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 .

TaintedSquirrel

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 5, 2013
Messages
11,272
Intel decided to go cheap. Instead of properly soldering the chip to the heat spreader.
That's speculatory as well but you'd have to find someone more familiar with it.
http://overclocking.guide/the-truth-about-cpu-soldering/

Those things sound like far fetched theories to me and make you look more like a fanboy than you are.
Equally as far fetched as low quality paste. The point is there's no way to know.
People remove their video card heatsinks all the time to fix paste and mounting issues. I don't think I've ever seen anyone accuse a card manufacturer of using "cheap paste".

The problem with people repeating the same lines over and over is that when someone points out that it's not true, it makes them sound like a fanboy. That's why shitty fake memes exist. To spread false info and make those who point it out seem like they're the liars. The internet is scary, man.
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
3,025
I have to be honest, I'm really disappointed in HardForum that not only is this even a discussion we need to have, but the fact that people keep replying the same thing over and over.
At this point I don't know how to properly word it to make it more understandable.

Here's a list of all the things, off the top of my head, that are altered during a de-lid which can contribute to improved thermals:
1. The physical act of removing and re-mounting the heatplate itself.
2. Removing the stock adhesive and either using your own better quality/applied adhesive, or using none at all.
3. Appyling a better amount / better distribution of paste.
4. Applying better quality paste.

The only reason people cite the paste is because it's the most obvious answer and the most communicable. Most people don't know shit about heatplates or adhesive, I don't either tbh, but when someone says "I replaced the paste and got better temps" everybody understands it. Every PC builder knows what TIM is and they know a tube of it costs about $5, so criticizing Intel for "using cheap paste" is just the simplest thing to do. That doesn't mean it's right, though.

And AGAIN, pointing out the truth is not the same as defending Intel.
Whatever is causing Intel's high temps has been a problem for five years. I would personally LOVE to see them fix it but at the same time they are outperforming AMD by huge margins so I doubt they even care. Like I said in the other thread, Intel's entire line-up outclocks AMD even with the shitty paste. They're doing something right.

You can continue throwing around terms like "fanboy" but it seems like you're willing to throw facts to the wind for the sheer goal of criticizing Intel. I think we can easily see who the real fanboys are. Keep the shitty memes on PCMasterRace where they belong. This forum is for big boys.

It doesnt matter which one is the problem, Its the fact Intel does not fix it and it's created a sub culture of invalidating warranties just to get the chips to run cooler. Unless you like running 90 degrees Celsius and watching the heat degrade your chip, I dont see why you think Intel should get a pass on it. Except I know why they wont fix it, cause fools throw cash at them and believe the hype from people like Shintai that they can hit 5 ghz easily and then reality sets in when at stock it almost at the thermal limit. Then a army of apologists cover Intels ass and you wonder why it's still happening. There is a reason Kyle says vote with your wallet, it's the only way a company will realize they need to fix something. Huge margins, there is a fanboy statement of the day. AMD may be slower speed wise but in multi threaded tasks they pull even despite the clock speed. Maybe Intel will release the Fukushima edition soon seems to be where their chips are heading thermally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

TaintedSquirrel

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 5, 2013
Messages
11,272
It doesnt matter which one is the problem, Its the fact Intel does not fix it and it's created a sub culture of invalidating warranties just to get the chips to run cooler. Unless you like running 90 degrees Celsius and watching the heat degrade your chip, I dont see why you think Intel should get a pass on it. Except I know why they wont fix it, cause fools throw cash at them and believe the hype from people like Shintai that they can hit 5 ghz easily and then reality sets in when at stock it almost at the thermal limit. Then a army of apologists cover Intels ass and you wonder why it's still happening. There is a reason Kyle says vote with your wallet, it's the only way a company will realize they need to fix something. Huge margins, there is a fanboy statement of the day. AMD may be slower speed wise but in multi threaded tasks they pull even despite the clock speed. Maybe Intel will release the Fukushima edition soon seems to be where their chips are heading thermally.
I can't speak for all consumers but I would rather have a 5 GHz chip running 90C than a 4 GHz chip running 60C. That's why Intel gets a pass.
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
3,025
I can't speak for all consumers but I would rather have a 5 GHz chip running 90C than a 4 GHz chip running 60C. That's why Intel gets a pass.

Just takes 4 less cores for Intel to do that.... Oh wait that doesn't make sense that a chip with more cores runs cooler then a chip with half the cores and most of them cant even hit 5ghz most are at 4.8 or less. The 7700K is a over rated chip that is already slipping in gaming benchmarks despite the speed as core density is becoming far more important.
 

TaintedSquirrel

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 5, 2013
Messages
11,272
Just takes 4 less cores for Intel to do that.... Oh wait that doesn't make sense that a chip with more cores runs cooler then a chip with half the cores and most of them cant even hit 5ghz most are at 4.8 or less. The 7700K is a over rated chip that is already slipping in gaming benchmarks despite the speed as core density is becoming far more important.
All of Intels 6C and 8C chips are soldered, as far as I know. And only the K-Series chips can be overclocked which leaves the 7350K, 7600K, and 7700K which are quad cores or less.
The 1500X is the fastest Ryzen quad and can't really pass 4 GHz like all the other Ryzens. I see one site managed 4.2 GHz, though.

So the 'paste issue' is a non-concern for everything above 4 cores (vs Ryzen 1600+) and Ryzen's quad core, which has better thermals, can't even compete with the 7700K. In other words it seems like you're just blindly throwing darts.

...Maybe, JUST MAYBE, the real problem is Intel's pricing structure... Like I said before.
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
3,025
All of Intels 6C and 8C chips are soldered, as far as I know. And only the K-Series chips can be overclocked which leaves the 7350K, 7600K, and 7700K which are quad cores or less.
The 1500X is the fastest Ryzen quad and can't really pass 4 GHz like all the other Ryzens. I see one site managed 4.2 GHz, though.

So the 'paste issue' is a non-concern for everything above 4 cores (vs Ryzen 1600+) and Ryzen's quad core, which has better thermals, can't even compete with the 7700K. In other words it seems like you're just blindly throwing darts.

...Maybe, JUST MAYBE, the real problem is Intel's pricing structure... Like I said before.

Gee I wonder why they solder those higher core count chips, could be due to thermals... Thats ok they tho they took your cash and applied it to someone elses chip so they would be happy. Oh the 6 core from AMD competes just fine the 4 core is ok but the 6 core is right with your 7700K depending on the benchmark.
 

TaintedSquirrel

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 5, 2013
Messages
11,272
Gee I wonder why they solder those higher core count chips, could be due to thermals... Thats ok they tho they took your cash and applied it to someone elses chip so they would be happy. Oh the 6 core from AMD competes just fine the 4 core is ok but the 6 core is right with your 7700K depending on the benchmark.
The dies are also a lot bigger, that couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
3,025
The dies are also a lot bigger, that couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

Well of course it's so difficult to spread TIM on a larger die.. what was I thinking plus we as the Human race have yet to perfect machining surfaces of objects. Give me a break its done to save money on the cheap stuff and they do it right on the expensive stuff.
 
D

Deleted member 88301

Guest
To see Intel scramble a bit because of an AMD product line is refreshing.
 

TaintedSquirrel

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 5, 2013
Messages
11,272
Releasing a brand new generation of $350 quad cores, $450 hex cores, and $1000 octo cores isn't going to appease anybody.
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
So SKL-X 6 core 600$? SKL-X 8 core 1000$? SKL-X 10 core 2000$? SKL-X 12 core 4000$?

It just doesn't fit into the price ranges. And price ranges overrules SKUs. It doesn't matter if it got 1 or a 1000 cores. The mainstream desktop top end hot spot is ~350$.

And I already told you how miniscule HEDT sells already.

The question is if HEDT will even exist after this round with SKL-X and Icelake-X.

My guess would be more like this:

SKL-X:
6c: $600
8c: $1000
10c: $1500
12c: $2000

CFL-S:
6c: $450

I agree that Intel will cut into HEDT with this, though. So you may be right in that it vanishes in a couple generations.
 

CSI_PC

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 3, 2016
Messages
2,193
My guess would be more like this:

SKL-X:
6c: $600
8c: $1000
10c: $1500
12c: $2000

CFL-S:
6c: $450

I agree that Intel will cut into HEDT with this, though. So you may be right in that it vanishes in a couple generations.
Hmm not sure about that myself.
So you really think they are going to increase HEDT by 38% from previous 6C/12 to Skylake-X?
Shintai is right, they would kill their market in both (along with trying to charge $450 in mainstream).
Putting aside CFL-S, could you imagine Intel selling the lowest rung HEDT with 38% price increase and also not decreasing the price for an 8C/16T when it is perceived to be more accessible and usable now for consumers?

Why I feel mainstream CFL-S is somewhere between $350-$375 like quite a few others.

Anyway I would place a strong bet the small sales of HEDT would become smaller if they used those prices and Intel knows that.
Consider this, why did Intel never make the 6C/12T a mainstream with 6800K when it was cheaper than your estimate of $450 for CFL-S?
Primary reason is price-segment, Intel could not convince the consumer mainstream market with its $430 price.
Cheers
 
Last edited:

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
Hmm not sure about that myself.
So you really think they are going to increase HEDT by 38% from previous 6C/12 to Skylake-X?
Shintai is right, they would kill their market in both (along with trying to charge $450 in mainstream).
Putting aside CFL-S, could you imagine Intel selling the lowest rung HEDT with 38% price increase and also not decreasing the price for an 8C/16T when it is perceived to be more accessible and usable now for consumers?

Why I feel mainstream CFL-S is somewhere between $350-£375 like quite a few others.

Anyway I would place a strong bet the small sales of HEDT would become smaller if they used those prices and Intel knows that.
Consider this, why did Intel never make the 6C/12T a mainstream with 6800K when it was cheaper than your estimate of $450 for CFL-S?
Primary reason is price-segment, Intel could not convince the consumer mainstream market with that price.
Cheers

6800k was also on a more expensive platform not regarded as mainstream, and it suffered heavily in gaming performance relative to 7700k. A CFL-S would give you most (almost all) of the gaming performance, and much higher multithreaded performance. I figure Intel would charge extra for the privilege, but not overly so, given some of your other points. So $450-ish sounds about right to me.

To give you some idea, if Intel offered that back when I was shopping for a new build, a $450 CFL-S @3.8-4.0 GHz? I'd have bought that over Ryzen. Oh yeah. All day long. Can't imagine I'd be the only one, either. Meanwhile the 6800k? Meh. No thx.

But you're right that HEDT would start to suffer... and it wouldn't surprise me if, after X299, the HEDT and mainstream merged into a single socket/chipset configuration. Hell, with X299 getting 4 core Kabys, it would seem that it's heading that way already.

Edit: Hard to explain what I'm trying to say.

6850k is 6c/12t part today. Costs $600-ish
6800k is 6c/12t also. Costs $400-$440-ish depending on the sales

Both are HEDT parts.

What I'm suggesting is that CFL-S equivalent of 6800k will go down to mainstream. SKL-X equivalent of 6850k will stay in HEDT. Both will be more or less same price as today's models.
 
Last edited:

CSI_PC

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 3, 2016
Messages
2,193
6800k was also on a more expensive platform not regarded as mainstream, and it suffered heavily in gaming performance relative to 7700k. A CFL-S would give you most (almost all) of the gaming performance, and much higher multithreaded performance. I figure Intel would charge extra for the privilege, but not overly so, given some of your other points. So $450-ish sounds about right to me.

To give you some idea, if Intel offered that back when I was shopping for a new build, a $450 CFL-S @3.8-4.0 GHz? I'd have bought that over Ryzen. Oh yeah. All day long. Can't imagine I'd be the only one, either. Meanwhile the 6800k? Meh. No thx.

But you're right that HEDT would start to suffer... and it wouldn't surprise me if, after X299, the HEDT and mainstream merged into a single socket/chipset configuration. Hell, with X299 getting 4 core Kabys, it would seem that it's heading that way already.

Edit: Hard to explain what I'm trying to say.

6850k is 6c/12t part today. Costs $600-ish
6800k is 6c/12t also. Costs $400-$440-ish depending on the sales

Both are HEDT parts.

What I'm suggesting is that CFL-S equivalent of 6800k will go down to mainstream. SKL-X equivalent of 6850k will stay in HEDT. Both will be more or less same price as today's models.

The point was that at $430 it could ONLY be sold as a HEDT product :)
If Intel could convince the mainstream they would had put it there or a product like it some time ago as it would had helped their flagging desktop PC business.
Intel just decided to wait upon a more ideal time for when a 6C makes sense across the board for mainstream and the mainstream price one can expect.
Not long to wait either way for us :)
BTW I get what your saying and how you are partitioning-segmenting it, but to me you need to convince customers to buy it and when they see the lowest HEDT increase by 38% and then the top I7 also increase substantially it would be a hard thing to do, especially when AMD has created the perception for 6C and 8C to be mainstream products albeit not necessarily in equal performance as to latest Intel (CFL-S and Skylake-X).
Cheers
 
Last edited:

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
The point was that at $430 it could ONLY be sold as a HEDT product :)
If Intel could convince the mainstream they would had put it there or a product like it some time ago as it would had helped their flagging desktop PC business.
Intel just decided to wait upon a more ideal time for when a 6C makes sense across the board for mainstream and the mainstream price one can expect.
Not long to wait either way for us :)

Cheers

Yeah, I suppose we'll find out soon enough. Either way, I'm pleased to see both Intel and AMD doing something different for a change. Things were getting stagnant for too long, man. Too long.
 

AbRASiON

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
354
Anyone see last nights "i9" leak?
Guy posted quite convincing images of some upcoming Skylake-X and Kabylake-X SKUs
Looked like they'll go as low as 112W for a 4/4 (yes, 4/4) core Kaby-Lake X, ugh

Sadly the screenshot didn't include any 1151 news. Top SKU was 10/20 though
 

Shintai

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
5,678
My guess would be more like this:

SKL-X:
6c: $600
8c: $1000
10c: $1500
12c: $2000

CFL-S:
6c: $450

I agree that Intel will cut into HEDT with this, though. So you may be right in that it vanishes in a couple generations.

So what, HEDT sales drop from ~500K to ~150K or less? And 6 cores with less features gets a price INCREASE like all other CPUs?

That's the problem it seems. People forget the business plan in it. And think people just pay randomly whatever because evil command can charge it. That's not how it works.

Reality so easily gets thrown out the window.

Let me give you a real world example from a retailer on the LGA2011-3 line with Broadwell CPUs.

Model/Amount of sales:
6800K 66.9%
6850K 22.4%
6900K 7.2%
6950X 3.5%

And a 7700K sells many times of all those combined.

Now can we stop the nonsense?
 
Last edited:

juanrga

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
2,804
Anyone see last nights "i9" leak?
Guy posted quite convincing images of some upcoming Skylake-X and Kabylake-X SKUs
Looked like they'll go as low as 112W for a 4/4 (yes, 4/4) core Kaby-Lake X, ugh

The 4/4 chip has the same thermal slot than the 4/8 chip: 112W. This doesn't mean that the i5 will dissipate the same power than the i7.
 

AbRASiON

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
354
The 4/4 chip has the same thermal slot than the 4/8 chip: 112W. This doesn't mean that the i5 will dissipate the same power than the i7.

I'm just tired of hearing about the -X chips. For me, personally? They suck. I'm an ITX guy. I simply can't do quad channel. Would I like it in an ITX format? Sure but it doesn't fit.
I'm dying for more Coffee Lake news, really wanna upgrade my HTPC it's a piece of junk.
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
So what, HEDT sales drop from ~500K to ~150K or less? And 6 cores with less features gets a price INCREASE like all other CPUs?

That's the problem it seems. People forget the business plan in it. And think people just pay randomly whatever because evil command can charge it. That's not how it works.

Reality so easily gets thrown out the window.

Let me give you a real world example from a retailer on the LGA2011-3 line with Broadwell CPUs.

Model/Amount of sales:
6800K 66.9%
6850K 22.4%
6900K 7.2%
6950X 3.5%

And a 7700K sells many times of all those combined.

Now can we stop the nonsense?

I don't really get your hostility sometimes, Shintai. I never said anything about "evil command" or any of that. I think everybody is excited to see 6 core Intel chips hit the mainstream market. God knows I am. Hell, I bet even the most fanboy of AMD fanboys is secretly interested. Folks here are taking a stab in a vacuum about where they think pricing will be. Since we don't know the exact clockspeeds, pricing, or market alignment yet, it's all pretty much a guess. You think it will replace the 7700k in the $350 price bracket. I think it will be more likely to replace the 6800k in price bracket.

*shrug*

It's not serious bizness. If we were hanging out at the bar, I'd bet you a beer on it and call it a day. We'll see whenever Intel bothers to announce it. That should be good enough for you.
 

Shintai

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
5,678
The point is we know exactly where the pricing will be. Just as we did the last 10 years or so with Intel being the market leader all the time.

As I said countless times, the SKUs themselves have no relevance as such. Pricepoint segments overrules it.

It doesn't matter if its 2, 4, 6 or 117 cores for a mainstream top end. The price point segment still dictates ~350$. Just as in the lower end you see the similar. And they are there because its the optimal price/volume/profit ratio.

Adjust that price and you end out of the optimal price points. Sell cheaper? Earn less. Sell higher? Earn less.

Image32.gif
 
Last edited:

bezant

Gawd
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
780
The point is we know exactly where the pricing will be. Just as we did the last 10 years or so with Intel being the market leader all the time.


Adjust that price and you end out of the optimal price points. Sell cheaper? Earn less. Sell higher? Earn less.

Image32.gif

There is theory, and there is reality.

Johnny went to his daddy and asked him what's the difference between theory and reality. His dad told him, go ask your mom and your sister whether they would sleep with a random guy for $1million. Johnny comes back and says, daddy they said they would. His dad told him, so you see son, in theory, we are millionaires, in reality we just live with a couple of whores. (Source: http://www.slightlywarped.com/jokes/jokes/difference_between_theory_and_fact.htm)
 
Last edited:

AbRASiON

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
354
The point is we know exactly where the pricing will be. Just as we did the last 10 years or so with Intel being the market leader all the time.

As I said countless times, the SKUs themselves have no relevance as such. Pricepoint segments overrules it.

It doesn't matter if its 2, 4, 6 or 117 cores for a mainstream top end. The price point segment still dictates ~350$. Just as in the lower end you see the similar. And they are there because its the optimal price/volume/profit ratio.

Adjust that price and you end out of the optimal price points. Sell cheaper? Earn less. Sell higher? Earn less.

Image32.gif


You can defend your stance all you like, but at the end of the day, none of us know for certain and Intel are known to like profit. They can ask for more money for virtually the same product against AMD and get away with it.
Time and time again they've charged more, when they can. So while all of us here are really hoping for $350 US, there's certainly good reason to be skeptical.
(and if they DO do $350 US, knowing Intel they'll gimp something to make you want x299, be it removing hyperthreading, disabling overclocking, forcing a new chipset or pin layout, whatever - it's what they do)
 

FrozenSun

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 25, 2016
Messages
110
If 6c/12t is their top end mainstream chip, it'll probably be 350ish like all of their top end mainstream chips have been. Intel doesn't really seem to consider performance too much when pricing, it has more to do with filling market demand. They've apparently determined 350 is the best way to maximize profits on their top end mainstream chips. Unless their analysis has changed on that, I doubt they'll alter pricing too much. If performance was all they considered with pricing, the 2600k could have been 500 at launch, it was good enough to warrant it.
 

SomeGuy133

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
3,447
5GHz 6c is the dream. I'll buy whatever gets me there, as unlikely as it is.
I think its probable. We have 5.2GHz KBY.....If this is another refinement of the process I could see 5GHz 6 core. I was going to wait for PCIe 4.0 before i upgrade but....6 core 5GHz might have me sold if i can afford it.
 

SomeGuy133

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
3,447
My guess would be more like this:

SKL-X:
6c: $600
8c: $1000
10c: $1500
12c: $2000

CFL-S:
6c: $450

I agree that Intel will cut into HEDT with this, though. So you may be right in that it vanishes in a couple generations.

no not even close. AMD is releasing a 16 core chip and i am wagering it will be 1000 dollars. So i bet we will see intel do this since they have single thread advantage.

AMD 16core $1000 forcing intel to price like this:

SKL-X:
6c: $450
8c: $800
10c: $1000
12c: $1500

CFL-S:
6c: >$400
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
I have this problem where quad cores suck.

Yup. That's where I was. No more quads. Finally decided to go Ryzen. Built the rig. And then a few weeks later, Intel says Coffee Lake coming out mid-2017 instead of early 2018. FML.

Oh well. Having 8 cores (that don't stink like Bulldozer did) has done wonders for my work, so I've no real cause for complaint.
 

sparks

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 19, 2004
Messages
3,206
it no longer about speed, its about cores.
and money, don't forget the money.
 

Raendor

Gawd
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
845
In my case it's about games and their ability to benefit from more cores tbh. Right there's none or a very minor difference (if there rarely is) between 4/8 and anything higher. Especially at 1440p. And I have to remind myself about it all the time when I start experiencing CFL hype again and again. Seems that I like fiddling with pc hardware more than actually using it for gaming!
 

Napoleon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
1,046
In my case it's about games and their ability to benefit from more cores tbh. Right there's none or a very minor difference (if there rarely is) between 4/8 and anything higher. Especially at 1440p. And I have to remind myself about it all the time when I start experiencing CFL hype again and again. Seems that I like fiddling with pc hardware more than actually using it for gaming!
This - exact same boat. These days my enthusiasm for hardware takes away from my gaming, my comp is in pieces as I redo my h2o loop. Do I need to sand/paint the PVC reservoir I made? No, this delays me cleaning out the system and getting it up and running. But I want it to be nice and complete.
Plus now that I'm on a 6-core, it's hard to think of moving to less cores (even if all benchmarks say there will be improvements with newer quad cores), as this appears to be where the future is going.
 

sparks

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 19, 2004
Messages
3,206
Look at the last pricing from intel, its the new updated same old thing but after years of $1000 top end its now $2000...yep that makes since.
No competition is killing the consumer.
Price point is one thing but using pci lanes to dictate price is pure bull S@#$%
There is no reason for having to choose 40 or 24 or 20 lanes to fit your needs, but that is how intel does it.
AMD made all kinds of BS statements before ryzen was released and it sounded good but we see now that it was all talk, IF it could have been made the same speed as intel it would have been great but it is not.
Does AMD ryzen do the same thing with pci lanes in its different models, I don't know.
 
Top