Coffee Lake Coming After Kaby Lake with 6 Cores

[Perfect_Chaos]

Yeah it seems like this is the path intel may be taking. The 6 core coffee lake may be locked. To get the unlocked 6 core, people may need to move onto HEDT.

That wouldn't be a good move, makes more sense to get 6 cores (unlocked) moving to mainstream and 8 would then be the minimum over on the HEDT side.

Either way though this is good news for people with more than 4 cores, means maybe they will get better utilised soon.

 

[beany_bot]

The problem is. Everyone uses cinebench to test their CPUs. Then proceed to almost exclusively game on them.

Don't games mostly just need Ghz whereas cinebench really wants more cores?

 

[Minstadave]

The problem is. Everyone uses cinebench to test their CPUs. Then proceed to almost exclusively game on them.

Don't games mostly just need Ghz whereas cinebench really wants more cores?

That's slowly changing, most modern engines make use of multiple cores though often the benefit of 6 over 4 cores is limited, especially if you have to sacrifice cpu frequency for the extra cores.

 

[Dave2150]

The problem is. Everyone uses cinebench to test their CPUs. Then proceed to almost exclusively game on them.

Don't games mostly just need Ghz whereas cinebench really wants more cores?

Yeap.

90% of people with 6 core gaming machines would be better off with a faster clocked/higher IPC 4 core, though they are too uneducated to understand that.

Obviously the small minority that spend considerable time editing, rendering video etc can fully utilise 6, 8, 10 core CPU's and thus made the correct purchase.

 

[DragonQ]

Yeap.

90% of people with 6 core gaming machines would be better off with a faster clocked/higher IPC 4 core, though they are too uneducated to understand that.

Obviously the small minority that spend considerable time editing, rendering video etc can fully utilise 6, 8, 10 core CPU's and thus made the correct purchase.

For a "pure" gaming machine you're probably right. People tend to use their machines for more than one thing though.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Indeed. For example, I do some development and database work. My FX-8350 with its 8 real cores is better than an i5 Skylake and competitive (though not equal) with some i7 Skylakes. And to be honest, I'd have to spend a lot more on a graphics card (I have a 480) before it was the bottleneck in most games as well.

 

[AllBodies]

Indeed. For example, I do some development and database work. My FX-8350 with its 8 real cores is better than an i5 Skylake and competitive (though not equal) with some i7 Skylakes. And to be honest, I'd have to spend a lot more on a graphics card (I have a 480) before it was the bottleneck in most games as well.

It's not really quite 8 cores.

It's 4 pairs of 2 cores, each core having less resources to itself than a 'true' single core.

So it's more like 6-ish cores, with very low IPC but high clockspeed.

 

[beany_bot]

I use my machine equally for gaming and video rendering.
I have opted to (and will continue to go for) Ghz over cores.
I would much rather the CPU speed in games like FSX and Arma/DayZ than a video that renders slightly faster.
I just edit my videos and set them to render overnight anyway if they are complex.

 

[silversurfer]

but for gamers the iGPU is nearly worthless.

I thought this is something for the casual plebs to only scroll through for half an hour before they go back to their console or phone. Its no failure for that purpose then

8 year old Q9550 @ 4GHz in it and it still holds up way better than most people probably expect

To be fair that would have been a beast in its day if I remember right and you need decent cooling solution for it ? If nothing else the power and heat output has come right down now, look at the cost of running that old cpu vs a newer one and that might be a good advantage for the newer tech.
On performance alone I agree that first wave of chips like conroe has not been repeated for its ground breaking advance. On the corporate strategy side, Intel was criticised for overlooking mobile tech and I think this is where they've been focused for many years now

I have opted to (and will continue to go for) Ghz over cores.

Im hoping to test the complete opposite of that

 

[jigger]

It's not really quite 8 cores.

It's 4 pairs of 2 cores, each core having less resources to itself than a 'true' single core.

So it's more like 6-ish cores, with very low IPC but high clockspeed.

To be fair it's 8 cores. If you want to look at cores and FPU's you could say it's a 12 processor chip, but that would be equally as wrong as saying the 8 core chip is 6 cores.

The FX 6 range is 6 cores if you are getting mistaken with that. The FX 8 is 8 cores. Clue's in the name.

 

[jigger]

So Coffee Lake is coming in the second half of 2018 and probably won't be on LGA1151 or Z270.

 

[Orangey]

Or: Coffee Lake doesn't exist because Intel change the nomenclature more frequently than that and wccf are just making crap up as usual.

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

Yeap.

90% of people with 6 core gaming machines would be better off with a faster clocked/higher IPC 4 core, though they are too uneducated to understand that.

Obviously the small minority that spend considerable time editing, rendering video etc can fully utilise 6, 8, 10 core CPU's and thus made the correct purchase.

Never ceases to amaze me how much you flip flop with your comments, it wasn't long ago you were agreeing to a post 8Pack (i think) made about x99 being the best all rounder for an upgrade. Yet here we are again flip flopping with the usual condescending remarks.

 

[Dave2150]

Never ceases to amaze me how much you flip flop with your comments, it wasn't long ago you were agreeing to a post 8Pack (i think) made about x99 being the best all rounder for an upgrade. Yet here we are again flip flopping with the usual condescending remarks.

Perhaps if you would fully read and understand my posts, you wouldn't be confused?

I remember the post in which I replied to 8pack. It was concerning someone spending a few thousand £ on SLI. For someone spending that kind of money, I'm of the opinion that a 40 lane CPU is best. Others disagree and that's fine.

The vast majority of people use a single GPU - so my 90% majority etc comment still stands.

 

[Doogles]

I never read anything from WCCF, they always make stuff up just for clicks. I'm trying to hold out until Intel can bring out a 6 core mainstream. I feel it is time for Quad cores to be minimum, Dual core to die and 6-8 cores be the go to.

 

[AllBodies]

To be fair it's 8 cores. If you want to look at cores and FPU's you could say it's a 12 processor chip, but that would be equally as wrong as saying the 8 core chip is 6 cores.

The FX 6 range is 6 cores if you are getting mistaken with that. The FX 8 is 8 cores. Clue's in the name.

I meant 6-ish as a way of comparing it to 'true' individual cores, like Intel's or AMD's pre-bulldozer architectures.

It is technically 8 cores, but starved of resources. Each core must share some die resources with another core in its 'pair'.

 

[Orangey]

I never read anything from WCCF, they always make stuff up just for clicks. I'm trying to hold out until Intel can bring out a 6 core mainstream. I feel it is time for Quad cores to be minimum, Dual core to die and 6-8 cores be the go to.

People have been saying this every year and Intel will never do it.

 

[h4rm0ny]

It's not really quite 8 cores.

It's 4 pairs of 2 cores, each core having less resources to itself than a 'true' single core.

So it's more like 6-ish cores, with very low IPC but high clockspeed.

No, it's eight cores. Are you going to claim that older single core processors had zero cores if they didn't have an integrated FPU? Once there were CPUs and then there were CPUs that had a "maths co-processor". Then the maths co-processor got integrated into the CPU. And all was well. But FP calculations make a small part of most use cases so CPUs becoming multi-core it no longer makes sense to have every core have its own dedicated FP unit, so they share them. That's efficient. There's no "more like 6-ish cores". It's eight cores with four FPUs.

Unless you're talking about how cache or pipelines are implemented for some reason in which case it still doesn't change that it's eight cores.

 

[jigger]

I meant 6-ish as a way of comparing it to 'true' individual cores, like Intel's or AMD's pre-bulldozer architectures.

It is technically 8 cores, but starved of resources. Each core must share some die resources with another core in its 'pair'.

It's not an 8 core CPU on a technicality. The FX8 is a true 8 core chip in the truest sense of the definition.

Lot of CPU's share resources across dies. Some even with other cores on other CPU's altogether. Pairing up and sharing resources is what parallel computing is based on.

 

[AllBodies]

It's not an 8 core CPU on a technicality. The FX8 is a true 8 core chip in the truest sense of the definition.

Lot of CPU's share resources across dies. Some even with other cores on other CPU's altogether. Pairing up and sharing resources is what parallel computing is based on.

No, it's eight cores. Are you going to claim that older single core processors had zero cores if they didn't have an integrated FPU? Once there were CPUs and then there were CPUs that had a "maths co-processor". Then the maths co-processor got integrated into the CPU. And all was well. But FP calculations make a small part of most use cases so CPUs becoming multi-core it no longer makes sense to have every core have its own dedicated FP unit, so they share them. That's efficient. There's no "more like 6-ish cores". It's eight cores with four FPUs.

Unless you're talking about how cache or pipelines are implemented for some reason in which case it still doesn't change that it's eight cores.

You're both reading too literally into my point.

The simple situation is it's a 4-pair design, rather than 8 'standalone', resulting in 8 weak cores with high clockspeed and very good parallelism. And cannot be compared to 8 Intel cores in terms of performance equivalence.

That's all I was saying.