Intel to launch 6 core Coffee Lake-S CPUs & Z370 chipset 5 October 2017

voidshatter · 14 Sep 2017 at 01:30

Brazo said:
in all honesty I expect it to be a downgrade from my 7700k as benchmarks aside the software that I use just doesn't scale well past four

For gaming (except the very few heavily-threaded games) yes it would be a downgrade to go for anything Mesh or anything Ryzen, unless it's an 8700K.

zola25 · 14 Sep 2017 at 09:13

Brazo said:
Whilst a tiny fraction of games are starting to benefit from more cores this doesn't mean it's worthwhile yet to change to the current crop of multiple core cpus which don't offer an advantage over quad core in current gaming scenarios and won't cut the mustard in a few years time when software starts to take advantage of multicores.

Whilst I am sure that's true for the games many people play, I've taken a look at the games I've played over the last 12 months, most are heavily multithreaded:
The Division
Deus Ex Mankind Divided
Watchdogs 2 - was actually CPU limited in built up areas
Ghost Recon Wildlands
Mass Effect Andromeda
Forza Horizon 3 (since the multi core optimisation option was added)

The only game I've played that used 1-2 threads over the last year was Prey. That's not to say that the games above didn't run well on my then 4790K - with the exception of Watchdogs 2 - but certainly the trend with the games I've experienced lately is strong multi-core support.

Brazo · 14 Sep 2017 at 10:07

zola25 said:
Whilst I am sure that's true for the games many people play, I've taken a look at the games I've played over the last 12 months, most are heavily multithreaded:
The Division
Deus Ex Mankind Divided
Watchdogs 2 - was actually CPU limited in built up areas
Ghost Recon Wildlands
Mass Effect Andromeda
Forza Horizon 3 (since the multi core optimisation option was added)

The only game I've played that used 1-2 threads over the last year was Prey. That's not to say that the games above didn't run well on my then 4790K - with the exception of Watchdogs 2 - but certainly the trend with the games I've experienced lately is strong multi-core support.

Absolutely and four cores is multi core.

@humbug posted up a video of the division with a four core i7 at 112 fps and an 8 core Ryzen at 116fps.

Those additional four cores must be sat there twiddling their thumbs?

SiDeards73 · 14 Sep 2017 at 10:35

Brazo said:
Absolutely and four cores is multi core.

@humbug posted up a video of the division with a four core i7 at 112 fps and an 8 core Ryzen at 116fps.

Those additional four cores must be sat there twiddling their thumbs?

What resolution was that Division game running at? was it CPU bound? was it GPU bound? was there any evidence showing core usage etc? merely stating one cpu was matching another cpu via fps figures is not painting the whole picture now is it?

zola25 · 14 Sep 2017 at 10:46

Brazo said:
Those additional four cores must be sat there twiddling their thumbs?

I've not retested all the games I listed since moving to Ryzen, but the general experience seems to be that the processes are split over move cores/threads whilst loading them more lightly. So as you say, not yet a requirement for current games but it at least bodes well for the future.

I should probably point out that I moved from the 4790k to Ryzen for non-gaming reasons, I am just happy that gaming performance did not degrade as a result.

DarkHorizon472 · 14 Sep 2017 at 10:52

SiDeards73 said:
What resolution was that Division game running at? was it CPU bound? was it GPU bound? was there any evidence showing core usage etc? merely stating one cpu was matching another cpu via fps figures is not painting the whole picture now is it?

That's the trick, you have to understand what us being tested and how. There are quite a few YouTube vids saying X cpu matches Y cpu in fps but it is simply in both cases the Gpu is at 100%.

Four core / 4 thread cpu's are starting to run into their limits on games like bf1.

Brazo · 14 Sep 2017 at 12:27

SiDeards73 said:
What resolution was that Division game running at? was it CPU bound? was it GPU bound? was there any evidence showing core usage etc? merely stating one cpu was matching another cpu via fps figures is not painting the whole picture now is it?

I think you'll have to ask the original poster why he posted it up. I think I know why and that was to show the superiority of an 8 core cpu. Unfortunately in this case it didn't show that. Maybe if gpu was the limiting factor it could be higher but maybe not. Both cpus were within less than 1% of each other.

Fact is it's irrelevant if it could potentially go faster with a faster gpu when there isn't a faster gpu.

OzZie · 14 Sep 2017 at 14:33

Need a little bit of advice please chaps.

I'm supposed to be building my cousin a new desktop PC soon. He has given me the money for the system already, and has already ordered a 1080ti and PG279Q monitor, as well as logitech keyboard and gaming mouse.

I was just about to spec him a system with an i7 7700k, when i stumbled upon this thread. Is this new platform worth waiting for, considering he doesn't want to have to upgrade his computer for a number of years. He has never spent this much on a system before, and i would rather him wait a few weeks if it's going to be a major overhaul to the intel range.

Sorry if ive missed the information mentioned, but how much difference is the cost expected to be? (with intel processors and motherboards alike...)

Cheers.
Nathan.

gavinh87 · 14 Sep 2017 at 14:41

OzZie said:
Need a little bit of advice please chaps.

I'm supposed to be building my cousin a new desktop PC soon. He has given me the money for the system already, and has already ordered a 1080ti and PG279Q monitor, as well as logitech keyboard and gaming mouse.

I was just about to spec him a system with an i7 7700k, when i stumbled upon this thread. Is this new platform worth waiting for, considering he doesn't want to have to upgrade his computer for a number of years. He has never spent this much on a system before, and i would rather him wait a few weeks if it's going to be a major overhaul to the intel range.

Sorry if ive missed the information mentioned, but how much difference is the cost expected to be? (with intel processors and motherboards alike...)

Cheers.
Nathan.

Yes it's absolutely worth waiting for.
I fully expect this to last as long as the 2500k did. You can be sure the 8700k will be enough for a good few years.

jigger · 14 Sep 2017 at 14:51

Why would this last as long as the 2500K. I was waiting for years to upgrade Intel quad core systems. The only reason the 2500k "lasted" so long was becuase Intel milked the hell out of the quad core design not because it was an awesome performer.

I really hope we don't get stuck with hex cores for the same amount of time.

chroniclard · 14 Sep 2017 at 15:09

jigger said:
Why would this last as long as the 2500K. I was waiting for years to upgrade Intel quad core systems. The only reason the 2500k "lasted" so long was becuase Intel milked the hell out of the quad core design not because it was an awesome performer.

I really hope we don't get stuck with hex cores for the same amount of time.

Already got relatively inexpensive 16 cores with Threadripper.

gavinh87 · 14 Sep 2017 at 15:55

chroniclard said:
Already got relatively inexpensive 16 cores with Threadripper.

Yet they get beat in games by a 4 core. More cores can hinder performance as in the case of thread ripper and why game mode is faster.
There needs to be a happy medium. At the moment it seems the 8700k is it.

chroniclard · 14 Sep 2017 at 15:59

gavinh87 said:
Yet they get beat in games by a 4 core. More cores can hinder performance as in the case of thread ripper and why game mode is faster.
There needs to be a happy medium. At the moment it seems the 8700k is it.

Continued development and refinement of the cpu platforms will give gainz but that wasnt the point, just that more cores are becoming more and more affordable.

Also not really worried about 80 fps vs 90 fps, so long as they keep evolving.

humbug · 14 Sep 2017 at 16:03

AMD may release a tweaked and more refined slightly higher IPC and little higher clocking Ryzen revision after CoffeeLake, much like Vishera and Phenom II before it.

DarkHorizon472 · 14 Sep 2017 at 16:17

gavinh87 said:
Yet they get beat in games by a 4 core. More cores can hinder performance as in the case of thread ripper and why game mode is faster.
There needs to be a happy medium. At the moment it seems the 8700k is it.

Have you got one now ?

humbug · 14 Sep 2017 at 16:21

Threadripper is not a gaming chip but there are chips on sale right now which do far worse and yet are still considered to be good.

Its a workstation CPU that can game and do it more than adequately.

smilingcrow · 14 Sep 2017 at 16:22

chroniclard said:
Already got relatively inexpensive 16 cores with Threadripper.

When you look at surveys for gaming PCs very few people spend the £1K that Threadripper costs alone on the combined cost of a CPU + GPU + Mobo.
Games developers aren't concerned about the small high end crowd but the mainstream.

gavinh87 · 14 Sep 2017 at 16:26

DarkHorizon472 said:
Have you got one now ?

Nope, still on the 1700.
I will be swapping that out for coffee though.

chroniclard · 14 Sep 2017 at 16:29

smilingcrow said:
When you look at surveys for gaming PCs very few people spend the £1K that Threadripper costs alone on the combined cost of a CPU + GPU + Mobo.
Games developers aren't concerned about the small high end crowd but the mainstream.

That's not the point either though. Point is higher multi core is becoming more and more affordable.

Besides, going by surveys an 8700K wont be mainstream either.

humbug · 14 Sep 2017 at 16:34

24 or 32 threads (Threadripper) will not be utilised let alone needed by any game engine for the next decade, i think we can be sure of that. thats not the point of those CPU's or anyother CPU with that many compute threads.

But more than 8? oh yes, we are already there, people just don't see it yet because we don't yet have the GPU power to make it obvious, soon tho and both Intel and AMD know it.