Upcoming Coffee Lake chips

[captaincharisma]

It will be only stupid on their part if the i7-8700K comes with lower clocks. If it comes as people are saying with 4.7Ghz turbo, which might indicate a chip as strong as the i7-7700K in single thread but with 2 extra cores, it will sell like water in the desert. I might buy one.

It is their only chance to put a lid on AMD's hype. And it will be huge.

The move from 4 cores to 6 was supposed to happen years ago. They were lingering with 4 cores because there was no competition. The i5 was already bottlenecking in several games. Now they have to play some catch up with AMD.

4.7 Turbo, but only on a single core, 2 cores is 4.6, 4 cores is 4.4, etc. It will still be faster than AMD's Ryzen, but what's the point. That's all AMD is, is hype. Anyone capable of logical thought knows that the 7700k is both cheaper and better than half of the Ryzen CPUs. Like I said instead of making an even FASTER quad-core, and sealing the deal on the gaming market, they release this crap that is probably still going to be outperformed by a 7700k in gaming. It only barely beats a 6700k it seems. I just really hope some benchmarks come out proving me wrong, or that they still release SOMETHING like what everyone thought the 8700K would be. Or hopefully Cannonlake they go back to making really fast quad-cores.

And again the problem with that is that there are still incredibly popular games that perform WORSE on the new 6core processors, because they have lower clock speeds. Maybe Blizzard just needs to get off their freaking butts and reprogram their games, because they run like crap on most machines.

yep, since the I7 7700K can overclock higher then any ryzen CPU plus still has the edge in gaming intel only needs to increase the core count for coffeecake and lower the prices slightly to easily beat out AMD yet again. if this happens i don't know what AMD will do because Vega GPU's aren't even out yet and they look like they will be a flop

 

[EpIckFa1LJoN]

I guess nobody can do anything but wait and see. I don't see how they would overlook expanding their quad-core speeds, unless they have hit a limitation. I wouldn't mind buying an i7 quality i5 if it means I can go past 5.0GHz on a moderate OC xD.

 

[Contiusa]

What are you talking about? The i7-7700K is already over its neck in gaming. They cannot push the clock Indefinitely. Quad cores are over. The i5 is already dead. In fact people are foretelling the end of the quad cores for a few generations already.

The i7-8700K has a turbo of 4.4Ghz in 4 cores, the same turbo the i7-7700K has in four cores. 4.3Ghz in six cores. And you can always overclock. The X parts are hitting 4.7Ghz without much fuss. Just do the math. I don't know where the problem is. Or do you think the i7-8700K is a server chip? No, it is not. Search a bit and you will find out.

Your i7-6700K will become an "i3" overnight. That's how things are looking. Now, if they are stupid and release a low clock i7, then it is on them. But that's not how things are shaping up.

But you can stick with an "i3" if you like. But wait for the benchs.

 

[EpIckFa1LJoN]

Over its neck?? my 6700k isn't even over its neck, the only times it has trouble are in poorly optimized games and I can guarantee that the 8700k will fare far worse in those cases, seeing as how the clock speeds will be LOWER. The 3770k is barely starting to have trouble running games and only with extremely powerful graphics cards. If that were the case why exactly does Tom's still recommend the 7700k over the 1800X?

"It’s hard to recommend the Ryzen 7 1800X over Intel's lower-cost quad-core chips for gaming, especially given the Core i7-7700K's impressive performance. That's not a knock against AMD, specifically. After all, we say the same thing about Intel's own Broadwell-E CPUs. High-end Kaby Lake processors constantly challenge pricier competitors, and the flagship -7700K sells for $350. Even after down-clocking the -7700K to 3.8 GHz, it still beats Ryzen 7 1800X in nearly every game in our suite. Those issues would only be exacerbated on a Ryzen 7 1700X, which operates at lower clock rates."

Whoever you're reading this from you need to unfollow immediately because they obviously don't know what the hell they're talking about.

For gaming Core Speed is KING. It's only a few very well-optimized games that those extra cores/threads even come into play, or even help in general.

Which is exactly my point. They need to keep making fast quad-cores, even if they still make hex-cores, which are still fantastic for a great deal of uses (just not mine and a lot of other gamers)

For a workstation I would choose the 8700K over the 1800x all day every day, for the fact that it offers a lot of power, almost as much as an 1800x, at almost half the price.

 

[androbourne]

In few and very specific games that are all about CPU work load. Even the 7700k is having issues keeping up. But that is a game design issue. Not a CPU issue.

In normal, every day gaming. This is not the mean bottleneck for performance. However, that said. Things could be done better, such as game designers taking muti-treading into account and API's that can better utilize those cores for them to work with.

This is why some GPUs simply pair better some different CPUs.

So really here. The issue is the game design it's self, not the CPU.

When we get to a point where both GPU and CPU are processing at 100% all the time, in all modern games. Then that is a true bottleneck with our current technology. However, I do not know of a single game that does that.

I know of maybe 2 of 10000s of games that were designed to be used in single core and may push around the 90% mark of the CPU. But again, very few games and again, this is due to bad game design or older technology of design.

This is why new API's are coming out with games that support it such as Vulkan and DX12 to use those extra cores to split the load. This is how most common applications perform, there is no reason a CPU couldn't function in this manner for all games. Once full support is implemented.

So the blame is being placed in the wrong area. It should be shifted to devs to make more muti-threaded supported games and vendors to update and release better API's to handle the muti-core work loads. Single core processing of games is something that should have been left in the dust back in 2008.

 

[Contiusa]

Over its neck?? my 6700k isn't even over its neck.

You might be playing old games. Go around looking for benchs and you'll see that the i7 is already in the same situation the i5 was a couple years ago, perhaps a bit worse, because who has an i5 can always update to an i7. Nowadays who has an i7 has nowhere to go unless the X series, which are servers chips. And this is only gaming. You cannot properly stream with the i7 anymore. You have to close everything to just game. And we are not even talking multiplayer.

Of course, some people play with stutters and don't even notice. You are a bit outdated. Why do you think the Ryzen has all this hype? Because you can buy an R5 and game with a few frames less than an i7, smother and still have room to stream and do whatever else you want.

But hey, competition will make the market go forward regardless if you want to stay with an i3 with pomp or not.

 

[EpIckFa1LJoN]

In few and very specific games that are all about CPU work load. Even the 7700k is having issues keeping up. But that is a game design issue. Not a CPU issue.

In normal, every day gaming. This is not the mean bottleneck for performance. However, that said. Things could be done better, such as game designers taking muti-treading into account and API's that can better utilize those cores for them to work with.

This is why some GPUs simply pair better some different CPUs.

So really here. The issue is the game design it's self, not the CPU.

When we get to a point where both GPU and CPU are processing at 100% all the time, in all modern games. Then that is a true bottleneck with our current technology. However, I do not know of a single game that does that.

I know of maybe 2 of 10000s of games that were designed to be used in single core and may push around the 90% mark of the CPU. But again, very few games and again, this is due to bad game design or older technology of design.

This is why new API's are coming out with games that support it such as Vulkan and DX12 to use those extra cores to split the load. This is how most common applications perform, there is no reason a CPU couldn't function in this manner for all games. Once full support is implemented.

So the blame is being placed in the wrong area. It should be shifted to devs to make more muti-threaded supported games and vendors to update and release better API's to handle the muti-core work loads. Single core processing of games is something that should have been left in the dust back in 2008.

That would be the most ideal solution, but likely never going to happen. WoW came out in 2004, when really single and duo-cores were top of the line still. They recently made WoW work with 4-cores, but we can see what a piss poor job that was. Since still WoW uses mostly 1 core for almost the entire workload and 3 cores just barely, threads are used whatsoever. And somehow, Starcraft II, which came out in 2010 when quad-cores where widely avaialabe, follows that same pattern.

I totally blame game designers, but as the case is, older games will never achieve the kind of optimization that new games will be able to (or the developers are unwilling to put forth the effort to do so). And really I am speaking for MY case. Since I play WoW and SCII almost exclusively, I need as fast per core speed (quad-core) as I can get. But yes in the vast majority of cases I would say the 8700k may be on par with the 7600k, 6700k, and 7700k as far as general performance.

But in no way, shape, or form, are these bad CPUs. In my case I am upset because I was really hoping Coffee Lake would be a faster 4-core/8-thread CPU that could OC past 5.2GHz, which would give me the performance increase I am looking for, because to be honest I don't need much and again it is only in these select poorly optimized games, which I am simply trying to power through.

 

[EpIckFa1LJoN]

Over its neck?? my 6700k isn't even over its neck.

You might be playing old games. Go around looking for benchs and you'll see that the i7 is already in the same situation the i5 was a couple years ago, perhaps a bit worse, because who has an i5 can always update to an i7. Nowadays who has an i7 has nowhere to go unless the X series, which are servers chips. And this is only gaming. You cannot properly stream with the i7 anymore. You have to close everything to just game. And we are not even talking multiplayer.

Of course, some people play with stutters and don't even notice. You are a bit outdated. Why do you think the Ryzen has all this hype? Because you can buy an R5 and game with a few frames less than an i7, smother and still have room to stream and do whatever else you want.

But hey, competition will make the market go forward regardless if you want to stay with an i3 with pomp or not.

I play literally all the games the Ryzen supposedly runs better than Intel in perfectly fine, and there the GPU is my bottleneck, since I play at 3440x1440, If I was playing at 1080p I would be running them at 200fps (I know because I've downscaled to see). BF1 CPU usage isn't even close to max (and MP actually runs better than most campaign missions). Fallout 4 runs great except where it doesn't (because it's unlocked). Star Wars Battlefront, never drop under 100fps, Tomb Raider, never drops below 100fps. I have plenty of AAA well optimized titles and the 6700k doesn't even break a sweat. Oh and I also stream occasionally without any hiccups. You literally don't have a clue what you are talking about dude.

 

[androbourne]

In few and very specific games that are all about CPU work load. Even the 7700k is having issues keeping up. But that is a game design issue. Not a CPU issue.

In normal, every day gaming. This is not the mean bottleneck for performance. However, that said. Things could be done better, such as game designers taking muti-treading into account and API's that can better utilize those cores for them to work with.

I totally agree. CPUs are just fine. It's purely a design program with application and games.
This is why some GPUs simply pair better some different CPUs.

So really here. The issue is the game design it's self, not the CPU.

When we get to a point where both GPU and CPU are processing at 100% all the time, in all modern games. Then that is a true bottleneck with our current technology. However, I do not know of a single game that does that.

I know of maybe 2 of 10000s of games that were designed to be used in single core and may push around the 90% mark of the CPU. But again, very few games and again, this is due to bad game design or older technology of design.

This is why new API's are coming out with games that support it such as Vulkan and DX12 to use those extra cores to split the load. This is how most common applications perform, there is no reason a CPU couldn't function in this manner for all games. Once full support is implemented.

So the blame is being placed in the wrong area. It should be shifted to devs to make more muti-threaded supported games and vendors to update and release better API's to handle the muti-core work loads. Single core processing of games is something that should have been left in the dust back in 2008.

That would be the most ideal solution, but likely never going to happen. WoW came out in 2004, when really single and duo-cores were top of the line still. They recently made WoW work with 4-cores, but we can see what a piss poor job that was. Since still WoW uses mostly 1 core for almost the entire workload and 3 cores just barely, threads are used whatsoever. And somehow, Starcraft II, which came out in 2010 when quad-cores where widely avaialabe, follows that same pattern.

I totally blame game designers, but as the case is, older games will never achieve the kind of optimization that new games will be able to (or the developers are unwilling to put forth the effort to do so). And really I am speaking for MY case. Since I play WoW and SCII almost exclusively, I need as fast per core speed (quad-core) as I can get. But yes in the vast majority of cases I would say the 8700k may be on par with the 7600k, 6700k, and 7700k as far as general performance.

But in no way, shape, or form, are these bad CPUs. In my case I am upset because I was really hoping Coffee Lake would be a faster 4-core/8-thread CPU that could OC past 5.2GHz, which would give me the performance increase I am looking for, because to be honest I don't need much and again it is only in these select poorly optimized games, which I am simply trying to power through.

Yes but that is the problem. Lazy game designers or companies. They made MILLIONS off that game and is still making money. It would make sense to invest some of that money to simply redesign the game with todays technology in mind and why not give it a few upgrades on the way. Sell it as an Enchanced version or simply make it a free upgrade for existing WoW players.

This is not a new concept either. Look at Dark Souls 2 when they released their enhanced version that did exactly that and rose the FPS limit from 30 to 60fps and added better muti-threaded support, they charged half price for that upgrade and it made a world of difference and people bought it.

Other then greed. There is no reason for a company that is making millions off a game to not further support the game by bringing into the 21st century. The existing and new users alike will respect a company for that. They will only grow in numbers if companies showed that type of support to their fans.

 

[Tug04935]

So basically the old I5 and I7's are dead and they are adding cores. Seems that Intel is actually threatened by AMD and we actually have a real competition again. Reminds me of the old 90's again.

 

[androbourne]

So basically the old I5 and I7's are dead and they are adding cores. Seems that Intel is actually threatened by AMD and we actually have a real competition again. Reminds me of the old 90's again.

I wouldn't say that until we see benchmarks.

Like I said earlier in this topic. There has always been an issue even with CPU design in general. When you add more cores you tend to have to drop single core speed down. This is a processing complexly manufactures are trying to work on. However, I highly doubt Coffelake will be the CPU to break through that wall.

It will be most likely around the 4.0ghz speed with a few extra cores and since we just mentioned that the games are not even using all of the cores we have today. Adding a few extra wont do much until game makers and API creators start using it more.

I think everyone is just to hyped about Coffelake then they really should be. I don't expect anything more then it being a 5%-15% increase in IPC over the last gen CPUs, just like Intels previous releases have been, with a few extra cores...

And I highly doubt it will warrant an upgrade from even a 6700k model.

 

[Tug04935]

So basically the old I5 and I7's are dead and they are adding cores. Seems that Intel is actually threatened by AMD and we actually have a real competition again. Reminds me of the old 90's again.

I wouldn't say that until we see benchmarks.

Like I said earlier in this topic. There has always been an issue even with CPU design in general. When you add more cores you tend to have to drop single core speed down. This is a processing complexly manufactures are trying to work on. However, I highly doubt Coffelake will be the CPU to break through that wall.

It will be most likely around the 4.0ghz speed with a few extra cores and since we just mentioned that the games are not even using all of the cores we have today. Adding a few extra wont do much until game makers and API creators start using it more.

I think everyone is just to hyped about Coffelake then they really should be. I don't expect anything more then it being a 5%-15% increase in IPC over the last gen CPUs, just like Intels previous releases have been, with a few extra cores...

And I highly doubt it will warrant an upgrade from even a 6700k model.

Probably not and if I already had something like a 6700k I wouldn't dump it all for a 6 core Coffee Lake. I am in the process of upgrading though so I was leaning towards the 6 core RYZEN and it seems that is where the future is.

 

[androbourne]

So basically the old I5 and I7's are dead and they are adding cores. Seems that Intel is actually threatened by AMD and we actually have a real competition again. Reminds me of the old 90's again.

I wouldn't say that until we see benchmarks.

Like I said earlier in this topic. There has always been an issue even with CPU design in general. When you add more cores you tend to have to drop single core speed down. This is a processing complexly manufactures are trying to work on. However, I highly doubt Coffelake will be the CPU to break through that wall.

It will be most likely around the 4.0ghz speed with a few extra cores and since we just mentioned that the games are not even using all of the cores we have today. Adding a few extra wont do much until game makers and API creators start using it more.

I think everyone is just to hyped about Coffelake then they really should be. I don't expect anything more then it being a 5%-15% increase in IPC over the last gen CPUs, just like Intels previous releases have been, with a few extra cores...

And I highly doubt it will warrant an upgrade from even a 6700k model.

Probably not and if I already had something like a 6700k I wouldn't dump it all for a 6 core Coffee Lake. I am in the process of upgrading though so I was leaning towards the 6 core RYZEN and it seems that is where the future is.

Wouldn't be a bad call.

 

[mdd1963]

It will be only stupid on their part if the i7-8700K comes with lower clocks. If it comes as people are saying with 4.7Ghz turbo, which might indicate a chip as strong as the i7-7700K in single thread but with 2 extra cores, it will sell like water in the desert. I might buy one.

It is their only chance to put a lid on AMD's hype. And it will be huge.

The move from 4 cores to 6 was supposed to happen years ago. They were lingering with 4 cores because there was no competition. The i5 was already bottlenecking in several games. Now they have to play some catch up with AMD.

4.7 Turbo, but only on a single core, 2 cores is 4.6, 4 cores is 4.4, etc. It will still be faster than AMD's Ryzen, but what's the point. That's all AMD is, is hype. Anyone capable of logical thought knows that the 7700k is both cheaper and better than half of the Ryzen CPUs. Like I said instead of making an even FASTER quad-core, and sealing the deal on the gaming market, they release this crap that is probably still going to be outperformed by a 7700k in gaming. It only barely beats a 6700k it seems. I just really hope some benchmarks come out proving me wrong, or that they still release SOMETHING like what everyone thought the 8700K would be. Or hopefully Cannonlake they go back to making really fast quad-cores.

And again the problem with that is that there are still incredibly popular games that perform WORSE on the new 6core processors, because they have lower clock speeds. Maybe Blizzard just needs to get off their freaking butts and reprogram their games, because they run like crap on most machines.

If even 4 cores can run at 4.4 GHz, it stands a chance of dethroning stock 7700ks, which actually would be an accomplishment of r a 6-core...

Now if they would just deliver it so we can truly know if it is 'the next 6700k/7700K'!

 

[mdd1963]

If it is merely a 7700k 'with 2 more cores bolted on', but must operate within the same 95 watt TDP or so, then 6 cores at 3.7 GHz might fare badly, compared to 7700k

 

[EpIckFa1LJoN]

Even if it was as good as a 7700k, or slightly better in general, it will never match it in games like I play. I have been seriously considering under-clocking my monitor to 60Hz to deal with the annoying fact that most of my games minimum fps is 60. Then I have to deal with the annoying fact that I have a GPU that is way overpowered for everything I do, since it can do 60fps on absolutely any game without going over 70% utilization.

I have to decide what is more annoying.

 

[mdd1963]

Must really suck to have a great GPU! Send it to me!

 

[faalin]

I think this hole thing has been negated unless you want to swap out motherboards. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-coffee-lake-cpu-motherboard-asrock,35147.html

Looks like the new coffee lakes will need the newer 300 series motherboards so you can no longer just swap out your 7700k to a 8700k

 

[androbourne]

I think this hole thing has been negated unless you want to swap out motherboards. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-coffee-lake-cpu-motherboard-asrock,35147.html

Looks like the new coffee lakes will need the newer 300 series motherboards so you can no longer just swap out your 7700k to a 8700k

I would hold off on that. Look at their past processing. They made multi version of said CPU for both platforms. They might support those platforms as well still.

The z270 platform is still fairly newish. It wouldn't make sense to completely disregard it.

Plus you know... this comment in the first section of the link.

"We encountered similar claims in the run-up to the Kaby Lake launch, but they later turned out to be inaccurate."

 

[EpIckFa1LJoN]

Must really suck to have a great GPU! Send it to me!

Lol, no. Just that if I was going to do that I could have kept my 1080. I love my Ti, but I got it because my 1080 couldn't push 100Hz in select games. It's like getting a specialized drill because the builders were going to put in steel girders then decided they didn't need them so they go to standard wooden beams, then you realize your old drill would have worked just fine for wooden beams.

The 1080 did 60Hz at 3440x1440 with no problem, but was in limbo for most games and was between 60 and 100fps. The 1080 Ti goes berserk on everything and I run pretty much anything at 100fps no problems. But if I go back to 60Hz I could have just kept my freaking 1080 xD. I'm still paying off my Ti, lol.

 

[EpIckFa1LJoN]

I think this hole thing has been negated unless you want to swap out motherboards. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-coffee-lake-cpu-motherboard-asrock,35147.html

Looks like the new coffee lakes will need the newer 300 series motherboards so you can no longer just swap out your 7700k to a 8700k

I'm fine swapping out MBs, but again I just don't think I can justify spending $1,000 replacing my equipment with stuff that will barely outperform what I have now, and only in well,optimized games. The unoptimized games (which I play most) I'm literally downgrading. It just looks like I'm going to have to wait for benchmarks. Maybe I can petition Blizzard to get their crap together. xD

In fact, I'm going to make a forum post right now asking when they are finally going to optimized WoW and SCII for quad-core CPUs.

 

[EpIckFa1LJoN]

I just looked. People with 1800x CPU's getting like 30fps min less than me in WoW xD.

 

[Legion501]

Pretty insteresting this thread. I'm plannig to upgrade my rig this fall (now I have an 4440 on a B85 motherboard) and get an i7 7700 (non k since I'm planning to OC) and there's Ryzen with all the hype and everything. I know Intel is the best option in the gaming sector, since I see all this tests with Ryzen 5 and 7 processors that can't get good performance in games and those stability problems with motherboards and RAM. Many people say that Ryzen is good for futureproof and so on by the thought that games will use more core and threads but I'm not pretty sure on this. Ryzen looks like a good option, but still, all this issues and hardware compatibility problems makes me think that is not a good time to get one, until all this issues are solved. I want to think that Ryzen will be a real gaming option later on, but in my personal opinion, not rigt now. Maybe in the third Ryzen generation we will see a real good performance in games with this new series of processor.

By Intel well, the new Coffe Lake doesn't look like a good option either, if they are planning to make processor with more cores but working on low frequencies, like the CPUs used on consoles. But anyway, maybe we need real performance tests once they are on sale to have a solid opinion about them

 

[Contiusa]

By Intel well, the new Coffe Lake doesn't look like a good option either, if they are planning to make processor with more cores but working on low frequencies,

That's not what the lineup is showing. i7-8700K will run at 4.4Ghz with four cores in load -- same as i7-7700K, which only goes to 4.5Ghz in one (or two cores I am not sure), and 4.3Ghz with six cores in load. And you can always overclock.

I do not see any compromise in clock and performance. It might even come stronger than i7-7700K in single thread if Intel was skimping in IPC during the last generations.

They could mess up, but then this is on them. It has nothing to do with what they can do. Remember, Coffee Lake is not a Xeon part with disable cores.

Other than that, people tend to fear the worse always. They are pressured. I assume they will not screw this up.

 

[androbourne]

By Intel well, the new Coffe Lake doesn't look like a good option either, if they are planning to make processor with more cores but working on low frequencies,

That's not what the lineup is showing. i7-8700K will run at 4.4Ghz with four cores in load -- same as i7-7700K, which only goes to 4.5Ghz in one (or two cores I am not sure), and 4.3Ghz with six cores in load. And you can always overclock.

I do not see any compromise in clock and performance. It might even come stronger than i7-7700K in single thread if Intel was skimping in IPC during the last generations.

They could mess up, but then this is on them. It has nothing to do with what they can do. Remember, Coffee Lake is not a Xeon part with disable cores.

Other than that, people tend to fear the worse always. They are pressured. I assume they will not screw this up.

Yes but the question is, is that stock speeds or OC speeds and what is its OC rated limits. If you is stock at lets say 4.4ghz can can't efficiently OC to at least 4.8ghz easily. Then whats the point. I can do that with a 6700k...

It really boils down to what the stock speeds are and how high it can OC.