• 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

Generally the reviews become more accurate and consistent a few months after launch once people understand the best setups and limitations. Initially there is normally a wide variation in results and some poor setups limiting performance such as bios updates, driver updates, application updates, in ryzens case using slow memory etc.
 
I understand perfectly. Some YouTube guy has made a video about something that has been available for years and now suddenly it's a big deal. It doesn't affect me in any way shape or form so I couldn't care less.
 
jigger said:
It might be a revelation you but it's to most enthusiasts...
Click to expand...

Especially when its boosting performance by upto 25% though which is the difference between Guru3D and Hardwarecanucks results. If you look back to when it was implemented,the variation was far less(more like 5% to 10%),and that is what I see with "all cores" Turbo on my IB rig, mates Haswell rig and a mates SKL Core i7 one.

The thing is in this very thread people said a cheaper motherboard and a more expensive one would be no different apart from bling,but apparently it does look like the better ones might be actually boost performance a good amount too.

What I am more interested to see is if the Core i5 8400 and Core i7 8700 has similar variation,since that has potential to really help performance over a cheaper motherboard. I don't care about 5% or 10% but 20% would be quite significant.

If anything I see more noise about the Core i5 8400 and Core i7 8700 now since the K series SKUs are hard to get hold off,and the Core i7 8700 has Turbo upto 4.6GHZ which is very close to the Core i7 8700k,but a very low base clockspeed of 3.2GHZ or thereabouts.

It makes me wonder whether a Core i7 8700 non-K in a motherboard with aggressive MCE will outperform a Core i7 8700K on a cheaper board with less agressive MCE??

It might actually end up cheaper and not much difference in performance to a Core i7 8700K for example.

Having said that I see you have an overclocked Xeon E3 on a C232 chipset. Sneaky!!

I remember being one of the first UK posters to talk about the Xeon E3 series - I miss that series!! :(
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Not when its boosting performance by upto 25% though which is the difference between Guru3D and Hardwarecanucks results. If you look back to when it was implemented,the variation was far less(more like 5% to 10%),and that is what I see with "all cores" Turbo on my IB rig,Haswell rig and a mates SKL Core i7 one.

The thing is in this very thread people said a cheaper motherboard and a more expensive one would be no different apart from bling,but apparently it does look like the better ones might be actually boost performance a good amount too.

What I am more interested to see is if the Core i5 8400 and Core i7 8700 has similar variation,since that has potential to really help performance over a cheaper motherboard. I don't care about 5% or 10% but 20% would be quite significant.

If anything I see more noise about the Core i5 8400 and Core i7 8700 now since the K series SKUs are hard to get hold off,and the Core i7 8700 has Turbo upto 4.6GHZ which is very close to the Core i7 8700k,but a very low base clockspeed of 3.2GHZ or thereabouts.

It makes me wonder whether a Core i7 8700 non-K in a motherboard with aggressive MCE will outperform a Core i7 8700K on a cheaper board with less agressive MCE??

Having said that I see you have an overclocked Xeon E3 on a C232 chipset. Sneaky!!

I remember being one of the first UK posters to talk about the Xeon E3 series - I miss that series!! :(
Click to expand...

To me until Intel commit to a socket and we see how seriously Intel are going after the laptop market it's much of a mute point. K chips and Z motherboards are probably going the way of the Pentium and X chips and boards will replace them.
 
DarkHorizon472 said:
Generally the reviews become more accurate and consistent a few months after launch once people understand the best setups and limitations. Initially there is normally a wide variation in results and some poor setups limiting performance such as bios updates, driver updates, application updates, in ryzens case using slow memory etc.
Click to expand...
I admit i haven't been paying close attention to how reviews were pre ryzen, however i doubt that many sites are reviewing CPUs months after launch since it is practically worthless (financially) at that point. Ryzen is a different story since each update has given reasonable increases in performance.
 
gavinh87 said:
He managed to make a 26 minute video talking about multicore enhancement and cinebench score differences between reviewers. Props for that.
This guy just seems to hate intel and nvidia.
Click to expand...

Check Jay2Cents comments on the Adored video bellow. All the reviewers feel conned by the Intel, posting overclocked results as stock results....
Does this means all the reviewers who put up disclaimers now are Intel haters?

Seriously?
 
jigger said:
To me until Intel commit to a socket and we see how seriously Intel are going after the laptop market it's much of a mute point. K chips and Z motherboards are probably going the way of the Pentium and X chips will replace them.
Click to expand...

I do think the value of K series chips are diminishing with more agressive Turbo and motherboard tricks but its not surprising TBH. The consumer socket chips are mobile orientated,so responsive Turbo makes more sense there due to the bursty nature of many consumer loads, and hence its not surprising but it does point to how good a process Intel 14NM has become so they can cover such a good range of markets!!
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
I admit i haven't been paying close attention to how reviews were pre ryzen, however i doubt that many sites are reviewing CPUs months after launch since it is practically worthless (financially) at that point. Ryzen is a different story since each update has given reasonable increases in performance.
Click to expand...

TBH some of them are nothing more than pleb's with cameras and keyboards. I think most of the reviewers today are thankful they can stand upright.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I do think the value of K series chips are diminishing with more agressive Turbo and motherboard tricks but its not surprising TBH. The consumer socket chips are mobile orientated,so responsive Turbo makes more sense there due to the bursty nature of many consumr loads, and hence its not surprising but it does point to how good a process Intel 14NM has become so they can cover such a good range of markets!!
Click to expand...

Yeah and we couldn't expect chips to scale forever I suppose. It's just those three markets make it almost impossible for quality chips to filter down and you know if Apple get as much as a sniff that the node has improved they will drop the TDP limit and demand the very best again. However the X chips only have to yield to the Xeons.
 
So i just got a dispatch note from Overclockers for 8700k so they are shipping retails

It actually caught me with my pants down as I have no motherboard or Waterblock as I was expecting to get it at the end of the month
 
The only thing I'm getting is people making something out of nothing.
If "reviewers" cannot see that MCE is active and they feel conned by intel for something a motherboard manufacturer has enabled by default then perhaps they should choose to work in a different field.
 
Oh hey, a Finnish outlet got their hands on a Retail 8700K sample and compared it to the Engineering sample they received from Intel:
https://www.io-tech.fi/artikkelit/core-i7-8700k-retail-vs-engineering-sample/

The Retail sample has a lower operating voltage, so it runs 6~8C cooler while using 8~23W less power than the Intel provided review ES chip.
Doesn't this refute one of AdoredTV's points from the conspiracy video that was posted earlier? :D
 
AndreiD said:
Oh hey, a Finnish outlet got their hands on a Retail 8700K sample and compared it to the Engineering sample they received from Intel:
https://www.io-tech.fi/artikkelit/core-i7-8700k-retail-vs-engineering-sample/

The Retail sample has a lower operating voltage, so it runs 6~8C cooler while using 8~23W less power than the Intel provided review ES chip.
Doesn't this refute one of AdoredTV's points from the conspiracy video that was posted earlier? :D
Click to expand...

Is one bit of anecdotal evidence enough to do that? Could have just been silicon lottery.
 
Panos said:
Check Jay2Cents comments on the Adored video bellow. All the reviewers feel conned by the Intel, posting overclocked results as stock results....
Does this means all the reviewers who put up disclaimers now are Intel haters?

Seriously?
Click to expand...

This is what he said:

J2C said:
FOR THE RECORD.... after we were called out for testing with default board settings (by the audience by the way, not you) ASUS reached out to me to explain that MCE is OFF by default and Sync all Cores should NOT have been enabled by default, I explained to them that this is indeed FALSE. ASUS themselves aren't even clear on what the default settings were and it was only after clearing CMOS again and showing them what the optimized defaults are did they agree that they need to reel in their BIOS team and get to the bottom of this... I also said in my video that we as reviewers need to be better at this, so although you calling me out in this video is accurate, I had already updated my content showing where the discrepancy was. Please dont be one of those channels who builds their rep on the "Im more righteous than you..." we have enough of those channels already. As for the "Intel hiding something" of course they are... they are widening their stack on purpose... It sucks, but its business and it doesnt take much investigative research to figure that out.
Click to expand...

scary scottish bloke said:
I started this video back last week, it just takes a while to get it all together. I noticed earlier today that you had just uploaded a followup video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi-zU2p2ykc explaining what happened but by then it was too late to change the video, so I pinned that as my top post on the video. In the end Jay, mistakes were made and you owned up to it which is something I respect. Same with Steve over at GN, who I mentioned in the video. I will pin this as top post so that people realise that you have also updated your information. None of you reading this better start attacking Jay or any other tech guy here, be warned.
Click to expand...

J2C said:
AdoredTV thanks. I feel I let the audience down and it makes me look like a part of the Intel Corporate Wheel which I want no part of. I'm also working on redoing my Ryzen tests to make it as accurate as possible.
Click to expand...

So it seems people who were desperate to bury this,as usual are not really helping anyone - Asus has pretty much said they need to do something about it,and it is something I suspect other companies need to be more clearer about.

He did a follow up video on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi-zU2p2ykc


I am quite happy that even a big channel like J2C instead of excuse making due to E-PEEN or pride,actually has decided to look into this.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom