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 .
Guess I have to really wait for coffee lake. Well i can't start my build anyway till my Dan case arrives. Hopefully I can get in Jan. Would be a huge upgrade from my age old i5 and gtx660m laptop
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Bang for buck currently, r5 1600.
I5 8600/k might take the crown.

You can rule out both of those i7's.
Click to expand...

Depends on your use case.
I need a responsive computer, very responsive but I do NOT need a video card in any way.
7700k comes with a "free" GPU that's totally silent (if your CPU cooler is silent)
The 7600k does
the 8700k will, the 8600k will too.

The intel chips work in ITX boards, the options for AMD ITX are few and far between.
The intel chips aren't 'finicky' with memory.
The intel chips don't have a known segfault issue.

The AMD 1600 (with free cooler) is a pretty ok chip. If it was $50 US cheaper, it'd be an insanely good bargain.
As it is, it's an 'ok' bargain.
 
Boil said:
Dude, there are like, FIVE totally different AM4 ITX motherboards available right now, with a SIXTH on the way from ASUS...!!!
Click to expand...

Compared 50 for Intel on LGA1151 it is rather limited. But yes, you can easily get it.
 
juanrga said:
In reality it is more like 3.3GHz Sandy = 3.5GHz RyZen, unless you run RyZen with overclocked memory.



Oh yes, that magic AGESA/BIOS update that you have been promising since launch day, and that will upgrade RyZen to Kabylake level, too bad that reviews only can test real BIOS/AGESA like last 1.0.0.6.



Couldn't agree more "a proud sponsor of Battlefield 1" means they sponsored Norwegian furniture.
Click to expand...

BIOS have been more stable and each new board rolls out with better BIOS than those on opening sales, there are like 20-30 BIOS versions on a MSI tomahawk alone, issues like RAM volatility on certain vendors is largely yesterdays news and a few other bugs along the way ironed out.

Proud sponsor of EA play is an even like the E-Games PUBG invitational was proudly sponsored by Intel and Nvidia yet the game is not sponsored by Nvidia/Intel just the event. But whatever language seems to be something you are out of depth with.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
The link was "AMD is proud sponsor of Battlefield 1 at EA Play" EA Play was an event at E3.
Click to expand...

I am gone with you. Not worth the time, when you rewrite "AMD is proud sponsor of Battlefield 1" as "AMD is proud sponsor of EA Play" only because you want to negate that AMD is sponsor of Battlefield 1 at any cost.
 
Last edited:
AbRASiON said:
I5 8400, how much? You're right that might be a heck of a cpu, vs the 1600
Click to expand...
Shintai said:
6 cores. Specs are already posted. Up to 4Ghz turbo, 3.8Ghz all core turbo.
Click to expand...
Trading 5-10% IPC for hyper-threading (SMT). I'd rather have the R5 1600, assuming 4 GHz OC.
They will be so close in games I think going with the extra 6 threads is going to be the default option. Also something-something AM4 supported until 2020 something-something.
 
In CPU intensive games games it's more like >20%, just check the latest Destiny 2 benchmarks. i5-8400 will be the better option for games, will probably cost less (already listed below $190) and includes an iGPU, which matters for some people in this price range. We already see i5-8400 matching or beating i7-7700K in synthetics, same should happen vs 6C/12T Zen in a mixed benchmarks scenario.
 
Last edited:
-Sweeper_ said:
In CPU intensive games games it's more like 15-20%, just check the latest Destiny 2 benchmarks. i5-8400 will be the better option for games, will probably cost less (already listed below $190) and includes an iGPU, which matters for some people in this price range. We already see i5-8400 matching or beating i7-7700K in synthetics, same should happen vs 6C/12T Zen in a mixed benchmarks scenario.
Click to expand...

Yep, the 8400 at that price point is a no brainer.
 
juanrga said:
I am gone with you. Not worth the time, when you rewrite "AMD is proud sponsor of Battlefield 1" as "AMD is proud sponsor of EA Play" only because you want to negate that AMD is sponsor of Battlefield 1 at any cost.
Click to expand...

Is that like Nvidia and Intel sponsoring Player Unknowns invitational and branding it a sponsored event yet the Radeon 64 is faster per the germans website in an intel and nvidia sponsored game....oh I mean event.

AMD sponsored Battlefields EA Play Event big wooop, you seem to mistake sponsorships to gamesworks
 
OrangeKhrush said:
Is that like Nvidia and Intel sponsoring Player Unknowns invitational and branding it a sponsored event yet the Radeon 64 is faster per the germans website in an intel and nvidia sponsored game....oh I mean event.

AMD sponsored Battlefields EA Play Event big wooop, you seem to mistake sponsorships to gamesworks
Click to expand...
DICE helped develop Mantle, they were also the first to tease the 290X and Fury X on their Twitter pre-release.
AMD's involvement in the Battlefield franchise is equivalent to Nvidia's w/ GameWorks.

Anyone who attempts to downplay it is in denial aka damage control. Same people who denied AMD's involvement with Ashes of Singularity.
 
-Sweeper_ said:
In CPU intensive games games it's more like >20%, just check the latest Destiny 2 benchmarks. i5-8400 will be the better option for games, will probably cost less (already listed below $190) and includes an iGPU, which matters for some people in this price range. We already see i5-8400 matching or beating i7-7700K in synthetics, same should happen vs 6C/12T Zen in a mixed benchmarks scenario.
Click to expand...
8400 will never beat 7700k, cause it lacks HT. It might be around the same in ST tasks, but be losing just like 7600k when it comes to something more MT.
 
Raendor said:
8400 will never beat 7700k, cause it lacks HT. It might be around the same in ST tasks, but be losing just like 7600k when it comes to something more MT.
Click to expand...

6 cores at 3.8 GHz will be enough to match/beat 7700K's 4 cores + HT at 4.4 GHz in many MT applications. We already have leaks pointing in this direction as well:

SiSoftware
  • Core(TM) i5-8400 CPU @ 2.80GHz (6C 3.81GHz/4GHz, 3.5GHz IMC/3.7GHz, 6x 256kB L2, 9MB L3)
Multi-Media Integer 581.86Mpix/s

Multi-Media Long-int 214.11Mpix/s

Multi-Media Quad-int 1.91Mpix/s

Multi-Media Single-float 450.31Mpix/s

Multi-Media Double-float 256.77Mpix/s

Multi-Media Quad-float 10.26Mpix/s

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_r...d5e2d2e3d1e9d1f785b888aecbae93a385f6cbf3&l=en

  • Core(TM) i7-7700K CPU @ 4.20GHz (4C 8T 4.4GHz, 4.2GHz IMC, 4x 256kB L2, 8MB L3)
Multi-Media Integer 564.53Mpix/s

Multi-Media Long-int 202.72Mpix/s

Multi-Media Quad-int 2.34Mpix/s

Multi-Media Single-float 483.76Mpix/s

Multi-Media Double-float 286.88Mpix/s

Multi-Media Quad-float 11.61Mpix/s

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_r...e3d5e2d4eddafc8eb383a5c0a598a88efdc0f1c5&l=en

Geekbench 4

i7-7700K stock = 18.571 pts
http://www.tbreak.com/uploads/gallery/Intel-i7-7700K-Geekbench-4.jpg

i5-8400 = 19.799 pts
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3800240
 
Last edited:
Off topic, but pulled the trigger on the 7700K. I won't make the mistake of "upgrading" from an older i7 to a newer i5 again. A bit bummed that there's no Z270 support on CFL, but it is what it is. I'm betting this 7700K will last me a long time either way. Gotta stop spending money on all the new things and settle into a more economical upgrade cycle, so this feels like a good platform to settle on for a few years.
 
akiba said:
Intel BX80684I58600K Core i5-8600K 3.7GHz 6-Core

65W TDP, Turbo 4.2GHz, 9MB L3 Cache, GT2 Graphics, Socket-1151-V2
$314.00

Intel BX80684I78700 Core i7-8700 3.7GHz 6-Core

65W TDP, Turbo 4.2GHz, 12MB L3 Cache, GT2 Graphics, Socket-1151-V2
$368.00

Intel BX80684I78700K Core i7-8700K 3.8GHz 6-Core

95W TDP, Turbo 4.3GHz, 12MB L3 Cache, GT2 Graphics, Socket-1151-V2
$428.00

source -> http://gamepc.com/shop/productscategory?list=CPU
Click to expand...
They have other CPUs listed too, for price comparison.

7700K @ $378, overpriced.
But the 7800X is $410. Their 8700K is actually more expensive.

This makes me worry even if Intel sets a $350 MSRP we might see $400+ 8700K's.
 
Eh, that comparison will be a bit hit-and-miss, and will depend on workload.

For lighter/mixed workloads the 7700k and other 4C8T CPUs could easily pull ahead due to having the ability to keep more threads in flight, while for heavier or just straight FPU heavy workloads would give the nod to the 8400, assuming equal clockspeeds.
 
juanrga said:
HT accounts for something as 25% extra performance. The i5-8400 has 50% extra cores.
Click to expand...
Ah, I for some reason was thinking of quadcore i3, rather then hexacore i5, sorry. Keep forgetting CFL i5 is 6-core.

Yeah, the difference in performance between 4/8 and 6/6 cpu in gaming will be quite interesting, but at this point I doubt there will be any benefit tbh.
 
I'm building a PC for my sister. Was planning on i5-7600K or i5-7500, but I'll wait now to see if these release in next month or so, might be better for her and around same price. I have access to Microcenter, so they usually are real competitive on pricing of CPUs.
 
akiba said:
Intel BX80684I58600K Core i5-8600K 3.7GHz 6-Core

65W TDP, Turbo 4.2GHz, 9MB L3 Cache, GT2 Graphics, Socket-1151-V2
$314.00

Intel BX80684I78700 Core i7-8700 3.7GHz 6-Core

65W TDP, Turbo 4.2GHz, 12MB L3 Cache, GT2 Graphics, Socket-1151-V2
$368.00

Intel BX80684I78700K Core i7-8700K 3.8GHz 6-Core

95W TDP, Turbo 4.3GHz, 12MB L3 Cache, GT2 Graphics, Socket-1151-V2
$428.00

source -> http://gamepc.com/shop/productscategory?list=CPU
Click to expand...
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Please be a pre-release gouging and not a long term price.
God damnit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top