Intel's 8th Generation Core Family - Coffee Lake (LGA 1151, 6C/12T)

Where do you expect Core i7-8700K's Turbo to land?

  • 3.8/3.9 GHz

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 4.0/4.1 GHz

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • 4.2/4.3 GHz

    Votes: 6 46.2%

  • 4.4/4.5 GHz

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • 4.6/4.7 GHz

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
oleNBR said:
well lets see, 8 cores is 33.3% more cores than 6 cores. 8700k assuming it can hit 5ghz at 6 cores and 1800x can hit 4ghz at 8 cores, intel's frequency is about 25% higher. intel has about 6% IPC advantage over ryzen so overall ryzen should still have an edge in multi threaded scenarios in ideal situation.

of course we know real world ideal situation dont exist, CB15 is very close as it is well optimized and scales perfectly with ryzen cpu but more cores means worse scaling so 6c each core efficiency should be better than each cores in 8, unless CCX design says otherwise.

but yes i agree 6c 5ghz will come VERY CLOSE to 8c at 4ghz ryzen in multi threaded scenarios. in ST it'll just blow ryzen away.
Click to expand...

The real IPC is much more than 6%.
 
Does anyone know what the recommended DDR4 mhz will be for the new 300 series chipset for the coffee lake cpu?
 
AbRASiON said:
I mean you don't even need to do much math or extrapolation. Any Ryzen 1800x review, all the instances where the Ryzen clearly wins, is only about 1/3 or 1/4 of the recorded benchmarks. Let's say it's 1/3
Of that 1/3 of the benchmarks in the review, only 1 or 2 of them in total is the 1800x running a massively scaling piece of software which is significantly faster. Almost every benchmark it wins, it's not by a significant amount, despite double the cores, double the threads.

Logically, the 8700k even at 4.6ghz allcore would probably win 95% of (average) benchmarks and only miss out on a handful of others.

Assuming of course the 8700k does what we expect it to.
PLUS the damn thing comes with a "free GPU" for those of us who've given up gaming. Totally capable of running dual 4k monitors, encoding / decoding x265 and even running 5 year old games and older, generally pretty fine.
Click to expand...

Shintai said:
The real IPC is much more than 6%.
Click to expand...

i think people are overestimating the IPC of skylake/kaby. i'd say ryzen's IPC would be just a bit above haswell if not similar. skylake was only about 7-8% above haswell, well according to CB15 at similar frequency.
 
According to Rob Hallock, Kaby Lake had a 9% IPC advantage at launch. Ryzen has probably improved since then.
 
oleNBR said:
i think people are overestimating the IPC of skylake/kaby. i'd say ryzen's IPC would be just a bit above haswell if not similar. skylake was only about 7-8% above haswell, well according to CB15 at similar frequency.
Click to expand...
I'm not making guesses to IPC, all I know is that the 7700k /already/ handily beats the 1800x in several single threaded things.
The new processor is presumably exactly the same or marginally (0.5% like Sky -> Kaby) better IPC, so it too should handily beat the 1800x in single threaded things.
It's going to have 2 more cores.
It will be super likely to overclock to at least 4.5ghz all core, if not even 4.7 or higher, Ryzens struggle over 4.1

It'll destroy the 1800x in /almost/ all benchmarks.
 
august 21 better be official launch date. else time to go for faillake-x with lame mesh/cache redesign and lower my ST performance
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
According to Rob Hallock, Kaby Lake had a 9% IPC advantage at launch. Ryzen has probably improved since then.
Click to expand...

Rob the notorious liar? ;)

oleNBR said:
i think people are overestimating the IPC of skylake/kaby. i'd say ryzen's IPC would be just a bit above haswell if not similar. skylake was only about 7-8% above haswell, well according to CB15 at similar frequency.
Click to expand...

Ryzen is often falling down to or below SB when the workloads become more average than picked. And CB15 is a show of legacy and low IPC. Also why there isn't much change all the way back to Nehalem etc. And why a 6700K/7700K etc CPU is a sub 60W CPU when running CB15.

Zen is working high on having a lot of cache that's split. Its no difference as such on how high Intel cache parts work. Or when you see low clocked 5775C parts beating high clocked 4790K etc.
 
Last edited:
What does Dual-Core Audio DSP (z370) and Quad-Core Audio DSP (z390) even mean for these upcoming chipsets? Anyone got some kind of clue lol.
 
RPGWiZaRD said:
What does Dual-Core Audio DSP (z370) and Quad-Core Audio DSP (z390) even mean for these upcoming chipsets? Anyone got some kind of clue lol.
Click to expand...

I guess its sets the limit on the audio codec that can be used as the addon on the mobos. So a more fancy realtek chip etc.
 
Last edited:
AbRASiON said:
I'm not making guesses to IPC, all I know is that the 7700k /already/ handily beats the 1800x in several single threaded things.
The new processor is presumably exactly the same or marginally (0.5% like Sky -> Kaby) better IPC, so it too should handily beat the 1800x in single threaded things.
It's going to have 2 more cores.
It will be super likely to overclock to at least 4.5ghz all core, if not even 4.7 or higher, Ryzens struggle over 4.1

It'll destroy the 1800x in /almost/ all benchmarks.
Click to expand...
The issue is, that 8700k is fighting 1600/x, which has same speed in games as 1700/1800. And 1600 can be purchased for 200 Euro. So 8700k with a chipset that will be replaced in 2 months will better be in current 7700k price range and much faster than 7700k. Otherwise it won't be performance/price king like 1600 is now. If it is as fast as 7700 then I won't bother without intel. In 1440p with 1080ti the cpu differences are minimal, so I'll go with something that won't make me change motherboard every 3 months and when i change CPU in a year or two I won't have to change mobo.
 
Nihilus1 said:
Z370 only supports c8 power management. i thought CFL used c10??
Click to expand...

And on the desktop you dont use below C6(Entire package). Mobile are usually restricted to C7/8 if not ULT models that supports C10. With CNL and forward the regular mobile gets C10 support.

7-10 explained.

85c.jpg
 
Last edited:
MorgothPl said:
The issue is, that 8700k is fighting 1600/x, which has same speed in games as 1700/1800. And 1600 can be purchased for 200 Euro. So 8700k with a chipset that will be replaced in 2 months will better be in current 7700k price range and much faster than 7700k. Otherwise it won't be performance/price king like 1600 is now. If it is as fast as 7700 then I won't bother without intel. In 1440p with 1080ti the cpu differences are minimal, so I'll go with something that won't make me change motherboard every 3 months and when i change CPU in a year or two I won't have to change mobo.
Click to expand...
I put equal amounts of faith in the 8700K lasting 3+ years as I do AMD releasing a worthwhile upgrade before AM4 is EOL. The former will actually save you money in the long run (one upgrade vs two or more).
I put zero faith in AMD releasing a worthwhile upgrade for Ryzen owners within "a year or two".

You may find, somewhere along the line, that Icelake or Tiger Lake is a better upgrade path. In which case your AM4 board is useless.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
I put equal amounts of faith in the 8700K lasting 3+ years as I do AMD releasing a worthwhile upgrade before AM4 is EOL. The former will actually save you money in the long run (one upgrade vs two or more).
I put zero faith in AMD releasing a worthwhile upgrade for Ryzen owners within "a year or two".

You may find, somewhere along the line, that Icelake or Tiger Lake is a better upgrade path. In which case your AM4 board is useless.
Click to expand...

You think people have learned not to play the forever #waitinggame by now. Not to mention same socket may not be same VRM as seen with AM3.
 
we live in a day and age where my 4970K doesn't require an upgrade to Intel or AMD platforms as it performs very well for me and that is for competitive gaming. I will save all that money wasted on a Z300 or X300 and put it all into a GTX1080 ti
 
I still really think an amd 1600 is very competitive, but I am starting to shy away from it. The reason: Ram prices.

You really need quality ram to get the most of AM4. 3200 mhz cas 14 or 3600 mhz cas 16. Intel will run fine at 2400 mhz. Also, I might have clearance problems in an SFF build with an AIO cooler and tall ram modules.
 
Memory prices went crazy when SKL-SP started to ship back in Q4 and now we pretty much pay 2x prices.
 
Yep "lower usable speed ram" prices really gives intel a value edge. The price difference can be $80 or more when buting 16gb!

Also, AMD doesnt seem to have the edge on MB prices. In the past, you could buy an $80 AMD ITX Mb and overclock the hell out of it while the Intel equivelant was twice the price. Not really the case now with AM4.

Really need to look at the entire picture.
 
Mav451 said:
Wasn't Canard shitting on TechReport cuz they didn't get a ThreadRipper review kit?
The frog ends up eating his own words lmao.
Click to expand...
No it was TechReport complaining about not having a (customized?) Threadripper even though they gave AMD good reviews in the past. CPCHardware were mocking them.
 
AMD just needs to kill the 1800x already. I can't believe people pay over $400 for that thing when the 1700 can achieve the same for half the price. It really kills their value proposistion. The fact that there will not be an 1800x Pro is telling.
 
Nihilus1 said:
AMD just needs to kill the 1800x already. I can't believe people pay over $400 for that thing when the 1700 can achieve the same for half the price. It really kills their value proposistion. The fact that there will not be an 1800x Pro is telling.
Click to expand...

There will be huge price cuts sometime after CFL for most of the Ryzen lineup. The 1800X as you mention may be the most extreme needing a 50% cut against the 8700K.
 
idk how much the prices will move, they've been slowly dropping with sales and stuff since launch. The ryzen line-up is already a better value than coffee lake.

I see 1700/1700X for around $270-$300.
1600 is sub-$200.

You can almost buy two R5 1600's for the price of a single 8700K.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
idk how much the prices will move, they've been slowly dropping with sales and stuff since launch. The ryzen line-up is already a better value than coffee lake.

I see 1700/1700X for around $270-$300.
1600 is sub-$200.

You can almost buy two R5 1600's for the price of a single 8700K.
Click to expand...

By 270-300 you mean 290-360? (Newegg+Amazon)

You have to match somewhat equal SKUs against one another. You can also buy almost 9 Pentiums for a single 8700K. 18 cores with HT vs 6! ;)

Its hard to see the value of the 1700 series much above 200$ after CFL and 1800X around 250$.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top