Wednesday, April 19th 2017

Intel to Accelerate Basin Falls Unveil, Coffee Lake Launch

According to DigiTimes, sources among Taiwan-based PC vendors have indicated that Intel's upcoming Basin Falls platform, which includes Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X processors on a new X299 chipset, will be unveiled at Computex 2017 (May 30th, June 3rd), in Taipei - two months earlier than expected. This move comes accompanied by an accelerated launch of the Coffee Lake microarchitecture, which still uses the 14 nm process, to August 2017 from an initial January 2018 launch. If true, this is big in a number of ways - that Intel would bring forward a product launch 4 months has some interesting implications - or at least, confirmations.

Remember that Coffee Lake is supposed to carry an increased number of cores in its mainstream designs. And we all know how Intel's line-up has almost been torn apart by Ryzen's aggressive core and thread-count, with AMD offering more cores and threads than Intel at virtually all price-points. And even if an argument is made regarding Intel's better gaming performance, that's one scenario out of many. Future proofing, professional work, multimedia, all of these assert AMD's dominance in a pure price-performance ratio. I, for one, would gladly give up some FPS in some games and accept an increased number of cores than go the other way around (especially with AMD's platform support and the number of patches that have increased game performance on Ryzen CPUs.)
So what we see here, if these reports are correct, is Intel scrambling to respond to a launch that caught the blue giant squarely with its figurative pants down - Ryzen's 52% performance increase (and incredible energy efficiency) over the now defunct and best-forgotten Bulldozer debacle was something Intel wasn't quite counting on. Intel had three choices: keep its stalwart posture with no price decreases on its line-up and see Ryzen CPUs flying off the shelves, as they mostly have; do an about-face and lower pricing, which would indelibly mark its standing and image as an untouchable tech giant; or accelerate the launch of its upcoming platform, with a line-up that is actually better equipped to handle Ryzen's core and thread dominance. If the last one is true, then this is no small feat for Intel itself, and just goes to show how the company could have increased core-count on its processors any time it wanted. Instead, they took the sound business decision in face of lacking competition - but those are all decisions that now show us how ridiculous it is that Intel is selling two-core, four thread i3 processors for the premium it has.

Back to the news piece, these Basin Falls-based products are expected to be revealed near the E3 gaming show in June, with the official release at the end of the month. It is currently expected that the Skylake-X series features three 140W processors with 6, 8 and 10-core designs, while the Kaby Lake-X series carries a 112 W, quad-core processor. In August, Intel will release a top-end 12-core Skylake-X processor. These will probably enter a collision course with AMD's expected X399 platform, which again boast of higher core-counts - and probably better performance-per-watt - than Intel's offerings, with 12 and 16-core processors (with double the threads) being available.

As for the 14nm-based Coffee Lake-based processors, which are supposed to bring Intel back in the mainstream processor game, the company is expected to initially release several K-series Core i7/i5/i3 processors and accompanying Z370 chipsets in August, with more CPUs and the H370, B360 and H310 chipsets at the end of 2017 or early 2018. Digitimes also reports that Intel has ordered five extra EUV machine sets from ASML in an effort to increase its manufacturing capabilities. If all of this pans out the way it's looking, I think "scrambling" is a more than fair description on the current Intel landscape.
Source: DigiTimes
Add your own comment

66 Comments on Intel to Accelerate Basin Falls Unveil, Coffee Lake Launch

#51
Imsochobo
happy mediumI'm thick but you show, I'm correct.
ok.

That gap will widen as gpu's get stronger .

Next years mid range Volta mid range gpu will = a 1080ti and a Ryzen system will become cpu limited.
Take away the gpu limiting settings today with a overclocked Pascal XP @ 1080p and Ryzen is much slower.
That's a little preview for whats to come @ 1440p with a 2080ti next year.
hey idiot!

sorry, anyways... 1055T got 60 fps in most games, GTA 5 as people taunt as being CPU demanding gets 60fps on a 1055T.

I think a twice as fast cpu can play games at 60 fps when a 9 year old shitcpu can...

History lesson.
I don't see the people who went to slower quads back 11 years ago had issues playing more modern games, in fact some of those 10 year old quads still work in most games at medium settings... 10 years!!!
prior to that we had the same choice with dualcores, people with faster 1 cores did not last longer than their dualcores...

on another note: seeing massive discounts on lower tier I3 and I5 cpu based systems...
hmm, I wonder why - We're talking giving away prices!
Posted on Reply
#52
efikkan
GrootSquadIt's funny, you people are toting more cores and threads on AMD like they are god's gift to the computer world. Currently yes, AMD wins in performance per dollar and they do have more cores.... But the even the fact that Intels CURRENT cpus still manage to beat out AMD's BRAND NEW cpus in gaming is kind of embarrassing in my opinion.

Honestly, what do you people do that you need "MOAR CORES!"? 'Cause last I checked the performance gain from "MOAR CORES!" really isn't all that great. Especially when you compare AMD and Intel on a core vs core basis.
You are touching an important subject here. More cores is better, and we do need more cores. Still, faster* cores remains even more important. Even i7-7700K beats Ryzen 7 1800X i more than gaming, even in major use cases like Photoshop and web browsing. And an i7-6800K would beat 1800X in most normal power user applications, with a few exceptions.
*) So why are Intel's cores much faster when Ryzen have more computational resources in each core? Simply because Intel have much a better prefetcher to feed their CPUs. In the real world this means Ryzen will handle simple linear streams of data with no branching (software rendering, compression, some encoding), while Intel remains superior on "mixed" workloads which are not cache-optimized (gaming, photo editing, CAD, web browsing, office applications etc.). Most use cases for power uses resides in the latter end of that scale.

Most people have misconceptions about how games/rendering engines work. Even though rendering is a parallel task, dispatching the queue is not. Having multiple cores building a queue is possible in Direct3D 12, but the synchronization overhead is going to outweigh any gains, so you are pretty much limited to one core per queue. Multithreading in games is primarily about letting the rendering work undisturbed, not about splitting the rendering itself. So gaming performance are still going to come down to having cores that are fast enough to not be a bottleneck for the GPU, but no scaling beyond that point. Current Intel CPUs hit that sweetspot around ~4 GHz (boost), which is why CPUs like i5-7600K, i7-7700K, i7-6800K and i7-6900K all perform "the same" in gaming. But you don't see this with Ryzen, even >4 GHz they are still not fast enough, even with plenty of cores and computational power. This is, as mentioned, caused by the prefetcher. Most games' rendering code is suffering from branching and cache misses, both of which causes stalls for the CPU. Having a better prefetcher helps mitigate the performance penalties from this, of course only to some extent. Going beyond 4 GHz would not make up for this for Ryzen, since the penalties for cache misses are time constant.
Posted on Reply
#53
CrAsHnBuRnXp
Just judging by the first page, why do I feel like @happy medium maybe gets paid too much money and lives at his parents house, doesnt pay for anything, and therefore has an epeen bigger than russia because he has all the best gaming gear?
Posted on Reply
#54
sushukka
mcraygsxThis is excellent new and many thanks goes to AMD for giving INTEL a wakeup call. Intel has been selling these core chips for twice the price (msrp). I for one say Ryzen was a success for us consumers and businesses alike.

Once again we have to purchase X299 or Z370 mainboards. Business as usual in team blue. While those who got AM4 will keep them for bit longer.

"just goes to show how the company could have increased core-count on its processors any time it wanted. Instead, they took the sound business decision in face of lacking competition - but those are all decisions that now show us how ridiculous it is that Intel is selling two-core, four thread i3 processors for the premium it has.
According to the source, the 14nm Coffeelake processors and its Z370 chipset will be releasing in August as well as more CPUs and the H370 and B360/H310 chipsets following at the end of 2017 or early 2018."
This is exactly the reason why I haven't made any effort to update my 8yr old i7 920 setup. Updated some middle-level GPU two years ago but that's pretty much it. i920 had already on 2008 4c/8t, no changes after that. Just minor frequency boosts year after year. Intel has made terrible profits during this period because they can do whatever they want. If it would be only technological superiority, it could be somewhat justified, but one major reason why AMD's development stalled for years was Intel's famous dirty OEM tactics playing AMD out when they had their Athlon CPU's. Yes, after several years of being in court Intel was forced to pay 1B$ or something but it was already too late. AMD didn't gain the required market share even their products were at that time way better, their profits melted and they had to lay off people, squeeze their development budgets and so on. This is also not the only place where Intel has played dirty against AMD. After reading these lately, I just decided that I won't never buy Intel CPUs anymore, there should be at least some ethics even in business. Ryzen is making this decision very easy, being the best bang for the buck processor, cheaper upgradeability, I get also the nice feeling not supporting that monopoly shit anymore.

Also to that teen troll here yelling about his unicorn machine, it could be good to read at least something. Coffee, Kaby, Sky whatever lake there is, putting more cores means lower frequencies. Frequencies are not tied to factory nm process width but there are physical barriers you cannot overcome with current technology. Out of all common usage CPU's there are, the highest ones are currently in IBM's System Z with around 5.2-5.5GHz. Just interpolating Intel's current offerings it goes from their biggest 22c Xeon's base 2.2GHz to 4c 7700K base 4.2GHz. 8core 5GHz this year or even in near future, it's always fun to dream sure. :)
Posted on Reply
#55
happy medium
xkm1948Jeez, haven't seen a nice live troll for quite some time. This kid seriously has issues.

I was trolling so hard even the guys at AnandTech took the bait. :) :)
Posted on Reply
#56
deu
GrootSquadIt's funny, you people are toting more cores and threads on AMD like they are god's gift to the computer world. Currently yes, AMD wins in performance per dollar and they do have more cores.... But the even the fact that Intels CURRENT cpus still manage to beat out AMD's BRAND NEW cpus in gaming is kind of embarrassing in my opinion.

Honestly, what do you people do that you need "MOAR CORES!"? 'Cause last I checked the performance gain from "MOAR CORES!" really isn't all that great. Especially when you compare AMD and Intel on a core vs core basis.
Sorry but I think you have misunderstood how this works; AMD have a completely new platform+CPU (1gen) which is work quite another way than current CPUs (in many ways). Though embrassing lack of optimization have surfaced it is naive to expect a new platform to be 100% optimized. + close to NOTHING for mainstream have been coded with it in mind. Ryzen's clock will rise faster than intels the comming generation and Intel will have reached its limit with its achitecture. Performance comes from people coding for a platform (hence why AMD have started to work toghether with alot of people to optimize for Ryzen. It is possible that you dont like Ryzen right now, but Ryzen is futureproof beyond 7700K etc. 8 cores in games and applikations that make use of it will ensure a more stable FPS in the long run and in higher resolutions feed a hungry GPU. When you can get a 8c/16t core CPU at the price of a 4c/8t you have a CPU that will last longer if you plan to upgrade through 2-3 GPUs using same system. i've gone through 560Ti>670SLI>690>980>1070 on my 4770K, and it will support my comming GPU in 2018 as well; had i choosen a 4c CPU i would be hitting the limitaround there
Posted on Reply
#57
happy medium
ERazeryou picked 6500 over 6600k :kookoo:
I picked a $150 6500 @ 4.5 over a $250 6600k last year.
Before that I had a i3 6100 @ 4.4
Posted on Reply
#58
happy medium
CrAsHnBuRnXpJust judging by the first page, why do I feel like @happy medium maybe gets paid too much money and lives at his parents house, doesnt pay for anything, and therefore has an epeen bigger than russia because he has all the best gaming gear?
Or I'm much older than you, been building computers for 20 years, and made/make a very good living.
Posted on Reply
#59
ERazer
happy mediumI picked a $150 6500 @ 4.5 over a $250 6600k last year.
Before that I had a i3 6100 @ 4.4
so i3 6100 then i5 6500

doesn't sound like a good investment when coulda went straight to 6600k.

contradicting yourself when you say "I like upgrading, and having the fastest gaming system" shoulda been "I like minor upgrades"

btw any Ryzen will smash your silly i5 6500
Posted on Reply
#60
happy medium
ERazerso i3 6100 then i5 6500

doesn't sound like a good investment when coulda went straight to 6600k.

contradicting yourself when you say "I like upgrading, and having the fastest gaming system" shoulda been "I like minor upgrades"
Well I bought the 6100 with the motherboard at release, and then played with it overclocking, got tired of it sold it for 85% of what I paid for it and bought a i5 6500 for $150 and played with overclocking. I was listening to rumors of a 6 core chip so I never bought a 6700/7700k. I really didn't need it with a 4.5 quad, actually I still really don't need more cores. Look at the 7600k @ 4.5 benchmarks, it runs games just fine 60fps+.

Should have been "I like tinkering with my system and always have the horsepower I want or need".
Posted on Reply
#61
EarthDog
theoneandonlymrkRoll on 2019-2020 or sooner when Intel changes it's tune to" Moar cores it's the future", who's this you people ,as i said I'm not buying RyZen and I'm not buying this either.
lol, amd has always been good at jumping but not looking down...

Then they stopped jumping and just started yelling about how good their jump is going to be until they jump amd its the same jump we saw last time just named different. :p

Finally, with Ryzen, they nailed it... ish. They are banking on more cores...which many cant use and likely wont for a couple years. So, because they are a few/several percent in ipc and dont overclock at all (past its own xfr), it tempered things for me.
Posted on Reply
#62
TheoneandonlyMrK
EarthDoglol, amd has always been good at jumping but not looking down...

Then they stopped jumping and just started yelling about how good their jump is going to be until they jump amd its the same jump we saw last time just named different. :p
You lost me , i prefer innovation to stagnation though , dual cores have to go , surely all Enthusiasts agree ,i don't think everyone needs crazy amounts of cores but that's where we're going maybe AI and good games will follow maybe shit will get even weirder with big little A64 CPUs ie few hot cores and a few wide chugger cores ,who knows.
Anyway get your pockets ready earlier is the message then.
Posted on Reply
#63
CrAsHnBuRnXp
happy mediumOr I'm much older than you, been building computers for 20 years, and made/make a very good living.
Then you would know that gaming computers arent all about CPU.
Posted on Reply
#64
EarthDog
I lost myself... :p

Just saying amd seems to like to hedge bets on future technologies and use but have been burned doing so in mantle and frankly, ryzen too. A quadcore has been the goto gaming cpu for years. Now, a quad with ht is plenty for years...until more dx12/vulkan games hit the shelves and make use of more cores...which again, isnt soon.

They turned into a marketing machine and has under delivered outside of ryzen. What gets me, as an overclocker, is the complete lack of overclocking. I mean, none(clearly i dont think all cores at voost clock is overclocking). Its astounding...
Posted on Reply
#65
Relayer
xkm1948Jeez, haven't seen a nice live troll for quite some time. This kid seriously has issues.

^This^^^ Happy Medium is a long time anti AMD troll. Careful, he'll drag you down to his level where his experience gives him the advantage.
Posted on Reply
#66
GeoKas
Hey guys,
I mainly do Video Editing
Do you think Z370 with CoffeeLake would be enough
or should I consider Kaby Lake-X series ?
Is there any performance gain in terms of communication between PCIe SSD , memory, 10GbE LAN, CPU and GPU ?
I already use 3 PCIe ports (GPU, SSD, 10Gbe), perhaps X series have more Lanes ?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 15th, 2026 10:05 CST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

TPU on YouTube

Controversial News Posts