• 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

AndreiD said:
I mean, anyone can just scroll up and read what I'm saying and the speculation/conspiracy theories you're spewing.
But good job at derailing the thread with more unfounded speculation.

For those who want a bit more info on how Intel's Turbo Boost Tech works, here's a comment on reddit with lots of good info.
Click to expand...

You quoted me. All I did was confirm what being said by Panos. It's you doing all the theorizing and thread derailing again. It's really difficult to have a sensible discussion with you around TBH.
 
Last edited:
jigger said:
Intel are using single core turbo speed to denote the performance. Kind of misleading when the small print says otherwise.

What Panos is saying is accurate.
Click to expand...

I'll just quote this again as you seem intent on starting an argument and speaking for me.


In yet another unexpected move Intel has made is clear that it will not be sharing any details anymore on the multi-core Turbo clock frequencies of their processors.

You might already have noticed it, Intel is only listing the highest Boost frequency, and not the rest. Here’s the thing, the recent generation processors basically have three main frequencies.

  1. Base Baseclock
  2. Binned multi all-core clock turbo
  3. Single thread turbo
Intel from now on will only list the base and (1) and Single thread (3) turbo. As to why this is, remains uncertain, however many scenarios pop into mind. It might be a legal reason as they cannot guarantee the all core turbo on all processors.However, the longer I think about this, then an old routine kicks in .. what would be the most probable? Might it be that Intel likes that highest Turbo listed on their packaging a bit better for marketing and thus sales? I mean, it’s not unthinkable right? The guys frometeknix have a quote from Intel on this:

“[W]e’re no longer disclosing this level of detail as its proprietary to Intel. Intel only specifies processor frequencies for base and single-core Turbo in our processor marketing and technical collateral, such as ARK, and not the multi-core Turbo frequencies. We’re aligning communications to be consistent. All Turbo frequencies are opportunistic given their dependency on system configuration and workloads.”

So a Core i7 8700 is now being listed as a 4.7 GHz processor. But considering that is just one thread, it really runs 4.3 GHz on all six cores.
Click to expand...
 
Journey said:
Intel also advertise the i3 8100 as a 3.6GHz part, and it is just that, 3.6GHz on all cores, the base clock is 3.6GHz. The sole purpose of the change is due to the implementation of keeping the CPU's within the TDP specified, the 8100 at 3.6GHz is 65w, that's all cores, the 8400 is 65w, 2.8GHz on all cores, but there are 6 not 4 cores. Intel didn't want to raise the TDP on the CPU's too much so instead they backed off on the all core turbo speeds being listed. It's not hard for them to go from an i5 7400 at 65w, to an i3 8100 at 65w, but getting the i5 8400 in the same power envelope with two extra cores at the same TDP, not doable, at the same frequencies on all cores.

Going from the other angle, you've also got people stating power delivery will be an issue on cheaper boards, which we know can't be the case, otherwise the could not list them as 8700K compliant, since the base clock is 3.7GHz on 6-cores, which is pretty much the same speed as an all core boost on the 8400, of 3.8GHz. Binning is another one that seems to be brought up, this 14nm process is so mature now it's a great-grandparent, I'd be surprised if 95% of the silicone produced doesn't come out as fine for any CPU needed, whether that be the 6-core or 4-core parts.

No idea why people are so hell bent on thinking it's anything other than Intel's opportunity to make the CPU's look more power efficient than their competiors, or at least equivalent.
Click to expand...

Its also kind of done for OEMs too,as a 65W TDP indicates a lower grade of motherboard and case cooling is required than a CPU with a 95W TDP. Hence,they promise OEMs,even if you have a low end motherboard and a compact case,you can at least see 2.8GHZ on all cores,which the OEMs can put on their spec sheet.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Its also kind of done for OEMs too,as a 65W TDP indicates a lower grade of motherboard and case cooling is required than a CPU with a 95W TDP. Hence,they promise OEMs,even if you have a low end motherboard and a compact case,you can at least see 2.8GHZ on all cores,which the OEMs can put on their spec sheet.
Click to expand...

Yeah a 65 watt chip would be a big enough power draw for a lot of systems with a lower end price target and PSU/cooling to match.
 
@jigger The article snippet you keep quoting has so many inaccuracies, the recent Coffee Lake chips don't "basically have three main frequencies", whoever wrote that is completely ignorant to how Intel's SpeedShift/TBT works. It's also pure speculation that they bin based on all core turbo since we don't know how they bin their chips.
Additionally the article also doesn't mention that they always only listed base and single core turbos, they never provided all core turbos in ark or through retail channels, you could only find them in an obscure support page on their site.

Anandtech have a page on SpeedShift for those interested: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1095...ration-kaby-lake-i7-7700k-i5-7600k-i3-7350k/3

And for those wondering, Intel's current policy mirrors AMD's.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Its also kind of done for OEMs too,as a 65W TDP indicates a lower grade of motherboard and case cooling is required than a CPU with a 95W TDP. Hence,they promise OEMs,even if you have a low end motherboard and a compact case,you can at least see 2.8GHZ on all cores,which the OEMs can put on their spec sheet.
Click to expand...

Would be interesting to see how the 8400 and Ryzen 1600 performed in a locked 65 watt scenario.
 
jigger said:
Would be interesting to see how the 8400 and Ryzen 1600 performed in a locked 65 watt scenario.
Click to expand...

!?
They're both 65W TDP chips, so what you're looking for is the multitude of reviews that have the i5 8400 vs a stock R5 1600. Both companies have TDP as one of their turbo limits.
There are some slight difference in how AMD & Intel define TDP, but nothing major, so pick whatever review that has both chips stock and that's your 65W TDP scenario.
 
Panos said:
There are few reviews. In anything non gaming the 1600 trashes the 8400.
Click to expand...

I was thinking what could offer the most performance at 65 watts as that seems the limit for a lot of lower end OEM systems.

It would probably be better to wait for Coffee lake production to hit full capacity and maybe wait for Ryzen plus.
 
Panos said:
Ripjaws V, 3600C16 it is Single Rank, B-die. Working at 3603C15. (the mobo profile set it as such).
Best £132 spend on ram ever. (last year). It works at 3600Mhz even on the Ryzen build.
Click to expand...
have you tried 4K for it? I think it should do 4000 with ease.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom