Intel's Future Chips: News, Rumours & Reviews

[goldstone77]

Intel Releases Dawson Canyon NUCs With 15W Kaby Lake CPUs
September 13, 2017 - 07:29 PM | Tim Verry

Following last year’s Baby Canyon NUC kits, Intel is launching its Dawson Canyon NUCs powered by 15W Kaby Lake processors. Despite Dawson Canyon sounding more dramatic than Baby Canyon (which sounds more like a creek), the new NUCs are lower powered and ditch Iris Graphics and USB 3.1 Type C.

Specifically, Intel is launching six new models that will come in three flavors: barebones board, slim case kit, and a taller kit with room for a 2.5” drive. Each type of NUC kit will come with either a Core i3 or Core i5 processor. Dawson Canyon further supports Intel RST (Rapid Storage Technology) and Optane memory.

Processor options include the Core i3 7100U (2.4 GHz) and Core i5 7300U (2.6 GHz base, 3.5 GHz boost) which are both dual core processors with HyperThreading, 3 MB cache, Intel HD Graphics 620 GPUs, and 15W TDPs.

Internal I/O includes two DDR4 SO-DIMM slots, two M.2 slots (one full length (80mm) and one 30mm slot for Wi-Fi adapters such as the included Intel 8265 with is included in the kits with cases but not the bare board kits.), one SATA port, and headers for serial, USB 3.0, and USB 2.0 ports.

External I/O consists of four USB 3.0 ports, one Gigabit Ethernet port, and two HDMI outputs (one protected UHD).

Dawson Canyon NUCs will be available towards the end of the year (Q4’17) with pricing yet to be released. For the fanless, ahem, fans Fanless Tech reports that Simply NUC will be offering NUCs with custom fanless cases. These are likely to be cheaper than Baby Canyon and be popular with businesses wanting monitor mounted thin clients or low power workstations for office users that just need to run productivity applications.

I personally love these mini designs I just wish you could put some form of discreet graphics in them, so you can game on them!

 

[goldstone77]

Alleged Intel i7-8700K Coffee Lake benchmarks leak online
Six-core chip beats i7-7700K by 30% in Cinebench, but Ryzen may still have the edge.
MARK WALTON (UK) - 9/12/2017, 8:38 AM

Alleged benchmarks for Intel's as-yet unannounced Core i7-8700K have leaked online courtesy of a tech YouTuber and an unguarded HP Omen PC at DreamHack 2017. The i7-8700K—the rumoured flagship six-core, 12-thread processor of Intel's upcoming eighth generation Coffee Lake desktop CPUs—was put through popular benchmarking program Cinebench R15, scoring a cool 1230 points in a multithreaded test. That's a significant leap over the previous-generation Intel Core i7-7700K (4C/8T), which typically posts a score around 950 points.

That score also puts the i7-8700K neck and neck with AMD's 6C/12T Ryzen 1600X, which we scored at 1234 points, but behind AMD's 8C/12T Ryzen 7 1700 with its score of 1422. Meanwhile, AMD's flagship Ryzen 7 1800X is significantly faster with a score of 1616 points.

YouTuber Karl Morin was also able to run a single-threaded benchmark, which shows the i7-8700K posting a score of 196. That would make it the fastest single-threaded chip around, beating the pervious-generation i7-7700K's score of around 185 points, although it's still far from a compelling improvement in instructions per clock.

While the results from the i7-8700K should be taken with a very large pinch of salt—particularly as it's not clear whether the chip was able to reach required boost clocks, while the inevitable raft of motherboard BIOS updates that appear before a CPU launch can affect performance—they do line up with earlier SiSoft Sandra benchmarks that suggest around a 30- to 40-percent improvement versus the 7700K. Forty percent is the same performance improvement Intel is pushing for the recently released Kaby Lake Refresh laptop chips, which also fall under the "8th Generation" banner.

Alongside Karl Morin's benchmark results, supposed pictures of a Core i7-8700 have also appeared online. A shot of the rear of the CPU shows an identical pin layout to existing Kaby Lake chips, which use the LGA 1151 socket. However, leaked retail packaging and confirmation from motherboard vendor ASRock indicate that Coffee Lake chips require a new 300-series motherboard. The technical reason behind this, if there is one, isn't yet clear. Intel is expected to reveal further details on Coffee Lake in the coming weeks.
The Core i7-8700K is expected to be the first mainstream Intel processor to sport 6C/12T. Previously, higher thread counts have been reserved for the company's X-series platforms like X99 and X299, which cost significantly more. Many consider this a response to AMD's Ryzen CPUs, which offer up to 8C/12T for the same price as Intel's current mainstream flagship CPU, the i7-7700K. In reality, Intel has had six-core mainstream CPUs on its roadmap for some time, although the accelerated launch could be attributed to increased competition. Pricing may yet also reveal the effect of AMD's Ryzen platform.

AMD has put significant pressure on Intel in recent weeks, particularly in the HEDT segment. Intel's X299 platform and accompanying CPUs—which include the £1,000/$1,000 10C/20T i9-7900X—are poor value in comparison to AMD's Threadripper. The Threadripper 1950X offers 16C/32T for the same price as the 7900X, while offering more PCIe lanes and free NVMe RAID throughout, regardless of whether users buy the flagship chip or a cheaper version with fewer cores.

 

[Gon Freecss]

But the point is that higher resolutinos bottleneck the GPU and reduce the performance gap between CPUs, because the fastest CPU is idle awaiting for the GPU to do its work. Your own link proves this

My point is that even at 4K, Intel can be faster than AMD. There's no way an FX-8370 is as fast as a 7700K in every game at 4K.

 

[gamerk316]

Not everyone want's to buy the cheapest board and the cheapest processors available. Without going crazy about cost a lot of people care about quality, performance, features, optimization and looks. That's where Intel shine.

I am one of those that seek quality over looks/aethstetics. You can look at the top of the crop Asus MoBos. In the Formula, Rampage and Crosshair families, you will notice the Crosshair ones have always been cheaper than the equivalent Intel one. The "normal" series, for the same amount of features (when they actually do it for AMD), Intel still comes out more expensive (not by much though) and they look the same (pretty much) to me.

Now, this is from memory and I'm sure other MoBo vendors might do it differently, but I do remember this when I was building and looking around constantly. The only place where Intel and AMD are feature and price equivalent, is in the lower tier or bottom price range.

Cheers!

Nowadays, I go big on motherboard/CPU when I build a system, ride that platform for years, then junk the build. I find this cheaper then going through four-five CPU upgrades over a six year period.

Seriously, how many people here went through a PII X3 -> Bulldozer -> Piledriver upgrade path to "save money", rather then simply purchasing a 2600k? Because a LOT of people here did, and guess what? This approach wasn't cheaper, let alone better performing.

Granted, this really doesn't apply to Ryzen, but there is a valid line of thought toward going big on the CPU so you can ignore CPU upgrades for multiple years.

 

[goldstone77]

Not everyone want's to buy the cheapest board and the cheapest processors available. Without going crazy about cost a lot of people care about quality, performance, features, optimization and looks. That's where Intel shine.

I am one of those that seek quality over looks/aethstetics. You can look at the top of the crop Asus MoBos. In the Formula, Rampage and Crosshair families, you will notice the Crosshair ones have always been cheaper than the equivalent Intel one. The "normal" series, for the same amount of features (when they actually do it for AMD), Intel still comes out more expensive (not by much though) and they look the same (pretty much) to me.

Now, this is from memory and I'm sure other MoBo vendors might do it differently, but I do remember this when I was building and looking around constantly. The only place where Intel and AMD are feature and price equivalent, is in the lower tier or bottom price range.

Cheers!

Nowadays, I go big on motherboard/CPU when I build a system, ride that platform for years, then junk the build. I find this cheaper then going through four-five CPU upgrades over a six year period.

Seriously, how many people here went through a PII X3 -> Bulldozer -> Piledriver upgrade path to "save money", rather then simply purchasing a 2600k? Because a LOT of people here did, and guess what? This approach wasn't cheaper, let alone better performing.

Granted, this really doesn't apply to Ryzen, but there is a valid line of thought toward going big on the CPU so you can ignore CPU upgrades for multiple years.

The alternative is being stuck in a platform when you know there is going to be 7nm around the corner and 5nm right around that corner. Performance is going to make massive increases and prices will fall, because node advantages that Intel has enjoyed forever and a day is disappearing. We are in a entirely different set of circumstances. Ryzen is really good even on an inferior node. When that disappears, and it's geared for high performance on 7nm we might have something really great!

 

[juanrga]

Not everyone want's to buy the cheapest board and the cheapest processors available. A lot of people care about quality, performance, features, optimization and looks. That's where Intel shine.

So basically you're saying Intel processors are made of magic. Okay, that's enough.

The reason why Intel owns the 99% of the server market, and three quarters of the PC market is not related to "magic", but to technology and business.

We know why Intel owns 99% of the server market!
[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osSMJRyxG0k&ab_channel=AdoredTV"][/video]

AdoredTV can mislead average Joe costumer with his biased videos, but not people in the datacenter.

 

[juanrga]

Man, you repeat the same ever and ever. But actually have no answer other than "Not all the transistors have the same size". Can you please elaborate a little bit more? And please go technical. I already know that some transistors are bigger that others, and that justifies why nobody achieves the PAPER density, but in no way it justifies such a big discrepancy between PAPER and REAL density for Intel.

So you know that transistors have different sizes, but you still want compare transistor/mm² metrics? Interesting.

 

[juanrga]

There a lot of poorly optimized games.There are games where higher clocks matter. There are games where high memory bandwidth matter. A lot depends on the gaming engine being used. Games have been built around Intel uArch for a decade, and there is peace of mind in that. Clearly this is one of those games it doesn't matter which processor you use, at 4k virtually identical, but the R 1700 3.9GHz does have the better 1% and 0.1% lows. I've said this before depending on the Game there is little to no perceivable difference in gaming other than you looking at the FPS counter and knowing the FPS. Not all titles are optimized for Ryzen, but a lot of the new games and optimized games show similar results for Ryzen and Intel. It very much depends on the titles.

Neither there are "lot of poorly optimized games" nor "Games have been built around Intel uArch for a decade". Games are well-optimized and they have been designed for consoles, which use AMD hardware. The problem is not on games the problem is on Zen with is a microarchitecture designed for throughput.

Games run faster in Intel because Intel is faster. The rest are excuses.

You are being obtuse and argumentative without supporting documentation, which is par for the course for you. What you said goes contrary to common knowledge as well.

Your continuous personal attacks against me don't change a bit what I said... neither Zen will start running games faster.

 

[juanrga]

Alleged Intel i7-8700K Coffee Lake benchmarks leak online
Six-core chip beats i7-7700K by 30% in Cinebench, but Ryzen may still have the edge.
MARK WALTON (UK) - 9/12/2017, 8:38 AM

Alleged benchmarks for Intel's as-yet unannounced Core i7-8700K have leaked online courtesy of a tech YouTuber and an unguarded HP Omen PC at DreamHack 2017. The i7-8700K—the rumoured flagship six-core, 12-thread processor of Intel's upcoming eighth generation Coffee Lake desktop CPUs—was put through popular benchmarking program Cinebench R15, scoring a cool 1230 points in a multithreaded test. That's a significant leap over the previous-generation Intel Core i7-7700K (4C/8T), which typically posts a score around 950 points.

That score also puts the i7-8700K neck and neck with AMD's 6C/12T Ryzen 1600X, which we scored at 1234 points, but behind AMD's 8C/12T Ryzen 7 1700 with its score of 1422. Meanwhile, AMD's flagship Ryzen 7 1800X is significantly faster with a score of 1616 points.

YouTuber Karl Morin was also able to run a single-threaded benchmark, which shows the i7-8700K posting a score of 196. That would make it the fastest single-threaded chip around, beating the pervious-generation i7-7700K's score of around 185 points, although it's still far from a compelling improvement in instructions per clock.

While the results from the i7-8700K should be taken with a very large pinch of salt—particularly as it's not clear whether the chip was able to reach required boost clocks, while the inevitable raft of motherboard BIOS updates that appear before a CPU launch can affect performance—they do line up with earlier SiSoft Sandra benchmarks that suggest around a 30- to 40-percent improvement versus the 7700K. Forty percent is the same performance improvement Intel is pushing for the recently released Kaby Lake Refresh laptop chips, which also fall under the "8th Generation" banner.

Alongside Karl Morin's benchmark results, supposed pictures of a Core i7-8700 have also appeared online. A shot of the rear of the CPU shows an identical pin layout to existing Kaby Lake chips, which use the LGA 1151 socket. However, leaked retail packaging and confirmation from motherboard vendor ASRock indicate that Coffee Lake chips require a new 300-series motherboard. The technical reason behind this, if there is one, isn't yet clear. Intel is expected to reveal further details on Coffee Lake in the coming weeks.
The Core i7-8700K is expected to be the first mainstream Intel processor to sport 6C/12T. Previously, higher thread counts have been reserved for the company's X-series platforms like X99 and X299, which cost significantly more. Many consider this a response to AMD's Ryzen CPUs, which offer up to 8C/12T for the same price as Intel's current mainstream flagship CPU, the i7-7700K. In reality, Intel has had six-core mainstream CPUs on its roadmap for some time, although the accelerated launch could be attributed to increased competition. Pricing may yet also reveal the effect of AMD's Ryzen platform.

AMD has put significant pressure on Intel in recent weeks, particularly in the HEDT segment. Intel's X299 platform and accompanying CPUs—which include the £1,000/$1,000 10C/20T i9-7900X—are poor value in comparison to AMD's Threadripper. The Threadripper 1950X offers 16C/32T for the same price as the 7900X, while offering more PCIe lanes and free NVMe RAID throughout, regardless of whether users buy the flagship chip or a cheaper version with fewer cores.

As posted before, those leaks are fake. You know because you replied to my post where I linked to a twitter from PcPer editor stating those scores are fake.

It is interesting to check what sites are posting news around those fake scores. Eteknix, Extremetech, Guru3d, Arstechnica,...

It is not causality those four are biased sites pro-AMD. It is not causal those sites aren't only reproducing the fake scores but all them are comparing the fake scores with the R5 1600 and 1600X and R7 1700 and 1800X to pretend that AMD is faster. It is not causal either that you used this fake news from Arstechnica to put in bold face what Arsctechnica says about Zen products, because you continue derailing Intel threads with spam about AMD products.

 

[goldstone77]

Alleged Intel i7-8700K Coffee Lake benchmarks leak online
Six-core chip beats i7-7700K by 30% in Cinebench, but Ryzen may still have the edge.
MARK WALTON (UK) - 9/12/2017, 8:38 AM

Alleged benchmarks for Intel's as-yet unannounced Core i7-8700K have leaked online courtesy of a tech YouTuber and an unguarded HP Omen PC at DreamHack 2017. The i7-8700K—the rumoured flagship six-core, 12-thread processor of Intel's upcoming eighth generation Coffee Lake desktop CPUs—was put through popular benchmarking program Cinebench R15, scoring a cool 1230 points in a multithreaded test. That's a significant leap over the previous-generation Intel Core i7-7700K (4C/8T), which typically posts a score around 950 points.

That score also puts the i7-8700K neck and neck with AMD's 6C/12T Ryzen 1600X, which we scored at 1234 points, but behind AMD's 8C/12T Ryzen 7 1700 with its score of 1422. Meanwhile, AMD's flagship Ryzen 7 1800X is significantly faster with a score of 1616 points.

YouTuber Karl Morin was also able to run a single-threaded benchmark, which shows the i7-8700K posting a score of 196. That would make it the fastest single-threaded chip around, beating the pervious-generation i7-7700K's score of around 185 points, although it's still far from a compelling improvement in instructions per clock.

While the results from the i7-8700K should be taken with a very large pinch of salt—particularly as it's not clear whether the chip was able to reach required boost clocks, while the inevitable raft of motherboard BIOS updates that appear before a CPU launch can affect performance—they do line up with earlier SiSoft Sandra benchmarks that suggest around a 30- to 40-percent improvement versus the 7700K. Forty percent is the same performance improvement Intel is pushing for the recently released Kaby Lake Refresh laptop chips, which also fall under the "8th Generation" banner.

Alongside Karl Morin's benchmark results, supposed pictures of a Core i7-8700 have also appeared online. A shot of the rear of the CPU shows an identical pin layout to existing Kaby Lake chips, which use the LGA 1151 socket. However, leaked retail packaging and confirmation from motherboard vendor ASRock indicate that Coffee Lake chips require a new 300-series motherboard. The technical reason behind this, if there is one, isn't yet clear. Intel is expected to reveal further details on Coffee Lake in the coming weeks.
The Core i7-8700K is expected to be the first mainstream Intel processor to sport 6C/12T. Previously, higher thread counts have been reserved for the company's X-series platforms like X99 and X299, which cost significantly more. Many consider this a response to AMD's Ryzen CPUs, which offer up to 8C/12T for the same price as Intel's current mainstream flagship CPU, the i7-7700K. In reality, Intel has had six-core mainstream CPUs on its roadmap for some time, although the accelerated launch could be attributed to increased competition. Pricing may yet also reveal the effect of AMD's Ryzen platform.

AMD has put significant pressure on Intel in recent weeks, particularly in the HEDT segment. Intel's X299 platform and accompanying CPUs—which include the £1,000/$1,000 10C/20T i9-7900X—are poor value in comparison to AMD's Threadripper. The Threadripper 1950X offers 16C/32T for the same price as the 7900X, while offering more PCIe lanes and free NVMe RAID throughout, regardless of whether users buy the flagship chip or a cheaper version with fewer cores.

As posted before, those leaks are fake. You know because you replied to my post where I linked to a twitter from PcPer editor stating those scores are fake.

It is interesting to check what sites are posting news around those fake scores. Eteknix, Extremetech, Guru3d, Arstechnica,...

It is not causality those four are biased sites which use dirty tricks to favor AMD in reviews. For instance Arstechnica overclocks AMD chips but label them as stock in the graphs, as demonstrated before. It is not causal either that you used this fake news from Arstechnica to put in bold face what Arsctechnica says about Zen products, because you continue derailing Intel threads with spam about AMD products.

But you cited those reviews in the past when they served your purpose! Now, because you don't like what they say they are bias. The four sites aren't bias, but someone is!

 

[juanrga]

Alleged Intel i7-8700K Coffee Lake benchmarks leak online
Six-core chip beats i7-7700K by 30% in Cinebench, but Ryzen may still have the edge.
MARK WALTON (UK) - 9/12/2017, 8:38 AM

Alleged benchmarks for Intel's as-yet unannounced Core i7-8700K have leaked online courtesy of a tech YouTuber and an unguarded HP Omen PC at DreamHack 2017. The i7-8700K—the rumoured flagship six-core, 12-thread processor of Intel's upcoming eighth generation Coffee Lake desktop CPUs—was put through popular benchmarking program Cinebench R15, scoring a cool 1230 points in a multithreaded test. That's a significant leap over the previous-generation Intel Core i7-7700K (4C/8T), which typically posts a score around 950 points.

That score also puts the i7-8700K neck and neck with AMD's 6C/12T Ryzen 1600X, which we scored at 1234 points, but behind AMD's 8C/12T Ryzen 7 1700 with its score of 1422. Meanwhile, AMD's flagship Ryzen 7 1800X is significantly faster with a score of 1616 points.

YouTuber Karl Morin was also able to run a single-threaded benchmark, which shows the i7-8700K posting a score of 196. That would make it the fastest single-threaded chip around, beating the pervious-generation i7-7700K's score of around 185 points, although it's still far from a compelling improvement in instructions per clock.

While the results from the i7-8700K should be taken with a very large pinch of salt—particularly as it's not clear whether the chip was able to reach required boost clocks, while the inevitable raft of motherboard BIOS updates that appear before a CPU launch can affect performance—they do line up with earlier SiSoft Sandra benchmarks that suggest around a 30- to 40-percent improvement versus the 7700K. Forty percent is the same performance improvement Intel is pushing for the recently released Kaby Lake Refresh laptop chips, which also fall under the "8th Generation" banner.

Alongside Karl Morin's benchmark results, supposed pictures of a Core i7-8700 have also appeared online. A shot of the rear of the CPU shows an identical pin layout to existing Kaby Lake chips, which use the LGA 1151 socket. However, leaked retail packaging and confirmation from motherboard vendor ASRock indicate that Coffee Lake chips require a new 300-series motherboard. The technical reason behind this, if there is one, isn't yet clear. Intel is expected to reveal further details on Coffee Lake in the coming weeks.
The Core i7-8700K is expected to be the first mainstream Intel processor to sport 6C/12T. Previously, higher thread counts have been reserved for the company's X-series platforms like X99 and X299, which cost significantly more. Many consider this a response to AMD's Ryzen CPUs, which offer up to 8C/12T for the same price as Intel's current mainstream flagship CPU, the i7-7700K. In reality, Intel has had six-core mainstream CPUs on its roadmap for some time, although the accelerated launch could be attributed to increased competition. Pricing may yet also reveal the effect of AMD's Ryzen platform.

AMD has put significant pressure on Intel in recent weeks, particularly in the HEDT segment. Intel's X299 platform and accompanying CPUs—which include the £1,000/$1,000 10C/20T i9-7900X—are poor value in comparison to AMD's Threadripper. The Threadripper 1950X offers 16C/32T for the same price as the 7900X, while offering more PCIe lanes and free NVMe RAID throughout, regardless of whether users buy the flagship chip or a cheaper version with fewer cores.

As posted before, those leaks are fake. You know because you replied to my post where I linked to a twitter from PcPer editor stating those scores are fake.

It is interesting to check what sites are posting news around those fake scores. Eteknix, Extremetech, Guru3d, Arstechnica,...

It is not causality those four are biased sites which use dirty tricks to favor AMD in reviews. For instance Arstechnica overclocks AMD chips but label them as stock in the graphs, as demonstrated before. It is not causal either that you used this fake news from Arstechnica to put in bold face what Arsctechnica says about Zen products, because you continue derailing Intel threads with spam about AMD products.

But you cited those reviews in the past when they served your purpose! Now, because you don't like what they say they are bias. The four sites aren't bias, but someone is!

I cite when the source is good. When the source is bad and the dirty tricks they use are seeing from miles of distance, then I avoid those sites.

I have mentioned in the past the flaws and dirty tricks in Guru3d and Arstechnica biased 'reviews'. And I comment directly on the sites of Eteknix and Extremetech. For instance I did when Joel wrote an article about X299. I mentioned in the comments he only quotes der8hauer when he says something bad about Intel, but doesn't quote der8hauer when says something good about Intel. His laughable reply was he doesn't follow all what der8hauer writes. This answer was hilarious, because I gave him the link to what he said. Joel could have updated the article or could write one new with that information. He never did of course.

 

[goldstone77]

Alleged Intel i7-8700K Coffee Lake benchmarks leak online
Six-core chip beats i7-7700K by 30% in Cinebench, but Ryzen may still have the edge.
MARK WALTON (UK) - 9/12/2017, 8:38 AM

Alleged benchmarks for Intel's as-yet unannounced Core i7-8700K have leaked online courtesy of a tech YouTuber and an unguarded HP Omen PC at DreamHack 2017. The i7-8700K—the rumoured flagship six-core, 12-thread processor of Intel's upcoming eighth generation Coffee Lake desktop CPUs—was put through popular benchmarking program Cinebench R15, scoring a cool 1230 points in a multithreaded test. That's a significant leap over the previous-generation Intel Core i7-7700K (4C/8T), which typically posts a score around 950 points.

That score also puts the i7-8700K neck and neck with AMD's 6C/12T Ryzen 1600X, which we scored at 1234 points, but behind AMD's 8C/12T Ryzen 7 1700 with its score of 1422. Meanwhile, AMD's flagship Ryzen 7 1800X is significantly faster with a score of 1616 points.

YouTuber Karl Morin was also able to run a single-threaded benchmark, which shows the i7-8700K posting a score of 196. That would make it the fastest single-threaded chip around, beating the pervious-generation i7-7700K's score of around 185 points, although it's still far from a compelling improvement in instructions per clock.

While the results from the i7-8700K should be taken with a very large pinch of salt—particularly as it's not clear whether the chip was able to reach required boost clocks, while the inevitable raft of motherboard BIOS updates that appear before a CPU launch can affect performance—they do line up with earlier SiSoft Sandra benchmarks that suggest around a 30- to 40-percent improvement versus the 7700K. Forty percent is the same performance improvement Intel is pushing for the recently released Kaby Lake Refresh laptop chips, which also fall under the "8th Generation" banner.

Alongside Karl Morin's benchmark results, supposed pictures of a Core i7-8700 have also appeared online. A shot of the rear of the CPU shows an identical pin layout to existing Kaby Lake chips, which use the LGA 1151 socket. However, leaked retail packaging and confirmation from motherboard vendor ASRock indicate that Coffee Lake chips require a new 300-series motherboard. The technical reason behind this, if there is one, isn't yet clear. Intel is expected to reveal further details on Coffee Lake in the coming weeks.
The Core i7-8700K is expected to be the first mainstream Intel processor to sport 6C/12T. Previously, higher thread counts have been reserved for the company's X-series platforms like X99 and X299, which cost significantly more. Many consider this a response to AMD's Ryzen CPUs, which offer up to 8C/12T for the same price as Intel's current mainstream flagship CPU, the i7-7700K. In reality, Intel has had six-core mainstream CPUs on its roadmap for some time, although the accelerated launch could be attributed to increased competition. Pricing may yet also reveal the effect of AMD's Ryzen platform.

AMD has put significant pressure on Intel in recent weeks, particularly in the HEDT segment. Intel's X299 platform and accompanying CPUs—which include the £1,000/$1,000 10C/20T i9-7900X—are poor value in comparison to AMD's Threadripper. The Threadripper 1950X offers 16C/32T for the same price as the 7900X, while offering more PCIe lanes and free NVMe RAID throughout, regardless of whether users buy the flagship chip or a cheaper version with fewer cores.

As posted before, those leaks are fake. You know because you replied to my post where I linked to a twitter from PcPer editor stating those scores are fake.

It is interesting to check what sites are posting news around those fake scores. Eteknix, Extremetech, Guru3d, Arstechnica,...

It is not causality those four are biased sites which use dirty tricks to favor AMD in reviews. For instance Arstechnica overclocks AMD chips but label them as stock in the graphs, as demonstrated before. It is not causal either that you used this fake news from Arstechnica to put in bold face what Arsctechnica says about Zen products, because you continue derailing Intel threads with spam about AMD products.

Go back an look you didn't read everything that was said. Even after I told you he said he made a mistake! You really need to start being more thorough. I have to repeatedly check your comments for errors, bias, or you use specific comments out of context. That and you are just argumentative for no good reason. Often nothing constructive comes from your comments, and they don't add to the conversation in a productive way. Your bias that the whole world against Intel is beyond ridiculousness.

 

[juanrga]

Alleged Intel i7-8700K Coffee Lake benchmarks leak online
Six-core chip beats i7-7700K by 30% in Cinebench, but Ryzen may still have the edge.
MARK WALTON (UK) - 9/12/2017, 8:38 AM

Alleged benchmarks for Intel's as-yet unannounced Core i7-8700K have leaked online courtesy of a tech YouTuber and an unguarded HP Omen PC at DreamHack 2017. The i7-8700K—the rumoured flagship six-core, 12-thread processor of Intel's upcoming eighth generation Coffee Lake desktop CPUs—was put through popular benchmarking program Cinebench R15, scoring a cool 1230 points in a multithreaded test. That's a significant leap over the previous-generation Intel Core i7-7700K (4C/8T), which typically posts a score around 950 points.

That score also puts the i7-8700K neck and neck with AMD's 6C/12T Ryzen 1600X, which we scored at 1234 points, but behind AMD's 8C/12T Ryzen 7 1700 with its score of 1422. Meanwhile, AMD's flagship Ryzen 7 1800X is significantly faster with a score of 1616 points.

YouTuber Karl Morin was also able to run a single-threaded benchmark, which shows the i7-8700K posting a score of 196. That would make it the fastest single-threaded chip around, beating the pervious-generation i7-7700K's score of around 185 points, although it's still far from a compelling improvement in instructions per clock.

While the results from the i7-8700K should be taken with a very large pinch of salt—particularly as it's not clear whether the chip was able to reach required boost clocks, while the inevitable raft of motherboard BIOS updates that appear before a CPU launch can affect performance—they do line up with earlier SiSoft Sandra benchmarks that suggest around a 30- to 40-percent improvement versus the 7700K. Forty percent is the same performance improvement Intel is pushing for the recently released Kaby Lake Refresh laptop chips, which also fall under the "8th Generation" banner.

Alongside Karl Morin's benchmark results, supposed pictures of a Core i7-8700 have also appeared online. A shot of the rear of the CPU shows an identical pin layout to existing Kaby Lake chips, which use the LGA 1151 socket. However, leaked retail packaging and confirmation from motherboard vendor ASRock indicate that Coffee Lake chips require a new 300-series motherboard. The technical reason behind this, if there is one, isn't yet clear. Intel is expected to reveal further details on Coffee Lake in the coming weeks.
The Core i7-8700K is expected to be the first mainstream Intel processor to sport 6C/12T. Previously, higher thread counts have been reserved for the company's X-series platforms like X99 and X299, which cost significantly more. Many consider this a response to AMD's Ryzen CPUs, which offer up to 8C/12T for the same price as Intel's current mainstream flagship CPU, the i7-7700K. In reality, Intel has had six-core mainstream CPUs on its roadmap for some time, although the accelerated launch could be attributed to increased competition. Pricing may yet also reveal the effect of AMD's Ryzen platform.

AMD has put significant pressure on Intel in recent weeks, particularly in the HEDT segment. Intel's X299 platform and accompanying CPUs—which include the £1,000/$1,000 10C/20T i9-7900X—are poor value in comparison to AMD's Threadripper. The Threadripper 1950X offers 16C/32T for the same price as the 7900X, while offering more PCIe lanes and free NVMe RAID throughout, regardless of whether users buy the flagship chip or a cheaper version with fewer cores.

As posted before, those leaks are fake. You know because you replied to my post where I linked to a twitter from PcPer editor stating those scores are fake.

It is interesting to check what sites are posting news around those fake scores. Eteknix, Extremetech, Guru3d, Arstechnica,...

It is not causality those four are biased sites which use dirty tricks to favor AMD in reviews. For instance Arstechnica overclocks AMD chips but label them as stock in the graphs, as demonstrated before. It is not causal either that you used this fake news from Arstechnica to put in bold face what Arsctechnica says about Zen products, because you continue derailing Intel threads with spam about AMD products.

Go back an look you didn't read everything that was said. Even after I told you he said he made a mistake! You really need to start being more thorough. I have to repeatedly check your comments for errors, bias, or you use specific comments out of context. That and you are just argumentative for no good reason. Often nothing constructive comes from your comments, and they don't add to the conversation in a productive way. Your bias that the whole world against Intel is beyond ridiculousness.

Which simply confirms that those leaks are fake, because turbo wasn't working. Curiously disabling turbo on Intel chips is one of those tactics used by AMD in the past to cripple the performance of Intel chips. Other dirty tactics used by AMD consists on disabling quad-channel, or crippling memory clocks on Intel hardware... the list is long.

We know those scores are not the scores of the final chips, still biased sites as the four mentioned above are pretending that those scores are final scores and that AMD is faster...

I said this to you in the past, I said you those scores aren't fake. I said you that turbo is not working and still you posted exactly the same fake information in this thread, without mentioning in any part of your post that those scores aren't real scores. I know why you did.

And the funny part is that you are continuously accusing me of bias. LOL

 

[goldstone77]

Alleged Intel i7-8700K Coffee Lake benchmarks leak online
Six-core chip beats i7-7700K by 30% in Cinebench, but Ryzen may still have the edge.
MARK WALTON (UK) - 9/12/2017, 8:38 AM

Alleged benchmarks for Intel's as-yet unannounced Core i7-8700K have leaked online courtesy of a tech YouTuber and an unguarded HP Omen PC at DreamHack 2017. The i7-8700K—the rumoured flagship six-core, 12-thread processor of Intel's upcoming eighth generation Coffee Lake desktop CPUs—was put through popular benchmarking program Cinebench R15, scoring a cool 1230 points in a multithreaded test. That's a significant leap over the previous-generation Intel Core i7-7700K (4C/8T), which typically posts a score around 950 points.

That score also puts the i7-8700K neck and neck with AMD's 6C/12T Ryzen 1600X, which we scored at 1234 points, but behind AMD's 8C/12T Ryzen 7 1700 with its score of 1422. Meanwhile, AMD's flagship Ryzen 7 1800X is significantly faster with a score of 1616 points.

YouTuber Karl Morin was also able to run a single-threaded benchmark, which shows the i7-8700K posting a score of 196. That would make it the fastest single-threaded chip around, beating the pervious-generation i7-7700K's score of around 185 points, although it's still far from a compelling improvement in instructions per clock.

While the results from the i7-8700K should be taken with a very large pinch of salt—particularly as it's not clear whether the chip was able to reach required boost clocks, while the inevitable raft of motherboard BIOS updates that appear before a CPU launch can affect performance—they do line up with earlier SiSoft Sandra benchmarks that suggest around a 30- to 40-percent improvement versus the 7700K. Forty percent is the same performance improvement Intel is pushing for the recently released Kaby Lake Refresh laptop chips, which also fall under the "8th Generation" banner.

Alongside Karl Morin's benchmark results, supposed pictures of a Core i7-8700 have also appeared online. A shot of the rear of the CPU shows an identical pin layout to existing Kaby Lake chips, which use the LGA 1151 socket. However, leaked retail packaging and confirmation from motherboard vendor ASRock indicate that Coffee Lake chips require a new 300-series motherboard. The technical reason behind this, if there is one, isn't yet clear. Intel is expected to reveal further details on Coffee Lake in the coming weeks.
The Core i7-8700K is expected to be the first mainstream Intel processor to sport 6C/12T. Previously, higher thread counts have been reserved for the company's X-series platforms like X99 and X299, which cost significantly more. Many consider this a response to AMD's Ryzen CPUs, which offer up to 8C/12T for the same price as Intel's current mainstream flagship CPU, the i7-7700K. In reality, Intel has had six-core mainstream CPUs on its roadmap for some time, although the accelerated launch could be attributed to increased competition. Pricing may yet also reveal the effect of AMD's Ryzen platform.

AMD has put significant pressure on Intel in recent weeks, particularly in the HEDT segment. Intel's X299 platform and accompanying CPUs—which include the £1,000/$1,000 10C/20T i9-7900X—are poor value in comparison to AMD's Threadripper. The Threadripper 1950X offers 16C/32T for the same price as the 7900X, while offering more PCIe lanes and free NVMe RAID throughout, regardless of whether users buy the flagship chip or a cheaper version with fewer cores.

As posted before, those leaks are fake. You know because you replied to my post where I linked to a twitter from PcPer editor stating those scores are fake.

It is interesting to check what sites are posting news around those fake scores. Eteknix, Extremetech, Guru3d, Arstechnica,...

It is not causality those four are biased sites which use dirty tricks to favor AMD in reviews. For instance Arstechnica overclocks AMD chips but label them as stock in the graphs, as demonstrated before. It is not causal either that you used this fake news from Arstechnica to put in bold face what Arsctechnica says about Zen products, because you continue derailing Intel threads with spam about AMD products.

Go back an look you didn't read everything that was said. Even after I told you he said he made a mistake! You really need to start being more thorough. I have to repeatedly check your comments for errors, bias, or you use specific comments out of context. That and you are just argumentative for no good reason. Often nothing constructive comes from your comments, and they don't add to the conversation in a productive way. Your bias that the whole world against Intel is beyond ridiculousness.

Which simply confirms that those leaks are fake, because turbo wasn't working. Curiously disabling turbo on Intel chips is one of those tactics used by AMD in the past to cripple the performance of Intel chips. Other dirty tactics used by AMD consists on disabling quad-channel, or crippling memory clocks on Intel hardware... the list is long.

We know those scores are not the scores of the final chips, still biased sites as the four mentioned above are pretending that those scores are final scores and that AMD is faster...

I said this to you in the past, I said you those scores aren't fake. I said you that turbo is not working and still you posted exactly the same fake information in this thread, without mentioning in any part of your post that those scores aren't real scores. I know why you did.

And the funny part is that you are continuously accusing me of bias. LOL

It's not fake, sure I will give you that the processor wasn't performing to it's highest potential with turbo features, but looking at the test you can see that. And you can still extrapolate good data just from the clock speed that was used to determine what the performance would be overclocked.

I highlighted last paragraph.

While the results from the i7-8700K should be taken with a very large pinch of salt—particularly as it's not clear whether the chip was able to reach required boost clocks, while the inevitable raft of motherboard BIOS updates that appear before a CPU launch can affect performance—they do line up with earlier SiSoft Sandra benchmarks that suggest around a 30- to 40-percent improvement versus the 7700K. Forty percent is the same performance improvement Intel is pushing for the recently released Kaby Lake Refresh laptop chips, which also fall under the "8th Generation" banner.

Edit: again this is you not reading everything, and just flying off the handle anytime you feel Intel is not being treated fair. Although, this isn't best case example your fanatical reaction is typical.

 

[YoAndy]

Not everyone want's to buy the cheapest board and the cheapest processors available. A lot of people care about quality, performance, features, optimization and looks. That's where Intel shine.

So basically you're saying Intel processors are made of magic. Okay, that's enough.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
Oh yeah they sure are,Is having better IPC magic?.Is been at the top of the leader board magic? Is having higher single core speed magic?. Is having higher overclock potential magic?. Is having better optimization magic? Is having better muli core speed magic? Is having better support Magic? Is having higher transistor count magic?. Is been better core per core magic?. Is having a better manufacturing process magic? This is not about been a fan boy or not, this is about recognizing witch tech is better(like it or hate it)

 

[goldstone77]

Not everyone want's to buy the cheapest board and the cheapest processors available. A lot of people care about quality, performance, features, optimization and looks. That's where Intel shine.

So basically you're saying Intel processors are made of magic. Okay, that's enough.

Oh yeah they sure are,Is having better IPC magic?. Is having higher single core speed magic?. Is having higher overclock potential magic?. Is having better optimization magic? Is having better support Magic? Is having higher transistor count magic?. Is been better core per core magic?. Is having a better manufacturing process magic? This is not about been a fan boy or not, this is about recognizing witch tech is better(like it or hate it)

In my opinion the motherboards are about the same, but Intel tends to be more expensive. Intel's i7700K Kabey Lake single thread performance score@3.5GHz was 8.5% higher than the Ryzen 1500@3.5GHz. Ryzen's Multi-threaded performance clock for clock was better than Intel's i7700K. Intel's higher base clock and overclock ability is what really increases their performance depending on the application. I just think Intel charges way too much money for their processors, but that's just my opinion. The standard node has been revised to include tracks, which are a part of density. It's better than just CPP X MMP. Although this is far from a complete grasp of density, it is the best we can hope for right now with the information available. Note that Intel's 10nm, Samsungs 7nm, TMSC 7nm, and GF 7nm nodes have not be released yet.
Standard Node Trend
by Scotten Jones
Published on 07-15-2017 05:00 PM

Conclusion
By either the old or the new standard node values Intel has lost their multiyear density lead over the foundries. Based on the new more accurate standard node value the average node value for Intel's 10nm and the foundry 7nm processes is 8.05nm and all four companies are within a 0.5nm standard node value of each other.

 

[YoAndy]

Not everyone want's to buy the cheapest board and the cheapest processors available. A lot of people care about quality, performance, features, optimization and looks. That's where Intel shine.

So basically you're saying Intel processors are made of magic. Okay, that's enough.

Oh yeah they sure are,Is having better IPC magic?. Is having higher single core speed magic?. Is having higher overclock potential magic?. Is having better optimization magic? Is having better support Magic? Is having higher transistor count magic?. Is been better core per core magic?. Is having a better manufacturing process magic? This is not about been a fan boy or not, this is about recognizing witch tech is better(like it or hate it)

In my opinion the motherboards are about the same, but Intel tends to be more expensive. Intel's i7700K Kabey Lake single thread performance score@3.5GHz was 8.5% higher than the Ryzen 1500@3.5GHz. Ryzen's Multi-threaded performance clock for clock was better than Intel's i7700K. Intel's higher base clock and overclock ability is what really increases their performance depending on the application. I just think Intel charges way too much money for their processors, but that's just my opinion. The standard node has been revised to include tracks, which are a part of density. It's better than just CPP X MMP. Although this is far from a complete grasp of density, it is the best we can hope for right now with the information available. Note that Intel's 10nm, Samsungs 7nm, TMSC 7nm, and GF 7nm nodes have not be released yet.
Standard Node Trend
by Scotten Jones
Published on 07-15-2017 05:00 PM

They don't only look better on the Intel side but they support memory overclock up to 4200 DDR4
AMD only support 3600 DDR4 Build in Intel® X299
Memory
8 x DIMM, Max. 128GB, DDR4 4200(O.C.)/4133(O.C.)/4000(O.C.)/3866(O.C.)/3733(O.C.)/3600(O.C.)/3333(O.C.)/3300(O.C.)/3200(O.C.)/3000(O.C.)/2800(O.C.)/2666(O.C.)/2400(O.C.)/2133 MHz Non-ECC, Un-buffered Memory
Quad Channel Memory Architecture
Supports Intel® Extreme Memory Profile (XMP)
* Hyper DIMM support is subject to the physical characteristics of individual CPUs.
* Refer to www.asus.com for the Memory QVL (Qualified Vendors Lists).

* Refer to www.asus.com for the Memory QVL (Qualified Vendors Lists).AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ Processors
8 x DIMM, Max. 128GB, DDR4 3600(O.C.)/3200(O.C.)/2800(O.C.)/2666/2400/2133 MHz ECC and non-ECC, Un-buffered Memory *
Quad Channel Memory Architecture
** Refer to www.asus.com for the Memory QVL (Qualified Vendors Lists).
* Hyper DIMM support is subject to the physical characteristics of individual CPUs

 

[aldaia]

Man, you repeat the same ever and ever. But actually have no answer other than "Not all the transistors have the same size". Can you please elaborate a little bit more? And please go technical. I already know that some transistors are bigger that others, and that justifies why nobody achieves the PAPER density, but in no way it justifies such a big discrepancy between PAPER and REAL density for Intel.

So you know that transistors have different sizes, but you still want compare transistor/mm² metrics? Interesting.

Amazing how you conveniently ignore any technical details and just parrot Intel propaganda and repeat the mantra "not all transistors are the same", "not all transistors are the same", "not all transistors are the same" and on and on ...

Next is the more interesting part, but I guess you actually have no clue and strategically avoid the important details

SRAM is much denser than logic, and we know than intel SRAM is denser than GloFo, but the Broadwell designs I posted have a ratio of SRAM to logic much bigger than Ryzen so they should achieve a density closer to the ideal yet they are much less dense. Same with IO, there is where the big transistors are and we know that a ryzen die has a lot of IO (some is actually unused on Ryzen and is just for EPYC inter-die communication.

I hope you realize that:

• 
  ■ Intel has a denser process than GloFO
  ■ Intel SRAM is more dense that GloFo SRAM
  ■ SRAM is more dense than logic (and logic more dense than IO)
  ■ Broadwell (LCC, MCC and HCC) have aprox ~40% of its transistors devoted to SRAM vs ~20% for Ryzen
  ■ IO transistors are much bigger (less denser) than logic
  ■ AMD Ryzen has a higher percentage of IO than the Broadwell dies (in part due to the need of inter-die connection)

Absolutely everything is aligned for Intel to have a massive density advantage over Ryzen yet is the other way around. Ryzen is aprox ~50% denser, that is a massive difference, we are not talking 5% here. I guess that anybody (except you of course) realizes that something very strange is happening here.

 

[Isaiah4110]

Can we please stop the Intel vs. AMD flame war going on in the Intel's Future Chips: News, Rumours & Reviews thread? I'm pretty sure this has been going on for 15+ pages now, and it's making it hard to actually follow what the latest news is on Intel's future chips.


If you folks want to debate the merits of Intel vs. AMD at various price points (because, let's be honest, the CPU and platform best suited to any given PC is going to be heavily dependent on budget and desired usage of that PC) then please go create a different thread for that specific purpose.

 

[goldstone77]

I didn't notice it at first, but you are right the Intel units definitely have a rainbow warrior theme across the product line!

Edit: price tag Intel $499.99 AMD $389.99

 

[juanrga]

Alleged Intel i7-8700K Coffee Lake benchmarks leak online
Six-core chip beats i7-7700K by 30% in Cinebench, but Ryzen may still have the edge.
MARK WALTON (UK) - 9/12/2017, 8:38 AM

Alleged benchmarks for Intel's as-yet unannounced Core i7-8700K have leaked online courtesy of a tech YouTuber and an unguarded HP Omen PC at DreamHack 2017. The i7-8700K—the rumoured flagship six-core, 12-thread processor of Intel's upcoming eighth generation Coffee Lake desktop CPUs—was put through popular benchmarking program Cinebench R15, scoring a cool 1230 points in a multithreaded test. That's a significant leap over the previous-generation Intel Core i7-7700K (4C/8T), which typically posts a score around 950 points.

That score also puts the i7-8700K neck and neck with AMD's 6C/12T Ryzen 1600X, which we scored at 1234 points, but behind AMD's 8C/12T Ryzen 7 1700 with its score of 1422. Meanwhile, AMD's flagship Ryzen 7 1800X is significantly faster with a score of 1616 points.

YouTuber Karl Morin was also able to run a single-threaded benchmark, which shows the i7-8700K posting a score of 196. That would make it the fastest single-threaded chip around, beating the pervious-generation i7-7700K's score of around 185 points, although it's still far from a compelling improvement in instructions per clock.

While the results from the i7-8700K should be taken with a very large pinch of salt—particularly as it's not clear whether the chip was able to reach required boost clocks, while the inevitable raft of motherboard BIOS updates that appear before a CPU launch can affect performance—they do line up with earlier SiSoft Sandra benchmarks that suggest around a 30- to 40-percent improvement versus the 7700K. Forty percent is the same performance improvement Intel is pushing for the recently released Kaby Lake Refresh laptop chips, which also fall under the "8th Generation" banner.

Alongside Karl Morin's benchmark results, supposed pictures of a Core i7-8700 have also appeared online. A shot of the rear of the CPU shows an identical pin layout to existing Kaby Lake chips, which use the LGA 1151 socket. However, leaked retail packaging and confirmation from motherboard vendor ASRock indicate that Coffee Lake chips require a new 300-series motherboard. The technical reason behind this, if there is one, isn't yet clear. Intel is expected to reveal further details on Coffee Lake in the coming weeks.
The Core i7-8700K is expected to be the first mainstream Intel processor to sport 6C/12T. Previously, higher thread counts have been reserved for the company's X-series platforms like X99 and X299, which cost significantly more. Many consider this a response to AMD's Ryzen CPUs, which offer up to 8C/12T for the same price as Intel's current mainstream flagship CPU, the i7-7700K. In reality, Intel has had six-core mainstream CPUs on its roadmap for some time, although the accelerated launch could be attributed to increased competition. Pricing may yet also reveal the effect of AMD's Ryzen platform.

AMD has put significant pressure on Intel in recent weeks, particularly in the HEDT segment. Intel's X299 platform and accompanying CPUs—which include the £1,000/$1,000 10C/20T i9-7900X—are poor value in comparison to AMD's Threadripper. The Threadripper 1950X offers 16C/32T for the same price as the 7900X, while offering more PCIe lanes and free NVMe RAID throughout, regardless of whether users buy the flagship chip or a cheaper version with fewer cores.

As posted before, those leaks are fake. You know because you replied to my post where I linked to a twitter from PcPer editor stating those scores are fake.

It is interesting to check what sites are posting news around those fake scores. Eteknix, Extremetech, Guru3d, Arstechnica,...

It is not causality those four are biased sites which use dirty tricks to favor AMD in reviews. For instance Arstechnica overclocks AMD chips but label them as stock in the graphs, as demonstrated before. It is not causal either that you used this fake news from Arstechnica to put in bold face what Arsctechnica says about Zen products, because you continue derailing Intel threads with spam about AMD products.

Go back an look you didn't read everything that was said. Even after I told you he said he made a mistake! You really need to start being more thorough. I have to repeatedly check your comments for errors, bias, or you use specific comments out of context. That and you are just argumentative for no good reason. Often nothing constructive comes from your comments, and they don't add to the conversation in a productive way. Your bias that the whole world against Intel is beyond ridiculousness.

Which simply confirms that those leaks are fake, because turbo wasn't working. Curiously disabling turbo on Intel chips is one of those tactics used by AMD in the past to cripple the performance of Intel chips. Other dirty tactics used by AMD consists on disabling quad-channel, or crippling memory clocks on Intel hardware... the list is long.

We know those scores are not the scores of the final chips, still biased sites as the four mentioned above are pretending that those scores are final scores and that AMD is faster...

I said this to you in the past, I said you those scores aren't fake. I said you that turbo is not working and still you posted exactly the same fake information in this thread, without mentioning in any part of your post that those scores aren't real scores. I know why you did.

And the funny part is that you are continuously accusing me of bias. LOL

It's not fake, sure I will give you that the processor wasn't performing to it's highest potential with turbo features, but looking at the test you can see that. And you can still extrapolate good data just from the clock speed that was used to determine what the performance would be overclocked.

I highlighted last paragraph.

While the results from the i7-8700K should be taken with a very large pinch of salt—particularly as it's not clear whether the chip was able to reach required boost clocks, while the inevitable raft of motherboard BIOS updates that appear before a CPU launch can affect performance—they do line up with earlier SiSoft Sandra benchmarks that suggest around a 30- to 40-percent improvement versus the 7700K. Forty percent is the same performance improvement Intel is pushing for the recently released Kaby Lake Refresh laptop chips, which also fall under the "8th Generation" banner.

Edit: again this is you not reading everything, and just flying off the handle anytime you feel Intel is not being treated fair. Although, this isn't best case example your fanatical reaction is typical.

The original scores aren't fake, they correspond to a system with turbo features disabled, beta BIOS, and some other non-final stuff.

The fake is on those biased news sites which are pretending those scores are the scores of the final chips. Those biased sites are giving fake scores for final chips. Those biased sites are pretending that final 6C Coffee Lake will be slower than a 6C Ryzen chip. Those biased sites that you like to cite again and again: Arstechnica, Guru3d,...

You know all this because I said to you the same in another part. Still you took that fake news from that biased Arstechnica site and reproduced it here, without warning readers that it is a fake. Not only you quoted the fake part where Arstechnica pretend that the RyZen 1600X is neck to neck, but you bolded it.

And of course you quoted and bolded the part where Arstechnica said something bad about the i9-7900X and praised ThreadRipper. How could you miss the opportunity to spam us again with AMD propaganda on an Intel thread?

 

[juanrga]

Not everyone want's to buy the cheapest board and the cheapest processors available. A lot of people care about quality, performance, features, optimization and looks. That's where Intel shine.

So basically you're saying Intel processors are made of magic. Okay, that's enough.

Oh yeah they sure are,Is having better IPC magic?. Is having higher single core speed magic?. Is having higher overclock potential magic?. Is having better optimization magic? Is having better support Magic? Is having higher transistor count magic?. Is been better core per core magic?. Is having a better manufacturing process magic? This is not about been a fan boy or not, this is about recognizing witch tech is better(like it or hate it)

In my opinion the motherboards are about the same, but Intel tends to be more expensive. Intel's i7700K Kabey Lake single thread performance score@3.5GHz was 8.5% higher than the Ryzen 1500@3.5GHz. Ryzen's Multi-threaded performance clock for clock was better than Intel's i7700K. Intel's higher base clock and overclock ability is what really increases their performance depending on the application. I just think Intel charges way too much money for their processors, but that's just my opinion.

Not all mobos are the same. Quality and performance are very different. This is not something exclusive to Intel, X370 AM4 mobos are much more expensive than B350 AM4 mobos.

Intel's Kaby Lake has 8.5% higher IPC than Ryzen on CB15 according to a biased site that tested the RyZen chip overclocked, but labeled it as stock on graphs. When everything is really stock the gap is 10--11%

Also Cinebench is one of those benchmarks that reduces the gap between both chips. In the other extreme we can find benchmarks where Intel IPC is 24% ahead of AMD

Overall the IPC gap is about 15%.

Performance is not a linear function of cost. Intel chips are more expensive because are faster. Again this is not exclusive to Intel. AMD charges much more for the 1800X than for the 1700. And that is the reason why when you do biased comparisons of performance/price between AMD and Intel you chose the cheapest possible 1700 and B350 mobos and ignore the 1800X and X370 mobos.

The standard node has been revised to include tracks, which are a part of density. It's better than just CPP X MMP. Although this is far from a complete grasp of density, it is the best we can hope for right now with the information available. Note that Intel's 10nm, Samsungs 7nm, TMSC 7nm, and GF 7nm nodes have not be released yet.
Standard Node Trend
by Scotten Jones
Published on 07-15-2017 05:00 PM

Conclusion
By either the old or the new standard node values Intel has lost their multiyear density lead over the foundries. Based on the new more accurate standard node value the average node value for Intel's 10nm and the foundry 7nm processes is 8.05nm and all four companies are within a 0.5nm standard node value of each other.

Scott Jones again...

He gives wrong info about Intel 14nm and incorrectly close the gap between foundries. He has given wrong info about TSMC 7nm.

He took the original ASML formula which gives Intel 10nm the leadership, and changed it. Using the modified formula Intel 10nm was still leader

Then Jones changed the formula again to give leadership to Glofo, Samsung, and TSMC. And when you write "the standard node has been revised" you don't mention it has been revised by Scott Jones and by no one else.

 

[goldstone77]

Alleged Intel i7-8700K Coffee Lake benchmarks leak online
Six-core chip beats i7-7700K by 30% in Cinebench, but Ryzen may still have the edge.
MARK WALTON (UK) - 9/12/2017, 8:38 AM

Alleged benchmarks for Intel's as-yet unannounced Core i7-8700K have leaked online courtesy of a tech YouTuber and an unguarded HP Omen PC at DreamHack 2017. The i7-8700K—the rumoured flagship six-core, 12-thread processor of Intel's upcoming eighth generation Coffee Lake desktop CPUs—was put through popular benchmarking program Cinebench R15, scoring a cool 1230 points in a multithreaded test. That's a significant leap over the previous-generation Intel Core i7-7700K (4C/8T), which typically posts a score around 950 points.

That score also puts the i7-8700K neck and neck with AMD's 6C/12T Ryzen 1600X, which we scored at 1234 points, but behind AMD's 8C/12T Ryzen 7 1700 with its score of 1422. Meanwhile, AMD's flagship Ryzen 7 1800X is significantly faster with a score of 1616 points.

YouTuber Karl Morin was also able to run a single-threaded benchmark, which shows the i7-8700K posting a score of 196. That would make it the fastest single-threaded chip around, beating the pervious-generation i7-7700K's score of around 185 points, although it's still far from a compelling improvement in instructions per clock.

While the results from the i7-8700K should be taken with a very large pinch of salt—particularly as it's not clear whether the chip was able to reach required boost clocks, while the inevitable raft of motherboard BIOS updates that appear before a CPU launch can affect performance—they do line up with earlier SiSoft Sandra benchmarks that suggest around a 30- to 40-percent improvement versus the 7700K. Forty percent is the same performance improvement Intel is pushing for the recently released Kaby Lake Refresh laptop chips, which also fall under the "8th Generation" banner.

Alongside Karl Morin's benchmark results, supposed pictures of a Core i7-8700 have also appeared online. A shot of the rear of the CPU shows an identical pin layout to existing Kaby Lake chips, which use the LGA 1151 socket. However, leaked retail packaging and confirmation from motherboard vendor ASRock indicate that Coffee Lake chips require a new 300-series motherboard. The technical reason behind this, if there is one, isn't yet clear. Intel is expected to reveal further details on Coffee Lake in the coming weeks.
The Core i7-8700K is expected to be the first mainstream Intel processor to sport 6C/12T. Previously, higher thread counts have been reserved for the company's X-series platforms like X99 and X299, which cost significantly more. Many consider this a response to AMD's Ryzen CPUs, which offer up to 8C/12T for the same price as Intel's current mainstream flagship CPU, the i7-7700K. In reality, Intel has had six-core mainstream CPUs on its roadmap for some time, although the accelerated launch could be attributed to increased competition. Pricing may yet also reveal the effect of AMD's Ryzen platform.

AMD has put significant pressure on Intel in recent weeks, particularly in the HEDT segment. Intel's X299 platform and accompanying CPUs—which include the £1,000/$1,000 10C/20T i9-7900X—are poor value in comparison to AMD's Threadripper. The Threadripper 1950X offers 16C/32T for the same price as the 7900X, while offering more PCIe lanes and free NVMe RAID throughout, regardless of whether users buy the flagship chip or a cheaper version with fewer cores.

As posted before, those leaks are fake. You know because you replied to my post where I linked to a twitter from PcPer editor stating those scores are fake.

It is interesting to check what sites are posting news around those fake scores. Eteknix, Extremetech, Guru3d, Arstechnica,...

It is not causality those four are biased sites which use dirty tricks to favor AMD in reviews. For instance Arstechnica overclocks AMD chips but label them as stock in the graphs, as demonstrated before. It is not causal either that you used this fake news from Arstechnica to put in bold face what Arsctechnica says about Zen products, because you continue derailing Intel threads with spam about AMD products.

Go back an look you didn't read everything that was said. Even after I told you he said he made a mistake! You really need to start being more thorough. I have to repeatedly check your comments for errors, bias, or you use specific comments out of context. That and you are just argumentative for no good reason. Often nothing constructive comes from your comments, and they don't add to the conversation in a productive way. Your bias that the whole world against Intel is beyond ridiculousness.

Which simply confirms that those leaks are fake, because turbo wasn't working. Curiously disabling turbo on Intel chips is one of those tactics used by AMD in the past to cripple the performance of Intel chips. Other dirty tactics used by AMD consists on disabling quad-channel, or crippling memory clocks on Intel hardware... the list is long.

We know those scores are not the scores of the final chips, still biased sites as the four mentioned above are pretending that those scores are final scores and that AMD is faster...

I said this to you in the past, I said you those scores aren't fake. I said you that turbo is not working and still you posted exactly the same fake information in this thread, without mentioning in any part of your post that those scores aren't real scores. I know why you did.

And the funny part is that you are continuously accusing me of bias. LOL

It's not fake, sure I will give you that the processor wasn't performing to it's highest potential with turbo features, but looking at the test you can see that. And you can still extrapolate good data just from the clock speed that was used to determine what the performance would be overclocked.

I highlighted last paragraph.

While the results from the i7-8700K should be taken with a very large pinch of salt—particularly as it's not clear whether the chip was able to reach required boost clocks, while the inevitable raft of motherboard BIOS updates that appear before a CPU launch can affect performance—they do line up with earlier SiSoft Sandra benchmarks that suggest around a 30- to 40-percent improvement versus the 7700K. Forty percent is the same performance improvement Intel is pushing for the recently released Kaby Lake Refresh laptop chips, which also fall under the "8th Generation" banner.

Edit: again this is you not reading everything, and just flying off the handle anytime you feel Intel is not being treated fair. Although, this isn't best case example your fanatical reaction is typical.

The original scores aren't fake, they correspond to a system with turbo features disabled, beta BIOS, and some other non-final stuff.

The fake is on those biased news sites which are pretending those scores are the scores of the final chips. Those biased sites are giving fake scores for final chips. Those biased sites are pretending that final 6C Coffee Lake will be slower than a 6C Ryzen chip. Those biased sites that you like to cite again and again: Arstechnica, Guru3d,...

You know all this because I said to you the same in another part. Still you took that fake news from that biased Arstechnica site and reproduced it here, without warning readers that it is a fake. Not only you quoted the fake part where Arstechnica pretend that the RyZen 1600X is neck to neck, but you bolded it.

And of course you quoted and bolded the part where Arstechnica said something bad about the i9-7900X and praised ThreadRipper. How could you miss the opportunity to spam us again with AMD propaganda on an Intel thread?

I've wasted enough time on your over critical critique of Leaked Benchmarks! I highlight pertinent information. If you don't like it comment and move on. Having a drawn out squabble competition over this is just too wasteful of my time. And again you just being argumentative and claiming there is an overwhelming amount of bias media sources out to get Intel! It's not funny anymore you can stop at any time. You have used these sources on numerous occasions when it benefited your points. There is not conspiracy! There is a lack of your reading things in it's entirety. There is a fanatical reaction by you whenever you read anything that goes against what you think is fair for Intel! Just stop it!

 

[juanrga]

Man, you repeat the same ever and ever. But actually have no answer other than "Not all the transistors have the same size". Can you please elaborate a little bit more? And please go technical. I already know that some transistors are bigger that others, and that justifies why nobody achieves the PAPER density, but in no way it justifies such a big discrepancy between PAPER and REAL density for Intel.

So you know that transistors have different sizes, but you still want compare transistor/mm² metrics? Interesting.

Amazing how you conveniently ignore any technical details and just parrot Intel propaganda and repeat the mantra "not all transistors are the same", "not all transistors are the same", "not all transistors are the same" and on and on ...

That is just the crux of this issue. Transistors have different size, therefore your attempt to compare Transistor/mm^2 is useless, even if we ignore that transistor counts are usually marketing lies. You insist because you have to prove at any costs that there is something terrible wrong with Intel 14nm.

 

[juanrga]

I didn't notice it at first, but you are right the Intel units definitely have a rainbow warrior theme across the product line!

Edit: price tag Intel $499.99 AMD $389.99

The intel board has to cost more because is better, obviously.