• 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.

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

chroniclard said:
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.
Click to expand...
As you wisely said yourself it's only relative so until AMD moves to 8 core modules in 16 core chips even 8 core will be above average.
Although if Zeppelin 2 is a native 12 core (2x 6 core modules) then there's room for 8 core to hit current 6 core pricing and below.
 
chroniclard said:
Already got relatively inexpensive 16 cores with Threadripper.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know but Intel need to get back in the game.

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.
Click to expand...

You can buy a Ryzen 8 core for £260 and a motherboard to overclock it for £70.
let's not forget the Consoles have been using 8 core CPU's for 4 years and we are not far off the third generation of those. Thats about as mainstream as it gets.

Thread Ripper is expense, but the 8 core can be had for £720 and a motherboard for £280.
 
jigger said:
Yeah I know but Intel need to get back in the game.



You can buy a Ryzen 8 core for £260 and a motherboard to overclock it for £70.
let's not forget the Consoles have been using 8 core CPU's for 4 years and we are not far off the third generation of those. Thats about as mainstream as it gets.

Thread Ripper is expense, but the 8 core can be had for £720 and a motherboard for £280.
Click to expand...

Your missing out the cost of 3200+ bdie ram.
 
So how long until Intel move to 8 core CPU's on mainstream, anyone think they might do it with Icelake next year? Or later even?

Guess it depends how much AMD will push them, and how good Zen 2 is. It's probably quite obvious that Intel aren't going to sit on 6 cores as long as they did with 4 though.
 
Perfect_Chaos said:
So how long until Intel move to 8 core CPU's on mainstream, anyone think they might do it with Icelake next year? Or later even?

Guess it depends how much AMD will push them, and how good Zen 2 is. It's probably quite obvious that Intel aren't going to sit on 6 cores as long as they did with 4 though.
Click to expand...
Depends if there's an increase in IPC or clockspeed which are just as important as moar cores.
 
Perfect_Chaos said:
So how long until Intel move to 8 core CPU's on mainstream, anyone think they might do it with Icelake next year? Or later even?

Guess it depends how much AMD will push them, and how good Zen 2 is. It's probably quite obvious that Intel aren't going to sit on 6 cores as long as they did with 4 though.
Click to expand...

That depends on the feedback Intel receive, if they think people are happy with 6 cores for the next decade then that is what you will get from them, and no more.

We 'apparently' haven't needed more than 4 cores during the last decade so that's what we got.
 
Ay ^^^^
At this point the Ram argument is pretty moot, the cost difference is minimal and IC compatibility is now far better than it was, the idea that it must be B-Die is now a falsehood but even if B-Die is what you want to cost difference is so small its not even worth a mention, not when a Ryzen 1600 is £190, a good board £130, 16GB of DDR4 £150 an extra ten or twenty quid is nothing, but the performance benefit you get out of it is huge, why even wouldn't you spend that extra £20? I think knowing you're getting the best you would spend that £20 on a £500 system layout anyway. eh?
 
If you really are pinching every penny then you save more from AMD including a quality HSF.

Buy Intel chip>Bin super crapola HSF>Order £30 HSF/end.
 
gavinh87 said:
Wow, yeah it seems the ram prices have took a spanking.
Last time I checked the bdie stuff was significantly more expensive. Now all the cheaper stuff has sold out its all around the same price :/

Check the physics score on the 8700k, 2 cores/4 threads down on the 1700 and is only 7% slower at stock.
https://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/13418148/fs/13596138#

Its looking very impressive.
Click to expand...

Thats great but not actually all that, don't forget the Ryzen 1700 is only running at 3.0Ghz, @ 3.9Ghz (which is a reasonable exception) that's a 30% overclock, assuming the 8700K is only running at 3.7Ghz and not boosting at all then it would need to be running at 5.2Ghz or more just to keep up with an overclocked 1700.

If it is boost even half way to its 4.7Ghz all core boost that score is really not good at all, its crap.
 
gavinh87 said:
Wow, yeah it seems the ram prices have took a spanking.
Last time I checked the bdie stuff was significantly more expensive. Now all the cheaper stuff has sold out its all around the same price :/

Check the physics score on the 8700k, 2 cores/4 threads down on the 1700 and is only 7% slower at stock.
https://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/13418148/fs/13596138#

Its looking very impressive.
Click to expand...

Oh do give over Gavin, check out the physics score here as well. A 1700 running at 3.8ghz on a 1060........................not a 1070...................................get real at least.

https://www.3dmark.com/fs/13613511
 
humbug said:
Thats great but not actually all that, don't forget the Ryzen 1700 is only running at 3.0Ghz, @ 3.9Ghz (which is a reasonable exception) that's a 30% overclock, assuming the 8700K is only running at 3.7Ghz and not boosting at all then it would need to be running at 5.2Ghz or more just to keep up with an overclocked 1700.

If it is boost even half way to its 4.7Ghz all core boost that score is really not good at all, its crap.
Click to expand...

That was MY 1700, 3.9/3466

kitfit1 said:
Oh do give over Gavin, check out the physics score here as well. A 1700 running at 3.8ghz on a 1060........................not a 1070...................................get real at least.

https://www.3dmark.com/fs/13613511
Click to expand...

You know the GPU doesn't affect physics score right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gavinh87 said:
Looking at the processor specs, its at stock.
It also correctly lists my ryzen running at 3.9
Click to expand...



These days with Intel saying stock means about as much as me saying my GTX 1070 is stock, stock is 1607Mhz, its not running at 1607Mhz, ever, or 1700Mhz, or 1800Mhz, or even 1900Mhz.... more than that, the 7700K has an all core boost of 4.5Ghz, thats what its actually running at, the 8700K appears to have an all core boost of 4.7Ghz.
 
[QUOTE="gavinh87, post: 31154475, member: 170364]Its looking very impressive.[/QUOTE]

Totally depends on chip and motherboard prices. £100 for a decent board and £280 for the 8700K and I'll be impressed.
 
kitfit1 said:
Of course i do Lol. So why did you make a point of the physics score ? being as was total crap ................even compared to my 1060 ?
Click to expand...

What are you even on about?
My point was the 8700k has a only a 7% loss in physics score despite having 2 cores less.
Why does GPU even come into this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom