Monday, April 24th 2017

Intel's Six-core, Coffee Lake CPUs Surface in SiSoftware

Intel's upcoming Coffee Lake architecture, which is now all but confirmed to have been pulled forward by the company in an attempt to staunch the bleeding incurred from AMD's recently launched, table-turning Ryzen processors, has reared its head in SiSoftware. In some benchmarks, what is identified as a 6-core, 6-thread CPU from Intel surface, with a clockspeed @ 3.5 GHz, 1.5 MB L2 cache (256 Kb per core) and 9 MB L3 cache. This L3 cache is quite puzzling, considering how Intel's Kaby Lake architecture features 2 MB of L3 cache per core. If Coffee Lake were to keep most of Kaby Lake's design - which it will - then this chip should feature something along the lines of 12 MB L3 cache. The reduced amount of cache seems to scream at a disabled chip, but this could also be a case of a reporting error.
The fact that this chip only presents six threads is probably indicative of a Core i5 processor with 6 physical cores, if Intel's past line-ups are anything to go by (with its i7 line being separated form the i5 by, at the very least, the inclusion of Hyper Threading.) If true, this really is to be Intel's first mainstream-segment 6-core chip (while AMD now offers us 6 cores and 12 threads in the same price bracket, at least. And logical extrapolation tells us that Intel is likely to launch a 6-core, 12-thread processor to its Core i7 line of Coffee Lake CPUs as well. This is quite interesting, since it remains to be seen whether the i7 line can now support 4-core, 8-thread design processors that compete against 6-core i5's. This could present a tectonic shift within Intel's Line-up, with 4-core, eight-thread and 6-core CPUs now encompassing the bulk of its i5 line, and six-core, 12-thread CPUs taking the top spot on its i7 line. But this is all speculation, at this point - luckily, we won't have to wait very long for more information on these parts.

Source: WCCFTech
Add your own comment

22 Comments on Intel's Six-core, Coffee Lake CPUs Surface in SiSoftware

#1
mroofie
meh :rolleyes:

ryzen for life :love:
Posted on Reply
#2
GhostRyder
Sounds good to me, we have been stuck in the past for far to long with 4 cores and dual cores staying the norm. I cannot wait to see the 8 core processors becoming the base norm for the X99 platform chips!!!
Posted on Reply
#3
intelzen
slide tells us: "6-th gen >"+15%"> 7-th gen >"+15%"> 8-th gen"... and from real reviews we know 6th to 7th gen results - so from that we can conclude that there will be around +3% IPC performance increase (mostly because of frequency increase) from 7th to 8th gen... well good that Intel is honest about that
Posted on Reply
#4
ixi
Need to know price... otherwise meeh.
Posted on Reply
#5
ERazer
AMD surely lit some fire up intel's arse.
Posted on Reply
#6
Hood
ERazer said:
AMD surely lit some fire up intel's arse.
Yeah, and as soon as more than 3 or 4 Ryzen systems can actually boot up and run, they'll start to feel the burn...
Posted on Reply
#7
ERazer
Hood said:
Yeah, and as soon as more than 3 or 4 Ryzen systems can actually boot up and run, they'll start to feel the burn...
guess u okay with 4/8 for the next 5 yrs, thought so. It a win for both team.
Posted on Reply
#8
RejZoR
A frigging 5820K has higher clock and 15MB cache. What kind of lame joke is this?
Posted on Reply
#9
Slizzo
RejZoR said:
A frigging 5820K has higher clock and 15MB cache. What kind of lame joke is this?
I believe the 3.5GHz clock rate is the base clock speed, not the turbo speed that is advertised for the 5820K at 3.6GHz.
Posted on Reply
#10
Grings
i5's only have 6mb cache so i would imagine the 6c12t variant will have 12mb, and be faster than 3.5
Posted on Reply
#11
TheLostSwede
Hood said:
Yeah, and as soon as more than 3 or 4 Ryzen systems can actually boot up and run, they'll start to feel the burn...
They boot just fine. The issue is that you can't tweak them very much, at least in my experience. Then again, it's not as if Intel's platforms have always been perfect from day one...
Posted on Reply
#12
Hood
TheLostSwede said:
They boot just fine. The issue is that you can't tweak them very much, at least in my experience. Then again, it's not as if Intel's platforms have always been perfect from day one...
I know, I was just replying to eRazer's incredible exaggeration with my own, in the same spirit of blind brand loyalty - I admire that much enthusiasm, even though I disagree with the sentiment. Intel isn't worried, just playing the game as usual, against a company 1/20th it's size, trying to keep from killing off their only competition too soon because that wouldn't be any fun...oh crap, there I go again.
Posted on Reply
#13
CandymanGR
Yeah right. They dont want to kill AMD.. because..? Because intel is a philanthropic institution, not a greedy company? Isn't that right mr. Hood? Take your dellusions someplace else please. I am getting tired, plus i am allergic to bs. Thank you.
Posted on Reply
#14
medi01
Intel has aRyzen.

And that lovely "you gotta get new mainboard, cause new chipset" thing again.



Hood said:
and as soon as more than 3 or 4 Ryzen systems can actually boot up
Why is spreading FUD about underdog a thing?
Posted on Reply
#15
Tsukiyomi91
hmmm... a 6C/6T i5 chip... that's somewhat interesting. Will be even more interesting to see it flexes it's silicon muscle against AMD's 6-core RyZen...
Posted on Reply
#16
seccentral
Grings said:
i5's only have 6mb cache so i would imagine the 6c12t variant will have 12mb, and be faster than 3.5
Mate, it's 6 threads. Where do you see 12 ? Would you please just READ.
*READ*
Posted on Reply
#17
Hood
CandymanGR said:
Yeah right. They dont want to kill AMD.. because..? Because intel is a philanthropic institution, not a greedy company? Isn't that right mr. Hood? Take your dellusions someplace else please. I am getting tired, plus i am allergic to bs. Thank you.
No, thank you, for revealing your non-existent sense of humor. I made a joke in response to another delusional AMD fan's joke, ADMITTED IT WAS A JOKE, and you reacted like any snowflake would - by whining about "take your dellusions (sic) elsewhere", like this is some college "safe place" where you can refuse to hear anything you disagree with. Some people take this crap way too seriously, like the guy who shot his brother over an AMD vs nVidia argument. Please, Mr. creepy candyman, don't track me down and shoot me, IT WAS ONLY A JOKE!
Posted on Reply
#18
deu
Hood said:
Yeah, and as soon as more than 3 or 4 Ryzen systems can actually boot up and run, they'll start to feel the burn...
Nice try troll...
Posted on Reply
#19
rhythmeister
GhostRyder said:
Sounds good to me, we have been stuck in the past for far to long with 4 cores and dual cores staying the norm. I cannot wait to see the 8 core processors becoming the base norm for the X99 platform chips!!!
Dual cores the norm? Maybe 5 years ago!
Posted on Reply
#20
Kanan
Raevenlord said:
This L3 cache is quite puzzling, considering how Intel's Kaby Lake architecture features 2 MB of L3 cache per core.
Actually it's perfectly fine. i5's always had only 6 MB L3 Cache at 4 Core's. Increasing that by 50% to 6 Core's as well increases it's L3 Cache by 50% = 3 MB to = 9 MB of L3 Cache. There you go. 12/15 MB are on the LGA2011 models, this is consumer line, not enthusiast - a completely different thing.
Posted on Reply
#21
GhostRyder
rhythmeister said:
Dual cores the norm? Maybe 5 years ago!
They are still the norm, most of the laptops out there are dual cores even on the i7. Heck they are more prominent in recent years than in the past. On desktop, i3's are still pretty popular out there even among gamers because for the longest time they have been the only budget friendly options that perform (and they perform very well at that). 4 Cores is still what I would call average for a desktop but I think overall dual cores are still the primary which really needs to change.
Posted on Reply
#22
exinfer
Ugh another year to wait.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment