 1600 was around 1200~, that is not earth shattering, so yes if one is to do more parallel loads the sub 300 dollar 1700 is king
 
Gigantopithecus said:
I suspect the 6C/12T 8700K at 5GHz will take the performance crown back from a 4GHz Ryzen 7 CPU. That's the primary driver of the Coffee Lake launch.

But I will continue recommending a Ryzen 7 + B350 board over the 8600K + Z370 combo.

The real winners from the Coffee Lake launch are budget gamers who used to have to spend $200 on a real quad core but will be able to get one for $140ish soon. At that price point, $60 is the difference between a 1050 Ti and a 1060 3GB, or the latter and a 1060 6GB.
Click to expand...

Intel always had the performance crown if gaming and single core is to go by, so I don't think that appears to be the motivation here.
 
Given the trend toward more threading, I'd much rather an 8c/16t at 4ghz than a 6c/6t part at 5ghz for the same price...
 
Thanks for the review and comparisons Kyle.

Once again we see that those of us who've OC'd their 2nd/3rd/4th gen CPU's still have no realistic gains to be had for everyday use in upgrading. Ryzen continues to impress for performance/price points. I was just telling a co-worker yesterday about these similar concepts and that for the average joe the only reason to buy new is that MS keeps finding ways to strong arm people by dropping support quicker and quicker these days.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Seriously? You're going to broad-brush those results?

That's a horrific counter-argument for Coffee-Lake being faster.
Click to expand...

Nope, he is being straight up serious and accurate. Why don't you argue with the person who did the article and thread instead, eh? Even he says it is a disappointment.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
The MT score on the stock 8700K was around 1260 the 7800K was 1296, that is still a long way off given that a 3.6ghz 1600 was around 1200~, that is not earth shattering, so yes if one is to do more parallel loads the sub 300 dollar 1700 is king
Click to expand...

MT score for what? Also no, it wasn't for CB because turbo wasn't working on that sample. You see 8700Ks up to 1600 CB15 MT score with MCE on. Even a non K 8700 will get around 1400. But that's CB only.
 
EuphoricRage470 said:
Kyle, the Coffee Lake CPUs use the same core as Skylake and Kaby Lake, so an IPC increase was not to be expected. The main improvement with Coffee Lake is the addition of two more cores as well as an enhanced manufacturing technology that pushes clock speed higher.

Single core performance is the product of frequency and IPC. IPC hasn't gone up, but since Skylake, Intel has been pushing frequency capability up, so single-threaded performance goes up.
Click to expand...

No the point is that Intel assured a 15 perc inc in perf and this is a total lie. Anandtech just launched thierbreview andbthe 8700k is about as unimpressive as ever other than single core performance there is ZERO reason to get an 8th gen over Ryzen or current Kaby lake 7700k
 
Was excited to see how these new intel CPUs perform. Was highly considering upgrading around this time of the year and possibly this release. I'm still going to wait for [H]'s 8700K (OC) review but honestly it seems pretty "meh" and for what I do (mostly gaming) with my PC it's even less impressive.
 
After reading that, I feel completely fine with a 7700K. I like where Intel is going with this, but it's not an upgrade from the previous generation. If I were back several (2600K as before), it'd be great. Anything newer than that, I wouldn't do it.
 
At least Coffee Lake gives you two more cores. I'm fine with my 8 core Ryzen build, but if I were building today, I'd have to really carefully weigh Ryzen 7 vs. 8700k. It'd be a tough call.

But yeah, disappointing on the IPC front.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top