Associate
Yeah nothing. Not surprising but was worth the try. Chalk that down to another one of those tech related late nights lol
-
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
- Thread starter AthlonXP1800
- Start date
Associate
haha yeah, i've been hearing NDA is 2pm uk time.
Associate
That's what gibbo or 8 pack said here earlier. Thought it was still worth chancing some of the etailers though
Associate
I;ve found motherboards
Soldato
Ehm, there is something wrong here, how's possible the 7740X & 7700K been faster? Hell, even the Ryzen 1700 holds well (with 2666 ram none the less so add another 10% with 3200C14 ram and another 10% from 4Ghz OC)
The 8700K behaves like an overclocked Broadwel-E or tweaked Skylake-X not like a KabyLake. So is it not pure Ring CPU?
Does it have cache and uncore separated from the system CPU speed? Because if so change of plan :/
Associate
I saw a couple on a site beginning with L but not seen any others
Associate
Same
Associate
Nevermind, try again tomorrow
Caporegime
It could be with the stock clocked RAM in the test the cores are more bandwidth starved and OFC the other issue is Turbo. If the Core i7 4C/8T CPUs are running at higher clockspeeds in reality,then they might pip the 6C/12T CPUs.
Soldato
All of them have the same ram though, and meaning Skylake, Kabylake and KabylakeX. And at stock speeds, which all of them are, the 8700K has 4.5 all core boost, and 4.7 two core boost. The others are at around 4.3, 4.5, 4.5 respectively.
It should at least perform like them not worse. Hell even the 1600X at 4Ghz with 10-12% less clock and 2666mhz ram can keep up and beat it?
So either the benchmark is fishy and an overclocked 7800X is being used, or the 8700K has Mesh topology not Ring.
Yes if thats typical of the performance we will see from the 8700k i think i'll be re looking at what platform i want.
Caporegime
Reformatted to be easier to read for the important CPU's.
Excuse me for saying this but gaming performance on the 8700K doesn't look all that good, its no faster than the Ryzen 1600X which is running gimped with slow RAM.
Its a bit meh....
Excuse me for saying this but gaming performance on the 8700K doesn't look all that good, its no faster than the Ryzen 1600X which is running gimped with slow RAM.
Its a bit meh....
Or, to ignore gaming and look at it another way (for those of us more productivity/work inclined): The 8700k seems to average about 20% improvement over the 1600x on multi-threaded encoding/rendering tasks in that chart. It's also about 20% faster in the single core results. So, single or multi, it's 20% faster - but expected to retail up to 200% of the cost. Now I know AMD fans say they get 'bang for buck', and conversely Intel fans say AMD fans just can't afford the 'really fast' CPUs. However for those of us in the middle who just want the best CPU performance at a given budget, or who want a decent CPU without needlessly wasting cash, those figures have to make you think - surely? Of course the chart doesn't give proper details like resolution, CPU frequency, overclock etc but if we assume them to be comparative (stock vs stock or max overclock vs max overclock) then my thoughts seem to hold true. We need to see 1800x vs 8700k (especially overclocked or at least with the 8700k having all core turbo / enhancement turned on). For some reasons the reviews so far seem to insist on comparing it to a 1600 or 1700 series chip. Maybe it doesn't look so rosy next to an 1800x? Or maybe it's something else I missed. *shrug* Roll on 2pm...
Caporegime
Most of those workloads: WinRAR, Premier Pro, FryBench and Pov-Ray are not actually 'high' multi-threaded workloads, i don't know what the Prevod X265 applications is but comparing it with the 1600X to the 7700K it looks low threaded given how much slower it is compared with the 7700K and yet its also 40% faster than the 7700K.
That looks like something that doesn't yet understand Ryzen and is defaulting into a fallback mode giving very bad performance for Ryzen. its a very strange result that one.
The only real MT workloads i can see in that list are Handbreak and Cinebench, and the broken Prevod X265, that's it i think.
If you look at Handbreak and Cinebench there isn't that much in it.
About 10% for Cinebench and 15% for Handbreak, Gaming in those games is on average the same. this is a CPU costing twice as much.
Last edited:
Soldato
Those gaming results go against everything we have seen so far.....
8600 Vs 1600x will be am interesting comparison, same price, same number of cores...
Deleted member 651465
D
Deleted member 651465
Let’s remember who pays the bills for the forum before we start hinting or linking to competitors shall we. Can any newbies read the rules because I’ve already deleted 6 or 7 posts related to this and bans will be issued.