Wednesday, August 9th 2017

More Details Surface on Coffee Lake Lineup: i3-8350K, i3-8100 Specs Leaked Again

It appears that Intel's response to AMD's Ryzen desktop processors will be quite a departure from the norm for the blue company. That Ryzen CPUs with their price points are a disruptive piece of silicon is a well-known fact by now. However much we knew that, though, it appears that Intel really is giving a bold (some might say necessary) response to Ryzen's threat to their immutable (for so many years) CPU lineup.

There has already been a leak for the i3-8350K and i3-8100 CPUs for Coffee Lake; this second one comes more as a confirmation of what image was already forming in our minds. And it seems that Intel really is relegating their four-core, four-thread processors to the i3 tier, thus dropping its entire lineup by a rung. Some questions remain regarding Intel's i5 lineup: likely, entry-level processors of this tier ship with four cores and HyperThreading enabled. It's expected that some i5 models will carry six physical cores (absent of HyperThreading), though. This means Intel's clean segmentation, which started with Nehalem almost a decade ago (on the 45 nm process; do you remember that?) has been brought to an end. It also means my puny i5 will now be relegated to i3 territory, but that's... Life.

Sources: PTT, via Videocardz
Add your own comment

16 Comments on More Details Surface on Coffee Lake Lineup: i3-8350K, i3-8100 Specs Leaked Again

#1
bogami
Interesting because the OC will also be able to .Intel is adapted to AMD's competition. The name , no matter what we know it will not have a bust. It will be cheap and we will see them in the in a pre-assembled PC s ...
Posted on Reply
#2
Hugh Mungus
4c/8t would destroy Intel's 6c/6t lineup in efficiency and pric/performance. We might get 4c/8t, but if an updated 7700(k) is put BELOW a basic 6c/6t Intel cpu, that could mean that no rational person would buy 6c/6t other than certain professionals maybe.
Posted on Reply
#3
CAPSLOCKSTUCK
Spaced Out Lunar Tick
Raevenlord said:
started with Nehalem almost a decade ago (on the 45 nm process; do you remember that?)
i am using one today, @ 3.9ghz


Long live socket 1366......:peace:


Posted on Reply
#5
Prima.Vera
With so many leaks recently, somebody should have thought calling a plumber....
Posted on Reply
#6
Captain_Tom
I would argue the i3's should have 4c/8t, i5's 6c/12t, and i7's just have more cache and higher clocks than the i5's if they can't squeeze 8c/16t into the socket.


As it stands this will not be a complete response unless the i3-K = $130, i5-K = $200, and i7-K = $300.
Posted on Reply
#7
jabbadap
Captain_Tom said:
I would argue the i3's should have 4c/8t, i5's 6c/12t, and i7's just have more cache and higher clocks than the i5's if they can't squeeze 8c/16t into the socket.


As it stands this will not be a complete response unless the i3-K = $130, i5-K = $200, and i7-K = $300.
Why. Ryzen 3 is 4c/4t chip, which ones i3 should compete as equal 4c/4t chip. Ryzen 5 is from 4c/8t to 6c/12t so it would quite well to be compete with i5s(if there will be 4c/8t i5s). Ryzen 7 being 8c/16t intel does not have direct competitor but by ipc i7 should be competitive even with 6c/12t with those(I'm not counting gaming, where current i7 kabys are in upper hand already).
Posted on Reply
#8
Captain_Tom
jabbadap said:
Why. Ryzen 3 is 4c/4t chip, which ones i3 should compete as equal 4c/4t chip. Ryzen 5 is from 4c/8t to 6c/12t so it would quite well to be compete with i5s(if there will be 4c/8t i5s). Ryzen 7 being 8c/16t intel does not have direct competitor but by ipc i7 should be competitive even with 6c/12t with those(I'm not counting gaming, where current i7 kabys are in upper hand already).
The R3's sell for as low as $110, and they cost AMD less to produce. Once you get towards $150 - $170, you are dealing with 4/8 R7's that will stomp the i3's.

Not to mention just meeting AMD is not good enough anymore. Ryzen has rave reviews, uses less energy, and comes with higher quality and cheaper motherboards.


Most importantly though, Intel has to plan for the future. Ryzen is just the first wave of Zen 1 products, there will be many more to come. After all Zen 2 is supposed to have at least 10% higher clocks and 15% higher IPC (and it will likely come 6 months after Coffee Lake).
Posted on Reply
#9
Gasaraki
CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:
i am using one today, @ 3.9ghz


Long live socket 1366......:peace:



I'm on my X58 running @ 4.2GHz 6-Core, 12 GB RAM. There are tons of us!
Posted on Reply
#10
Gasaraki
Captain_Tom said:
The R3's sell for as low as $110, and they cost AMD less to produce. Once you get towards $150 - $170, you are dealing with 4/8 R7's that will stomp the i3's.

Not to mention just meeting AMD is not good enough anymore. Ryzen has rave reviews, uses less energy, and comes with higher quality and cheaper motherboards.


Most importantly though, Intel has to plan for the future. Ryzen is just the first wave of Zen 1 products, there will be many more to come. After all Zen 2 is supposed to have at least 10% higher clocks and 15% higher IPC (and it will likely come 6 months after Coffee Lake).
I see someone has drank the coolaid. I just completed a Ryzen built and it's mostly none of those things.

4c/8t Ryzen "STOMPING" i3 4c/4t? Maybe but not stomping.

"Rave Reviews"? Questionable.
Uses less energy? Nope.
Come with higher quality motherboards. Nope.
Cheaper. Maybe.

"After all Zen 2 is supposed to have at least 10% higher clocks and 15% higher IPC (and it will likely come 6 months after Coffee Lake)" -LOL, we all can dream.
Posted on Reply
#11
Captain_Tom
Gasaraki said:
I see someone has drank the coolaid. I just completed a Ryzen built and it's mostly none of those things.

4c/8t Ryzen "STOMPING" i3 4c/4t? Maybe but not stomping.

"Rave Reviews"? Questionable.
Uses less energy? Nope.
Come with higher quality motherboards. Nope.
Cheaper. Maybe.


"After all Zen 2 is supposed to have at least 10% higher clocks and 15% higher IPC (and it will likely come 6 months after Coffee Lake)" -LOL, we all can dream.
I am sorry but I find it hilarious that you say I have "drank the koolaid" while you say Zen doesn't use less energy. Good lord buddy you may want to do some googling on the current situation.
  • 32 PCIE lanes vs 16 (or 28 with even Intel's HEDT!!!). That is a better platform, and yeah those motherboards typically cost less than their Intel counterparts. This point isn't even worth arguing over though: if you say you disagree, you simply can't read numbers on Newegg.
  • As for power usage... Wow ok here:


Enjoy watching Intel's significantly more expensive and power hungry chips tie AMD's "Glued together" design.
Posted on Reply
#12
Hugh Mungus
Captain_Tom said:
I am sorry but I find it hilarious that you say I have "drank the koolaid" while you say Zen doesn't use less energy. Good lord buddy you may want to do some googling on the current situation.
  • 32 PCIE lanes vs 16 (or 28 with even Intel's HEDT!!!). That is a better platform, and yeah those motherboards typically cost less than their Intel counterparts. This point isn't even worth arguing over though: if you say you disagree, you simply can't read numbers on Newegg.
  • As for power usage... Wow ok here:


Enjoy watching Intel's significantly more expensive and power hungry chips tie AMD's "Glued together" design.
Yeah, LOL! Intel has so much potential, just terrible execution.
Posted on Reply
#13
jabbadap
Captain_Tom said:
The R3's sell for as low as $110, and they cost AMD less to produce. Once you get towards $150 - $170, you are dealing with 4/8 R7's that will stomp the i3's.

Not to mention just meeting AMD is not good enough anymore. Ryzen has rave reviews, uses less energy, and comes with higher quality and cheaper motherboards.


Most importantly though, Intel has to plan for the future. Ryzen is just the first wave of Zen 1 products, there will be many more to come. After all Zen 2 is supposed to have at least 10% higher clocks and 15% higher IPC (and it will likely come 6 months after Coffee Lake).
Costs less to produce, oh really, care to share your information about that? And yeah current i3s are starting at $117, so lets see the price on coffee lake i3s too first. There is no 4/8 R7 so I don't know what do you mean by that. If you are meaning R5 4c/8t ones then no they are not stomping anything. See i.e. tpus tests(Hint current i5s will be coffee lake i3s).
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1400/20.html
Posted on Reply
#14
eddman
Captain_Tom said:
  • As for power usage... Wow ok here:


Enjoy watching Intel's significantly more expensive and power hungry chips tie AMD's
Compare 1300x to i5 7500, which are quite comparable from a configuration standpoint, and you'd see that it's quite slower and yet consumes quite more.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_1300X/18.html

Comparing intel's HEDT platform to AMD's non-HEDT for power consumption is a false premise.
Posted on Reply
#15
Captain_Tom
eddman said:
Compare 1300x to i5 7500, which are quite comparable from a configuration standpoint, and you'd see that it's quite slower and yet consumes quite more.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_1300X/18.html

Comparing intel's HEDT platform to AMD's non-HEDT for power consumption is a false premise.
The R3's are the bottom of the bottom yields buddy.


Want an example of the opposite? Recent Threadripper benches show the 16-core clocking to 4.1 GHz on a AIO cooler. That is a 16-core clocking higher than almost any other Ryzen on the market. It's because AMD saves the best CCX's for the top chips. An R3 vs an i5 is the most extreme example you can think of.

Now go compare the 7700K (A bloody quad-core) using more energy than the 1800X lol.
Posted on Reply
#16
eddman
Captain_Tom said:
The R3's are the bottom of the bottom yields buddy.


Want an example of the opposite? Recent Threadripper benches show the 16-core clocking to 4.1 GHz on a AIO cooler. That is a 16-core clocking higher than almost any other Ryzen on the market. It's because AMD saves the best CCX's for the top chips. An R3 vs an i5 is the most extreme example you can think of.

Now go compare the 7700K (A bloody quad-core) using more energy than the 1800X lol.
Who's "buddy"?

Could you post the power consumption numbers of that OC?

Comparing a VERY high clocked 4 core to a moderately clocked 8 core in order to compare their architectural efficiencies is useless. Processors have an efficiency sweet spot and they'll start to consume FAR more power after that point. Simply compare the non-k 7700 to 7700k and you'll see the massive jump.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-kaby-lake-core-i7-7700k-i7-7700-i5-7600k-i5-7600,4870-9.html

Binned dies don't consume that much less power compared to non-binned ones as you think, but ok, let's compare 1500x to i5 7600k:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1500X/17.html

The 7600k is clocked higher and still consumes less and performs faster in most tests except for a few multi-threaded ones where 1500x's SMT has an impact. Also, take note that SMT's power impact is very small, 2-3 watts max.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment