Intel Docs Reference Eight-Core Coffee Lake Processor

[Guest]

Redditors found a reference to Coffee Lake processors with eight cores and integrated graphics on Intel’s website.

Intel Docs Reference Eight-Core Coffee Lake Processor : Read more

 

[Giroro]

What do you mean that 2nd-Gen Ryzen is "cheaper"? the 2700x is priced higher than current street pricing on an 1800x - and of course that means its more expensive than msrp for the 1700x it is apparently succeeding.

 

[artk2219]

What do you mean that 2nd-Gen Ryzen is "cheaper"? the 2700x is priced higher than current street pricing on an 1800x - and of course that means its more expensive than msrp for the 1700x it is apparently succeeding.

Cheaper in that the original MSRP for the top end 1800x was $500, so its cheaper in that its lower than the original msrp of the top end first gen Ryzen parts. But it's still more than the current 1800x, that being said, I'm sure the pricing will get adjusted within 6 months or so depending on demand and competition. There is some slight gouging, but nothing as egregious as the pricing on the FX 9590 when it was first released, $800 dollars for that hot stinker.

 

[braitBR]

Even Intel fans need to be thankful that AMD exists. Without competition we would have quad cores forever and ever.

 

[10tacle]

Even Intel fans need to be thankful that AMD exists. Without competition we would have quad cores forever and ever.

As a strict Intel buyer, I cannot agree more. AMD pushed Intel to finally get six cores on their i5 Coffee Lake CPUs by the way to compete with Ryzen 5's offerings. Same with AMD's GPUs and Nvidia. Unfortunately, AMD does not have a high end competitor to Nvidia's GTX 1080 Ti. They put all their R&D budgeting into Ryzen which IMO is a smart move. They are very competitive in the lower and middle segment GPU market (mining price skewing not withstanding).

 

[i-am-i-u-r-u]

braitBR - You are giving Intel too much credit. Without AMD we would be stuck with a Core 2 Duo Extreme with the a hyped code name, "Pentium Platinum".

 

[monsta]

Maybe a 8800K or 8900K as a model number?

 

[Krazie_Ivan]

if the golden sample review 8700k's ran a hot 90c under load with 240mm AIO & 5Ghz all-core OC, i'm a bit worried what another 2 cores will bring w/o a die shrink. even so, i'm glad to see these advances over the last 12mo, compared to years of stagnation!

(note; Tom's seems to have been one of the few launch-day reviewers to get an avg bin chip... running hotter, lower OC, at more volts than other publishers. brought good balance to the press coverage.)

 

[jimmysmitty]

Even Intel fans need to be thankful that AMD exists. Without competition we would have quad cores forever and ever.

As a strict Intel buyer, I cannot agree more. AMD pushed Intel to finally get six cores on their i5 Coffee Lake CPUs by the way to compete with Ryzen 5's offerings. Same with AMD's GPUs and Nvidia. Unfortunately, AMD does not have a high end competitor to Nvidia's GTX 1080 Ti. They put all their R&D budgeting into Ryzen which IMO is a smart move. They are very competitive in the lower and middle segment GPU market (mining price skewing not withstanding).

There was 6 months between the launch of the Ryzen 5 and the 8600K. Do you think Intel could throw it together that fast? Even though it takes months upon months of testing and bug fixing? That I doubt. The time it would take Intel to cut the silicon, test for frequency and thermal barriers, program and test the chipset then mass produce for release to the market is longer than 6 months.

There is even a roadmap from February of 2018 with reference to Coffee Lake in Q1/2 of 2018 and 6 cores. All we saw was that Intel pushed the launch date up to Q4 of 2017 however it was pushed forward after they failed to keep the Tick-Tock up.

I just don't think AMD is what pushed Intel to 6 core i5s. I think i5/i7 6 cores were coming in Coffee Lake no matter what. All Ryzen did was push forward the release schedule. Or maybe not. It is impossible to say since we have nothing more to go on.

braitBR - You are giving Intel too much credit. Without AMD we would be stuck with a Core 2 Duo Extreme with the a hyped code name, "Pentium Platinum".

You really think so? Because Intel was doing Tick-Tock pretty consistently until about Haswell without stiff competition from AMD.

if the golden sample review 8700k's ran a hot 90c under load with 240mm AIO & 5Ghz all-core OC, i'm a bit worried what another 2 cores will bring w/o a die shrink. even so, i'm glad to see these advances over the last 12mo, compared to years of stagnation!

(note; Tom's seems to have been one of the few launch-day reviewers to get an avg bin chip... running hotter, lower OC, at more volts than other publishers. brought good balance to the press coverage.)

Actually another two cores might benefit it overall. It will have a larger surface area to dissipate heat from the core to the IHS then to the heatsink.

 

[AlistairAB]

""There was 6 months between the launch of the Ryzen 5 and the 8600K. Do you think Intel could throw it together that fast? ""

Don't be silly, Intel knew Ryzen was coming for years. Even AMD announced it, we just weren't sure of its single core performance. Also Intel did tick-tock with no real improvements for 5 years. Anyone who owns a 2700k and a 6700k will tell you that. Adding more cores for the same price was a major price/perf jump.

I agree though that there will not be any problems with an Intel 8 core. 5.0ghz 8700k may run too hot, but 4.8ghz or especially 4.6ghz is incredibly cool with my chip. Same with Ryzen: I get irritated when people say Ryzen is hot. No it is very cool and efficient for 8 cores, at stock settings. Only if you push the last 200mhz, just like Intel, that it gets too hot.

 

[kinggremlin]

""There was 6 months between the launch of the Ryzen 5 and the 8600K. Do you think Intel could throw it together that fast? ""

Don't be silly, Intel knew Ryzen was coming for years. Even AMD announced it, we just weren't sure of its single core performance. Also Intel did tick-tock with no real improvements for 5 years. Anyone who owns a 2700k and a 6700k will tell you that. Adding more cores for the same price was a major price/perf jump.

An Intel CPU design engineer leaked that he was working on an 8 core Cannonlake CPU back in the middle of 2015. Intel's roadmaps from 2013 had Cannonlake mobile CPU's scheduled for release at the end of 2016 with desktop CPU's in 2017. Intel had obviously been planning mainstream CPU's with more than 4 cores years in advance of AMD's Ryzen announcement. Intel botching their own roadmap is what prompted Coffee Lake and the current disjointed different CPU's architectures under the same generational name. It's pure stupidity by "AMD fans" to believe that AMD has anything to do with the release of higher than 4 core CPU's by Intel.

Remember, AMD released an 8 core desktop CPU in 2012, and Intel didn't even attempt to respond. Intel has their roadmap planned out years in advance. They don't drum up products that weren't on their roadmap in response to the release of products by competitors. Intel can adjust prices, they can try to accelerate/rush releases, but they can't just add cores to a CPU in a few months. It simply doesn't work that way.

 

[AlistairAB]

""There was 6 months between the launch of the Ryzen 5 and the 8600K. Do you think Intel could throw it together that fast? ""

Don't be silly, Intel knew Ryzen was coming for years. Even AMD announced it, we just weren't sure of its single core performance. Also Intel did tick-tock with no real improvements for 5 years. Anyone who owns a 2700k and a 6700k will tell you that. Adding more cores for the same price was a major price/perf jump.

An Intel CPU design engineer leaked that he was working on an 8 core Cannonlake CPU back in the middle of 2015. Intel's roadmaps from 2013 had Cannonlake mobile CPU's scheduled for release at the end of 2016 with desktop CPU's in 2017. Intel had obviously been planning mainstream CPU's with more than 4 cores years in advance of AMD's Ryzen announcement. Intel botching their own roadmap is what prompted Coffee Lake and the current disjointed different CPU's architectures under the same generational name. It's pure stupidity by "AMD fans" to believe that AMD has anything to do with the release of higher than 4 core CPU's by Intel.

Your basic facts are true but there is a problem in your reasoning. Intel has had 8 core CPUs for a very long time. But they have been expensive. It is absolutely because of Ryzen that they migrated their 6 core CPU designs down to a lower price, with a cheaper socket. Absolutely because of Ryzen that they released it so quickly. Every CPU from the basic i3 to the i7-7700 non k became obsolete the second Ryzen released, especially at the prices Intel was charging.

Nobody has ever said Intel only designed a 6 core cpu because of Ryzen. They already had 6 cores for a long time. You are nit picking with the way people express it. Obviously they are referring to the whole package, the CPU, on that socket, at that price.

If the new 8 core CPU is reasonably priced, you can be damn sure that is only because of Ryzen having a low priced 8 core to compete with it.

 

[blppt]

"Remember, AMD released an 8 core desktop CPU in 2012"

I'm assuming you are referring to the epic failure that Bulldozer was. Although it indeed had 8 full physical integer cores on the chip, there were only 4 FPUs, so it was not a true 8 core cpu, although obviously physically more than Intel's "8 thread" cpus which were 4 full cores+HT.

And Intel didn't feel really threatened by the FX 8 cores because only under ideal circumstances in which all 8 cores were saturated would it beat Intel's 4+4 solution. While sucking down a ton of juice, too. Take it from a previous owner of both an FX-8150 and 9590 (<---what was I thinking?). Most of the time, Intel's significantly higher IPC won out because 'real world performance' software in 2012 couldn't saturate 8 cores consistently.

Ryzen, OTOH is at least very close to the single thread and IPC performance of Intel's mainstream parts, while also being pretty energy efficient, to cause them concern.

 

[Krazie_Ivan]

...another two cores might benefit it overall. It will have a larger surface area to dissipate heat from the core to the IHS then to the heatsink.

how does that work? they took a 7700k, added 2 cores, temps went up. if they do the same to an 8700k (which is what the rumors say), it will increase temps just as before, due to increased voltage/power delivery requirements. the die surface area increase can't help offset if it's also creating heat. 10nm isn't ready. 7nm is years out for Intel. they don't have a new architecture. the only way to counter temp increase will be lower clocks than an 8700k can run.

5.0ghz 8700k may run too hot, but 4.8ghz or especially 4.6ghz is incredibly cool with my chip. Only if you push the last 200mhz [on AMD too], that it gets too hot.

true/agreed.
my issue is more with the perceived OC capability indicated by so many day-1 reviewers posting results from golden sample chips... most were able to hit 5.2, 5.1, and/or saw very low voltage req if they only tested at 5ghz ...only Tom's saw high voltage @5ghz & stated they looked to go higher, despite the -20c chiller used. majority of consumers didn't get as "lucky".

-200mhz isn't huge, but -400mhz or -600mhz to run decently cool on 240mm CLCs is a big drop in expected performance if Joe-Consumer read all those cherry 5.2ghz reviews ...adding 2 cores of the same arch, on the same process, will drop those clocks even further. big question is if 9700k all-core OC will drop enough to lose the gap over R2700X that the 8700k currently enjoys.

 

[snootpelt]

Just please tell me when these guys are going move off the PCIe 3 bus. Ridiculous how long it took for 4.0 to be finalized and chip makers need to get going on it regardless of how close everyone happens to think the final PCIe 5.0 specification might be.

 

[DGurney]

Will these have revisions to address Spectre and Meltdown? If not, why bother?