Intel Coffee Lake Slides Leaked

I may have just purchased a 7700k for $260 new on eBay... I hope that the Coffee Lake processors don't make me regret my choice. I bit on the old i7 once I found out that Intel made the Z270 boards are incompatible with the new CPU's. Are there any other major differences other than the PCIe lanes for the 370 chipset?
 
No worries, I literally just built a new 7700K system a few days ago. 5.0Ghz all cores on air got the best of me. :)
But I've got a lot of systems. The workload this system does is all about single core speed.

My main rig will probably get a 8700K refresh when it's released.
 
Bandalo said:
If Ryzen HAD 32 full PCIe lanes per die, why doesn't Ryzen 16/17/1800 series have a full 32 lanes available to the user?

It's not a question of die size, it's more lands, more pins, more MB traces, more control logic, more testing and validation that needs to be done. All for what? To meet a need that doesn't ACTUALLY exist. A very small number of customers NEED that many lanes. A slightly larger group just WANTS them, despite their need (i.e., they want the epeen of having more lanes but they will not use them). The VAST majority of customers don't even really understand PCIe lanes and just want to play games and use their computer. So why should they do something that will raise costs for EVERYONE, just to satisfy the smallest sub-set of their customers?

Intel isn't "bending you over"...they're basically selling a luxury product with HEDT. Same with TR, it's a WANT, not a NEED. So they charge what the market will bear, which has proven to be a LOT.
Click to expand...

OK, then why did they bother to put 24 PCIe lanes on the chipset if they aren't needed? Also, all X299 motherboards that support SkyLake-X already have the traces for all 40 lanes, and yet they have to go through EXTRA complexity in order to support 28-lane CPUs (which have the controllers on the die, but are disabled) in a reasonable manner.

Your logic doesn't hold up.
 
GreenOrbs said:
I may have just purchased a 7700k for $260 new on eBay... I hope that the Coffee Lake processors don't make me regret my choice. I bit on the old i7 once I found out that Intel made the Z270 boards are incompatible with the new CPU's. Are there any other major differences other than the PCIe lanes for the 370 chipset?
Click to expand...
The Z370 chipset is really no different than the Z270. Z270 offers up to 24 PCIe lanes as well. (Note that the only difference between the Z270 and the X299 is that the X299 allows enabling all 8 SATA ports, where the Z270 is just allowed 6. So, essentially, the X299 is just the same as well.) I could not see any difference in the leaked specs for the Z370, but they didn't mention the DMI link rate. It could potentially have an increased speed DMI link that differentiates it, but that is the only thing I saw. With Intel, I seriously doubt there is a difference, as they love to just screw us over for more money.
 
SiSiX said:
Then by all means buy the Ryzen chip. Had AMD actually had a competitive product for the last 6 years or so, this wouldn't be an issue now, would it? Of course one company has been profitable, owns fabs, and has been making strides in process (and processor) technology this entire time while another company has been...not.

Intel is a business, not a charity. Why would they sell a product with any more features or for any less than they needed to? I don't see Chevy selling Corvettes for $40k either or Ford selling Raptors for $30k. Why should Intel sell CPUs based on your pricing model when they can sell for what the market will bear? The bigger question you should be asking yourself is this: Why are Ryzen/Threadripper chips selling for so cheap? Answer: Because they appear to be great deals to people that only look at the initial cost of something and not the long term ROI. So far, the Ryzen chips have been 'competitive' with 3 year old technology by throwing more cores at the problem. As for the Threadripper and Epyc CPUs, time will tell how well they actually perform, but from a ROI standpoint, if I have a job measured in hundreds or thousands of dollars per hour, the cost difference between the AMD and Intel CPUs is meaningless. For a Fanboi, a $999 Threadripper is clearly a better deal than a $1999 i9, but for someone doing renders professionally, if the i9 were 10% faster, that $1000 difference is a rounding error. By the same token, if the AMD chip were faster, then the $1000 savings is STILL a rounding error.

Besides, Intel doesn't NEED to sell workstation class performance to a non-workstation crowd. AMD simply doesn't have the funds or the staff to segment their own products accordingly. (Seriously, how many people are 'actually' twitch streamers that are followed and MAKE A LIVING with their streaming? Probably about the same percentage that actually take their "trail rated" SUV onto a dirt road, let alone off road.)

Hey, it's great that AMD has a competitive product again finally, and it's put the spurs to Intel, but unless you're in the chip fab business, I'd suggest you stay out of the speculating just how hard or expensive it would be to add PCIe lanes on a CPU for those edge use cases that they're not selling that product for anyways.
Click to expand...

Your comparison on cars is not even close. For it to be equal, Chevy would have to be selling Silverado pickups with 6.2L V8 engines with 4 cylinders disabled, but still burning gas, and requiring one to buy leather seats, seat warmers, and the sun roof in order to get 2 more cylinders enabled. If you want the additional 2 cylinders, you have to buy the boat trailer (even if you don't have a boat), the mobile home trailer (even if you don't want it), and the full roof and grill light set to even have the option, and then you have to deal with the artificial limiter to 55MPH. Not even Chevy is that evil.

Intel is making the chips, and forcing the market into specific price brackets, instead of listening to what the market wants or needs. With more and more NVMe SSDs coming in, they're artificially restricting users to 1 usable SSD unless they're willing to pay $1500 extra for extra processor cores they don't need.

(Don't even get me started on FC switch vendors. They've been doing this garbage for decades. Worse than Intel, really, because they're selling switches with 48 ports, but only 16 enabled, and then selling software licenses for the other ports for $1000 per port, and then adding on another $1000 for the SFPs that cost less than $60 to manufacture. FC switch makers are EVIL.)

On top of all that, the increase in core count is NOT just for those streaming and gaming at the same time. If the cores aren't there, gaming developers have no reason to optimize their games to use more cores. With the cores there, suddenly game developers suddenly have more resources to draw upon to make games more realistic.

Was the gaming industry using more than one core when dual core CPUs came out? No. Yet they developed games to use them. Did games use quad threads before the quad core processors came out? No, but they certainly started using them when quad core processors started becoming more mainstream.

Now, we have consoles with 8 processor cores and mainstream chips with 8 processor cores. Games WILL follow. Intel has been holding back the advancement of the entire industry for YEARS with this BS. AMD has finally been able to make their way through Intel's underhanded tactics to come out with something that competes again. I'm happy for this development. I hope Intel doesn't act on it for a while and gets screwed out of enough market share to fall to AMD's current place. Then we might actually get somewhere.
 
Last edited:
dgingeri said:
OK, then why did they bother to put 24 PCIe lanes on the chipset if they aren't needed? Also, all X299 motherboards that support SkyLake-X already have the traces for all 40 lanes, and yet they have to go through EXTRA complexity in order to support 28-lane CPUs (which have the controllers on the die, but are disabled) in a reasonable manner.

Your logic doesn't hold up.
Click to expand...

FULL PCIe lanes aren't really NEEDED. They're WANTED by customers. 99% of their customers run one graphics card (16 lanes) and more recently an M.2 PCIe SSD (4 lanes). Then they have a few extras for USB 3.1 controllers and such depending on the MB. As the popularity of M.2 SSDs has increased, people want more lanes to support more M.2 drives, so Intel has responded.

Intel provides the max lanes they can while keeping their CPU prices within their existing ranges. I think the 28 lane limit on the "low end" HEDT is stupid too, but I know WHY they did it. It's the same reasons EVERY manufacturer has released low-end parts that are "gimped" versions of the high-end full-featured parts.
 
Bandalo said:
It's the same reasons EVERY manufacturer has released low-end parts that are "gimped" versions of the high-end full-featured parts.
Click to expand...

Money for nothin', and chicks for free...
 
Bandalo said:
FULL PCIe lanes aren't really NEEDED. They're WANTED by customers. 99% of their customers run one graphics card (16 lanes) and more recently an M.2 PCIe SSD (4 lanes). Then they have a few extras for USB 3.1 controllers and such depending on the MB. As the popularity of M.2 SSDs has increased, people want more lanes to support more M.2 drives, so Intel has responded.

Intel provides the max lanes they can while keeping their CPU prices within their existing ranges. I think the 28 lane limit on the "low end" HEDT is stupid too, but I know WHY they did it. It's the same reasons EVERY manufacturer has released low-end parts that are "gimped" versions of the high-end full-featured parts.
Click to expand...
The difference between want and need is a fine line, and rarely part of the market for things. That's really splitting hairs, and hairs that do not need to be split.

I do need more PCIe lanes to run a GPU, 10Gbe, RAID, and 2 PCIe SSDs. OK, so maybe I'm not running the RAID on my system currently, but I would like to, and I'm not right now specifically because I don't have enough lanes on my Core i7 4790k system. (The 10Gbe and second SSD are connected through the chipset.) It's not a matter of wanting the lanes directly, but that I need the lanes in order to do what I want.

The fact of the matter is that Intel has been slowing down PC innovation with their monopolistic behavior for decades. They screwed AMD out of hundreds of millions or perhaps even billions in sales with their anti-competitive tactics, from witholding the 440BX chipset from motherboard manufacturers that put out Athlon motherboards to penalizing OEMs that sold AMD based machines with higher effective prices for Intel parts if they sold over a certain percentage of AMD machines. Then Intel slowed down the development of CPUs and PCIe connectivity for the last decade because AMD was unable to compete.

The ONLY reason why the phone and tablet markets have taken off so much in recent years is that people are bored with PCs because they haven't advanced in so long. The only saving grace for the PC market has been the development in GPUs, and that only goes so far.

Intel's power hungry monopoly mentality has hurt us all.
 
dgingeri said:
The difference between want and need is a fine line, and rarely part of the market for things. That's really splitting hairs, and hairs that do not need to be split.

I do need more PCIe lanes to run a GPU, 10Gbe, RAID, and 2 PCIe SSDs. OK, so maybe I'm not running the RAID on my system currently, but I would like to, and I'm not right now specifically because I don't have enough lanes on my Core i7 4790k system. (The 10Gbe and second SSD are connected through the chipset.) It's not a matter of wanting the lanes directly, but that I need the lanes in order to do what I want.

The fact of the matter is that Intel has been slowing down PC innovation with their monopolistic behavior for decades. They screwed AMD out of hundreds of millions or perhaps even billions in sales with their anti-competitive tactics, from witholding the 440BX chipset from motherboard manufacturers that put out Athlon motherboards to penalizing OEMs that sold AMD based machines with higher effective prices for Intel parts if they sold over a certain percentage of AMD machines. Then Intel slowed down the development of CPUs and PCIe connectivity for the last decade because AMD was unable to compete.

The ONLY reason why the phone and tablet markets have taken off so much in recent years is that people are bored with PCs because they haven't advanced in so long. The only saving grace for the PC market has been the development in GPUs, and that only goes so far.

Intel's power hungry monopoly mentality has hurt us all.
Click to expand...

My point is that a person who wants to run their GPU, a 10Gb NIC and a RAID array of M.2 drives is a "power user", and should be looking at the HEDT line of CPUs, not the regular desktop line. What you want/need is something outside of the range of a average or even "high-end" user, and exactly why Intel made HEDT in the first place.

So Intel gained a monopoly and then acted like a monopoly? Big shocker. You think AMD wouldn't be the same if they were the top dog? I never understood why, in a capitalist, free-market society, people bash companies for behaving in ways that make the company money. They slowed down on R&D because they were making plenty of money with incremental advancements. Why spend more on R&D to push technology if you're making back with current tech? They sell CPUs to make money, not out of some altruistic goal to push technology to the bleeding edge.

You don't like it, buy AMD. Then when AMD is top dog and doing the same things, you can switch back to Intel.

Intel's power hungry monopoly hasn't hurt anyone. You not being able to buy a 40 lane CPU doesn't hurt you. People like phones because they're portable and powerful. MOST people only want the most basic computer services, e-mail, web-browsing and the like. Phones and tablets can do that for far cheaper than a desktop or laptop, and you can carry one in your pocket. I honestly can not believe you blame the rise in cell phone popularity on Intel's lack of significant advances in the desktop CPU market.
 
Bandalo said:
I never understood why, in a capitalist, free-market society, people bash companies for behaving in ways that make the company money. They slowed down on R&D because they were making plenty of money with incremental advancements. Why spend more on R&D to push technology if you're making back with current tech? They sell CPUs to make money, not out of some altruistic goal to push technology to the bleeding edge.
Click to expand...

I'm with you here. I know there are historical instances where some companies went too far, played way too dirty, etc. However, it's almost like people want our country (and others like it) to be socialist. I see this all the time at my current job. We have city council and other representatives imposing so many things on us because we're very profitable. We're also about as environmentally friendly as a company of our type can be, and they add more and more environmental based taxes, more and more corporate type taxes, and impose increasingly restrictive laws and ordinances. It's like they want the company to just pack up and leave, even though we make this whole area quite a bit of money. It's almost like they see the company as a monster because it's in business to make money, and actually does it, and according to all the BS that they impose on top of it all. What's the point of being in a free market or capitalist, if companies aren't in business to make money?

Also reminds me of MS and the whole "bundled IE" thing with the EU. It's a feature expected of a full-featured OS, but no, you can't include it because it might make Netscape cry!

This is why I always (and admittedly somewhat rashly) recommend that companies like this just pull out of hostile markets, and see how badly they're missed. :D

On the actual topic... Agree there too. I know we all WANT to see amazing new things that raise the bar to levels of insanity, but honestly, why would a company do that when they can make small incremental changes and keep cashing in? I don't see any motivation there, unless someone else makes an aggressive move first. (and it looks like we're about to see a nice little cycle of trading blows, until one is on top again for a while) Intel can always afford to put themselves back on top. It's not like they've stopped all R&D. So if AMD takes the next year with their parts, you can guarantee Intel will pull out a few more stops, and bump themselves back up, or even release a "knock them down a peg" part that will allow them to ride it out for another three years of minor updates.
 
Bandalo said:
My point is that a person who wants to run their GPU, a 10Gb NIC and a RAID array of M.2 drives is a "power user", and should be looking at the HEDT line of CPUs, not the regular desktop line. What you want/need is something outside of the range of a average or even "high-end" user, and exactly why Intel made HEDT in the first place.

So Intel gained a monopoly and then acted like a monopoly? Big shocker. You think AMD wouldn't be the same if they were the top dog? I never understood why, in a capitalist, free-market society, people bash companies for behaving in ways that make the company money. They slowed down on R&D because they were making plenty of money with incremental advancements. Why spend more on R&D to push technology if you're making back with current tech? They sell CPUs to make money, not out of some altruistic goal to push technology to the bleeding edge.

You don't like it, buy AMD. Then when AMD is top dog and doing the same things, you can switch back to Intel.

Intel's power hungry monopoly hasn't hurt anyone. You not being able to buy a 40 lane CPU doesn't hurt you. People like phones because they're portable and powerful. MOST people only want the most basic computer services, e-mail, web-browsing and the like. Phones and tablets can do that for far cheaper than a desktop or laptop, and you can carry one in your pocket. I honestly can not believe you blame the rise in cell phone popularity on Intel's lack of significant advances in the desktop CPU market.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of a company acting in a way to make money, it is HOW they got there. They used underhanded, highly unethical tactics, reinforced and enabled by government interference, to drive competitors out of the market, first by getting the government to prevent anyone else from using the x86 instruction set, then by declaring 'business practices' as patentable, having the government declare them as the only provider of processors for government computers, and finally their tactics with holding back 440BX chipsets and driving up costs for OEMs that deal with competitors. None of that would be effective if the government hadn't enabled them to get to that position in the first place. So, it is precisely because it is NOT a free marketplace that we're in this situation.

As for nobody being hurt, yes, we have ALL been hurt by Intel. CPUs went nowhere for over 8 years specifically because Intel had no competition, because the government enabled them to drive their competition under. We would have had 8 core processors on desktops years ago if not for Intel's tactics.
 
dgingeri said:
It's not a matter of a company acting in a way to make money, it is HOW they got there. They used underhanded, highly unethical tactics, reinforced and enabled by government interference, to drive competitors out of the market, first by getting the government to prevent anyone else from using the x86 instruction set, then by declaring 'business practices' as patentable, having the government declare them as the only provider of processors for government computers, and finally their tactics with holding back 440BX chipsets and driving up costs for OEMs that deal with competitors. None of that would be effective if the government hadn't enabled them to get to that position in the first place. So, it is precisely because it is NOT a free marketplace that we're in this situation.

As for nobody being hurt, yes, we have ALL been hurt by Intel. CPUs went nowhere for over 8 years specifically because Intel had no competition, because the government enabled them to drive their competition under. We would have had 8 core processors on desktops years ago if not for Intel's tactics.
Click to expand...

You're not HURT by Intel in that fashion. That's like saying you're being hurt by Samsung because they haven't rolled out LTE phones in your price range fast enough.
 
Bandalo said:
You're not HURT by Intel in that fashion. That's like saying you're being hurt by Samsung because they haven't rolled out LTE phones in your price range fast enough.
Click to expand...

My feelings are hurt ok....:ROFLMAO::LOL::whistle:
 
Bandalo said:
You're not HURT by Intel in that fashion. That's like saying you're being hurt by Samsung because they haven't rolled out LTE phones in your price range fast enough.
Click to expand...

It's not just hurt feelings. It's a matter of being held back by active effort on the part of another party. If you don't think that's hurt, have your career and income growth stalled for a decade and see if you like it. That IS hurting others.
 
dgingeri said:
It's not just hurt feelings. It's a matter of being held back by active effort on the part of another party. If you don't think that's hurt, have your career and income growth stalled for a decade and see if you like it. That IS hurting others.
Click to expand...

You were held back by a LACK of effort on the part of another company. They didn't NOT innovate, they just didn't innovate fast enough for YOU. They have NO requirement, law, regulation, or moral imperative to innovate at all. They, like EVERY OTHER COMPANY, innovate to keep ahead of the competition and profit.

Seriously, this is like claiming you're being hurt because 4k monitors don't have a high enough refresh rate yet. Or you're hurt because your 2017 Mustang only has 50 more horsepower than your 2014 Mustang. Damn it, why has Ford put active effort into holding back the expected horsepower increases?!
 
There is a difference between not needing to innovate more because there just isn't any competition and you are making high profits with the cadence you establish. It is all together something different when you renege on a 10 year contract 2 years into it, tie up rulings in litigation for years with the sole purpose to damage your opponents and pay vendors millions or billions to not sell your competitors product in their systems.

There is a difference in protecting an underdog that is not performing and not allowing a monopoly to force out competition.
 
People are fooling themselves if they think companies are "holding back". Look at the mobile and server segment if you want your advancement. And yes, desktop is dead. Even gaming laptops outsell gaming desktops now.
 
Shintai said:
People are fooling themselves if they think companies are "holding back". Look at the mobile and server segment if you want your advancement. And yes, desktop is dead. Even gaming laptops outsell gaming desktops now.
Click to expand...

There you have it. Now that ThreadRipper reviews are out, Never admitting defeat, Intel fans will rather declare the entire platform a loss rather than admit defeat to AMD.
 
KazeoHin said:
There you have it. Now that ThreadRipper reviews are out, Never admitting defeat, Intel fans will rather declare the entire platform a loss rather than admit defeat to AMD.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you are just angry about the future of the desktop or just trying to make up your own definition of TR and SKL-X performance ;)
 
Shintai said:
Not sure if you are just angry about the future of the desktop or just trying to make up your own definition of TR and SKL-X performance ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who puffed their chest, stood their ground and fabricated their own reality about multi threaded performance regarding Intel's HEDT platform.

It turns out that RTR is REALLY GOOD at HEDT tasks that HEDT is essentially purchased for. The supposed latency that (certain) people declared would be the death of the platform turned out to be no big deal. Intel is still good (even better) at more consumer tasks, but ThreadRipper is now the FASTEST. CPU. ON. DESKTOP.

Now that AMD has that title, intel fanboys retreat to the last bastion of Intel dominance (which is, to their credit, a decidedly large victory) that is Laptop performance.

In truth, Desktop PC is not dead. It's certainly not as prevalent as it used to be, but ask ANY PC sales person and they will say GAMING desktop PC sales are stronger today than they were 5 years ago. People are looking at the desktop as a gaming platform, and they see it as a platform that they can customize and optimize, and get out what they put in. Moreso than what people thought of several years ago.

Desktop isn't going anywhere. It is more than ever considered a gaming and creative platform over anything else. AMD dominates one of those categories and owns most of the other.


Intel has a good hold of the mobile workspace. It must be a coincidence that you declare that the desktop is dead now that today, of all days, Intel remains uncontested in ONLY in the mobile space.
 
KazeoHin said:
I'm not the one who puffed their chest, stood their ground and fabricated their own reality about multi threaded performance regarding Intel's HEDT platform.

It turns out that RTR is REALLY GOOD at HEDT tasks that HEDT is essentially purchased for. The supposed latency that (certain) people declared would be the death of the platform turned out to be no big deal. Intel is still good (even better) at more consumer tasks, but ThreadRipper is now the FASTEST. CPU. ON. DESKTOP.

Now that AMD has that title, intel fanboys retreat to the last bastion of Intel dominance (which is, to their credit, a decidedly large victory) that is Laptop performance.

In truth, Desktop PC is not dead. It's certainly not as prevalent as it used to be, but ask ANY PC sales person and they will say GAMING desktop PC sales are stronger today than they were 5 years ago. People are looking at the desktop as a gaming platform, and they see it as a platform that they can customize and optimize, and get out what they put in. Moreso than what people thought of several years ago.

Desktop isn't going anywhere. It is more than ever considered a gaming and creative platform over anything else. AMD dominates one of those categories and owns most of the other.


Intel has a good hold of the mobile workspace. It must be a coincidence that you declare that the desktop is dead now that today, of all days, Intel remains uncontested in ONLY in the mobile space.
Click to expand...

I heard that sales pitch before, all throughout the Thuban and FX years. Slower but more cores with a very selected workload ;)

In 2020 or so I doubt more than 20% of gaming PC sales are desktop after they already dropped below 50%. Yes, the desktop is dead. People want mobility, including gamers.
 
While average PC sales are continuing to fall gaming and enthusiast PC sales and parts are climbing. Just one source: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017...-gaming-pc-market-grows-faster-than-expected/

The people who want portability are making SFF builds. Gaming laptops are overpriced and rarely up-gradable.

I don't really see why people would be a fanboy for one brand or another of anything. I like Under Armour for certain clothes, I have no problem buying Nike or Fila if they have something I like for a good price.

With the rise in esports, twitch, YT live streaming etc a lot more people are becoming interested in PCs. My son is 14, has his own PC that we built and is now trying to get an old 486DX to work just for fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top