Intel's Future Chips: News, Rumours & Reviews

[goldstone77]

It would be easier to address statements from reputable points of origin. I don't want to debate he said she said statements from people on other various forums. It would be nice if you have a statement or point to make to leave some form of reference with it, so that the source may be followed up on with greater precision.

 

[goldstone77]

François Piednoël Quits Intel
by VSG Friday, July 21st 2017 18:47
"Who is François Piednoël, you ask? Why, just the principal engineer at Intel for nearly 20 years now. He has been involved in the architecture development of CPUs, including Katmai, Conroe, Penryn, and Nehalem as well as SoCs in Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell, Broadwell, Skylake, and Kaby Lake. Oh, and did I mention he was also strongly involved in the Intel Atom processor line and the massive shift in Intel's microarchitecture from Pentium 4 to Core? He has also supported development of CPUz, Intel Hyperthreading, and the Android x86 platform.

François Piednoël is a big name in the industry, so it was a big surprise to see him quit Intel today. Time will tell where he ends up next, but if his reply tweet to his announcement is anything to go by it is not AMD. Nonetheless, we wish him the very best in his future endeavors and also remind readers that this does not necessarily mean anything for the future of Intel or the ongoing CPU market share battle."

It will be interesting to see where he lands his next job.

https://www.techpowerup.com/235385/francois-piednoel-quits-intel

Edit: Looks like apple from his reply tweet. "Darn Apple spell checker ;-)"
And another tweet suggest it might have something to do with machine learning. "20 years of making things go fast, faster, always faster ... Time to make things smart, smarter, always smarter!"

 

[goldstone77]

Intel Coffee Lake Core i7-8700K Flagship 6 Core Specifications Leaked – 4.3 GHz Single Core Boost, 4.0 GHz Six Core Boost, 95W TDP, Supported on LGA 1151 Socket, Two More 6 Core SKUs Detailed
Author Photo
By Hassan Mujtaba
Jul 21

"Intel Core i7-8700K – The Flagship and First Six Core Mainstream CPU With 4.3 GHz Boost Clocks
So for the details, the first processor is the Core i7-8700K. This chip has 6 cores and 12 threads. The chip is clocked at a base frequency of 3.7 GHz and has a minimum core frequency set at 0.8 GHz which is for idle mode. The chip features a boost clock of 4.3 GHz on a single core, 4.2 GHz in dual core mode while quad and hexa core boost clocks are rated at 4.0 GHz which is impressive. The CPU has a BCLK frequency of 100 MHz which is expected from Intel CPUs. The chip features an unlocked multiplier as suggested by the “IA (Intel Architecture) Overclock Capable” panel.

The chip has dual channel memory support with native speeds of 2400 MHz. There’s a total of 12 MB of smart cache on the processor, referring to the total L3 cache. The chip will be shipping with Intel’s GT2 level graphics core with a minimum clock speed of 350 MHz. The interesting thing is that the chip packs a 95W TDP and is compatible with the LGA 1151 socket which means that Intel may allow Coffee Lake support on 200-series and even 100-series motherboards although there will be a new chipset known as Z390 launching alongside the chips."
http://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lake-core-i7-8700k-6-core-cpu-specifications-details-leak/

 

[goldstone77]

Intel Mesh, Does Overclocking it Fix Skylake-X?
Hardware Unboxed
Published on Jul 19, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTQ6ymQIY64
3GHz Mesh overclock

 

[juanrga]

Spoiler

I am talking about efficiency, not power consumption. If a chip consumes 50% more power than other but does 100% more work, then the chip is more efficient.

Moreover the power consumption figures that toms got for the Intel chips don't look correct (and disagree with finding with other reviews). In the first figure you can see the 6900k @3.8GHz consuming more power than the 6900k @3.2GHz. And they also had problems in the past with the 7700k:

Unfortunately, the luck of the draw worked against our German lab, and we received a sample on the lower end of the quality range.

This doesn’t affect the benchmark results at all. However, it does have an impact on the power consumption and cooling results, as well as how far this particular CPU sample can be overclocked.

More than 50% power draw by Intel and less efficient despite the disparity in fab. When you design chips you will give up certain abilities in favor of other ones. But these clearly shows the power of the Ryzen uArch in power consumption and overall efficiency for what it was designed for.

Efficiency is not measured in those graphs. We only have power consumption in one bench and performance in two different benches. That is not how we measure efficiency. Moreover, as stated a dozen of times, Prime95 works as a power virus for Intel chips, but not for RyZen chips. Here we have an example of power consumption using Excel

Here another using x264

 

[juanrga]

(i)
One thing is to have a real 16nm node and label it as "14nm", or have a 12nm node and label it "10nm"; another very different thing is having a real 14nm node and label it as "7nm", as Glofo does. There is a ~4x gap between the density of Glofo "7nm" and a real 7nm node.

(ii)
RyZen is not showing impressive efficiency compared to Intel. Most sites tested both with Prime95, which works as a power virus for Intel chips but not for RyZen. RyZen is consuming similar amount of power on Prime95 than in ordinary workloads as Luxmark or Excel.

When power consumption and efficiency are tested in ordinary workloads as x264, RyZen loses. The 1800X is less efficient than 8-core and 10-core Broadwell-E and Skylake-X.

Also RyZen loses in efficiency despite it is using a 14LPP process which is optimized for efficiency, whereas Intel is using a node optimized for performance on those chips. Intel has two 14nm processes, P1272 and P1273, one for performance and other for efficiency, and the desktop chips aren't using the one for efficiency.

In point (i) you say that "another very different thing is having a real 14nm node and label it as "7nm", as Glofo does."

In all the slides that Goldstone has provided it clearly states that glofo's 7nm is actually a 9.2nm node...
What do you mean they are calling a 14nm node a 7nm node...? He clearly states over an over again that it's actually 9.2nm..
Where does it state that glofo's 7nm node is actually 14nm, how do you come to that conclusion ?

In fact there is a very helpful table provided stating every nodes "marketing name" and actual size.

And even Intel lies about the size in their "marketing names" theirs are actually smaller than advertised which misleads people into thinking that they are further ahead than they actually are performance wise..

I had Intel in mind when I mentioned 12nm and 16nm. But as stated in (i) one thing is to have a 16nm node and label it as "14nm" for marketing purposes (as Intel does) and another very different is to have a 14nm node and label it as "7nm" (as Glofo does). A departure of 14% is not the same than one of 100%.

Glofo claims that its "7nm" node brings about twice the density of its 14nm node. A true shrink from true 14nm to true 7nm would bring 4x better density, not twice. Therefore this "7nm" is not a true 7nm. At best it would be 10nm because (14/10)^2 = 1.96, but Glofo process is not 10nm either because this scaling assumes we did start from a true 14nm and Glofo is using as baseline the current 14LPP node, which is not a true 14nm node but a hybrid with a 20nm BEOL. 14LPP is closer to a true 20nm than a true 14nm.

Glofo is providing about twice the density over a true 20nm node; this is equivalent to the shrink from true 20nm to true 14nm, because (20/14)^2 = 2.0408

That is how we conclude that this "7nm" Glofo is in reality a 14nm node.

The only think they won’t point out is from what, 14nm ~= 20nm so 7nm = a real 14nm process for the engineers. I would complain about the BS marketing but the bad guys have won and now they are dragging the good guys into the mud.

https://semiaccurate.com/2016/09/26/globalfoundries-7nm-process-isnt-even-close-name/

 

[Yarvolino]

Intel Coffee Lake Core i7-8700K Flagship 6 Core Specifications Leaked – 4.3 GHz Single Core Boost, 4.0 GHz Six Core Boost, 95W TDP, Supported on LGA 1151 Socket, Two More 6 Core SKUs Detailed
Author Photo
By Hassan Mujtaba
Jul 21

"Intel Core i7-8700K – The Flagship and First Six Core Mainstream CPU With 4.3 GHz Boost Clocks
So for the details, the first processor is the Core i7-8700K. This chip has 6 cores and 12 threads. The chip is clocked at a base frequency of 3.7 GHz and has a minimum core frequency set at 0.8 GHz which is for idle mode. The chip features a boost clock of 4.3 GHz on a single core, 4.2 GHz in dual core mode while quad and hexa core boost clocks are rated at 4.0 GHz which is impressive. The CPU has a BCLK frequency of 100 MHz which is expected from Intel CPUs. The chip features an unlocked multiplier as suggested by the “IA (Intel Architecture) Overclock Capable” panel.

The chip has dual channel memory support with native speeds of 2400 MHz. There’s a total of 12 MB of smart cache on the processor, referring to the total L3 cache. The chip will be shipping with Intel’s GT2 level graphics core with a minimum clock speed of 350 MHz. The interesting thing is that the chip packs a 95W TDP and is compatible with the LGA 1151 socket which means that Intel may allow Coffee Lake support on 200-series and even 100-series motherboards although there will be a new chipset known as Z390 launching alongside the chips."
http://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lake-core-i7-8700k-6-core-cpu-specifications-details-leak/

What a misse chance, again Intel.

If these specs will be confirmed and I think yes they will, about gaming, i7 7700k will be the only wise choice having 4.2GHz - 4.5Ghz.

Games will still use for at least 2-3 years the Ghz instead of more than 4 cores, therefore Coffee Lake will be slightly better than Ryzen and also more expensive but for sure definitely worst at gaming compared to i7 7700k and Ryzen too.

Another missed chance by Intel, that's bad for all of milions of gamers which were hoping for gaming for something better than i7 7700k to find only a Ryzen clone aka Coffee Lake, good for video editing and for zipping files only.

Pity

 

[juanrga]

Claims based in the ASML formula, which has been criticized by other people before. I copy and paste from elsewhere:

What's wrong with it? First, the dates. If a node is released at the end of the year, it looks much better, etc. So it should be more precise with a year divded in quarters. But, even then, the dates are just forecasts. They could and probably will change in one or another direction. And bseides, in an article one should always produce graphs from tables. Tables are raw data. But anyway..

But even if you ignore the table that is divded in years, the thing that is wrong most of all with it is the formula.

Standard Node = 0.14 x (CPHP x MMHP)^0.67

I will not go into all the mathematical details, but the formula is really, really, really wrong in a very big way. The thing that messes it all up is the ^0.67 power. The power should have been 0.707, that is the only correct value (1/1sqrt(2)). So what will happen is that this formula will make differences look bigger because 0.67² is 0.45, which is not the correct 0.5 scaling.

But using a flawed formula is not even everything, the data (for the 10nm and 7nm and 5nm nodes because those have not been published) that was put in is also dead wrong and completely fictitious.

Conclusion
"Samsung and TSMC have taken the lead from Intel for process density with 10nm processes introduced this year. We expect that Intel will regain the lead in early 2017 with their 10nm process. We expect GF to then take the process density lead in early 2018 with their optical based 7nm process followed by Samsung taking the lead in late 2018 with their EUV based 7nm process."
https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/6498-2017-leading-edge-semiconductor-landscape.html

Edit:'The R2 value for the analysis is 0.9912 indicating an excellent fit and I will use this formula for the comparisons presented later in this article."

A R² value of 0.9912 doesn't look good. In my discipline values below 0.995 are rejected as a bad fit. Moreover, His conclusions are based in

"We will assume that even when EUV is available SADP or SAQP will continue to be used in the FEOL due to superior line smoothness that results."

"We are assuming that at 10nm Intel will have the same pitches as TSMC's 5nm process"

"For GF and Samsung we are assuming they will continue to be more aggressive on pitches than TSMC with a 40nm CPP"

"Lacking any guidance on 7nm/5nm density from Intel and GF/Samsung their pitches are more speculative than TSMC's, but we believe the values presented are reasonable."

 

[-Fran-]

Spoiler

Claims based in the ASML formula, which has been criticized by other people before. I copy and paste from elsewhere:

What's wrong with it? First, the dates. If a node is released at the end of the year, it looks much better, etc. So it should be more precise with a year divded in quarters. But, even then, the dates are just forecasts. They could and probably will change in one or another direction. And bseides, in an article one should always produce graphs from tables. Tables are raw data. But anyway..

But even if you ignore the table that is divded in years, the thing that is wrong most of all with it is the formula.

Standard Node = 0.14 x (CPHP x MMHP)^0.67

I will not go into all the mathematical details, but the formula is really, really, really wrong in a very big way. The thing that messes it all up is the ^0.67 power. The power should have been 0.707, that is the only correct value (1/1sqrt(2)). So what will happen is that this formula will make differences look bigger because 0.67² is 0.45, which is not the correct 0.5 scaling.

But using a flawed formula is not even everything, the data (for the 10nm and 7nm and 5nm nodes because those have not been published) that was put in is also dead wrong and completely fictitious.

Conclusion
"Samsung and TSMC have taken the lead from Intel for process density with 10nm processes introduced this year. We expect that Intel will regain the lead in early 2017 with their 10nm process. We expect GF to then take the process density lead in early 2018 with their optical based 7nm process followed by Samsung taking the lead in late 2018 with their EUV based 7nm process."
https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/6498-2017-leading-edge-semiconductor-landscape.html

Edit:'The R2 value for the analysis is 0.9912 indicating an excellent fit and I will use this formula for the comparisons presented later in this article."

A R² value of 0.9912 doesn't look good. In my discipline values below 0.995 are rejected as a bad fit. Moreover, His conclusions are based in

"We will assume that even when EUV is available SADP or SAQP will continue to be used in the FEOL due to superior line smoothness that results."

"We are assuming that at 10nm Intel will have the same pitches as TSMC's 5nm process"

"For GF and Samsung we are assuming they will continue to be more aggressive on pitches than TSMC with a 40nm CPP"

"Lacking any guidance on 7nm/5nm density from Intel and GF/Samsung their pitches are more speculative than TSMC's, but we believe the values presented are reasonable."

Just like you have had to make assumptions to calculate things you don't have information about, they do as well. Shame on them and on you, right?

Also, do you have sources to contradict those assumptions?

Cheers!

 

[juanrga]

Intel Mesh, Does Overclocking it Fix Skylake-X?
Hardware Unboxed
Published on Jul 19, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTQ6ymQIY64
3GHz Mesh overclock

As demonstrated above Hardware unboxed tested in GPU-bound and frame-limited situations. This is the reason why when overclocked the 7800X by 34% they got only 3% extra performance compared to stock: the CPU is being bottlenecked by the GPU and the settings. On such situations it doesn't matter if we push the core to 5GHz, the uncore to 3.2GHz or if we replace the CPU by one was 10x faster. The FPS will remain similar because the CPU is being bottlenecked. When the CPU is not bottlenecked, overclocking the mesh brings up to double digit percent gains compared to stock settings

 

[juanrga]

Spoiler

Claims based in the ASML formula, which has been criticized by other people before. I copy and paste from elsewhere:

What's wrong with it? First, the dates. If a node is released at the end of the year, it looks much better, etc. So it should be more precise with a year divded in quarters. But, even then, the dates are just forecasts. They could and probably will change in one or another direction. And bseides, in an article one should always produce graphs from tables. Tables are raw data. But anyway..

But even if you ignore the table that is divded in years, the thing that is wrong most of all with it is the formula.

Standard Node = 0.14 x (CPHP x MMHP)^0.67

I will not go into all the mathematical details, but the formula is really, really, really wrong in a very big way. The thing that messes it all up is the ^0.67 power. The power should have been 0.707, that is the only correct value (1/1sqrt(2)). So what will happen is that this formula will make differences look bigger because 0.67² is 0.45, which is not the correct 0.5 scaling.

But using a flawed formula is not even everything, the data (for the 10nm and 7nm and 5nm nodes because those have not been published) that was put in is also dead wrong and completely fictitious.

Conclusion
"Samsung and TSMC have taken the lead from Intel for process density with 10nm processes introduced this year. We expect that Intel will regain the lead in early 2017 with their 10nm process. We expect GF to then take the process density lead in early 2018 with their optical based 7nm process followed by Samsung taking the lead in late 2018 with their EUV based 7nm process."
https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/6498-2017-leading-edge-semiconductor-landscape.html

Edit:'The R2 value for the analysis is 0.9912 indicating an excellent fit and I will use this formula for the comparisons presented later in this article."

A R² value of 0.9912 doesn't look good. In my discipline values below 0.995 are rejected as a bad fit. Moreover, His conclusions are based in

"We will assume that even when EUV is available SADP or SAQP will continue to be used in the FEOL due to superior line smoothness that results."

"We are assuming that at 10nm Intel will have the same pitches as TSMC's 5nm process"

"For GF and Samsung we are assuming they will continue to be more aggressive on pitches than TSMC with a 40nm CPP"

"Lacking any guidance on 7nm/5nm density from Intel and GF/Samsung their pitches are more speculative than TSMC's, but we believe the values presented are reasonable."

Just like you have had to make assumptions to calculate things you don't have information about, they do as well. Shame on them and on you, right?

Also, do you have sources to contradict those assumptions?

What assumptions you believe I am doing? I simply took data for 14LPP and data given by Glofo when announced the "7nm" node, that is all. I provided parameters of the 14LPP about a dozen of times before, and data about 7nm node can be found in the SA link that I gave just above and at Glofo website as well.

 

[-Fran-]

What assumptions you believe I am doing? I simply took data for 14LPP and data given by Glofo when announced the "7nm" node, that is all. I provided parameters of the 14LPP about a dozen of times before, and data about 7nm node can be found in the SA link that I gave just above and at Glofo website as well.

Making a general statement about most of your remarks: you take information other people post elsewhere as truth to claim things. Those are taken as assumptions and you use them to lay down conclusions on things. Particularly, whenever you project information you make assumptions you wholeheartedly believe are truth and no one can ever sway you otherwise. That is fine, but just mind that assumptions can always be wrong: it works both ways for everyone. I hope I'm not making any outrageous comments here to you.

And do you have sources to contradict those assumptions they make?

Also, you say "we don't use that R^2", but what's the context of them using that number specifically you don't agree with? Accuracy? Formula used to arrive to that number? Is there a universal constant to be used?

Not even Intel is sure how to call the nodes anymore, I'm sure. This "I call bluff on GF because Intel is better" is getting dumb. We all know Intel has the better process, however the respective marketing teams want to call the nodes is dumb anyway. And that "GF is 100% wrong when Intel is only 14%". I mean... Really? Both are wrong. Period.

Cheers!

 

[juanrga]

Coffe lake engineering sample doing 5GHz

 

[Yarvolino]

Coffe lake engineering sample doing 5GHz

You can OC it to 6Ghz using liquid nitrogen but the retail version will be stuck at poor 4.3Ghz single core and 4Ghz on all cores, what a lame cpu.

 

[Wizard61]

Coffe lake engineering sample doing 5GHz

You can OC it to 6Ghz using liquid nitrogen but the retail version will be stuck at poor 4.3Ghz single core and 4Ghz on all cores, what a lame cpu.

Are you trying to say that they will not be able to be overclocked? That is a patently false statement.

 

[Yarvolino]

Coffe lake engineering sample doing 5GHz

You can OC it to 6Ghz using liquid nitrogen but the retail version will be stuck at poor 4.3Ghz single core and 4Ghz on all cores, what a lame cpu.

Are you trying to say that they will not be able to be overclocked? That is a patently false statement.

No, I wasn't trying to say that.

I speak from the point of view of those ones who want to buy a CPU without OC them, yes they do exist. Such persons, me included, would like to have the fastest CPU for gaming when changing rig every lot of years and they choose the quickest game CPU therefore I7 7700K.

We are sad to know that Coffee Lake will be worst in gaming than a year old i7 7700k.

I do not want to overclock CPUs, I hope you won't blame me for that

 

[Wizard61]

Coffe lake engineering sample doing 5GHz

You can OC it to 6Ghz using liquid nitrogen but the retail version will be stuck at poor 4.3Ghz single core and 4Ghz on all cores, what a lame cpu.

Are you trying to say that they will not be able to be overclocked? That is a patently false statement.

No, I wasn't trying to say that.

I speak from the point of view of those ones who want to buy a CPU without OC them, yes they do exist. Such persons, me included, would like to have the fastest CPU for gaming when changing rig every lot of years and they choose the quickest game CPU therefore I7 7700K.

We are sad to know that Coffee Lake will be worst in gaming than a year old i7 7700k.

I do not want to overclock CPUs, I hope you won't blame me for that

And you are making that assumption on what? There are no retail versions of the chips yet just a few engineering samples that could or could not be like the final retail chip. So you are just speculating at this point.

 

[Yarvolino]

Coffe lake engineering sample doing 5GHz

You can OC it to 6Ghz using liquid nitrogen but the retail version will be stuck at poor 4.3Ghz single core and 4Ghz on all cores, what a lame cpu.

Are you trying to say that they will not be able to be overclocked? That is a patently false statement.

No, I wasn't trying to say that.

I speak from the point of view of those ones who want to buy a CPU without OC them, yes they do exist. Such persons, me included, would like to have the fastest CPU for gaming when changing rig every lot of years and they choose the quickest game CPU therefore I7 7700K.

We are sad to know that Coffee Lake will be worst in gaming than a year old i7 7700k.

I do not want to overclock CPUs, I hope you won't blame me for that

And you are making that assumption on what? There are no retail versions of the chips yet just a few engineering samples that could or could not be like the final retail chip. So you are just speculating at this point.

Statistics say that Engineering Samples are always toned down in terms of Ghz by roughly 10%.

Unless this is the very first case in history that an ES is toned down by a 25-30%, the final numbers are quite closely predictable as f.i. just happened for Skylake and Kaby Lake when ESs were roughly 10% toned down.

In addition being Coffee Lake 14nm the IPC will be the same, despite Intel labels it 14nm++ just to catch the marketing hype. Skylake IPC was the same of Kaby Lake IPC which is the same of Coffee Lake IPC because they share the very same 14nm old archtecture.

 

[YoAndy]

Coffe lake engineering sample doing 5GHz

You can OC it to 6Ghz using liquid nitrogen but the retail version will be stuck at poor 4.3Ghz single core and 4Ghz on all cores, what a lame cpu.

Are you trying to say that they will not be able to be overclocked? That is a patently false statement.

No, I wasn't trying to say that.

I speak from the point of view of those ones who want to buy a CPU without OC them, yes they do exist. Such persons, me included, would like to have the fastest CPU for gaming when changing rig every lot of years and they choose the quickest game CPU therefore I7 7700K.

We are sad to know that Coffee Lake will be worst in gaming than a year old i7 7700k.

I do not want to overclock CPUs, I hope you won't blame me for that

And you are making that assumption on what? There are no retail versions of the chips yet just a few engineering samples that could or could not be like the final retail chip. So you are just speculating at this point.

Statistics say that Engineering Samples are always toned down in terms of Ghz by roughly 10%.

Unless this is the very first case in history that an ES is toned down by a 25-30%, the final numbers are quite closely predictable as f.i. just happened for Skylake and Kaby Lake when ESs were roughly 10% toned down.

In addition being Coffee Lake 14nm the IPC will be the same, despite Intel labels it 14nm++ just to catch the marketing hype. Skylake IPC was the same of Kaby Lake IPC which is the same of Coffee Lake IPC because they share the very same 14nm old archtecture.

You are one of a few rare people ho spends premium on a K unlocked processor that doesn't want to overclock it. And then blames the company. Is like asking Ferrari to sell you a Minivan faster than a formula one car. Those processors are like formula one cars, you have to tweak them

 

[Wizard61]

Coffe lake engineering sample doing 5GHz

You can OC it to 6Ghz using liquid nitrogen but the retail version will be stuck at poor 4.3Ghz single core and 4Ghz on all cores, what a lame cpu.

Are you trying to say that they will not be able to be overclocked? That is a patently false statement.

No, I wasn't trying to say that.

I speak from the point of view of those ones who want to buy a CPU without OC them, yes they do exist. Such persons, me included, would like to have the fastest CPU for gaming when changing rig every lot of years and they choose the quickest game CPU therefore I7 7700K.

We are sad to know that Coffee Lake will be worst in gaming than a year old i7 7700k.

I do not want to overclock CPUs, I hope you won't blame me for that

And you are making that assumption on what? There are no retail versions of the chips yet just a few engineering samples that could or could not be like the final retail chip. So you are just speculating at this point.

Statistics say that Engineering Samples are always toned down in terms of Ghz by roughly 10%.

Unless this is the very first case in history that an ES is toned down by a 25-30%, the final numbers are quite closely predictable as f.i. just happened for Skylake and Kaby Lake when ESs were roughly 10% toned down.

In addition being Coffee Lake 14nm the IPC will be the same, despite Intel labels it 14nm++ just to catch the marketing hype. Skylake IPC was the same of Kaby Lake IPC which is the same of Coffee Lake IPC because they share the very same 14nm old archtecture.

You are one of a few rare people ho spends premium on a K unlocked processor that doesn't want to overclock it. And then blames the company. Is like asking Ferrari to sell you a Minivan faster than a formula one car.

Damn you!!!!! LOL

I am sitting here trying to get Mountain Dew out of my keyboard.

 

[gamerk316]

What a misse chance, again Intel.

If these specs will be confirmed and I think yes they will, about gaming, i7 7700k will be the only wise choice having 4.2GHz - 4.5Ghz.

Games will still use for at least 2-3 years the Ghz instead of more than 4 cores, therefore Coffee Lake will be slightly better than Ryzen and also more expensive but for sure definitely worst at gaming compared to i7 7700k and Ryzen too.

Another missed chance by Intel, that's bad for all of milions of gamers which were hoping for gaming for something better than i7 7700k to find only a Ryzen clone aka Coffee Lake, good for video editing and for zipping files only.

Pity

To be fair, what are you expecting? Clocks aren't going to get any higher, and Core as an architecture is about as optimized as it can get. This is more or less the performance level we're going to have for a VERY long time, especially since we're nearing the end of CPU die shrinks.

Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked if a 7700k is viable a decade from now; I've said it before: we're about to hit a performance wall.

 

[Embra]

Coffe lake engineering sample doing 5GHz

You can OC it to 6Ghz using liquid nitrogen but the retail version will be stuck at poor 4.3Ghz single core and 4Ghz on all cores, what a lame cpu.

Are you trying to say that they will not be able to be overclocked? That is a patently false statement.

No, I wasn't trying to say that.

I speak from the point of view of those ones who want to buy a CPU without OC them, yes they do exist. Such persons, me included, would like to have the fastest CPU for gaming when changing rig every lot of years and they choose the quickest game CPU therefore I7 7700K.

We are sad to know that Coffee Lake will be worst in gaming than a year old i7 7700k.

I do not want to overclock CPUs, I hope you won't blame me for that

And you are making that assumption on what? There are no retail versions of the chips yet just a few engineering samples that could or could not be like the final retail chip. So you are just speculating at this point.

Statistics say that Engineering Samples are always toned down in terms of Ghz by roughly 10%.

Unless this is the very first case in history that an ES is toned down by a 25-30%, the final numbers are quite closely predictable as f.i. just happened for Skylake and Kaby Lake when ESs were roughly 10% toned down.

In addition being Coffee Lake 14nm the IPC will be the same, despite Intel labels it 14nm++ just to catch the marketing hype. Skylake IPC was the same of Kaby Lake IPC which is the same of Coffee Lake IPC because they share the very same 14nm old archtecture.

You are one of a few rare people ho spends premium on a K unlocked processor that doesn't want to overclock it. And then blames the company. Is like asking Ferrari to sell you a Minivan faster than a formula one car. Those processors are like formula one cars, you have to tweak them

You might be surprised how many people buy K series chips and not OC them. They can be at higher clocks (eg. 7700 vs. 7700k). They may also see the "K" as a higher bin chip.

 

[Averletum]

Coffe lake engineering sample doing 5GHz

You can OC it to 6Ghz using liquid nitrogen but the retail version will be stuck at poor 4.3Ghz single core and 4Ghz on all cores, what a lame cpu.

Are you trying to say that they will not be able to be overclocked? That is a patently false statement.

No, I wasn't trying to say that.

I speak from the point of view of those ones who want to buy a CPU without OC them, yes they do exist. Such persons, me included, would like to have the fastest CPU for gaming when changing rig every lot of years and they choose the quickest game CPU therefore I7 7700K.

We are sad to know that Coffee Lake will be worst in gaming than a year old i7 7700k.

I do not want to overclock CPUs, I hope you won't blame me for that

And you are making that assumption on what? There are no retail versions of the chips yet just a few engineering samples that could or could not be like the final retail chip. So you are just speculating at this point.

Statistics say that Engineering Samples are always toned down in terms of Ghz by roughly 10%.

Unless this is the very first case in history that an ES is toned down by a 25-30%, the final numbers are quite closely predictable as f.i. just happened for Skylake and Kaby Lake when ESs were roughly 10% toned down.

In addition being Coffee Lake 14nm the IPC will be the same, despite Intel labels it 14nm++ just to catch the marketing hype. Skylake IPC was the same of Kaby Lake IPC which is the same of Coffee Lake IPC because they share the very same 14nm old archtecture.

You are one of a few rare people ho spends premium on a K unlocked processor that doesn't want to overclock it. And then blames the company. Is like asking Ferrari to sell you a Minivan faster than a formula one car. Those processors are like formula one cars, you have to tweak them

You might be surprised how many people buy K series chips and not OC them. They can be at higher clocks (eg. 7700 vs. 7700k). They may also see the "K" as a higher bin chip.

I agree, and I'm one of them..or, should I say, will be one of them. Just waiting to see if there will be a difference between 7700K and 8700K when talking about gaming. Content creation should be better ofc..

 

[goldstone77]

Spoiler

I am talking about efficiency, not power consumption. If a chip consumes 50% more power than other but does 100% more work, then the chip is more efficient.

Moreover the power consumption figures that toms got for the Intel chips don't look correct (and disagree with finding with other reviews). In the first figure you can see the 6900k @3.8GHz consuming more power than the 6900k @3.2GHz. And they also had problems in the past with the 7700k:

Unfortunately, the luck of the draw worked against our German lab, and we received a sample on the lower end of the quality range.

This doesn’t affect the benchmark results at all. However, it does have an impact on the power consumption and cooling results, as well as how far this particular CPU sample can be overclocked.

More than 50% power draw by Intel and less efficient despite the disparity in fab. When you design chips you will give up certain abilities in favor of other ones. But these clearly shows the power of the Ryzen uArch in power consumption and overall efficiency for what it was designed for.

Efficiency is not measured in those graphs. We only have power consumption in one bench and performance in two different benches. That is not how we measure efficiency. Moreover, as stated a dozen of times, Prime95 works as a power virus for Intel chips, but not for RyZen chips. Here we have an example of power consumption using Excel

Here another using x264

You are using excel to set your standard, which is ridiculous! I stand by the last 2 reviews benchmarks and statements I posted, which actually are a true gauge not this.

Edit: None of the other processors are overclocked except Ryzen. And look at that excel chart all overclocked Ryzen, which everyone knows power consumption spikes beyond normal specifications. You are using skewed charts to make your point! Why not leave a link as a point of reference to the article so it can be judged vs. other articles.
Oh, now I see why you don't want to use the newest review from techspot. You don't want anything else brought up by that review that hurts the point you are trying to make. And by your assumptions 20nm Ryzen is doing great vs 14nm Intel in efficiency.

Overclocking
"However, the frequency isn't my greatest concern right now. Using just 1.2 volts, which is all I needed for a stable 4.6GHz overclock on all cores, the system consumption went from the 259 watts just seen to an insane 402 watts! That might not even be the worst part, the deal breaker is probably the operating temps. Chilling the 7900X was Corsair's H100i v2 and despite being a premium 240mm AIO liquid cooler, temps skyrocketed as the CPU was place under load, reaching 90 degrees instantly before climbing further towards 100 degrees. Unless you have an amazing cooler, I'm not sure overclocking is going to be worth it."
https://www.techspot.com/review/1433-intel-core-i9-core-i7-skylake-x/page4.html

 

[goldstone77]

Intel Mesh, Does Overclocking it Fix Skylake-X?
Hardware Unboxed
Published on Jul 19, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTQ6ymQIY64
3GHz Mesh overclock

As demonstrated above Hardware unboxed tested in GPU-bound and frame-limited situations. This is the reason why when overclocked the 7800X by 34% they got only 3% extra performance compared to stock: the CPU is being bottlenecked by the GPU and the settings. On such situations it doesn't matter if we push the core to 5GHz, the uncore to 3.2GHz or if we replace the CPU by one was 10x faster. The FPS will remain similar because the CPU is being bottlenecked. When the CPU is not bottlenecked, overclocking the mesh brings up to double digit percent gains compared to stock settings

If you watch the video overclocking the mesh accounts for an average of 3%.