Monday, July 24th 2017

Reported Intel i7-8700K Coffee Lake 6-Core Lineup Leaked

by
Raevenlord
 Discuss (45 Comments)
After a CPU-Z screenshot leaked of Intel's upcoming Coffee Lake hexa-core CPUs, which look to bring the fight to AMD's Ryzen, this time there are leaks of three different Intel 6-core processors. The previous CPU-Z screenshot apparently pointed towards Intel's upcoming 8700K six-core processor, with a base clock of 3.5 GHz and a boost clock of 4.3 GHz. The BCLK of the CPU was set at 100 MHz with a TDP of 80W.

In the new leak, the i7-8700K seems to have received a speed bump and accompanying TDP increase. It now sits at a reported 3.7 GHz base clock, 4 GHz boost for four and six cores, 4.2 GHz for dual-core workloads, and 4.3 GHz for single-core workloads under a 95 W TDP. The second leaked six-core processor still sits at that 95 W TDP, but has much lower core clocks than the purported 8700K: a 3.2 GHz base clock with 3.4 GHz boost for four and six cores, and a 3.6 GHz boost for one or two-core workloads. Both of these appear to be unlocked, overclockable chips (IA Overclock capable.) The last CPU in this leaked info is a 65 W chip whose clocks seem a little out of the other's league. It has a lower base clock of 3.1 GHz, granted, but a four and six core turbo up to 3.9 GHz. Dual core boost stands at 4.1 GHz, while single-core workloads see Turbo taking the ship up to 4.2 GHz. The lower base clocks and increased Turbo speeds mean that this is likely an i7 T series chip. Naturally, you should take this information with a bucket of salt.
Sources: ETeknix 8700K CPU-Z Leak, ETeknix Coffee Lake Chips

Related News

Add your own comment

45 Comments on Reported Intel i7-8700K Coffee Lake 6-Core Lineup Leaked

#26
noname00
[XC] Oj101Turbo has never maxed out all cores out of the box :/ Sure, you can overclock all four cores on a 7700K to 4.5 GHz, and the same is true here (more in fact, it overclocks nicely).
My 6700k, with a -0.1V voltage offset, runs Prime95 at 4.2 on all cores with everything else on auto. I don't understand how Turbo Boost actually works on a single core
Posted on Reply
#27
Darmok N Jalad
champsilvaActually the 6-core part from intel was already "confirmed" long time ago

www.extremetech.com/computing/235664-leaked-roadmap-claims-intel-will-bring-six-core-chips-to-mainstream-pcs-with-upcoming-coffee-lake

Look at the date, but the only thing Intel is probably doing is releasing before the date, usually mainstream cpus launching at january.
I'm sure that Intel knew a decent amount about Ryzen before it was announced. If nothing else, they likely knew AMD was going to offer more (true) cores than 4.
Posted on Reply
#28
TheLostSwede
News Editor
noname00My 6700k, with a -0.1V voltage offset, runs Prime95 at 4.2 on all cores with everything else on auto. I don't understand how Turbo Boost actually works on a single core
It's for programs that only use one or two cores, so there's a potential that the turbo boost will go above that of four (or in this case, six) cores.
Posted on Reply
#29
[XC] Oj101
cryohellincAgreed, however in this case neither is Good or Bad, both of them are Ugly (if you get the reference ;)) This is a normal competition which is finally back, however I have to say that looking on recent actions by Intel + all the rumors that float around, I do think they are hastily trying to close the gaps in their product portfolio to counter AMD. That can be seen in both themselves, and their partners. Sudden release of massive amount of new CPU's, which are all in all, a shrinked version of Xeon's + hastily made Mobo's + major overheating issues e.t.c.
Core CPUs have been Xeons with certain communication channels and ECC Reg memory support disabled for a very long time. New generations always bring a large number of new CPUs. The new CPUs don't have overheating issues, the VRMs do when there isn't enough airflow (and there are certain boards not affected by this ;)). The VRM cooling isn't even Intel's design, so you can't blame them for that directly. I say not directly as you can blame them for it indirectly, as the launch being moved forwards combined with vendors working on FOUR platforms simultaneously means that the vendors haven't been able to commit 100 % to X299.

There is a hell of a lot that you can blame Intel for with X299, but address those points directly instead of scraping together wishy washy points that don't account for anything. Blame them for something tangible, such as the lack of PCI-E lanes.

I don't understand how a hundred people who have not seen, never mind used, Threadripper have such deeply seated opinions on the matter.

I get that it's trendy to hate on Intel at the moment, but for crying out loud please have valid reason for hating on them!
noname00My 6700k, with a -0.1V voltage offset, runs Prime95 at 4.2 on all cores with everything else on auto. I don't understand how Turbo Boost actually works on a single core
I have no idea what you'r trying to say :(
Posted on Reply
#30
EarthDog
Some boards default to using all cores at turbo boost. ;)
Posted on Reply
#31
[XC] Oj101
EarthDogSome boards default to using all cores at turbo boost. ;)
That doesn't really matter, as it is not Intel's spec (which is what he's complaining about - the spec is for only two cores boosting to the maximum frequency).
Posted on Reply
#32
EarthDog
I get that. Was just adding a point for clarity as to why he may be seeing the behavior he is seeing. Is that ok, lol???

Feels like he understood how turbo works, but is wondering why p95 runs all cores at 4.2...thelostswede answered that. :)

Rgardless, my post was a value add for clarity...mmmk? :)
Posted on Reply
#33
[XC] Oj101
EarthDogI get that. Was just adding a point for clarity as to why he may be seeing the behavior he is seeing. Is that ok, lol???
Of course :D It doesn't, however, add validity to his complaint.

As I said, hate on Intel all you want, but please know why you hate them and let it be a valid reason xD
Posted on Reply
#34
EarthDog
That was his (noname) only post in this thread and he didnt hate on intel...

I digress...not worth it. :)
Posted on Reply
#35
[XC] Oj101
EarthDogThat was his (noname) only post in this thread and he didnt hate on intel...

I digress...not worth it. :)
You're 100 % correct - I mixed him up with the person who said it's a quad core with a dual core glued on (cryohellinc). I blame posting from my phone :p My bad :)
Posted on Reply
#36
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
I'm just trying to figure out work load a home user would prefer 8 slow Ryzen cores. A workstation is one thing and I do want to give threadripper a go, but if the goal is games AMD is at a loss, these 6 core chips will probably extend that lead even more and quite honestly make the kaby lake quads on x299 even more confusing.
Posted on Reply
#37
efikkan
RejZoRIt's interesting for a change seeing Intel responding to AMD offerings. We've been used to reverse for too long.
The upcoming 6-core has been known since before the launch of Ryzen.
cryohellincInstead we have a quad core CPU, with Dual core Cpu glued on top of it, which clocks higher.
No, it's a 6-core design.
cryohellincHow is this a new and innovative product? Honestly?
And how is this a bad thing?
cryohellincThe only way I see this competing against say Ryzen 1700 is if it will have fantastic value price.

Recently built a workstation for job, with Ryzen 1800x, fantastic CPU, all cores clocked to 4.0, works flawlessly.

Seems my next home / gaming build will be 1700 unless something changes.
This CPU beats Ryzen 1800X in overall performance.
Hugh MungusThe 8700k might literally just be a 7800x.
No, i7-8700K is based on Kaby-Lake, not on the more advanced Skylake-X. i7-7800K offers slightly higher IPC, higher memory bandwidth, AVX-512 and various chipset features, if any of these are relevant, it's worth considering. Otherwise i7-8700K will surely offer better value.
Hugh MungusIf intel sticks with 14nm too long AMD has got them beat. All AMD then has to do is improve zen and maybe even switch to 7nm for zen2 to get more cores in the same die space and zen is apparently also very cheap to produce, unlike Intel's competition, so AMD could just drop the prices 20-30% and keep the budget crown.
Intel 14nm is much denser than Samsung 14nm, so for a fair comparison Samsung will be "~20nm". Intel is planning to release the "lower end" Cannonlake on 10nm later this year, with it's next new architecture Icelake on 10nm around end of next year.
cdawallI'm just trying to figure out work load a home user would prefer 8 slow Ryzen cores.
You know, synthetic benchmarks to demonstrate its "superiority".
Posted on Reply
#38
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
efikkanYou know, synthetic benchmarks to demonstrate its "superiority".
It isn't even great there. I swear if I see one more cinebench says its best post I'll blow my brains out.
Posted on Reply
#39
Rahmat Sofyan
After 7 Years... Nice..

But I will wait for Vodka Lake, Coke Lake, Cappucino Lake, Sake Lake, etc...
Posted on Reply
#40
[XC] Oj101
Hugh MungusThe 8700k might literally just be a 7800x. If intel sticks with 14nm too long AMD has got them beat. All AMD then has to do is improve zen and maybe even switch to 7nm for zen2 to get more cores in the same die space and zen is apparently also very cheap to produce, unlike Intel's competition, so AMD could just drop the prices 20-30% and keep the budget crown.

So let's hope Intel isn't just stretching skylake's lifespan as much as possible with minor upgrades (really minor since you need a good-great cooler to really make use of extra stock clocks and overclockability) and they're finally dropping down to a 10nm or even a 7nm proces node.
Um, since when have TSMC or Samsung been better at manufacturing than Intel? You can bet your bottom dollar that Intel will retain their lead for the foreseeable future.
Posted on Reply
#41
mcraygsx
I am all for 8700K if it Overclock anything like my 7700K which is 5.1+ Ghz anytime, any day with minimal effort.
RejZoRIt's interesting for a change seeing Intel responding to AMD offerings. We've been used to reverse for too long.
I am more interested in weather INTEL will solder die & HS or utilize cheap glue once more. I hope they have learned their lesson from past and if not INTEL should get ready to issue another statement to advise consumers not to OC their K series chip. But things do not look very promising since their HEDT now even use Thermal paste.
EarthDogSome boards default to using all cores at turbo boost. ;)
In ASUS motherboard's BIOS, you can simply select SYNC ALL CORES and you have all cores running at max speed e.g. 4.5Ghz in 7700k regardless of the load type. Easy Overclocking for you.

Depending on the BIOS, once you enable X.M.P profile, it auto enables SYNC all cores.
Posted on Reply
#42
RejZoR
[XC] Oj101Um, since when have TSMC or Samsung been better at manufacturing than Intel? You can bet your bottom dollar that Intel will retain their lead for the foreseeable future.
I'd say TSMC is on the same level as Intel and they have proven their worth many times with advanced and reliable processes. You have to understand that TSMC is a fabricator for 3rd parties. When they come to their engineers and tell what they want fabed, they are probably best at what they do. You can't take Intel product and Intel fabs where engineers of both work together since initial plans and compare that with TSMC where 3rd parties come to them with already planned stuff and they have to make it. Sure they are in touch from day one most likely, but they can't ever have same communication as when it's everything inside of the same company.

Btw, MSI board that I have also has an All Core turbo option. And I'm pretty sure Ryzen boards have similar option.
Posted on Reply
#43
Prima.Vera
efikkanNo, i7-8700K is based on Kaby-Lake, not on the more advanced Skylake-X. i7-7800K offers slightly higher IPC, higher memory bandwidth, AVX-512 and various chipset features, if any of these are relevant, it's worth considering. Otherwise i7-8700K will surely offer better value.
Those perf increase are only on paper. In real word scenarios, eg: games, the 7700K uttery smoked the 7800X.
Posted on Reply
#45
THU31
Really curious about the price of the i5. Six highly clocked cores is exactly what I want.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Apr 29th, 2024 13:46 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts