Intel Coffee Lake (8th & 9th Gen Core CPUs) + Skylake-X Refresh & W-3175X MegaThread! FAQ and Resources

[goldstone77]

[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zq94cJlTUQ&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=TechYESCity"][/video]
Intel's Coffee Lake a Double Edged Sword..!? Thoughts on the i5-8400 & i7-8700K
Tech YES City
Published on Oct 7, 2017

The i7-8700K and i5-8400 are here in the wild, two really competitive CPUs from Intel, which are looking like a forced response in the answer to AMD's Ryzen, though my Coffee Lake samples got seriously delayed with mix ups and mistakes (got my motherboard over a week ago now...), I still wanted to give you guys my thoughts on what is already out there and what is happening with stock shortages, z370 motherboards vs having no cheaper chipsets available and well I think it could be a double edged sword for Intel, did they out do themselves too much to the point where they will cannibalize their 'higher' end line up and with little stock available could this drive sales towards AMD's Ryzen? Let's discuss! *The i5-8600k is coming in stock to some retailers, though other retailers haven't received any stock at all, and very small numbers of 8700ks and 8400s...

 

[goldstone77]

^ those 2 asrock boards have an external hardware based blck generator , they did the same with a few older sky/kaby boards when Intel forced manufacturers to lock down blck overclocking in the past.

Essentially it means you can overclock any chip via blck without affecting ram speeds or any other aspect of the chipset.

I had an i5 6400 running at 4.2ghz on the b250 fatality k4

You lose any & all power saving features though , it ran that speed 100% of the time, no down stepping clock or voltage wise & it disabled the integrated graphics completely.

So yes I would imagine its the same unless they've managed to improve it in some way.

In essence though those boards are likely $60-70 expensive so you'd pay about the same for the 8600k & a cheaper board & have none of those pitfalls.

To be honest the 8400 looks fast enough as it is with no overclocking.

8400 and a cheap board like the MSI Z370-A PRO and not worry about overclocking is the way i think i am going to go. i just hope 3 to 4 years down the line i do not regret not getting a 8600k to overclock to keep up with a 3-4 year newer GPU....

You can always buy an upgrade later, and sell your CPU on ebay to recoup some of the rental fee. Takes 5-10 min. to sell something on Ebay if you are doing it for the first time. After that significantly faster.

 

[-Fran-]

8400 and a cheap board like the MSI Z370-A PRO and not worry about overclocking is the way i think i am going to go. i just hope 3 to 4 years down the line i do not regret not getting a 8600k to overclock to keep up with a 3-4 year newer GPU....

It depends on the average numbers people can get from the K versions. If you're talking about 300Mhz+ across all cores, it is a worthy investment to shell the extra sheckels for the K and a decent Z board, since it will indeed last you longer. If you're going for a locked CPU, OC'ing is not always guaranteed and you will still need a proper MoBo to try and do it.

So, from the pure "value" perspective, it's hard to say a non-K CPU is a good long term investment unless you really know how much time you can wait for the "next big thing". That being said, locked CPUs are still value kings from the Intel camp and the i5-8400 seems to be a great value for a low price entry, since you (I would imagine) can go for a "normal" MoBo and comes with a cooler (I tihnk?). Just make sure to max out on RAM right away (16GB+) and you won't need an upgrade in a good while.

Well, this is talking broadly. Plus, I'm still keen on getting more information on that i3K and taking into account the current Kaby Lake stuff should go down in price it's also an interesting proposition.

Cheers!

EDIT: Some corrections and:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/11897/price-watch-core-i7-8700k-core-i5-8600k-and-core-i3-8350k-launch-day

Nice price watch.

 

[renz496]

i got my 2500K around one week before ivy bridge officially launch to the market and i don't regret that decision one bit haha.

So between 8600K and 1600X which one will bottleneck 1080ti @1080p the most?

 

[goldstone77]

[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysAdXfhqGtU&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=HardwareUnboxed"][/video]
Intel Core i3-8100 & 8350K Review: RIP Ryzen 3?
Hardware Unboxed
Published on Oct 7, 2017
The i5-8400 is is also in there.

 

[weberdarren97]

Okay so is Intel going to make Coffee Lake X299 chips?

Also, didn't they kinda just RIP Skylake X99 chips?

 

[-Fran-]

i got my 2500K around one week before ivy bridge officially launch to the market and i don't regret that decision one bit haha.

So between 8600K and 1600X which one will bottleneck 1080ti @1080p the most?

It will really depend on the title, but going by pure "grunt" the i5-8600K should be better for gaming hands down. The only thing preventing the 1600(X) siblings from getting my recommendation over the i5K is the OC limit. Since you're willing to OC, the K is the better purchase. I think it's worth investing those extra sheckles in it if you're not budget constrained.

Cheers!

 

[randomizer]

I like to think I'll overclock but in reality I'm much more likely to use the stock Intel HSF (if the particular chip comes with one) and undervolt it. That's what I've done with my 920 for the last 8 or so years.

 

[-Fran-]

I like to think I'll overclock but in reality I'm much more likely to use the stock Intel HSF (if the particular chip comes with one) and undervolt it. That's what I've done with my 920 for the last 8 or so years.

For that specific scenario, I'd go for the i7 8700 instead. But for HTPC or just lower requirements, the i5 8400 seems like the best purchase.

Cheers!

 

[randomizer]

For that specific scenario, I'd go for the i7 8700 instead.

I might just do that when it's available next year.

 

[paul159944]

I have gone ahead and pulled the trigger on the i5 8400 , and i have also got some ddr4 3000mhz ram, but i find myself wondering should i get a cheap z370 motherboard or wait to next year to get a more budget motherboard? will i be able to get 3000mhz on the ram with and i5 8400 and a z370?

 

[madmatt30]

^ no reason you shouldn't get 3000mhz with the 8400, the k chips are not a necessity far faster than 2666 ram speeds

That's the best choice of CPU IMO , the 8600k is way overpriced comparitively.

With a 1080ti & that CPU I'd argue that ANY 1080p will be the main bottleneck there anyway.

 

[TechyInAZ]

^ no reason you shouldn't get 3000mhz with the 8400, the k chips are not a necessity far faster than 2666 ram speeds

That's the best choice of CPU IMO , the 8600k is way overpriced comparitively.

With a 1080ti & that CPU I'd argue that ANY 1080p will be the main bottleneck there anyway.

Agreed, Intel CPUs don't require high speed memory at all. So even 2133mhz or 2400mhz would do fine.

 

[manleysteele]

My biggest question about Coffee Lake is, "Is the i7 8700k really a 95 Watt TDP processor?" It doesn't look like it is to me.

 

[madmatt30]

^ no , not really , but then the ryzen 1700 isn't really a 65w tdp processor by the same measure.

It depends on your understanding of the term tdp (amd , Intel & the general public all have a different idea of what it means)

 

[goldstone77]

^ no reason you shouldn't get 3000mhz with the 8400, the k chips are not a necessity far faster than 2666 ram speeds

That's the best choice of CPU IMO , the 8600k is way overpriced comparitively.

With a 1080ti & that CPU I'd argue that ANY 1080p will be the main bottleneck there anyway.

Agreed, Intel CPUs don't require high speed memory at all. So even 2133mhz or 2400mhz would do fine.

The difference with 7th generation Kaby lake from 2133mhz to 3200Mhz was ~7FPS depending on the title.

 

[goldstone77]

My biggest question about Coffee Lake is, "Is the i7 8700k really a 95 Watt TDP processor?" It doesn't look like it is to me.

Thermal design power

The thermal design power (TDP), sometimes called thermal design point, is the maximum amount of heat generated by a computer chip or component (often the CPU or GPU) that the cooling system in a computer is designed to dissipate under any workload.

The TDP is typically not the largest amount of heat the CPU could ever generate (peak power), such as by running a power virus, but rather the maximum amount of heat that it would generate when running "real applications." This ensures the computer will be able to handle essentially all applications without exceeding its thermal envelope, or requiring a cooling system for the maximum theoretical power (which would cost more but in favor of extra headroom for processing power).[1]

Some sources state that the peak power for a microprocessor is usually 1.5 times the TDP rating.[2] However, the TDP is a conventional figure while its measurement methodology has been the subject of controversy. In particular, until around 2006 AMD used to report the maximum power draw of its processors as TDP, but Intel changed this practice with the introduction of its Conroe family of processors.[3]

Since safety margins and the definition of what constitutes a real application vary among manufacturers, TDP values between different manufacturers cannot be accurately compared. For example, while a processor with a TDP of 100 W will almost certainly use more power at full load than a processor with a 10 W TDP from the same manufacturer, it may or may not use more power than a processor from a different manufacturer that has a 90 W TDP. Additionally, TDPs are often specified for families of processors, with the low-end models usually using significantly less power than those at the high end of the family.

If you follow the link you will find more information on TDP, and how it's changed over time. It comes down to there is no universal "standard" for TDP. Something I've tried to point out for a while. It is what each company decides it stands for. Sometimes companies state TDP is heat dissipation under "typical load." But what is typical load?

 

[manleysteele]

I'm comparing it to my 91 Watt i7 7700k, which is cooled using a 95 watt rated box cooler. I have a 9% overclock and I've never had a heat problem.

 

[Bruno Vincent]

No affordable mobo for months...why does Intel do that?

Bad business, like launching service/product before it's ready...doesn't cause anticipation and suspense but frustration and impatience... Not a good move from Intel imho

People upgrade every few years, it's a window of opportunity for Intel, like many others, I may opt for ryyzen thanks to Intel s mobo waiting game...this will cost them millions, and loose a very big chunk of the market share they could have had if they had their compatibility issues resolved before launch...

 

[juanrga]

My biggest question about Coffee Lake is, "Is the i7 8700k really a 95 Watt TDP processor?" It doesn't look like it is to me.

I'm comparing it to my 91 Watt i7 7700k, which is cooled using a 95 watt rated box cooler. I have a 9% overclock and I've never had a heat problem.

Some reviews found that the new 95W i7 consumes less power than the old 91W i7: HFR got 100W vs 109W at socket level. Anandtech got 86.21W vs 86.88W at CPU level.

However, PcPer got 146.3W vs 122.6W at platform level.

 

[juanrga]

Spoiler

My biggest question about Coffee Lake is, "Is the i7 8700k really a 95 Watt TDP processor?" It doesn't look like it is to me.

Thermal design power

The thermal design power (TDP), sometimes called thermal design point, is the maximum amount of heat generated by a computer chip or component (often the CPU or GPU) that the cooling system in a computer is designed to dissipate under any workload.

The TDP is typically not the largest amount of heat the CPU could ever generate (peak power), such as by running a power virus, but rather the maximum amount of heat that it would generate when running "real applications." This ensures the computer will be able to handle essentially all applications without exceeding its thermal envelope, or requiring a cooling system for the maximum theoretical power (which would cost more but in favor of extra headroom for processing power).[1]

Some sources state that the peak power for a microprocessor is usually 1.5 times the TDP rating.[2] However, the TDP is a conventional figure while its measurement methodology has been the subject of controversy. In particular, until around 2006 AMD used to report the maximum power draw of its processors as TDP, but Intel changed this practice with the introduction of its Conroe family of processors.[3]

Since safety margins and the definition of what constitutes a real application vary among manufacturers, TDP values between different manufacturers cannot be accurately compared. For example, while a processor with a TDP of 100 W will almost certainly use more power at full load than a processor with a 10 W TDP from the same manufacturer, it may or may not use more power than a processor from a different manufacturer that has a 90 W TDP. Additionally, TDPs are often specified for families of processors, with the low-end models usually using significantly less power than those at the high end of the family.

If you follow the link you will find more information on TDP, and how it's changed over time. It comes down to there is no universal "standard" for TDP. Something I've tried to point out for a while. It is what each company decides it stands for. Sometimes companies state TDP is heat dissipation under "typical load." But what is typical load?

It doesn't have anything to do with different companies. AMD FX-8350 Piledriver is 125W, AMD RyZen 1800X is not 95W. AMD RyZen 1700 is not 65W. AMD ThreadRipper 1950X is 180W. AMD is giving accurate TDP figures for some chips and marketing labels for some RyZen chips.

 

[juanrga]

^ no reason you shouldn't get 3000mhz with the 8400, the k chips are not a necessity far faster than 2666 ram speeds

That's the best choice of CPU IMO , the 8600k is way overpriced comparitively.

With a 1080ti & that CPU I'd argue that ANY 1080p will be the main bottleneck there anyway.

Agreed, Intel CPUs don't require high speed memory at all. So even 2133mhz or 2400mhz would do fine.

Intel CPUs benefit from using faster RAM on latency-sensitive workloads. Myself provides several examples of Broadwell-E chips playing games faster with faster memory. The same happens with Skylake. In extreme cases (memory-bound games) Skylake gets a 21% increase in framerates when going from 2133 to 3200 mem

 

[goldstone77]

Spoiler

^ no reason you shouldn't get 3000mhz with the 8400, the k chips are not a necessity far faster than 2666 ram speeds

That's the best choice of CPU IMO , the 8600k is way overpriced comparitively.

With a 1080ti & that CPU I'd argue that ANY 1080p will be the main bottleneck there anyway.

Agreed, Intel CPUs don't require high speed memory at all. So even 2133mhz or 2400mhz would do fine.

Intel CPUs benefit from using faster RAM on latency-sensitive workloads. Myself provides several examples of Broadwell-E chips playing games faster with faster memory. The same happens with Skylake. In extreme cases (memory-bound games) Skylake gets a 21% increase in framerates when going from 2133 to 3200 mem

Which data sets did you use to extrapolate 21%, because there is a mixture of different frequencies, memory bandwidths, and different platforms in the graph. But even greater to the point of this thread how does this information correlate to the 8th generation processors in memory bound situations in today's titles?

 

[goldstone77]

OP question was about i7 8700K TDP.

My biggest question about Coffee Lake is, "Is the i7 8700k really a 95 Watt TDP processor?" It doesn't look like it is to me.

It doesn't have anything to do with different companies. AMD FX-8350 Piledriver is 125W, AMD RyZen 1800X is not 95W. AMD RyZen 1700 is not 65W. AMD ThreadRipper 1950X is 180W. AMD is giving accurate TDP figures for some chips and marketing labels for some RyZen chips.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us on what your think TDP means. Ryzen is off topic, but I would be interested to see the data you have on Ryzen coolers not being capable of dissipating 95W of heat, so please provide links to that data!

 

[juanrga]

Spoiler

^ no reason you shouldn't get 3000mhz with the 8400, the k chips are not a necessity far faster than 2666 ram speeds

That's the best choice of CPU IMO , the 8600k is way overpriced comparitively.

With a 1080ti & that CPU I'd argue that ANY 1080p will be the main bottleneck there anyway.

Agreed, Intel CPUs don't require high speed memory at all. So even 2133mhz or 2400mhz would do fine.

Intel CPUs benefit from using faster RAM on latency-sensitive workloads. Myself provides several examples of Broadwell-E chips playing games faster with faster memory. The same happens with Skylake. In extreme cases (memory-bound games) Skylake gets a 21% increase in framerates when going from 2133 to 3200 mem

Which data sets did you use to extrapolate 21%, because there is a mixture of different frequencies, memory bandwidths, and different platforms in the graph. But even greater to the point of this thread how does this information correlate to the 8th generation processors in memory bound situations in today's titles?

6700k stock with 2133MHz: 59.1 fps
6700k stock with 3200MHz: 71.8 fps
Gain: 21.49%

CoffeLake would have similar sensitivity to memory speed in memory-bound situations because it has same core muarch than Skylake. The only difference would be played by larger L3 in games that don't scale to all the cores.