Intel's 8th Generation Core Family - Coffee Lake (LGA 1151, 6C/12T)

Where do you expect Core i7-8700K's Turbo to land?

  • 3.8/3.9 GHz

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4.0/4.1 GHz

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • 4.2/4.3 GHz

    Votes: 6 46.2%
  • 4.4/4.5 GHz

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • 4.6/4.7 GHz

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,280
" We are also committed to driving an entire new generation of our X-series processors for HEDT and our S series of desktops for our mainstream performance line all before the end of the year."

Not sure what driving does. How long from "driving" until "shipping"? How long from shipping until first availability? How long from first availability until availability at reasonable prices? (I believe this was about 3 months for CFL alone)
 

oleNBR

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 9, 2016
Messages
372
Really depends on the clockspeeds and pricing as to how it sits in the lineup. The 8086k will likely still have its place.

its a limited chip, ontop of that overclock similar to 8700k, i'd say its place is tiny, even among the overclockers with 8 core CFL coming so soon.

feels to me more of an attempt to make extra cash before 8 core comes out.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
its a limited chip, ontop of that overclock similar to 8700k, i'd say its place is tiny, even among the overclockers with 8 core CFL coming so soon.

feels to me more of an attempt to make extra cash before 8 core comes out.

Making cash is what companies do, right?

If it clocks higher, I don't see a problem- it's offering something and isn't going Extreme-Edition pricing. And it's not like there isn't always something else coming out next.
 

Tzeh Pesh

n00b
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
53
Really depends on the clockspeeds and pricing as to how it sits in the lineup. The 8086k will likely still have its place.

Or could this be part of the reason they have flagged it as a "limited edition"?

This is one of the things that has me wary about upgrading to Intel right now - what their product lineup is going to look like in the next 12-18 months, and not wanting to end up feeling like how I imagine someone that bought an i5 7600K just prior to the i5 8600K launch might.

The 8th generation i5's offering more bang-for-buck over the 7th generation with the increased core count not being reflected in the price increase (though admittedly also not lowering the latter's much here) and the way the Z370 chipset seemed to have been pushed out the door earlier than planned has me wondering just how in flux the future product stack is... as shocking as Intel increasing cores and threads again so soon would be.

For example will the 8 core be branded 8th generation or 9th generation? Will it be branded an i9 or an i7? And if its an i7, what will that mean for 9th/next generation i5's?

Will we be i9 8C/16T, i7 6C/12T, i5 6C/6T? Or where would we be with an i5 8C/8T on shelves in 2019/2020? Wild speculation, yes I know sorry, but a bit more fun than the recent "hm, wonder what IPC and clockspeed gains they will be able to eke out this time around".
 

OutOfPhase

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
5,041
Making cash is what companies do, right?

If it clocks higher, I don't see a problem- it's offering something and isn't going Extreme-Edition pricing. And it's not like there isn't always something else coming out next.

That's my thought. It is just what it is. A factory binned and overclocked 8700k, for a bit more cash if you want to spend it. Yes, there are other ways of getting something similar. There is always a premium for factory standard parts which perform better.
 

juanrga

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
2,804
Really depends on the clockspeeds and pricing as to how it sits in the lineup. The 8086k will likely still have its place.

It is selling very well

6f71d01553bf583446141ef915a3a9a32fd02e368aa7a65866d697da985db74b-png.png
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
29,792
Or could this be part of the reason they have flagged it as a "limited edition"?

This is one of the things that has me wary about upgrading to Intel right now - what their product lineup is going to look like in the next 12-18 months, and not wanting to end up feeling like how I imagine someone that bought an i5 7600K just prior to the i5 8600K launch might.

The 8th generation i5's offering more bang-for-buck over the 7th generation with the increased core count not being reflected in the price increase (though admittedly also not lowering the latter's much here) and the way the Z370 chipset seemed to have been pushed out the door earlier than planned has me wondering just how in flux the future product stack is... as shocking as Intel increasing cores and threads again so soon would be.

For example will the 8 core be branded 8th generation or 9th generation? Will it be branded an i9 or an i7? And if its an i7, what will that mean for 9th/next generation i5's?

Will we be i9 8C/16T, i7 6C/12T, i5 6C/6T? Or where would we be with an i5 8C/8T on shelves in 2019/2020? Wild speculation, yes I know sorry, but a bit more fun than the recent "hm, wonder what IPC and clockspeed gains they will be able to eke out this time around".

I was disgusted by Intel's move with the Z270, especially given how similar it is to the Z370 to the point where Intel's own driver update program listed my Z370 as a Z270.

I have a feeling that the 8C/16T part will launch at $379-399 given that it seems the increase in cores brings an increase in price, but because the single thread performance will be lower, it will cost less than the 8086k. I'm guessing maybe a 4.5 all core boost out of the gate. The clockspeed advantage of the 8086k will mean that it will win some lose some in benchmarks with the 8C/16T parts. I think of it like the 7700k vs. the 8600k. Similar performance depending on what you're working with.
 

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
9,148
I was disgusted by Intel's move with the Z270, especially given how similar it is to the Z370 to the point where Intel's own driver update program listed my Z370 as a Z270.

I have a feeling that the 8C/16T part will launch at $379-399 given that it seems the increase in cores brings an increase in price, but because the single thread performance will be lower, it will cost less than the 8086k. I'm guessing maybe a 4.5 all core boost out of the gate. The clockspeed advantage of the 8086k will mean that it will win some lose some in benchmarks with the 8C/16T parts. I think of it like the 7700k vs. the 8600k. Similar performance depending on what you're working with.
And then subtract the 15-20% if you update your bios for the exploits.(Might even come with them if it's new?)
 

oleNBR

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 9, 2016
Messages
372
And then subtract the 15-20% if you update your bios for the exploits.(Might even come with them if it's new?)

these cpu likely come patched already? and tbh no point patching them simply because who would hack single person. hackers mostly target big corporation they get millions individuals' data in one go.
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,280
I have a feeling that the 8C/16T part will launch at $379-399 given that it seems the increase in cores brings an increase in price, but because the single thread performance will be lower, it will cost less than the 8086k.

That would be like paying $50 more for an 8350k over an 8600k if the 8350k could squeeze out 100-200 more mhz.

More cores does not mean worse single core performance. If the 8086k stays above $400, the 8 core will be $450 for sure.
 

oleNBR

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 9, 2016
Messages
372
That would be like paying $50 more for an 8350k over an 8600k if the 8350k could squeeze out 100-200 more mhz.

More cores does not mean worse single core performance. If the 8086k stays above $400, the 8 core will be $450 for sure.

usually more core means worse ST due to latency and how software uses it. if info shuffles between core etc, which 8700k has like less than 1% lower performance than 7700k lol. but also more cores = higher internal core temp, results in lower frequency. so i guess yes in a way its true.
 

juanrga

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
2,804
i dont really care about that, we wish to know how well its binned!. i am hoping for a 5.5ghz sample from SL but i think thats wishful thinking.. btw do you know if 8 core CFL will be 14nm+++? thats another wishful thinking of mine.

It is still soon to know how well it is binned but...

We start having some idea from hwbot Average overclock on air

8700k: 4952GHz
8086k: 5218GHz

One average is over 20000 samples the other is only 59 samples, so 8086k averave will change over time, but it is highly unlikely that all submitted samples of the new i7 are above the production average. So it seems confirmed the new i7 is a better chip with extra headroom.

8-core CFL is 14nm++.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,091
The performance impact of the meltdown and spectre fixes are sub-5% in most cases on the desktop, aside from PCIE storage device bandwidth which is where you'll see hits of 30%+. Of course almost no one is fully utilizing PCIE storage on a desktop, so it doesn't matter too much. The impacts on some server applications are much more serious.
 

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
9,148
The performance impact of the meltdown and spectre fixes are sub-5% in most cases on the desktop, aside from PCIE storage device bandwidth which is where you'll see hits of 30%+. Of course almost no one is fully utilizing PCIE storage on a desktop, so it doesn't matter too much. The impacts on some server applications are much more serious.
It wasn't just server apps I was looking at. I guess we will see once all the the patches are out for bios, and then all the new ones to get patched, and any others that come along and see what the % is. :)
 

oleNBR

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 9, 2016
Messages
372

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,280
That CB scores shows about 5.0 ghz o/c. I can only see that possible with a very capable closed loop if it is not using soder. Rather impressive either way.
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,280
I get less than 4.5GHz

2200 ÷ 8 ÷ 55 (cb constant for most cpus today) = 5.0.

This works for AMD and Intel mainstream CPUs (quad channel a little higher)

eg 8700k @ 5.1 ghz:
5.1 * 55 * 6 = 1680 CB which is at the upper end of what you will get with an 8700k

2700x@4.3 ghz:

4.3 * 55 * 8 = 1890. (Some do a little better with good memory)
 

oleNBR

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 9, 2016
Messages
372
2200 ÷ 8 ÷ 55 (cb constant for most cpus today) = 5.0.

This works for AMD and Intel mainstream CPUs (quad channel a little higher)

eg 8700k @ 5.1 ghz:
5.1 * 55 * 6 = 1680 CB which is at the upper end of what you will get with an 8700k

2700x@4.3 ghz:

4.3 * 55 * 8 = 1890. (Some do a little better with good memory)

the calculation itself has some issue tho, ryzen and cfl have different ipc, though 2000 ryzen are a bit better, i believe intel is still ahead by about 5%
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,280
the calculation itself has some issue tho, ryzen and cfl have different ipc, though 2000 ryzen are a bit better, i believe intel is still ahead by about 5%

Maybe true, but not the case for CB. For mainstream parts, Ryzen 2 is a bit better and actually closer to a '57' constant for CB. We see this with the r7 2700 hitting 1800 points with just 4 ghz. The 8700k will not hit 1700 points with just 5.0 ghz. It is usually about 1650 points. Anything above that speed is even a worse constant as the chips will usually thermal throttle.

Case in point: I have only seen one reviewer get over 1700 points with the 8700k despite many claiming to hit 5.1 ghz or more.

HEDT are slightly better with quad channel memory and again closer to 57 like the Ryzen 2.
 

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,673
Really depends on the clockspeeds and pricing as to how it sits in the lineup. The 8086k will likely still have its place.


Outside base clock tests and 1 core turbo tests the performance 8700 vs 8086 is the same even with the 300mhz the reviews show near zero gains. The 8086 is a terrible value proposition
 

juanrga

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
2,804
2200 ÷ 8 ÷ 55 (cb constant for most cpus today) = 5.0.

This works for AMD and Intel mainstream CPUs (quad channel a little higher)

eg 8700k @ 5.1 ghz:
5.1 * 55 * 6 = 1680 CB which is at the upper end of what you will get with an 8700k

2700x@4.3 ghz:

4.3 * 55 * 8 = 1890. (Some do a little better with good memory)

In the same image the i9-7900K does 2184 cb. therefore

2184 * 8/10 * F / 3.32GHz = 2212 cb

Solving F = 4.2GHz. So the 8C Genuine Intel is not OC to 5GHz.
 

Denpepe

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
2,116
Outside base clock tests and 1 core turbo tests the performance 8700 vs 8086 is the same even with the 300mhz the reviews show near zero gains. The 8086 is a terrible value proposition

As an anniversary edition, the 8086K should have launched at the same price as the 8700K so you would feel like you got a gift iso beeing punished for something with little to no extra value which is only available in lilmited quantities. Intel can easily afford this and might get a rep boost in that case iso beeing slammed.
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,280
In the same image the i9-7900K does 2184 cb. therefore

2184 * 8/10 * F / 3.32GHz = 2212 cb

Solving F = 4.2GHz. So the 8C Genuine Intel is not OC to 5GHz.

LOL What?!! The 7900x was NOT running at 3.3 ghz when getting that 2184 score. It was closer to 4.0 ghz which is turbo boost for 5-10 cores on that chip.

Hell, at 4.5 ghz, the 7900x only got 2424 points:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_7900X/9.html

2184 ÷ 10 ÷ 4.0 ghz = 54.6
2425 ÷ 10 ÷ 4.5 ghz = 53.9 (a bit of throttling)
 

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,673
LOL What?!! The 7900x was NOT running at 3.3 ghz when getting that 2184 score. It was closer to 4.0 ghz which is turbo boost for 5-10 cores on that chip.

Hell, at 4.5 ghz, the 7900x only got 2424 points:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_7900X/9.html

2184 ÷ 10 ÷ 4.0 ghz = 54.6
2425 ÷ 10 ÷ 4.5 ghz = 53.9 (a bit of throttling)

a 4ghz 2700X scores ~2100 so it is probable that the all core turbo was 4.2ghz give or take
 
Top