Soldato
When is the Intel 8 core coffee lake coming out?
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Any Recent Buyers of the 8700K Feeling Buyer's Remorse?
- Thread starter jwilliamson47
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,800
At a guess then the next few months BUT take note mate that it might be a 6+2 configuration not a pure 8 core one (performance penalty).
What you running nowadays Chris?
6+2? They used ring bus on Broadwell-E, max they got to per ring was 12 cores. Even the old Haswell EP dies had 8 cores per ring.
Anything they'll release is going to be a lot more "pure" of an 8 core than current Ryzens which are just 2 quad core modules connected by an on die fabric.
Soldato
2700x is just so damn close to Intel now even in games, especially at 2k and 4k. I can't get my head round why someone would "wait" for the next Intel? Its not as if its going to be cheaper than ryzen 
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,800
I think AMD are as they still can't beat the 8700k or a 1080ti............
yeah but the next intel will match it for cores. so id imagine the amd will be worse in all areas. (except price maybe)2700x is just so damn close to Intel know even in games, especially at 2k and 4k. I can't get my head round why someone would "wait" for the next Intel? Its not as if its going to be cheaper that ryzen
Caporegime
Sure,and then AMD will have its 7NM refresh come in,which will probably beat it,then Intel will release its new CPUs,which will beat it,and so on,whilst for most gamers/PC users even a Core i5 8400 or Ryzen 5 2600 will be a revelation in performance.
Oh,well.
I don't expect Intel to maintain high clock speeds with their move to 8 cores. If they end up dropping in clock speeds then it could very will be a tie.
Caporegime
They will whack up the TDP,which is probably why they have the Z390 being launched at the same time,as I expect these will have stronger VRMs,or at least better voltage regulation.
no? plenty of 10 core plus intel skylake x running 4.8+ and 5.0+ delidded.
seems pointless to release it if it doesnt clock well.
haha, well we havent seen amd beat intel core for core yet to be fair. if you imagine the immense resources intel has, wouldnt surprise me if they did something mental to lay the smackdown. however, its good they have to!
Caporegime
Well didn't you imply the Ryzen 7 2700X beat the Core i7 in MT benchmarks,and Intel would beat them back with their 8C CPU??
The fact is TSMC/GF 7NM should be a decent improvement(Zen 3 might be produced on either and GF is touting more for desktop class situations AFAIK,although I could be wrong),over Samsung/GF 14NM which is more a low power process. People were predicting sub 3.5GHZ at launch for the 14NM process.
This would give AMD a window of opportunity to get core IPC up,and clockspeeds up too,as Intel 10NM seems to be even more optimised for low power initially as they tend to target laptop first with the new nodes in recent years. But once Intel gets its desktop models out,they will find a way to beat AMD.
Remember,size is not everything - from the Athlon(against the PIII and P4) onwards to the Athlon 64(agains the P4),AMD with far less resources was fighting Intel quite effectively.
haha, well its true isn't it? but i said, core for coreWell didn't you imply the Ryzen 7 2700X beat the Core i7 in MT benchmarks,and Intel would beat them back with their 8C CPU??
when a 10 core amd beats a 10 core intel, or 6 v 6 etc, then ill retract everything if you want multi thread performance, you want amd generally. but if you want both then get an i9.
Caporegime
haha, well its true isn't it? but i said, core for core
if you want multi thread performance, you want amd generally. but if you want both then get an i9.
Well AMD seem to have a bit better scaling with SMT in its non-gaming benchmarks,which is what seems to be helping.
well, that and normally having extra cores over the equivalent intel. either way, good to see the sector moving. but for games, i think we need more gpu advancement rather than cpu at this time. plenty of gains should be achievable at the moment by just using the extra cores on current cpus. whereas gpus are pretty much tapped out.
I don't doubt motherboard vendors abilities to create a motherboard to handle the wattage/voltage necessary to maintain such clocks. I just don't see such a chip running at such clocks without a very good watercooler.
The 3 reviews i found with a quick search all the i9 7900x where around 4.8 GHz, with high temperatures. Assuming reviewers recieved cherry picked samples i have a hard time believing that s majority of retail 7900x are doing 4.8GHz, if reviewers where barely able to keep the temperatures under control.
Soldato
You missed the bit where he mentions delid, so not review samples.
Caporegime