Intel Coffee Lake Vs. Kaby Lake: A Side-By-Side Comparison

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.


The chart shows that the cache for the i7 is 13.5MB and the i5 is 10.5MB. I'm not sure where they were pulling 256MB from.
 
It should be specified if the gen 8 CPU's TurboBoost frequencies shown in the tables apply to all cores or just 1-2. Just looking at the tables, it would lead any uninformed reader to believe that they apply to all cores. There's not even an asterisk!
 
My plan is to wait for Z390 and 8 Core Main Stream CPU and replace the current x99/6900k I have. Anything over 8/16 for me is waste of money right now.
 
While I like the article, I feel some better advice on if it's worth upgrading to the CoffeLake or the Kaby Lake makes sense. And from which jump of point it makes sense (for example: upgrade from haswell to coffe lake makes sense, but not from kaby lake)
 
As I'm currently on an i5 4690 I really want to know if its worth just going up to an i7 4790k or is there enough of an improvement to go to an 8700k. I already know Ryzen isn't worth it as it would be a downgrade in too many games due to the lower single-thread IPC.

Its worth noting that I will already need a new motherboard anyway as I plan to build another machine with 4690 either way.
 
If I got to a KabyLake or Coffee Lake, I can sell you my 4790k (with Ram and a Board that is sketchy).
But I am not sure if it's worth upgrading from an 4790k to a kaby or coffee
 
This is a much longer article that I expected. I thought Kaby lake would just be a picture of Intel handing a roofied drink to its customers, and coffee lake would be statutory in 48 states. 😉
 
lol, lower IPC in single thread on Ryzen by a small margin, but guess what, it's going to be 2018 soon and as of the beginning of this year a lot of companies started using more cores and threads in games. Realistically it started back when Battlefield 4 came out actually, remember Mantle API. So if you can find a modern game that doesn't use more cores then single core then those devs are being lazy. Even early access games use more cores like PUBG and Conan Exiles or Fortnite most games due that is why all consoles are 4 cores are more and pretty sure all modern COD games use more then 2 cores.

Also, it is something to note that Ryzen 2 is going to be released in first half of 2018 same time as coffee lake lol and it will have improved IPC, higher clocks, and possibly lower TDP no need to upgrade your motherboards either. I'm sure it will be able to utilize 4600mhz DDR4. So you don't need to buy a $500 to $700 mobo of the 299x variant. It is obvious Intel is scrambling to catch up on cores with AMD this round but AMD just has to bump their IPC by 15% and they win, but lets not forget that AMD in one generation improved their IPC by 60%, so if they were able to some how squeeze at least 30% more out of Ryzen 2 they would be ahead, but 15% would just about match Intel with 2 more cores and 4 more threads at about the same price.

Oh lets mention that AMD started the 2 core boost xfr that Intel is going to be copying, lol. I currently run a 4790k delided @ 4.8ghz 1.25volts 😀 never goes above 55c except in BF1. I see no need to upgrade as of yet but an 8 core 16 thread is in my future and I'm waiting for Ryzen 2 not Intel this time around. I am not biased but I am against bad practice but AMD sucked for so long in games I couldn't go that route until now.
 
Thank God for AMD. Love them or hate them without AMD Intel would still be selling us 2 core cpus and keeping progression at a snails pace.
 
Ok so with the new 8700 Line up why would I go and get a 7900X? I know that the 7900 ...I9 series is Quad Channel and this is dual channel.

Which is going to 'better' for gaming..an I9 or the new I7? Lets set aside the 6 cores vrs 10. I got that. Is an I9 FLAT out better for the newest games (ashes, for example) or would these new I7 be the better choice?
 
They should probably start naming the overclocking-enabled chipsets with a K so it's less confusing to novices. Though, some might argue that if you're overclocking, you should have already done your research on what works with what, and how.
 
I feel like Intel should start naming their overclocker-friendly chipsets with a K instead of a Z, to match the Unlocked "K" CPUs. Clearer for novice builders. Though, some might argue that if you're overclocking, you should've done all your research anyway. Just a thought.
 


Beyond 6 cores, you're not really getting tangible benefits in most of today's games. Your best bet is the chip with the highest base and turbo clocks. If you plan on overclocking to get some more speed out of it, you want a K model with matching Z motherboard (isn't that confusing?)

The high core count chips are really meant for content creation and other heavily threaded tasks.
 
So with a 65TDP for the 8700 versus 95 for the 8700k, will the 8700 run much cooler when at load than the 8700k (same everything else, not OC)? Looking for the best combination of clock speeds but not too hot (I'll put a good water or air cooler on it), money not the issue.
 

With cost not being an issue, I'd get the K. Then, you'll have more flexibility to tweak it for the best balance of performance vs. temperature in your specific setup.

This should provide more insight into Intel's temperature specifications:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1800828/intel-temperature-guide.html


...some of which you can find here:

https://ark.intel.com/compare/126686,126684
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom