Monday, July 17th 2017

Acer Notebooks Among First to Feature Core "Coffee Lake" Processors

PC major Acer will be among the first manufacturers to deploy Intel's 8th generation Core "Coffee Lake" processors on its products. The company's Swift 3 notebook, which is already open to pre-orders on Amazon, has one of its CPU options as Intel Core i5-8250U, as discovered by LaptopMedia, in an article. It goes on to describe the i5-8250U as a quad-core chip clocked at 1.60 GHz with up to 3.40 GHz boost, with 6 MB of L3 cache. This is particularly big for the ultra-slim notebook segment as the i5-8250U is among the first quad-core "ultra low power" ("U" suffix) SKUs based on a high performance core, by Intel. The listing doesn't reveal when the notebook will ship.

Source: LaptopMedia
Add your own comment

16 Comments on Acer Notebooks Among First to Feature Core "Coffee Lake" Processors

#1
birdie
I'm happy Intel has finally increased the core count of the laptop Core i5 CPUs to four, but... 4th gen on 14nm? WTF, Intel? You used to be the forefront of the semiconductor industry and now you're trailing it.
Posted on Reply
#2
zzzaac
birdie said:
I'm happy Intel has finally increased the core count of the laptop Core i5 CPUs to four, but... 4th gen on 14nm? WTF, Intel? You used to be the forefront of the semiconductor industry and now you're trailing it.
They always said Coffee was 14nm didn't they?
Posted on Reply
#3
Xajel
birdie said:
I'm happy Intel has finally increased the core count of the laptop Core i5 CPUs to four, but... 4th gen on 14nm? WTF, Intel? You used to be the forefront of the semiconductor industry and now you're trailing it.
Mobile i5 is already Quad Core, just without HT... I think you meant the Ultra Mobile U series, in which yes it's dual core only.. and the U series i7 is dual core with HT.

The next gen U series should come with quad core finally, but the standard mobile H series will come with 6 cores for i7 with HT, we don't know if i5 will come with 6 cores without HT or with 4 cores with HT
Posted on Reply
#4
SomeOne99h
Is it just me, that this reminds me youtube comments: "FIRST!"?
There is nothing special about being first here matey :p
Posted on Reply
#5
birdie
zzzaac said:
They always said Coffee was 14nm didn't they?
Yeah, true but we already have TSMC and Samsung on the 10nm node and they are both rushing towards 7nm.

SomeOne99h said:
Is it just me, that this reminds me youtube comments: "FIRST!"?
There is nothing special about being first here matey :p
I just happened to open the TPU website when this news has been published. I don't care about being the first in the comments section. It's like boasting throwing shat at random people in the streets.
Posted on Reply
#6
ShockG
birdie said:
I'm happy Intel has finally increased the core count of the laptop Core i5 CPUs to four, but... 4th gen on 14nm? WTF, Intel? You used to be the forefront of the semiconductor industry and now you're trailing it.
You shouldn't obsess over a single number without context. INTEL's 14nm process is quite advanced, and it's servicing the most dense and highest frequency ICs on the market at present.
AMD's /TSMC's 14nm process for Ryzen and Threadripper is very limited in clocks, whereas INTEL's goes further with more cores. 28nm Maxwell 2.0 on 980 Ti doubled the performance from Kepler, using the same 28nm node, but the power consumption didn't double. 195 vs 250W. The 28nm process in 2012 when Kepler came out wasn't capable of the clocks and densities with that power draw/ouput in 2015 when 980 Ti showed up.
Broadwell-E is 14nm clocks like a lemon, Haswell-E is 22nm and clocks like a demon.
Don't obsess over the node, as it doesn't tell you anything in isolation.
Posted on Reply
#7
birdie
ShockG said:
You shouldn't obsess over a single number without context. INTEL's 14nm process is quite advanced, and it's servicing the most dense and highest frequency ICs on the market at present.
AMD's /TSMC's 14nm process for Ryzen and Threadripper is very limited in clocks, whereas INTEL's goes further with more cores. 28nm Maxwell 2.0 on 980 Ti doubled the performance from Kepler, using the same 28nm node, but the power consumption didn't double. 195 vs 250W. The 28nm process in 2012 when Kepler came out wasn't capable of the clocks and densities with that power draw/ouput in 2015 when 980 Ti showed up.
Broadwell-E is 14nm clocks like a lemon, Haswell-E is 22nm and clocks like a demon.
Don't obsess over the node, as it doesn't tell you anything in isolation.
I'm looking at the power consumption of Intel 7800X, 7820X and 7900X and I cannot share your optimism. The Core i7 7820X has 8 cores 16 threads and consumes over 140W at 4.3GHz, while The Ryzen 1800X has 90W power consumption. I just don't see 7820X being 50/90*100 = 55% faster than 1800X. In some tasks it is (AVX2 is quite faster on Intel), but not overall.
Posted on Reply
#8
9700 Pro
SomeOne99h said:
Is it just me, that this reminds me youtube comments: "FIRST!"?
There is nothing special about being first here matey :p
Also those comments pisses me off since they've been kinda old thing even before youtube even existed. :banghead:
Posted on Reply
#9
seronx
birdie said:
I just don't see 7820X being 50/90*100 = 55% faster than 1800X.
Depends on the application and workload. Ryzen lost majority of the server gains Bulldozer provided. So, basically desktop Ryzen is not much faster than Opteron (Warsaw). In the applications, specific to the industry Intel is targeting with Skylake-X(eon).

Consumer wise, Coffee Lake is a much better choice than Cannonlake(10nm), but might be equal with Icelake(10nm+). I don't think anyone should consider Ryzen, over Coffee Lake or possibly the 8-core 10nm SKU from Intel. I am leaving it open just in case, Sunnycove/Wlcove(codenames that might not actually be thee codenames) comes out which is largely built by Bulldozer/Piledriver(from the first AMD exodus) people at Intel. (There is the second exodus which was AMD to Softmachines to Intel, just a heads up as well.) Which is why I have a behind the back jazz hands. Once, Clustered Multithreading, always Clustered Multithreading. (If I have to choose between two SMT, I would go for the mature option always.)
Posted on Reply
#10
EarthDog
Wondering if this is actually a typo............
Posted on Reply
#11
GhostRyder
Xajel said:
Mobile i5 is already Quad Core, just without HT... I think you meant the Ultra Mobile U series, in which yes it's dual core only.. and the U series i7 is dual core with HT.

The next gen U series should come with quad core finally, but the standard mobile H series will come with 6 cores for i7 with HT, we don't know if i5 will come with 6 cores without HT or with 4 cores with HT
I don't know what chips you are talking about. Mobile lineup i5's have almost no quad core variants until recently and even then they are far and few apart. Most were just dual core chips that feature hyper threading (Even not on the "U" series). The 6th generation was the first generation to do so and only 3 are available and they ain't that easy to locate on a machine (Most seem to be on the Dell Latitude business lineup). Right now in 7th generation there are 2 available (Which also seem to be mostly shown on the Dell Latitude business lineup).

5th Generation i5
6th Generation i5
7th Generation i5

It's good they are finally releasing some more of these variations, it was tiring to have to pay for the i7 upgrade all the time just to get a quad core on the main chip lineup and the U lineup needs some freshening up.
Posted on Reply
#12
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
birdie said:
I'm looking at the power consumption of Intel 7800X, 7820X and 7900X and I cannot share your optimism. The Core i7 7820X has 8 cores 16 threads and consumes over 140W at 4.3GHz, while The Ryzen 1800X has 90W power consumption. I just don't see 7820X being 50/90*100 = 55% faster than 1800X. In some tasks it is (AVX2 is quite faster on Intel), but not overall.
The 1800x consumes well over 140w@4.3ghz
Posted on Reply
#13
birdie
cdawall said:
The 1800x consumes well over 140w@4.3ghz
I was talking about stock frequencies for both of them.
Posted on Reply
#14
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
birdie said:
I was talking about stock frequencies for both of them.
Oh so why not compare the 65w chips from both brands or something else equal. Every CPU's power consumption sits on a bell curve, the second you push these AMD chips they fall over it. The Intel chips are no different. The power consumption at stock under full load seems very similar between both AMD's and Intel's current processes.

Comparing 10/12 core chips to an 8 and bitching that the formers pull more is asinine and trollbaiting on a good day.
Posted on Reply
#15
birdie
cdawall said:
Oh so why not compare the 65w chips from both brands or something else equal. Every CPU's power consumption sits on a bell curve, the second you push these AMD chips they fall over it. The Intel chips are no different. The power consumption at stock under full load seems very similar between both AMD's and Intel's current processes.

Comparing 10/12 core chips to an 8 and bitching that the formers pull more is asinine and trollbaiting on a good day.
7820X is a 8 core chip, but I'm not gonna continue this conversation with the people who have no manners.

Someone is either an imbecile or pretends to be one.

Again,

7820X stock frequency ~ 140W TDP
1800X stock frequency ~90W TDP

7820X is by no means 55% faster (140/90) than 1800X. Talk about power efficiency, high frequency or IPC advantage more.

Now, fook off.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment