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

[Gideon]

Intel onboard GPU is capable of 3 video outs, 4k for at least 2 (if not all 3?) of them, it does h264 / h265 decode and encode if I recall. It's even capable of very, very basic games.
It's ENTIRELY "free"
The Intel CPU has a better IPC to boot.

So,....... the AMD 1600 needs a REAL price drop. I'd gladly support them to keep them around, but without a guaranteed way to get a segfault free edition CPU and without a super cheap, decent quality, but quiet, small, low power, modern, CHEAP GPU - why should I pay any more than $140?

The integrated gpu is not free it's just part of what you buy with the cpu, you gave up processor cores for it. The IPC is better on the Intel and the multithread is better on the AMD, just a matter of what you need. Also since the 1600 is selling really well I doubt AMD is going to move the price at all. AMD had no choice but to be the value edition when Bulldozer was less then exciting. Ryzen works well and will get a upgrade with Ryzen 2 when it comes out, while with Intel it's a dead end. Pros and cons to either side and that is dependent on what you need the cpu for as well, at least you have a option now. As for the segfault that was a few early release processors and AMD exchanged them for anyone that had a issue with it.

 

[oleNBR]

So lets assume they didn't do it. And 8700K only hit 4.5Ghz instead of 5Ghz+. Then we would hear some waaah waaaah poor OC, terrible design and what not.

well shintai, your bias couldnt be more obvious. if 8700k is a chip for 6c turbo 4.3ghz, then only hitting 4.5ghz would be indeed poor OC. if OC only 5% is not called poor compare to old days i donno what is. rather, AMD fanbois and their reaction is expected, those who really know performance for consumers will still go for 8700k because it is still faster than what 1600/1700 can offer in terms of ST performance.

The integrated gpu is not free it's just part of what you buy with the cpu, you gave up processor cores for it. The IPC is better on the Intel and the multithread is better on the AMD, just a matter of what you need.

i'd probably agree with you years ago but now changed. its expected iGP to come with intel cpu, although like you mentioned based on individual needs i think having an extra iGP would benefit regardless.

say you only have 1 dGPU and it breaks down and your mobo doesnt have onboard VGA or simply unsure what the issue is, then you dont have a computer to work with until another dGPU arrives. with intel's iGPU you can still use computer, and really troubleshoot if it really is GPU issue. more important for laptop user that has LGA CPU in it, iGPU also saves battery life, many benefits.

i7 already got upped 2 cores, in 2018 or early 2019 it'll become 8 cores PLUS an iGPU, possibly a more powerful one, all very much at under $400. i think thats a very good deal.

 

[Hagrid]

well shintai, your bias couldnt be more obvious. if 8700k is a chip for 6c turbo 4.3ghz, then only hitting 4.5ghz would be indeed poor OC. if OC only 5% is not called poor compare to old days i donno what is. rather, AMD fanbois and their reaction is expected, those who really know performance for consumers will still go for 8700k because it is still faster than what 1600/1700 can offer in terms of ST performance.

How many people really need high/max ST performance? If Intel's and AMD's both play games fine and still relatively close in apps, then wouldn't it be better to get the better price/performance?
I know Shintai would not get an AMD cpu even if it beat Intel at everything and 1/2 the price.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

How many people really need high/max ST performance?

How many people need more than their cell phone to get by?

This is a seriously silly question with a very simple answer: more performance -> better so long as you don't give anything else up.

In the case of the 8700k, you get better single-thread performance while maintaining multi-thread performance, compared to the 1700X.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

The integrated gpu is not free it's just part of what you buy with the cpu, you gave up processor cores for it.

Really? You can buy an 1151-socketed CPU without a GPU that has more cores than those available with GPUs?

Or, compare to AMD, who is only going to give you four cores with their GPU, compared to Intel's six?

 

[Hagrid]

How many people need more than their cell phone to get by?

This is a seriously silly question with a very simple answer: more performance -> better so long as you don't give anything else up.

In the case of the 8700k, you get better single-thread performance while maintaining multi-thread performance, compared to the 1700X.

But does the 1700x work fine for everything just like the 8700k? Or does the 1700x not do anything good, can't play games at a playable level, etc?
I have 8745764765874 fps on my Intel and the AMD only has 6437746 fps. Lolz, how can anybody play that way!

It also depends on the cellphone.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

But does the 1700x work fine for everything just like the 8700k? Or does the 1700x not do anything good, can't play games at a playable level, etc?
I have 8745764765874 fps on my Intel and the AMD only has 6437746 fps. Lolz, how can anybody play that way!

It also depends on the cellphone.

Are you even [H]?

If the 1700x is the same in some things and slower in others, you're going to argue for it anyway, because you like slower?

Are your workloads static over time? Does nothing ever change?

 

[Hagrid]

Are you even [H]?

If the 1700x is the same in some things and slower in others, you're going to argue for it anyway, because you like slower?

Are your workloads static over time? Does nothing ever change?

Not everybody is [H]ard. There might be people who want performance/price. I admit that I am a cheap bastard!

 

[Gideon]

well shintai, your bias couldnt be more obvious. if 8700k is a chip for 6c turbo 4.3ghz, then only hitting 4.5ghz would be indeed poor OC. if OC only 5% is not called poor compare to old days i donno what is. rather, AMD fanbois and their reaction is expected, those who really know performance for consumers will still go for 8700k because it is still faster than what 1600/1700 can offer in terms of ST performance.




i'd probably agree with you years ago but now changed. its expected iGP to come with intel cpu, although like you mentioned based on individual needs i think having an extra iGP would benefit regardless.

say you only have 1 dGPU and it breaks down and your mobo doesnt have onboard VGA or simply unsure what the issue is, then you dont have a computer to work with until another dGPU arrives. with intel's iGPU you can still use computer, and really troubleshoot if it really is GPU issue. more important for laptop user that has LGA CPU in it, iGPU also saves battery life, many benefits.

i7 already got upped 2 cores, in 2018 or early 2019 it'll become 8 cores PLUS an iGPU, possibly a more powerful one, all very much at under $400. i think thats a very good deal.

IGP is useless for over 90% of the people here on this forum tho. So you paid for something you never want to use except in a emergency, which to me seems like a waste of cash that could have gone to extra processing power. As for a GPU failing I always have a cheap card I can toss in, but I have never had one fail on me. Mobile is a whole different ballgame and of course a IGP is important there. As for the next Intel chips will have to see what they do, but AMD is not going to just sit there and watch this time so will have to see what they offer as well. But for me on the Desktop the IGP is just useless space and I would rather have the cores for the same amount of cash. But I do a fair amount of encryption work so cores are important.

 

[SomeGuy133]

Not everybody is [H]ard. There might be people who want performance/price. I admit that I am a cheap bastard!

and yet if people would actually read IBMs study from 1982 you would realize performance/price is a stupid metric to make a purchase for a day to day desktop/work machine.

folding, render, long run tasks ...sure best performance and price is a good smart buy. But for a desktop/workstation its a stupid ass metric especially if you have high transaction rates.

Also AMD doesnt game well...its 30-40% behind in frame rate in many games because of the massive single thread limits....please stop trolling.

 

[AbRASiON]

The integrated gpu is not free it's just part of what you buy with the cpu, you gave up processor cores for it.

No, I didn't - I "lost" hyperthreading / smt, vs the AMD 1600 - but I have the same amount of cores for the same money.
Also I thought implying the Intel GPU was "free" in quotation marks, was self explanatory.

The IPC is better on the Intel and the multithread is better on the AMD, just a matter of what you need. Also since the 1600 is selling really well I doubt AMD is going to move the price at all.

Selling well now, it's about to become a very unwise buy. The 8400 is going to compete very well.

AMD had no choice but to be the value edition when Bulldozer was less then exciting. Ryzen works well and will get a upgrade with Ryzen 2 when it comes out, while with Intel it's a dead end. Pros and cons to either side and that is dependent on what you need the cpu for as well, at least you have a option now. As for the segfault that was a few early release processors and AMD exchanged them for anyone that had a issue with it.

The segfault issue has only just been identified and fixed and I imagine a _HEAP_ of AMD processors in the chanel still have the problem.
Ryzen is better than the old processors, but once Oct 5 hits and I can buy a $182 US (roughly) 6 core processor without needing to dump $30 to $100 in a basic video card? Yeah,...... that 1600 needs to come down, fast.
I'm still willing to buy one just to keep them in the market, if they're willing to price it accordingly.

 

[AbRASiON]

Any idea if Strix ITX will be avail launch day/week?

Reviewers have them - at least one web site, at least one youtuber, not just big guys like Kyle, Anand, Techreport.
I (suspect?) maybe we really will see them day one.

 

[Hagrid]

and yet if people would actually read IBMs study from 1982 you would realize performance/price is a stupid metric to make a purchase for a day to day desktop/work machine.

folding, render, long run tasks ...sure best performance and price is a good smart buy. But for a desktop/workstation its a stupid ass metric especially if you have high transaction rates.

Also AMD doesnt game well...its 30-40% behind in frame rate in many games because of the massive single thread limits....please stop trolling.

Not trolling trying to see the big picture. So you are stating AMD cpu's cannot play games at a reasonable fps to make the game fun? It stutters and stops?
It is a stupid metric? Well then why isn't everybody buying the $1999 Intel cpu?

 

[AbRASiON]

Not trolling trying to see the big picture. So you are stating AMD cpu's cannot play games at a reasonable fps to make the game fun? It stutters and stops?
It is a stupid metric? Well then why isn't everybody buying the $1999 Intel cpu?

Are you talking to me?
EDIT: Never mind, I blocked that guy after he went on some crazy rant against me, I then noticed he had the formatting, language and capitalization of posts of a 13 y/o.

 

[bpizzle1]

Reviewers have them - at least one web site, at least one youtuber, not just big guys like Kyle, Anand, Techreport.
I (suspect?) maybe we really will see them day one.

The chart I posted a bit up the thread shows it should be available at launch. A quick Google seach says the Z270 version had a $179 MSRP, so I'm going to guess the Z370 will probably either be the same price or jump up a few bucks to $189.

 

[AbRASiON]

The chart I posted a bit up the thread shows it should be available at launch. A quick Google seach says the Z270 version had a $179 MSRP, so I'm going to guess the Z370 will probably either be the same price or jump up a few bucks to $189.

Yeah I suspect that too, which means it'll be $222 US over here at launch

 

[SomeGuy133]

Not trolling trying to see the big picture. So you are stating AMD cpu's cannot play games at a reasonable fps to make the game fun? It stutters and stops?
It is a stupid metric? Well then why isn't everybody buying the $1999 Intel cpu?

because 2000 dollar CPU isnt the best desktop CPU. a 7700K is and soon a 8700K will be.

like 6 games have been posted showing the AMD cpu has 30-40% less minimum FPS so if you game at 120hz it cant even do it. It completely fails at that task

Even intel cant maintain 120hz in many games but it get far far closer.

Again go read IBMs study on rapid response systems closer to instant response times the more time is saved in user response times. This has been known since 1982 which is why i always build my desktop around being the snappiest possible. C{U, RAM, and SSD. If you have low transaction rate it doesnt matter as much but if you have a high transaction rate it matters a lot. If all you do is watch youtube videos and make only 20 transaction per hour. It doesnt really matter.

Spoiler

https://videocardz.com/73061/yet-another-core-i7-8700k-i5-8600k-review-posted-ahead-of-launch


so is lab501 reliable? My question is wasnt someone claiming single thread doesn't matter in gaming or something stupid and i correctly pointed out how single thread is important for minimum framerate and that makes the biggest difference in quality of experience with removing stutters and smoothness issues.

in far cry primal 7700K and 8700K (all the CPUs with great single thread) are the only ones near 100FPS while AMD is at 68 lol. That is ~40% different hahahahahahaha

far cry primal 100v68
GTA5 52v31 lawls
doom 137vs83
sleeping dogs 113v75

is this place reliable? because that is huge differences and those are even well designed games...not even counting the 10,000's of single threaded or poorly optimized games hahaha

That is why HEDT is trash for gaming and those high clocked quads or now finally 6 cores are awesome

Also lab501 or whatever has the shittiest charts i have ever seen. I made better ones in middle school in the 90s

EDIT: those differences are honestly much larger than i would have expected. I was assuming maybe 30% but this is way worse lol. Is it really accurate because those scores are awful.

 

[Hagrid]

because 2000 dollar CPU isnt the best desktop CPU. a 7700K is and soon a 8700K will be.

like 6 games have been posted showing the AMD cpu has 30-40% less minimum FPS so if you game at 120hz it cant even do it. It comp

Even intel cant maintain 120hz in many games but it get far far closer.

Again go read IBMs study on rapid response systems closer to instant response times the more time is saved in user response times. This has been known since 1982 which is why i always build my desktop around being the snappiest possible. C{U, RAM, and SSD. If you have low transaction rate it doesnt matter as much but if you have a high transaction rate it matters a lot. If all you do is watch youtube videos and make only 20 transaction it doesnt really matter.

Not everybody uses their desktop as just a gaming machine but I see your point about the 120hz and 144hz.(240hz?). Luckily I game at 4K 60hz so my poor 980ti takes the brunt of my gaming.
I have not looked or read any gaming graphs that have to do with 120/144. Those will definitely be taxing.
Why read IBM's crap when I have other modern sources. People should use their brain and wallet to make a decision.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Not everybody is [H]ard. There might be people who want performance/price. I admit that I am a cheap bastard!

So you'd rather get less for your money?

 

[Hagrid]

So you'd rather get less for your money?

No, I would rather have choices. It's not always getting less for your money if it does what you need it to.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

No, I would rather have choices. It's not always getting less for your money if it does what you need it to.

How is Intel releasing the 8700k decreasing your choices?

 

[Hagrid]

How is Intel releasing the 8700k decreasing your choices?

It`s not, but AMD is helping now at least. If Intel can get their prices down.

 

[SomeGuy133]

Not everybody uses their desktop as just a gaming machine but I see your point about the 120hz and 144hz.(240hz?). Luckily I game at 4K 60hz so my poor 980ti takes the brunt of my gaming.
I have not looked or read any gaming graphs that have to do with 120/144. Those will definitely be taxing.

you dont have to look at special graphs just look at a good review and look at the 99/99.9% of frames and minimum frame rate. the leaked review of the 8700K has several AAA games on it and AMD was laughable if you want a good gaming experience.

Why read IBM's crap when I have other modern sources. People should use their brain and wallet to make a decision.

and thats what willfully ignorant persoin says when presented with a source that explains how the human brain works. This is the reason why humanity never learns. Something has been known for 35+ years and people still stay shit like this

https://jlelliotton.blogspot.com/p/the-economic-value-of-rapid-response.html

I really should get a counter for how many times i have had to post this is educate people and keep track of how many people choose willful ignorance instead of reading a study.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

It`s not, but AMD is helping now at least. If Intel can get their prices down.

Why would Intel lower their prices when they have a better product?

 

[IdiotInCharge]

you dont have to look at special graphs just look at a good review and look at the 99/99.9% of frames and minimum frame rate. the leaked review of the 8700K has several AAA games on it and AMD was laughable if you want a good gaming experience.

To be fair to Hagrid, 'good gaming experience' is definitely relative to individual requirements; prior to the introduction of the 8700k, the 1700x was really the better buy if you didn't need to go above 60Hz and could make use of the multithreading prowess.

Now AMD is going to have to drop prices on Ryzen AM4 CPUs in order to present a positive price/performance proposition.

 

[Hagrid]

you dont have to look at special graphs just look at a good review and look at the 99/99.9% of frames and minimum frame rate. the leaked review of the 8700K has several AAA games on it and AMD was laughable if you want a good gaming experience.

and thats what willfully ignorant persoin says when presented with a source that explains how the human brain works. This is the reason why humanity never learns. Something has been known for 35+ years and people still stay shit like this

https://jlelliotton.blogspot.com/p/the-economic-value-of-rapid-response.html

I really should get a counter for how many times i have had to post this is educate people and keep track of how many people choose willful ignorance instead of reading a study.

Yes you are a modern day Einstein.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

I see a mild price cut in AM4's future. For the 8 and 4 core chips, namely. The K i3 and i7 are going to do a number on the R3 and R7.

Don't think the 1600 is going to move much from where it is now.

 

[AbRASiON]

I see a mild price cut in AM4's future. For the 8 and 4 core chips, namely. The K i3 and i7 are going to do a number on the R3 and R7.

Don't think the 1600 is going to move much from where it is now.

It's an inferior product to the 8400, without a "free" video card. It needs to drop urgently.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

It's an inferior product to the 8400, without a "free" video card. It needs to drop urgently.

Well first off, CFL is limited to Z370 until Q1, which makes the 8400 an odd proposition and also inflates the price quite a bit. R5 also has SMT and can be OC'd enough out of the box to compete.

At $200 the 1600 is priced well enough for now.

 

[SomeGuy133]

Well first off, CFL is limited to Z370 until Q1, which makes the 8400 an odd proposition and also inflates the price quite a bit. R5 also has SMT and can be OC'd enough out of the box to compete.

At $200 the 1600 is priced well enough for now.

disappointed the i3s are not HT. I was really hoping to see how much higher of a clock 14nm++ was going to get for quad cores compared to 7700K :/

 

[Shintai]

i3 with HT seems to wait for ICL-S with 8 cores I imagine. So the series will be 4, 6 and 8.

 

[oleNBR]

IGP is useless for over 90% of the people here on this forum tho. So you paid for something you never want to use except in a emergency, which to me seems like a waste of cash that could have gone to extra processing power. As for a GPU failing I always have a cheap card I can toss in, but I have never had one fail on me. Mobile is a whole different ballgame and of course a IGP is important there. As for the next Intel chips will have to see what they do, but AMD is not going to just sit there and watch this time so will have to see what they offer as well. But for me on the Desktop the IGP is just useless space and I would rather have the cores for the same amount of cash. But I do a fair amount of encryption work so cores are important.

thats where i'd disagree, and per your words "based on people's usage" to remind you:

The integrated gpu is not free it's just part of what you buy with the cpu, you gave up processor cores for it. The IPC is better on the Intel and the multithread is better on the AMD, just a matter of what you need.

if its based on need then your argument is pointless because i do use it, in a laptop which battery matters, battery matters due to once or twice/ year power outage i dont wish to risk my computer if theres no battery and when theres no power, i wish to crank my laptop down to 1 core and use iGP to make it last 5-6 hrs while watching videos. its also good when dGPU dies like i previously said, order a new dGPU will take few days to arrive, in the mean time u can still use your computer just boot with iGPU. even smart business get giant UPS and use it once every 1-2 yrs just in case of outages.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

because 2000 dollar CPU isnt the best desktop CPU. a 7700K is and soon a 8700K will be.

like 6 games have been posted showing the AMD cpu has 30-40% less minimum FPS so if you game at 120hz it cant even do it. It completely fails at that task

Even intel cant maintain 120hz in many games but it get far far closer.

Again go read IBMs study on rapid response systems closer to instant response times the more time is saved in user response times. This has been known since 1982 which is why i always build my desktop around being the snappiest possible. C{U, RAM, and SSD. If you have low transaction rate it doesnt matter as much but if you have a high transaction rate it matters a lot. If all you do is watch youtube videos and make only 20 transaction per hour. It doesnt really matter.

A whole 6 games, yeah Tomb raider like nobody even plays that anymore and yet Player Unknown Battlegrounds, the world record setting soon to be full release title, genuinely the best and most alpha game on the market has ryzen and strangely enough Vega doing exceptionally well, Battlefield 1 has Ryzen doing well (not sure about vega but irrelevant here).

so yeah if you cherry pick the whole 6 games and base it off that you distort your argument with a warped sense of mental gymnastics.

Intel games better but the aggregate is more like 10%

 

[Shintai]

A whole 6 games, yeah Tomb raider like nobody even plays that anymore and yet Player Unknown Battlegrounds, the world record setting soon to be full release title, genuinely the best and most alpha game on the market has ryzen and strangely enough Vega doing exceptionally well, Battlefield 1 has Ryzen doing well (not sure about vega but irrelevant here).

so yeah if you cherry pick the whole 6 games and base it off that you distort your argument with a warped sense of mental gymnastics.

Intel games better but the aggregate is more like 10%

LOL! Performance doesn't matter, Vega is the best. We get your viewpoint

 

[OrangeKhrush]

LOL! Performance doesn't matter, Vega is the best.

I don't see that anywhere, wouldn't really know, never owned a ATI or RTG card to say.

 

[Shintai]

I don't see that anywhere, wouldn't really know, never owned a ATI or RTG card to say.

Sure thing...

No stock Zen CPU can do 60FPS in PUGS sustained. And minimums are down in the 30s. But its all about the cinematic effect, right?

Not to mention its a game where Polaris and Fiji loses big time. So not sure why Vega would be different.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

Sure thing...

No stock Zen CPU can do 60FPS in PUGS sustained. And minimums are down in the 30s. But its all about the cinematic effect, right?

My system struggles to sustain 100FPS in NewZ, a DX9 game so whats the issue, given that there is lots of rendering in open world games to sustain high FPS at low resolution is going to be problematic, which is probably why more are moving up to 1440 middle ground resolutions. I have seen prices on 1440 monitors drop very close to 1080 as it looks like it is slowly being phased out.

 

[Shintai]

My system struggles to sustain 100FPS in NewZ, a DX9 game so whats the issue, given that there is lots of rendering in open world games to sustain high FPS at low resolution is going to be problematic, which is probably why more are moving up to 1440 middle ground resolutions. I have seen prices on 1440 monitors drop very close to 1080 as it looks like it is slowly being phased out.

So now you want to talk about 1440P. But how is the most played game there? Its not getting any better for you.

Player Unknown Battlegrounds, the world record setting soon to be full release title, genuinely the best and most alpha game on the market has ryzen and strangely enough Vega doing exceptionally well,

Ryzen cant sustain 60FPS, Vega is a complete disaster. Far from your exceptional well joke.

 

[Tzeh Pesh]

A whole 6 games, yeah Tomb raider like nobody even plays that anymore and yet Player Unknown Battlegrounds, the world record setting soon to be full release title, genuinely the best and most alpha game on the market has ryzen and strangely enough Vega doing exceptionally well, Battlefield 1 has Ryzen doing well (not sure about vega but irrelevant here).

so yeah if you cherry pick the whole 6 games and base it off that you distort your argument with a warped sense of mental gymnastics.

Intel games better but the aggregate is more like 10%

Here's the issue there as I see it.

If AMD has a core and thread count advantage at the consumer level with Ryzen, and Intel has the IPC and frequency advantage at the consumer level with Kaby Lake..

What advantage AMD may be able claim in games that benefit from the higher core/thread count slips with Intel releasing 6C/12T Coffee Lake, and where will it be if rumored 8C/16T next year is true? I'm a little worried what will happen if through IPC and frequencies lesser core count i7 8700s are nipping at the heals of Ryzen R7s in more heavily threaded tasks... enjoy AMD starting a fire under Intel, and would like to see it keep going. But when it comes down to it, can AMD improve their IPC and frequencies going forward as easily as Intel can (finally) throw more cores and threads into their product stack?

 

[akiba]

2017-2019 INTEL CORE X-SERIES SKYLAKE X CANONLAKE X ICELAKE X TIGERLAKE X

Source - http://tieba.baidu.com/p/5353174380