Thursday, August 17th 2017

Intel Core "Coffee Lake" Lineup Specs Confirmed in Leaked Distributor Event

Intel recently concluded an event intended for local distributors in China, a key presentation slide of which was snapped and posted online. The slide confirms the company's product-stack for the mainstream desktop platform, and its augmentation with the first wave of 8th generation Core "Coffee Lake" SKUs. The slide also confirms that Intel will be replacing current Core i7 4-core/8-thread SKUs with Core i7 6-core/12-thread ones; Core i5 4-core/4-thread SKUs with 6-core/6-thread ones, and Core i3 2-core/4-thread SKUs with 4-core/4-thread ones, marking the biggest fundamental update to the product stack since the Core MSDT family started out a decade ago, with the Core "Lynnfield" and "Clarkdale" processors.

The slide further describes per-core performance increases ranging between 11-29 percent owing to higher clock-speeds and a slightly newer micro-architecture, and 51-65 percent increases in multi-threaded performance owing to the increasing core-counts across the board. While these SKUs are expected to logically replace the various Core "Kaby Lake" SKUs from their current price-points, there could be a tiny price increase, across the board, which Intel could justify using the higher core-counts.
The 8th generation Core lineup will be led by the Core i7-8700K, featuring 6 cores, 12 threads enabled with HyperThreading, 12 MB of shared L3 cache, and an unlocked multiplier. PC enthusiasts should also look out for the Core i5-8600K, which is a 6-core/6-thread part with 9 MB of L3 cache, and an unlocked multiplier. There will be a third overclocker-friendly SKU, the 4-core/4-thread Core i3-8350K, which could be launched either towards the end of 2017, or early-2018.

Source: ChipHell Forums
Add your own comment

63 Comments on Intel Core "Coffee Lake" Lineup Specs Confirmed in Leaked Distributor Event

#2
Durvelle27
Until reviews drop these are a hit or miss
Posted on Reply
#3
Konceptz
I've ran AMD at home ever since 2014, looking at this, I may just end up with an i7-8700k, a geforce card and call it a day. Power consumption is going to be my driving factor as now a days my desktop mostly sits idle.
Posted on Reply
#4
birdie
a slightly newer micro-architecture
@btarunr

Nope, it's the same SkyLake uArch. The iGPU will be slightly better though.
Posted on Reply
#5
Vya Domus
Finally they moved on in the modern world where core count is essential.
Posted on Reply
#6
Durvelle27
Konceptz said:
I've ran AMD at home ever since 2014, looking at this, I may just end up with an i7-8700k, a geforce card and call it a day. Power consumption is going to be my driving factor as now a days my desktop mostly sits idle.
Why not Ryzen
Posted on Reply
#7
Konceptz
Durvelle27 said:
Why not Ryzen
Just always had an itch for another Intel based platform. I haven't made a firm decision yet, but whichever way I go its going to be my last build for quite sometime.
Posted on Reply
#8
birdie
Vya Domus said:
Finally they moved on in the modern world where core count is essential.
If by the modern world you mean the world where people render or encode video 24x7, then I'll have to disappoint you - that's not the real world. In the real world 4 fast cores are more than enough for > 95% of tasks and games.
Posted on Reply
#9
R0H1T
Looking at the slide in Chinese, looks like 8700k has 3.6 or 3.8GHz as the base clock not 3.7 :toast:
Posted on Reply
#10
_JP_
Yeah, the i5 6c6t was the more plausible approach, glad it actually is like that instead of 4c/8t. But in that thread, that prediction came after @T4C Fantasy 's.
However, the L3 gap between i5s and i7s is just silly now, sure it has always been 1~2MB, but now seems like they really wanted to set a difference, not too much otherwise it would fall onto i3 territory...and all this just because people still find single-core performance highly relevant... :rolleyes:

EDIT:
Konceptz said:
I've ran AMD at home ever since 2014, looking at this, I may just end up with an i7-8700k, a geforce card and call it a day. Power consumption is going to be my driving factor as now a days my desktop mostly sits idle.
And you can continue to run AMD because Ryzen is 95/65W too and just run Windows default power profiles, with C6 states on, even the R7s use very little electricity...
Posted on Reply
#11
Vya Domus
birdie said:
In the real world 4 fast cores are more than enough for > 95% of tasks and games.
It doesn't matter , the more people have access to CPUs with higher core count the better things will get. Quad-cores are mostly enough because quad cores are common. Just because something is common doesn't mean we need to settle for that. Progress above all else , I don't care if it's enough there is always room for more.

Games and other applications have been getting very starved for CPU power.
Posted on Reply
#12
Imsochobo
birdie said:
If by the modern world you mean the world where people render or encode video 24x7, then I'll have to disappoint you - that's not the real world. In the real world 4 fast cores are more than enough for > 95% of tasks and games.
I have a xeon 10 core and I only do office work on it ?
I ain't rendering and such, hell, excel will sometime downright rape an I5 quadcore which I see often in the business where they do some hilarious spreadsheets and requesting xeon based workstations.

Yes the modern world requires more!
And I thank AMD for bringing down the pricepoint.
Posted on Reply
#13
InVasMani
Holy crap Intel has finally moved on from Core 2 Duo...and it only took them 11 years to do so...
Posted on Reply
#14
_JP_
Imsochobo said:
I ain't rendering and such, hell, excel will sometime downright rape an I5 quadcore which I see often in the business where they do some hilarious spreadsheets and requesting xeon based workstations.
^^This.
I manage a 3970K (besides other i7s) for this kind of thing...and its unbelievable how frequently it fully taxes (pun) all cores.
Posted on Reply
#15
HimymCZe
Still don't understand why Intel have to FUCK EVERYTHING UP by 6C-i5 and 12T-i7.
Why they can't just stick to their current lineup and naming scheme and release new i6-6C and i8-12T CPU.
FailFish ... just incompetent people problems ... FailFish
Posted on Reply
#16
_JP_
HimymCZe said:
Still don't understand why Intel have to FUCK EVERYTHING UP by 6C-i5 and 12T-i7.
Why they can't just stick to their current lineup and naming scheme and release new i6-6C and i8-12T CPU.
FailFish ... just incompetent people problems ... FailFish
"i3" "i5" and "i7" are a Performance Rating metric used by Intel's marketing to classify and sell the products, core count is irrelevant and the average Joe only cares about the PR.
What you're asking for is even more market segmentation and consumer confusion, which Intel has done before and resulted in tons of unsold chips.
Posted on Reply
#17
ensabrenoir


.....has the sleeping giant finally awoken? This should have been their first response to ryzen and not all those rubber chickens they've been flinging at consumers lately (which sadly they will still make a ton of money on).
Posted on Reply
#18
eddman
_JP_ said:

However, the L3 gap between i5s and i7s is just silly now, sure it has always been 1~2MB, but now seems like they really wanted to set a difference
Actually the L3 gap ratio is still the same as it was before:

4 cores: 8 MB, 6 MB; 33.3% more
6 cores: 12 MB, 9 MB; 33.3% more
Posted on Reply
#19
Kronauer
The main issue is that Ice Lake has been already announced, and there is a 99.9% chance that it will come with a new chipset as well.
So if you are the type who likes to upgrade the PC part by part, Coffee Lake is not for you.

And now that AMD started to stir things up we can expect high improvements year by year so investing to a new platform that will have a single year of lifespan seems foolish.
Posted on Reply
#20
R0H1T
Kronauer said:
The main issue is that Ice Lake has been already announced, and there is a 99.9% chance that it will come with a new chipset as well.
So if you are the type who likes to upgrade the PC part by part, Coffee Lake is not for you.

And now that AMD started to stir things up we can expect high improvements year by year so investing to a new platform that will have a single year of lifespan seems foolish.
There's also rumors that Zen2 could reach 5GHz (OCed?) on GF/IBM's 7nm node. I guess CFL is here right now, but then it might well be worth half in just about a year's time, whether it'd be due to Zen2 or Icelake.
Posted on Reply
#21
jabbadap
Some 3Dmark 11 scores with that i7 8700k. And just for comparison sake for some same score of i7 7700k(well obviously OC gtx1080 on that, I'm not bothering enough to trying find reference scores)... But all in all physics cores are up to 20-23.6%.
Posted on Reply
#22
Prima.Vera
So basically:

Core i7: 7700K
  • Processor Base Frequency: 4.20 GHz
  • Max Turbo Frequency: 4.50 GHz
Core i7: 8700K
  • Processor Base Frequency: 3.70 GHz
  • Min Turbo Frequency(6c): 4.30 GHz
  • Max Turbo Frequency(1c): 4.70 GHz
So, how come is this progress again if the TDP/core is lower than of a i7 7700K ??
Posted on Reply
#23
_JP_
eddman said:
Actually the L3 gap ratio is still the same as it was before:

4 cores: 8 MB, 6 MB; 33.3% more
6 cores: 12 MB, 9 MB; 33.3% more
Since when is 6 a third of 8? More like 3/4, so the difference is 25% more...but yeah, I stand corrected on that, it has been a quarter more on desktop chips, between them, however, that doesn't hold here, 8MB on the i3 to 9MB on the i5 and to 12MB on the i7, though.

Henceforth, it's silly.
Posted on Reply
#24
phanbuey
they have the august 21st event, but it will just be an announcement i think (some sites are speculating launch on the 21st)

doesnt seem to be enough z370 leaks for it to be a real launch, unless it is compatible with z270, which has already been refuted by asrock.

so probably going to have to wait till q4 for these.
Posted on Reply
#25
eddman
_JP_ said:
Since when is 6 a third of 8? More like 3/4, so the difference is 25% more...but yeah, I stand corrected on that, it has been a quarter more on desktop chips, between them, how ever, that doesn't hold here, 8MB on the i3 to 9MB on the i5 and to 12MB on the i7, though.

Henceforth, it's silly.
It's basic math. I wrote "more", meaning an increase from the base value.

6 + 33.3% = 7.998 ~ 8
9 + 33.3% = 11.997 ~ 12

The reason that i3 is now closer to i5 is because of the doubled cores, which means the cache was also doubled, but the per core ratio is still the same:

Dual i3: 4 MB -> 2 MB to core ratio
Quad i3: 8 MB -> 2 MB
Quad i5: 6 MB -> 1.5 MB
Hexa i5: 9 MB -> 1.5 MB

Basically i3 has always had a per core cache advantage (except for the lowest end i3) over i5.

Still, you're right that it's silly. I agree that i5s should have as much cache as i7s.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment