Tuesday, January 16th 2018

Intel Core i5-8500 Surfaces on SANDRA Database

It's no revelation that Intel is expanding its 8th generation Core "Coffee Lake" desktop processor lineup through Q1-2018, alongside cost-effective B360 Express and H310 Express motherboard chipsets. One of these is the Core i5-8500 six-core processor, positioned a notch above the current Core i5-8400. The chip surfaced on a SiSoft SANDRA database entry. Although the i5-8400 launched at $189, retailers are pushing it for 10-15 percent margins above MSRP. The i5-8500 could launch bang-on the $200-mark, although one must expect a similarly jacked up $220-ish retail price.

The Core i5-8500 comes with a psychologically-pleasing 3.00 GHz nominal clock speed (while the i5-8400 has a sub-3 GHz clock of 2.80 GHz). The database entry doesn't reveal Turbo Boost clocks, but given that the i5-8400 comes with a 4.00 GHz Boost frequency, one can expect that of the i5-8500 to be 4.20-4.30 GHz. The 6-core/6-thread chip comes with 9 MB of shared L3 cache, and a TDP rating of 65W. It scored 139.63 GOPS in the Arithmetic test, 317.88 Mpix/s in the multi-media test, 7.49 GB/s in the cryptography test, which puts its performance in the league of AMD's Ryzen 5 1600.
Source: SANDRA Database
Add your own comment

19 Comments on Intel Core i5-8500 Surfaces on SANDRA Database

#1
dj-electric
I wonder what's gonna be the effect of this chip on this segment's prices.
An 8400 usually runs at 3.8Ghz all cores while in mild stress test, so this should do it at 4.0Ghz.
Kinda hard to get those at their MSRP in NA right now... that sucks. These are really good chips.
Posted on Reply
#2
_JP_
Your usual Intel CPU release within a segment, 100~200MHz between other SKUs...
psychologically-pleasing 3.00 GHz nominal clock speed
Some haven't recovered from that milestone since 2003 :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#3
CrAsHnBuRnXp
it's 2018. cant we just make 4GHz the norm? Hell 4.5?

Does this come in a K variant?
Posted on Reply
#4
dj-electric
"_JP_ said:
Your usual Intel CPU release within a segment, 100~200MHz between other SKUs...

Some haven't recovered from that milestone since 2003 :laugh:
TIL 1600X is sagnifically faster than 1600.
Its the usual for everyone in this segment
Posted on Reply
#5
notb
"CrAsHnBuRnXp said:
it's 2018. cant we just make 4GHz the norm? Hell 4.5?
No, we can't.
Does this come in a K variant?
Very unlikely. Intel is almost sure to repeat the usual lineup structure. 8500 is a successor to 7500 - no OC.
It only makes sense to make a "K" version of the top CPU in the segment.
Kaby Lake: 7350K, 7600K and 7700K.
Coffee Lake: 8350K, 8600K and 8700K.
Everything else is locked.

The first phase of sales was all about the OC-friendly Z370, so they focused on selling i5s as the top 8600K specification. Now the cheaper chipsets are coming, so they're populating the lineup.
Posted on Reply
#6
EarthDog
"_JP_ said:
Your usual Intel CPU release within a segment, 100~200MHz between other SKUs...

Some haven't recovered from that milestone since 2003 :laugh:
is that any different than amd really? Look at their lineup.
"CrAsHnBuRnXp said:
it's 2018. cant we just make 4GHz the norm? Hell 4.5?

Does this come in a K variant?
8700K. ;)
Posted on Reply
#7
CrAsHnBuRnXp
"EarthDog said:
8700K. ;)
Yeah but that's turbo. Im talking before the turbo.
Posted on Reply
#8
notb
"CrAsHnBuRnXp said:
Yeah but that's turbo. Im talking before the turbo.
Why do you want high clocks so much? :)
Stable clocks > 4 GHz are already difficult to achieve and pushing further makes hardly any sense. It's not the direction CPU development has chosen.
It's much better to improve the instruction set (e.g. with AVX-512) and efficiency.

An architecture designed for 4GHz+ would lose so much power efficiency that it would be useful only in desktops - forcing manufacturers to seperate it from laptops and servers. And you don't want that. :)
Posted on Reply
#9
_JP_
"dj-electric said:
TIL 1600X is sagnifically faster than 1600.
Its the usual for everyone in this segment
"EarthDog said:
is that any different than amd really? Look at their lineup.
If we were in the Phenom II days, I wouldn't have commented and you both would be right (and I just ignore Axx APUs right now). AMD now tries to have a higher margin between SKUs, from what I can see, actually creating segments in the market.
For the 1600X vs. 1600, at least you can tell a difference in bechmarks, price...OC'ing and lack of included cooler.
Posted on Reply
#10
EarthDog
So, the 'k' versions of intel with higher clocks and price and no cooler vs the locked cpus with lower prices and clocks which include a cooler are different?

Coffe lake, with the 8500, has 7 skus. Ryzen has 9. I guess i just dont understand what you mean considering their lineups.

Edit: coffe lake literally has an unlocked processor with higher speeds and no cooler as well as locked variants at lower clocks with a cooler for notably lower pricing for each segment (6/12, 6/6, and 4/4).

"CrAsHnBuRnXp said:
Yeah but that's turbo. Im talking before the turbo.
And i just answered with the 'k' variant of that cpu. Yes, its faster, but its the unlocked version of that cpu, no? Also i meant 8600k as it is 6c/6t. :)
Posted on Reply
#11
CrAsHnBuRnXp
"notb said:
Why do you want high clocks so much? :)
Stable clocks > 4 GHz are already difficult to achieve and pushing further makes hardly any sense. It's not the direction CPU development has chosen.
It's much better to improve the instruction set (e.g. with AVX-512) and efficiency.

An architecture designed for 4GHz+ would lose so much power efficiency that it would be useful only in desktops - forcing manufacturers to seperate it from laptops and servers. And you don't want that. :)
Just tired of seeing the same clock speeds release after release. I wanna see Intel and AMD push the envelope a little more.
Posted on Reply
#12
EarthDog
Me... I don't care if the performance comes in the form of GHz or IPC. I wouldn't mind 2x IPC with a 2.5 GHz processor...
Posted on Reply
#13
notb
"_JP_ said:
If we were in the Phenom II days, I wouldn't have commented and you both would be right (and I just ignore Axx APUs right now). AMD now tries to have a higher margin between SKUs, from what I can see, actually creating segments in the market.
For the 1600X vs. 1600, at least you can tell a difference in bechmarks, price...OC'ing and lack of included cooler.
Different clients => different lineups
Intel has a dense product lineup, but these CPUs are locked. So in a way you're paying for performance: i5-7500 is 10% more expensive than i5-7400 and it performs ~10% better.
On the top of each segment (i3, i5, i7) you have an overclockable K variant, which extends the performance range.

It makes a lot of sense and is also Intel's way of improving yields.

The interesting part in Coffee Lake launch is that we only got i5-8600K and i5-8400 in the first wave. This could mean that the quality variance is very low, i.e. a lot of CL i5s meet the quality threshold of 8600K.
Posted on Reply
#14
_JP_
"EarthDog said:
I guess i just dont understand what you mean considering their lineups.
I didn't explain myself well enough and picking up the 1600 vs. 1600x wasn't the best.
I meant to share my opinion on Intel creating SKUs with minimal performance difference (200Mhz apart) and little gap in cash ($10 - MSRP) while AMD, with Ryzen, there being a higher gap between the 1500X and the 1600 (a pair of cores and $30), the 1600 and the 1600X (400MHz, 30W TDP/OC headroom, $30)...you know, actually making a market segment and influencing your purchase choice.
Now, AMD's approach makes sense to me and is different from Intel. During the Phenom II days it was awful, models just 100MHz apart and prices all over the place.
I mean, if you paid more, you could barely see the difference. I believe it is the same case here, where you can tell a 8400 from a 8600K, but not between 8400 and 8500, except that you spent $10 more on the 8500.
If this is irrelevant for you, I guess we have different ways of dealing with the market :ohwell:

Edited to one-up the grammar.
Posted on Reply
#15
EarthDog
Well, after your explanation, looks like I understood it fine. It isn't so much irrelevant as I just simply do not agree with your assertion as it pertains to Coffee Lake if we are comparing latest to latest. :)

Again, look at the Coffee Lake lineup. There are 6 CPUs with this 8500 being 7. There is a locked and unlocked version without and with heatsinks for each core/thread tier. Price difference is ~$50 between them. The 8700K and 8700 are not much different clocks wise, yes. But with them, like all of them, you are paying for a premium of higher base and boost clockspeeds, and an unlocked multiplier. Seems simple enough to me, honestly. :)



And if you look at AMD's... they have 15 total for four different core/thread setups. If you knock it back to three, they have 10 in the same space. Take the Pros out and they have 6 in the same space as well....though they are missing a 6/6 option that Intel has while intel is missing 4/8.

Posted on Reply
#16
_JP_
Thank you. I can see now where I am creating a mess in my head. I'm looking at the whole hardware market as it is right now, which includes Coffee lake as well as Kaby. :)
Posted on Reply
#17
EarthDog
Intel's releases were a bit close together so i can see how that can happen. Kaby Lake is a bit of a mess. :)
Posted on Reply
#18
notb
"EarthDog said:
Intel's releases were a bit close together so i can see how that can happen. Kaby Lake is a bit of a mess. :)
Why? I still can't get why people criticize KL so much. Mine works perfectly well. :)
Posted on Reply
#19
EarthDog
There are like 15 processors in the lineup grouped close together... and that isnt i cluding T series low power cpus. We arent talking performance here. Read what jp and i were talking about. ;)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment