No, Coffee Lake Will Not Run In Z270 Motherboards (And Here’s Why)

[Martell1977]

All this talk about overclocking, but did they still cheap out and use TIM? I'm willing to bet they did, which from what we have seen, will make these a nightmare to cool when overclocked. AMD really spooked them and I'm glad to see it. I'm waiting for Ryzen 2, but might end up with Cannon lake if that ends up significantly faster at comparable pricing....But odds are looking good that I will have my first AMD CPU since my K62-300.

Intel's constant motherboard changes is just one of the reasons I haven't upgraded. Incremental performance increases is the main reason. Lets see if Intel can deliver or if it's just more marketing hype.

 

[vinay2070]

Intel gets to sell new chipsets and motherboard companies get to sell new motherboards. Win-win for both of them. They know that customers will anyway shell out money!

People who need a new PC will need a new PC regardless of what AMD or Intel do and that's where the bulk of sales are. Also, most people are skipping many generations in-between and will need a new motherboard even if platforms' lifespan were extended by a year or two.

Before singing praise for AMD, I'd wait to see how many of Zen 2's new or updated features will require a new motherboard. Backward compatibility could turn into a Pyrrhic victory if most people for whom backward compatibility is relevant end up feeling like they need a new motherboard for their new CPU to work as intended anyway.

With a growing number of people stretching their PCs for 5+ years, backward compatibility seems well on its way to becoming a niche concern.

I totally agree with you. I am currently on Z77 + 3570K(4.5GHz) + 8GB and a 7950 3GB Boost. It's almost 4 years now and I am ready for my next upgrade. 8700K with a 1080 or probably a 2080 looks like a sweet spot for an upgrade! Jan 2018 when miners reduce buying is the right time to do this.

 

[Martell1977]

The lauch is rushed 6 months in advance. Kaby Lake was release not even 9 months ago. I never seen Intel release two CPU architecture in the same year almost in the same fiscal year.

Broadwell-S (socketed version for desktop) and Skylake launched two months apart: Broadwell in June, Skylake in August.

I think most people don't count Broadwell for desktop as the "launch" was rather weak...what was it, 2 CPU's and on to the next...

 

[hellraiser06]

I just built a ryzen 5 1600 system. I was afraid that Intel would lose their minds and release something substantial and ryzen prices would fall within 1 month of me building a system. Guess, that is not happening.

On a serious note, personally I dont see any reason to buy coffee lake instead of ryzen as far as gaming and some productivity is concerned. Ryzen should pave the way for devs to start utilizing more threads and optimise gaming more for multi threaded CPUs. As it stands, in my mind I see that R5 1400/1500x will beat i5 8400/8600k or be very close to them @stock. Also, since most games dont use more than 4 cores (or ROI is less per addition of core/thread) right now, even an R3 come close to performance of i5. I mean, personally, I would either shell out a little more for much more performance and get an R5 1600 OR save a lot of money for much less performance impact and build an R3 system.

 

[Xajel]

Now even Intel fans are saying thanks AMD 😀

kidding, while true.. not to saying that I'm an AMD fan or not (my two laptops + PC are Intel, thought I'm thinking I might get a Ryzen for my PC upgrade next year).

But honestly, Intel doesn't care about backward compatibility, even forced now to do it, but Intel's history proved they think more about the whole platform. and like some guys said, Intel is not a CPU maker, it's a chip maker.. they make CPU's to sell the chips. the more chips they sell the better, so being incompatible mean they can sell even more chips. while the marketing logic will try to make some gen compatible with older ones just to please the customers, In the past year it was like a new chipset is a must for every two gen. ( Tick + Tock ), now the Tick Tock clocks are not stable, AMD became competitive again and they're forced to do a big change to their plans..

Enjoy Intel fans, ( and all enthusiast, competition is good for all customers ) who would thought Intel will jump quickly like this, Quad Core i3's, Hex Cores i5's & i7s, up to 18 cores HEDT.

 

[DragonAsta]

IMO just another reason to "gouge" if this was indeed planned awhile back, they could have easily implemented it, nope, they just want you to buy an expensive processor after an expensive processor AND keep going through new motherboards for good measure, due diligence Intel has naught.

it was reactionary, not anticipatory, it shows in the problems that x299 had, it shows in the penny pinching thinner dies as of late etc....not sure why folks keep just throwing money at them or Nv IMO, just promoting them to continue to be putzes..mehh is your $ I suppose....AMD did very well overall IMO, they did not cut corners they did not need to cut, they have everything required and then some, they are overbuilt instead of "just enough" etc...I support them, not their yahoo competition ^.^

 

[dalauder]

All this talk about overclocking, but did they still cheap out and use TIM? I'm willing to bet they did, which from what we have seen, will make these a nightmare to cool when overclocked. AMD really spooked them and I'm glad to see it. I'm waiting for Ryzen 2, but might end up with Cannon lake if that ends up significantly faster at comparable pricing....But odds are looking good that I will have my first AMD CPU since my K62-300.

Intel's constant motherboard changes is just one of the reasons I haven't upgraded. Incremental performance increases is the main reason. Lets see if Intel can deliver or if it's just more marketing hype.

Props on the K6-2. My dad still uses his K10 system he build in 2009 as there's nothing it can't do passably.

I haven't upgraded for the same reason. I've got an i7-2600K and there's really nothing it can't do well. And any upgrade path necessitates a new mobo and RAM. When I do upgrade, it will probably be Ryzen 2.

 

[mdd1963]

Isn't this about '2 month old' news by now? (I thought it was quite common knowledge...)

 

[mitch074]

My policy is thus: I change my PC when upper mainstream components have AT LEAST double the horsepower of my current rig (that's why I still rock that O/C'd Athlon II X4 620 in my living room, and hesitated so much before buying my i5 4670K in 2014). That way, platform upgrades are pretty much mandatory when changing the CPU.
Still, knowing I could get a Ryzen II R7 in february 2018 and then upgrade the platform (not the CPU) in 2020 to, say, plug a PCI-e 5.0 graphics card in it, is a plus. Now that CPUs are pretty much SoC's, older mobos can ge recycled into HTPCs on the cheap.

 

[Tom Griffin]

I think it might be time to upgrade, my I7-3960X is getting rather tired and I would like a new software development / virtual machine rig. 6 cores for less than a grand from Intel would be a nice sweet spot. Thanks AMD for putting the fire under intel's (insert your foul word here).

 

[mdd1963]

Pretty sure we can say, 'behind'?

 

[asim1973]

All the plonkers moaning are those that upgrade every year or other year, I upgrade every 4 to 5 years so it doesn't effect me at all and that's how you should upgrade. If you're on the Z170 or Z270 motherboards this should be completely irrelevant to you, just upgrade in another couple of years, maybe when we're on 10nm.

 

[asim1973]

Those moaning are the ones who upgrade every year or other year, if you upgrade every 4 to 5 years like I do, you needn't get upset. A load of plonkers on here, I agree with everything Intel does because they're not doing anything wrong, it's just the idiots who keep on wanting to upgrade all the time who have a problem, use your sense people!!

 

[logainofhades]

This really does seem like a cash grab, sadly. I would have really considered an 8700k, for an upgrade, but no way I would now. If I have to buy a new platform to get a reasonable upgrade to multi-threaded performance, I would rather save some cash with Ryzen 1700.

 

[Ninjawithagun]

There are a great number of performance assumptions by a lot of people posting here. We're just going to have to wait and see if Coffee Lake is really all of that and a cup of tea. I just don't see there being huge gains in gaming performance, especially at the higher resolutions where GPU is the primary limiting factor. Also, will Intel kill Coffee Lake with overpricing? For now, AMD is still the best budget CPU in town...

 

[bak0n]

We all know why Intel is doing it. They make money off the chipsets so they don't want people to keep using something that won't make them more money.

 

[passivecool]

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-Haswell-BGA-LGA-Socket,21917.html

The attentive reader may remember that intel announced five years ago that it was preparing to end cpu replacement in desktops.

Is this a 'gouge'? No. Is it all about the money? Absolutely. Intel has heavyweight shareholders who demand steady returns. Apparently, Intel sees itself pressed to this unsavory slight of hand in order to meet those expetations, assuming that a significant performance boost (finally!) will be the spoon full of sugar necessary for us to swallow the bitter pill of generation lock-in.

I'm currently planing next years' new build - for me an investment, rather than a hobby. The inability to update the cpu subtracts several years of usage from the lifetime of the system and increases the yearly cost...

Looks like it will be a 1900x, after all.

 

[AgentLozen]

All the plonkers moaning are those that upgrade every year or other year...

While I don't agree with your choice of foul language (plonkers!), I'm on your side regarding chipset compatibility.

My build is running a Core i5 3570k and whatever chipset was around back in 2012. The changes that Intel makes to their CPUs are so insignificant that there's no way I could justify upgrading every generation.

In 2012 you could spend $250 on a 3570k
In 2013 you could spend $250 on a 4670k and get a 10% performance increase
In 2014 you could spend $250 on a 4690k and get more overclocking overhead
In 2015 you could spend $250 on a 6600k and get a 5% performance increase
In 2017 you could spend $250 on a 7600k and get more overclocking overhead
Finally in late 2017, spend another $250 on the 8600k for 2 more cores
=$1500 (in cpus alone)

-OR-

Spend $250 in 2012
Then spend $250 in 2017 for a 15% IPC increase, a lot of overclocking overhead, and two more cores.
= $500

It makes the MOST sense to NOT upgrade every year.

 

[AcesB]

Intel is becoming an expert in shooting it's both feet, twice a day.
I guess AMD guys are rolling on the floor laughing, shopping beer cans and barbecue to celebrate...

 

[zoridon]

I'm a father of two boys who I built computers for. Backward compatibility is important to me as I can recycle my parts down to my 13 year old and from him to my 10 year old. Having to buy a new platform every time I want to upgrade my CPU disrupts my efficient electronic recycling. It also takes away a argument in my favor when convincing the wife that "Hey, everyone gets an upgrade when I get an upgrade"

 

[80-watt Hamster]

While I don't agree with your choice of foul language (plonkers!), I'm on your side regarding chipset compatibility.

My build is running a Core i5 3570k and whatever chipset was around back in 2012. The changes that Intel makes to their CPUs are so insignificant that there's no way I could justify upgrading every generation.

In 2012 you could spend $250 on a 3570k
In 2013 you could spend $250 on a 4670k and get a 10% performance increase
In 2014 you could spend $250 on a 4690k and get more overclocking overhead
In 2015 you could spend $250 on a 6600k and get a 5% performance increase
In 2017 you could spend $250 on a 7600k and get more overclocking overhead
Finally in late 2017, spend another $250 on the 8600k for 2 more cores
=$1500 (in cpus alone)

-OR-

Spend $250 in 2012
Then spend $250 in 2017 for a 15% IPC increase, a lot of overclocking overhead, and two more cores.
= $500

It makes the MOST sense to NOT upgrade every year.

Not disagreeing with you, but gonna throw the upgrader's side of things in just for giggles anyway, going through a couple of scenarios. Resale values are intentionally conservative.

2011: $370 = $250 2500K + $120 MB + $80 RAM
2012: $100 = $250 3570K - $150 CPU resale
2013: $170 = $250 4670K + $120 MB - $200 CPU/MB resale
2014: $100 = $250 4690K - $150 CPU resale
2015: $220 = $250 6600K + $120 MB + $100 RAM -$250 platform resale
2017: $100 = $250 7600K - $150 CPU resale
2018: $200 = $280 8600K + $120 MB -$200 CPU/MB resale
Total platform expenditure: $1260

If we take out the compatible-socket upgrades (IVB, HWR, KBL) it comes down to $960. A jump straight from SB or IVB to CL would, alternatively, cost a net $670 or so. That's a not-insignificant overall savings of $200-$600 depending on which upgrade path one takes and for how much various components can be bought and sold.

However, amortized over seven years, you'd pay about $60±30/yr for the privilege of getting to tinker with new hardware. It's left as an exercise for the reader to decide whether or not that extra outlay is worth it.

But what's really frosting peoples cookies, or at least mine as someone on Z170/SKL, is having an electrically- and socket-compatible chip with an appreciable positive performance delta dangled in their face and Intel saying, "Nope, for possibly-true-but-still-bullshit-sounding reasons."

Aside: "Plonkers" is foul language? Or did I miss the joke again?

 

[ibjeepr]

What, the tech industry changes fast and backward compatibility and future upgrade-ability isn't guaranteed? You don't say.

I agree with everyone saying that:

If you are upgrading so often that Intel forcing a new mobo constantly is an issue for you, you're doing it wrong.

If you need an upgrade every year or two, you're doing it wrong.

If you have to have the latest and greatest constantly, you must have the money so stop complaining.

 

[Altherix]

So here's the result of not having competition for so long in the market.

Intel, has always demanded of its customers with a new chip architecture you buy a new motherboard. There's been no competition so it was never questioned, customers just went along with it, the Intel way.

Now, they've been caught with their pants down, rushed out architectures with no long term plans but still doing the, "New architecture, throw away your old motherboard and buy a new one."

My advice, skip Coffee Lake unless it makes sense in what you'll be paying for and what you're going to use it for, don't buy because of, "Oooo! Shiny!"

Wait for the next generation where Intel gets their head out of their rear and releases a proper competitive CPU architecture. Not a rushed out the door before it had a chance to brush its teeth one.

 

[InvalidError]

So here's the result of not having competition for so long in the market.

Intel having new chipsets for every other CPU generation is how Intel's been rolling since about 1995, lack of competition in the past 10 years has absolutely nothing to do with it, it's always been that way ever since Intel began designing and selling its own VLSI chipsets.

Design-wise, Coffee and Cannon were completed a long time ago. The only thing that should be 'rushed' at this point in time is Intel getting off of its arse to launch the damned things that it has been sitting on due to a combination of process yield issues, process delays and previously having no reason to launch anything significantly new.

 

[g-unit1111]

What, the tech industry changes fast and backward compatibility and future upgrade-ability isn't guaranteed? You don't say.

I agree with everyone saying that:

If you are upgrading so often that Intel forcing a new mobo constantly is an issue for you, you're doing it wrong.

If you need an upgrade every year or two, you're doing it wrong.

If you have to have the latest and greatest constantly, you must have the money so stop complaining.

I completely agree here. If you have a 6700K you're good for the next couple of years. If you have a 7700K you're good for the next couple of years. Even 4690Ks and 4770Ks are still viable for the foreseeable future. I have two rigs and I upgrade them about once every 3 - 4 years incrementally. I just recently finished upgrading one of my rigs from a 4690K to an R7-1700. You do not need to purchase a new motherboard and CPU every year. Those who have to have the latest and greatest will never be satisfied with anything they have, and will ultimately wind up with a closet full of unused parts they can't get rid of.