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

[jigar2speed]

the moment you realize that a new 6c/12t can wipe the floor with your potato 3.8 1700x...
Jeez, all these second hand 1700 on ebay after this, 1700s everywhere...

Just like how 1700 wiped the floor with i5 4670, i7 4770, and many other Intel CPUs ?
Yeah we know, its the cycle that both the companies get to play.
You think i7 8700K is the end of AMD ?

 

[TheGuruStud]

the moment you realize that a new 6c/12t can wipe the floor with your potato 3.8 1700x...
Jeez, all these second hand 1700 on ebay after this, 1700s everywhere...

You gotta try harder. No one besides Huang suckers would sell a faster CPU to buy a new and more expensive MB/CPU... Oh, man, I can't wait for the response.

Unless you think you can cool this thing when OCed...good luck with the toothpaste (even delidded you're pumping another 50% more power into it...it won't be pretty).

 

[Prima.Vera]

To be honest I think my next update will be an Icelake or even Tigerlake CPU, since this Coffelake seems like a rush release all arround in order to counter attack AMD's offering. One can only hope that Icelake/Tigerlake will have 8C/16T K processor...

 

[[XC] Oj101]

So this new LGA1151 support the old LGA1151? or will i need a new mobo to upgrade to New CPUs?

Don't count on cross compatibility

 

[_JP_]

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.

I got lost in translation. My bad.

 

[eddman]

Just a heads up, Ryzen has better performance per watt than Skylake and very likely this upcoming architecture as well (it's really still skylake).

That's not exactly true. Just compare 1500X and 1300X to 7600K (which is quite fare; same number of cores, and the i5 even has higher TDP and clocks). The i5 consume less.

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

 

[phanbuey]

That's not exactly true. Just compare 1500X and 1300X to 7600K (which is quite fare; same number of cores, and the i5 even has higher TDP and clocks). The i5 consume less.

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

Yeah intel is still better at power/performance on the mobile and 4 cores; once the cores scale up that changes pretty drastically.

 

[eddman]

Yeah intel is still better at power/performance on the mobile and 4 cores; once the cores scale up that changes pretty drastically.

I don't know where this notion that core i9s always consume more power comes from. In the majority of reviews 7900X consumes less than a 1920X. Yes, it has 2 less cores but has higher clocks, so it's sort of comparable.

I, personally, have seen only two reviews that show 7900X consuming more; techspot and tweaktown (out of about 12 reviews I've seen so far).

 

[Octopuss]

I wonder how much longer will I be happy with overclocked 3770K.... probably until game developers stop being lazy assholes and more cores will actually be useful for something.

 

[phanbuey]

I don't know where this notion that core i9s always consume more power comes from. In the majority of reviews 7900X consumes less than a 1920X. Yes, it has 2 less cores but has higher clocks, so it's sort of comparable.

I, personally, have seen only two reviews that show 7900X consuming more; techspot and tweaktown (out of about 12 reviews I've seen so far).

I think most reviews compare the 1950X - which is where that notion is forming. The multicore performance is substantially higher on the 1950x, while the power consumption is only slightly higher than a 7900x... even with a sizeable margin of error power/performance the 7900x is overall worse than that of the 1950x, and comparable to the 1920X in multi-threaded loads.

In addition - an SKU like the R7 1700 - which is a 65W TDP 8/16 part - with a power consumption that is also very low does not exist on the Intel side, since they currently favor faster, hungrier cores in the workstation/desktop space.

I think that really the 1950X and the 1700 are the two chips that sweetspots for AMD's P/W ratio, and Intel doesn't have anything that touches that until you get into the mobile space; and that's what's driving most of the "Intel can't compete on perf/watt on the many core side" sentiment (at least for me).

 

[eddman]

I think most reviews compare the 1950X - which is where that notion is forming. The multicore performance is substantially higher on the 1950x, while the power consumption is only slightly higher than a 7900x... even with a sizeable margin of error power/performance the 7900x is overall worse than that of the 1950x, and comparable to the 1920X in multi-threaded loads.

In addition - an SKU like the R7 1700 - which is a 65W TDP 8/16 part - with a power consumption that is also very low does not exist on the Intel side, since they currently favor faster, hungrier cores in the workstation/desktop space.

I think that really the 1950X and the 1700 are the two chips that sweetspots for AMD's P/W ratio, and Intel doesn't have anything that touches that until you get into the mobile space; and that's what's driving most of the "Intel can't compete on perf/watt on the many core side" sentiment (at least for me).

There is a certain clock threshold where beyond that point the processor's power consumption will jump considerably; that's why something like 7700K consumes so much power compared to 7700 or 7600K or even 1800X sometimes. There are cases where 4 high clocked cores can consume more power than 8 low clocked ones.

I think it's too early to pass judgment on i9s power consumption. We can only get a clear picture once 12 to 18 core variants show up.

 

[Prima.Vera]

I wonder how much longer will I be happy with overclocked 3770K.... probably until game developers stop being lazy assholes and more cores will actually be useful for something.

Yeah. But to be honest, latest game engines can use as much Cores as you can throw them (UE4 can use up to 72 threads), however even so, the limiting factor is still the GPU, especially on 2K resolution or higher.

 

[Octopuss]

I don't really understand how these things work, but just because an engine can use a lot of threads doesn't mean a developer of a game makes it happen, does it?

It's especially bad with MMOs and their proprietary frankenstein engines from ten years ago.

 

[trparky]

Just a heads up, Ryzen has better performance per watt than Skylake and very likely this upcoming architecture as well (it's really still skylake).

So what about performance per watt? I couldn't give a rat's behind about that, I care about overall performance and that's where Intel still (sadly) is king. More cores doesn't automatically mean more performance, the software needs to be written for that and sadly most software written today isn't optimized for a lot of cores.

If developers start optimizing for more cores I honestly would like to believe we can make great strides in how games can perform.

It'll be a couple of more years until that happens since it'll be years until a majority of the older systems that gamers have are swapped out for systems that have more cores. Not everyone is going to run out and get a newer and more core equipped system, not everyone has the money to do that. Game developers know their target audience and for the most part that segment still hasn't upgraded yet.

And besides, not all of us are playing the latest and greatest Triple-A game title, some of us are still playing older games. They may be old but they're still good games. Why should performance for those older games suffer?