Friday, January 19th 2018

Intel Coffee Lake-S Core i3-8300, i5-8500 Release Date, Lineup Pricing Outed

Intel's 8th gen, Coffee Lake-architecture CPUs will soon see new additions to the lineup, if leaked retail dates are correct. While Intel's six-core processors have earned themselves a respectable position in the CPU market - even if outgunned, core-wise, by AMD's Ryzen - the company is in dire need of shoring up its lower-pricing offerings so as to better compete with AMD's full available line-up, which currently offers users many more choices in both platform pricing, features, and processor specs. The date seems to be a make-up gift from the blue giant: it's expected these processors will hit retail on February 14th.
According to information gathered from etailers and retailers' early website listings for Intel's processors, pricing for Intel's lineup should fall between $51 for the lowliest Celeron G4900 (2 cores, 2 threads) and $264 for the Core i5-8600 (4 cores, 8 threads). The first Intel quad-thread processor in the lineup, the Pentium G5600, will carry 2 cores and 4 threads, and retail for about $77; Intel's first true quad-core processor, the i3-8300, should retail for about $165; and the first 6 core, 6 thread CPU, the i5-8500, should retail for $228.
Source: Videocardz
Add your own comment

24 Comments on Intel Coffee Lake-S Core i3-8300, i5-8500 Release Date, Lineup Pricing Outed

#1
CrAsHnBuRnXp
Its funny cause I got my i5 8600k or around $225 at Microcenter about a month ago. Guess I got lucky with a sale or something.
Posted on Reply
#2
bug
It's all about selling chips that don't make the cut for higher tiers till Ice Lake. Booooring.
Posted on Reply
#3
voltagenic
The 8400 is 6 core and you list the 8500 as being a 6 core in the article as well. There's no way the 8600 is 4c/8t


The 8600 should have only 6, no hyper threading even.
Posted on Reply
#4
Darmok N Jalad
CrAsHnBuRnXp said:
Its funny cause I got my i5 8600k or around $225 at Microcenter about a month ago. Guess I got lucky with a sale or something.
Micro center has awesome CPU deals. Even now, the 8600K is listed for $249.
Posted on Reply
#5
Valantar
voltagenic said:
The 8400 is 6 core and you list the 8500 as being a 6 core in the article as well. There's no way the 8600 is 4c/8t
The 8600 should have only 6, no hyper threading even.
You're absolutely right. Then again, there isn't much in this write-up that makes sense.
TechPowerUp
The first Intel quad-thread processor in the lineup, the Pentium G5600, will carry 2 cores and 4 threads, and retail for about $77; Intel's first true quad-core processor, the i3-8300, should retail for about $165; and the first 6 core, 6 thread CPU, the i5-8500, should retail for $228.
"Intel's first true quad-core processor, the i3-8300" - even taken as the first this generation, that's entirely wrong. The 8100 has been out for a while, after all. "The first Intel quad-thread processor in the lineup" is also the 8100, unless it spontaneously developed HyperThreading. Also, "the first 6c6t" for the 8500? What about the 8600k?

Come on, TPU, you know better than this.
Posted on Reply
#6
chaosmassive
why i5 8600 has mere +100 Mhz over i5 8500, but cost 39 dollars more?:slap:
Posted on Reply
#7
CiTay
chaosmassive said:
why i5 8600 has mere +100 Mhz over i5 8500, but cost 39 dollars more?:slap:
That's just the base clock. Unfortunately, Intel stopped communicating the much more important Turbo clocks with Coffee Lake, probably to avoid unflattering comparisons with the competition.

The i5-8400 has a base clock of 2.8 GHz, the i5-8500 will have 3.0 GHz, just 200 MHz more, but psychologically relevant. With the Turbo clocks, the 8400 is 300 MHz slower than the 8600K for each core loading, so there's not much room for the 8500 in between. It could either be 100 or 200 MHz faster respectively than the 8400 on the Turbo clocks.

With just a 5% increase in clocks, that's how much the end price should increase from the 8400 too. But you have to factor in that it's going to be the fastest CPU with a 65W TDP and seem more desirable with a 3 GHz base clock, so let's say 10% increase in price is justified. That's a 20 buck higher price.
Posted on Reply
#8
prtskg
Valantar said:
"Intel's first true quad-core processor, the i3-8300" - even taken as the first this generation, that's entirely wrong. The 8100 has been out for a while, after all. "The first Intel quad-thread processor in the lineup" is also the 8100, unless it spontaneously developed HyperThreading. Also, "the first 6c6t" for the 8500? What about the 8600k?
Come on, TPU, you know better than this.
I think he missed 'in this line up' or 'in this batch'. Certainly a poor choice of word here.
Posted on Reply
#9
Valantar
prtskg said:
I think he missed 'in this line up' or 'in this batch'. Certainly a poor choice of word here.
Yeah, there's been a bit of this lately. I'm putting it down to post-CES fatigue :P
Posted on Reply
#10
NationsAnarchy
So Celeron CPUs are still 2/2 and Pentium CPUs are 2/4 ?
Posted on Reply
#11
xorbe
I can't imagine many enthusiasts are pining for Intel CPUs at the moment, which require the KPTI hack to minimize spec exec OS data leak risk.
Posted on Reply
#12
bug
xorbe said:
I can't imagine many enthusiasts are pining for Intel CPUs at the moment, which require the KPTI hack to minimize spec exec OS data leak risk.
Spoken like true fanboy.
These new vulnerabilities affect pretty much any processor that does speculative execution (even ARM or Nvidia ones aren't safe). Yet somehow you thought pinning this on Intel might be a good idea...
Posted on Reply
#13
Valantar
bug said:
Spoken like true fanboy.
These new vulnerabilities affect pretty much any processor that does speculative execution (even ARM or Nvidia ones aren't safe). Yet somehow you thought pinning this on Intel might be a good idea...
Well, Intel does seem to be the most heavily impacted, even if others are vulnerable as well. Of course, a lot of this comes simply from their massive market share and install base in crucial infrastructure where this does seem to have a real performance impact. ARM hasn't been doing OoO for that many years, and is (still) nonexistent in the server and workstation spaces where this matters most. AMD dodging 1/3 of the bullet (but seemingly the most deadly piece, to take that metaphor a bit too far) doesn't lessen the "this is an Intel problem" impression either.
Posted on Reply
#14
xorbe
bug said:
Spoken like true fanboy.
These new vulnerabilities affect pretty much any processor that does speculative execution (even ARM or Nvidia ones aren't safe). Yet somehow you thought pinning this on Intel might be a good idea...
Meltdown is only Intel (the vulnerability that needs KPTI). This is a fact. Spectre hits both AMD and Intel. As an enthusiast, wouldn't you want to get the x86 cpu with the least vulnerabilities?
Posted on Reply
#15
bug
xorbe said:
Meltdown is only Intel (the vulnerability that needs KPTI). This is a fact. Spectre hits both AMD and Intel. As an enthusiast, wouldn't you want to get the x86 cpu with the least vulnerabilities?
Maybe, but how would I know which CPU is that?

Also if we're talking "facts", Meltdown is not "only Intel". It also affects ARM. And since AMD initially claimed they were safe, I'm not so sure Meltdown won't be shown to affect some AMD CPUs as well in the future. But for now, this hasn't been exploited, so let's give AMD the benefit of the doubt.
Posted on Reply
#16
xorbe
I literally called out x86 explicitly in my post to make it clear I'm not referring to ARM or other archs. Ramble on!
Posted on Reply
#17
bug
xorbe said:
I literally called out x86 explicitly in my post to make it clear I'm not referring to ARM or other archs. Ramble on!
Yes, it was clear from your first post you were just trying to make Intel look bad. I've already acknowledged that.
Posted on Reply
#18
InVasMani
Intel made itself look bad really to be fair and not just with this incident they've done it in various aspects over the years, but they aren't the only ones who have done so. They've had both hits and misses just as it's competitors have. In this case it's a big miss though and that really can't be argued against. Speaking on the Meltdown/Spectre issue that is of course. These new chips on the other hand can't hurt just means more competition which from a consumer standpoint helps everyone I suppose.
Posted on Reply
#19
donhatthanh1
how will it compare to the new r5 with the vega graphic 11
Posted on Reply
#20
Valantar
donhatthanh1 said:
how will it compare to the new r5 with the vega graphic 11
That depends on a) which "it" you mean, given that this news post reports on 8 different CPUs, and b) how the Ryzen 5 2400G performs (which we'll see in a few days, once reviews start pouring in). Coffee Lake performance is knowns, and scales relatively linearly with clock speeds, so most of these chips' performance can be extrapolated from already launched SKUs. Their graphics will of course be far inferior to the R5's.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment