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

[chanjy]

Interesting about the leaked slides for low power mobile chips.

The i7u is now a 4 core 8 thread chip with a 4.2ghz boost clock.

Yes, but what kind of real 4 core sustained clock can it really do at 15W TDP? Suspect in heavy workloads there will be a lot of throttling going on, especially in the ultrabook applications that it is usually used in. Still good to see, don't get me wrong, but the 2 core i7u Kaby Lake chips can already be constrained so I'm a little skeptical.

but then you take into account you need an aftermarket cooler for the intel chip and a much more expensive motherboard and its going to be £200+ more than a 1600

you could most likely get a 1600 system plus an upgrade to zen+/2 for cheaper than a 8700k system

Well I would be getting an aftermarket cooler anyway to get some oc out of it, 8700k will be much better than a stock 1600!

 

[RavenXXX2]

Well yea overclocking zen is a given but aleast you are guaranteed low temps with a decent cooler, same can't be said of Intel and their tatty water paste. The 1600 is AMDs best selling chip and no wonder why, Intel HEDT matching performance for under £200, amazing value.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Some of you need to check the AT forums thread - apparently Intel releasing MOAR cores now,and rushing the X299 launch(and bringing forward the Coffeelake launch) has nothing to do with Ryzen. Apparently its all sheer coincidence,especially when Ryzen was actually meant to be released late last year and the design and core counts would have already been finalised for the basic chip in 2015(IMHO OFC).

Well yea overclocking zen is a given but aleast you are guaranteed low temps with a decent cooler, same can't be said of Intel and their tatty water paste. The 1600 is AMDs best selling chip and no wonder why, Intel HEDT matching performance for under £200, amazing value.

Moot point too about the Core i7 8700K being faster since:
1.)The Ryzen 5 1600 will probably be half the price
2.)The Intel Core i7 won't come with a cooler
3.)If it has the same crap thermal interface as SKL/KL will need a very expensive cooler
4.)People will still need to delid to get the top overclocks seen in reviews,and that is your warranty gone.
5.)All that add cost so unless you have a top graphics card,you might as well buy a faster graphics card. Even I only realised how CPU limited I could be in some games with a IB Xeon E3 1230 V2/Core i7 3770 with a GTX1080 at qHD.

In fact I am more interested to see how the locked Core i5 6C CPU does against the Ryzen 5 1600.

 

[Jono8]

Some of you need to check the AT forums thread - apparently Intel releasing MOAR cores now,and rushing the X299 launch(and bringing forward the Coffeelake launch) has nothing to do with Ryzen. Apparently its all sheer coincidence,especially when Ryzen was actually meant to be released late last year and the design and core counts would have already been finalised for the basic chip in 2015(IMHO OFC).



Moot point too about the Core i7 8700K being faster since:
1.)The Ryzen 5 1600 will probably be half the price
2.)The Intel Core i7 won't come with a cooler
3.)If it has the same crap thermal interface as SKL/KL will need a very expensive cooler
4.)People will still need to delid to get the top overclocks seen in reviews,and that is your warranty gone.
5.)All that add cost so unless you have a top graphics card,you might as well buy a faster graphics card. Even I only realised how CPU limited I could be in some games with a IB Xeon E3 1230 V2/Core i7 3770 with a GTX1080 at qHD.

It isn't a moot point at all.

The 8700k is still going to be a good deal faster than a 1600 though. Granted it will be more expensive but some will be willing to pay that for the better performance.

If the leaked clocks are to be believed (4.7ghz single core and 4.3ghz 6 core) it should be much faster, especially for single threaded stuff.

If it comes in at the 7700k price point (~£300), i would certainly be willing to pay the extra £100 for the increase in performance.

 

[rtho782]

Ryzen wouldn't be a massive IPC boost over my 4790k and would in fact be a clockspeed regression. DDR4 is also stupidly expensive right now, and Ryzen needs the most expensive memory to make the most of it due to retarded design choices.

7700k is a lot of money for a small boost, and still 4 cores.

8700k might well make sense for me, but this bait and switch tactic with the announcement has annoyed me somewhat!!

 

[chanjy]

I think it's more likely to be £350 (7700k price at launch) and I would still be willin gto pay that, I just can't wait for months!

 

[DragonQ]

It isn't a moot point at all.

The 8700k is still going to be a good deal faster than a 1600 though. Granted it will be more expensive but some will be willing to pay that for the better performance.

If the leaked clocks are to be believed (4.7ghz single core and 4.3ghz 6 core) it should be much faster, especially for single threaded stuff.

If it comes in at the 7700k price point (~£300), i would certainly be willing to pay the extra £100 for the increase in performance.

For what workloads though? Heavily multithreaded stuff will likely favour the R7 1700 (even without considering the longer lasting chipset, free cooler, better temperatures, etc.) and gaming will likely benefit more from a GPU uplift than going from an R5 1600 to i7-8700K. Non-gaming workloads that depend heavily on single-threaded performance wouldn't necessarily benefit from the extra cores, but some kind of mix of low-thread and high-thread demanding applications would probably be perfect for an i7-8700K.

Unless Intel really surprise with the price point the Core i5 is definitely more interesting IMO.

Ryzen wouldn't be a massive IPC boost over my 4790k and would in fact be a clockspeed regression. DDR4 is also stupidly expensive right now, and Ryzen needs the most expensive memory to make the most of it due to retarded design choices.

7700k is a lot of money for a small boost, and still 4 cores.

8700k might well make sense for me, but this bait and switch tactic with the announcement has annoyed me somewhat!!

Why are you considering an upgrade to begin with? Unless you really need the extra cores I can't see the point for anything Haswell onwards right now.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It isn't a moot point at all.

The 8700k is still going to be a good deal faster than a 1600 though. Granted it will be more expensive but some will be willing to pay that for the better performance.

If the leaked clocks are to be believed (4.7ghz single core and 4.3ghz 6 core) it should be much faster, especially for single threaded stuff.

If it comes in at the 7700k price point (~£300), i would certainly be willing to pay the extra £100 for the increase in performance.

It is a moot point though,as you can deflect as much as you want,the Core i7 8700K is going to cost double the cost of the Ryzen 5 1600 and once you add the cost of the more expensive motherboards and cooling.

Intel could have easily enabled overclocking on its B and H series chipsets,as shown by the overclocking "bug" with SKL. People also ignore the leaks of Coffeelake running in Z270 motherboards. There is no reason why it can't be a plug in upgrade to current SKL/KL owners.

Plus again unless you have a top end graphics card,you are going to be more GPU limited,so again so what if it is faster. What for E-PEEN purposes,and that is coming from someone who plays a game where Intel is better in,and why I have held off Ryzen MK1 since I have a GTX1080.

Look at Steam - most people are lucky to even have a GTX1070!

With a slower card,I was as much GPU limited as I am CPU limited,so it wasn't really that noticeable.

Its only not a moot point,for people trying to then justify it over a Ryzen 5 1600 and not maybe a Ryzen 7 1700X,which is close to what it will actually cost.

The 6C/6T Core i5 battle is actually the more interesting one. Intel can go and do one with the Core i7 CPUs,as they still think they can charge silly money just to switch HT and overclocking on,then decide to not even include decent stock coolers.

So even if you don't want to overclock and want the faster stock clockspeeds you need to stump up £20 to £30 just for a basic cooler.

Plus we know all the reviews will use an expensive cooler when testing at stock so will make them look better anyway.

 

[Jono8]

some kind of mix of low-thread and high-thread demanding applications would probably be perfect for an i7-8700K.

This is basically gaming though. Some games prefer single core/thread performance, others multi-core. That is why something that can do both is the best thing to have.

 

[Jono8]

It is a moot point though,as you can deflect as much as you want,the Core i7 8700K is going to cost double the cost of the Ryzen 5 1600 and once you add the cost of the more expensive motherboards and cooling.

Intel could have easily enabled overclocking on its B and H series chipsets,as shown by the overclocking "bug" with SKL. The excuse makes also ignore the leaks of Coffeelake running in Z270 motherboards. There is no reason why it can't be a plug in upgrade to current SKL/KL owners.

Plus again unless you have a top end graphics card,you are going to be more GPU limited,so again so what if it is faster. What for E-PEEN purposes,and that is coming from someone who plays a game where Intel is better in,and why I have held off Ryzen MK1 since I have a GTX1080.

With a slower card,I was as much GPU limited as I am CPU limited.

Its only not a moot point,for people trying to then justify it over a Ryzen 5 1600 and not maybe a Ryzen 7 1700X,which is close to what it will actually cost.

It isn't a moot point. You pay for better performance. The 8700k will be decently more powerful than the 1600 in single and multi core stuff stock for stock.

Whether it will be worth it over a 1700/1800 remains to be seen. If it can nip at the tail of the 8 core ryzens in multi core stuff (courtesy of it's ipc and clock speeds) but smash them in single thread stuff then the 8700k would be the better choice.

We will have to see what the benches show.

 

[Ayahuasca]

Interesting about the leaked slides for low power mobile chips.

The i7u is now a 4 core 8 thread chip with a 4.2ghz boost clock.

Starting to regret buying a surfacebook a few months back, no doubt new one will be coming soon with a chip like that, although I did get it used for £700 and the new one will be £1500+ for just the basic model.

 

[DragonQ]

This is basically gaming though. Some games prefer single core/thread performance, others multi-core. That is why something that can do both is the best thing to have.

Yes but as I said, gaming is a special case because you also need a GPU which does most of the leg work. Under what circumstances would you pay an extra £250 for a better CPU (including more expensive motherboards and cooling, plus a possible delid) rather than putting that cash into the GPU?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It isn't a moot point. You pay for better performance. The 8700k will be decently more powerful than the 1600 in single and multi core stuff stock for stock.

Whether it will be worth it over a 1700/1800 remains to be seen. If it can nip at the tail of the 8 core ryzens in multi core stuff (courtesy of it's ipc and clock speeds) but smash them in single thread stuff then the 8700k would be the better choice.

We will have to see what the benches show.

It is not a moot point - only on tech forums do people loose all common sense,concentrate on one component excessively and try to win E-PEEN battles.

Its not a moot point for most builds,because most builds need a cooler for a CPU,so the Core i7 8700K cost needs to have even a £20 to £30 cooler to be added on top.

Its not a moot point when AMD has cheaper overclocking motherboards.

Its not a moot point once you add the costs of having to spend silly money to get even a decentish overclock - look at DF using a £100+ H110i GT to overclock their Core i5 7600K. Do you honestly think with 50% more cores,Coffeelake won't produce MORE heat than SKL/KL when being overclocked and be harder to cool,especially if they don't improve the thermal interface design?

So once you add all those costs,its not a moot point for most gaming builds,especially if someone can add the money saved on their card,that would be sufficient to probably get a GTX1080 over something like a GTX1060/RX580.

The Core i7 only makes sense if you already have a fast card,not if you are on something much slower,or only have a budget for a much slower card.

Even in FO4,I only realised CPU limitations once I moved to a GTX1080,not when I had a much slower card.

Its no point investing in the bestest CPU in the world,if you need to spend more in the longtime on graphics cards.

The fact is the 6C/6T Core i5 battle is going to be the more important one there,period.

Another £100(or more) for SMT. What a joke??

"New" chipset? What a joke!!

Hardware enthusiasts need to grow some balls against what Intel is doing,this is why they have continued to market segment every little thing. There is probably no real reason for them to not make a Z270 motherboard run Coffeelake,especially when it only launched THIS YEAR!!

YES,THIS YEAR!!

So in under a year,the Z270 is paperweight of a chipset.

 

[Jono8]

It is not a moot point - only on tech forums do people loose all common sense,concentrate on one component excessively and try to win E-PEEN battles.

Its not a moot point for most builds,because most builds need a cooler for a CPU,so the Core i7 8700K cost needs to have even a £20 to £30 cooler to be added on top.

Its not a moot point when AMD has cheaper overclocking motherboards.

Its not a moot point once you add the costs of having to spend silly money to get even a decentish overclock - look at DF using a £100+ H110i GT to overclock their Core i5 7600K. Do you honestly think with 50% more cores,Coffeelake won't produce MORE heat than SKL/KL when being overclocked and be harder to cool,especially if they don't improve the thermal interface design?

So once you add all those costs,its not a moot point for most gaming builds,especially if someone can add the money saved on their card,that would be sufficient to probably get a GTX1080 over something like a GTX1060/RX580.

The Core i7 only makes sense if you already have a fast card,not if you on something much slower,or only have a budget for a much slower card.

Even in FO4,I only realised CPU limitations once I moved to a GTX1080,not when I had a much slower card.

Its no point investing in the bestest CPU in the world,if you need to spend more in the longtime on graphics cards.

The fact is the 6C/6T Core i5 battle is going to be the more important one there,period.

Another £100(or more) for SMT. What a joke??

"New" chipset? What a joke!!

Hardware enthusiasts need to grow some balls against what Intel is doing,this is why they have continued to market segment every little thing. There is probably no real reason for them to not make a Z270 motherboard run Coffeelake,especially when it only launch THIS YEAR!!

YES,THIS YEAR!!

So in under a year,the Z270 is paperweight of a chipset.

You are overthinking it. If the 8700k offers much better single core performance and very close/similar multi core to the similarly priced 8 core ryzens then it would be a better buy (regardless of whether you have to shell out £30 for a cooler), especially for gaming.

The z270 mobo thing is only relevant to those who bought kabylake recently. Sure it is a bit of a bummer but the tech world moves quickly.

 

[mistersprinkles]

https://www.youtube.com/embed/JrOb84MetfQ

Intel's ad blurb, in which they say nothing at all about the chips.

 

[Jono8]

Yes but as I said, gaming is a special case because you also need a GPU which does most of the leg work. Under what circumstances would you pay an extra £250 for a better CPU (including more expensive motherboards and cooling, plus a possible delid) rather than putting that cash into the GPU?

From experience, a good cpu is just as important as a good gpu in a lot of games. There are always parts in quite a few games where the it is not the gpu that is causing you to lose frames.

 

[voidshatter]

Interesting about the leaked slides for low power mobile chips.

The i7u is now a 4 core 8 thread chip with a 4.2ghz boost clock.

Looking into Intel's official website:

Cores: 2C4T -> 4C8T
Base Frequency: 2.8GHz -> 1.9GHz
Max Turbo Frequency: 3.9GHz -> 4.2GHz
Configurable TDP-up Frequency: 2.9GHz -> 2.1GHz
Configurable TDP-down: 7.5W -> 10W

So assuming the same ultra thin laptop, performance increase is about 45% for multi-threaded tasks.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

You are overthinking it. If the 8700k offers much better single core performance and very close/similar multi core to the similarly priced 8 core ryzens then it would be a better buy (regardless of whether you have to shell out £30 for a cooler), especially for gaming.

The z270 mobo thing is only relevant to those who bought kabylake recently. Sure it is a bit of a bummer but the tech world moves quickly.

We are talking about all the people saying but! but! but! quicker than a Ryzen 5 1600?? So frelling what?? The fact is it means diddly squat if it means you can spend that extra money on a much faster card. Maybe look at Steam - most people don't even have a GTX1070.

Hardware enthusiasts on forums lack commonsense it seems - seen many listen to people on forums and spend stupid amounts on a CPU for gaming with something like a £200 card,and almost all the games they play are GPU limited,which is hilarious.

From experience, a good cpu is just as important as a good gpu in a lot of games. There are always parts in quite a few games where the it is not the gpu that is causing you to lose frames.

I play one of those games,and I only noticed a CPU bottleneck once I had a GTX1080,not when I had a much slower card.

Plus,for all the E-PEEN,I would argue that for any lightly threaded games one of the 6C Core i5s or even the 4C Core i3 at a significantly lower cost,will probably be as fast anyway.

The same things apply to them,as you can get a much faster card than buying a Core i7. Intel is going to price the Core i7 at between £300 to £350 going by previous launches plus the cost of the coolers,and all the other stuff. At that price is simply not worth it at all over a Ryzen 5 1600 or even one of the 6C Core i5 CPUs.

If Intel were to price these at under £300 it might be worth it,but trying to win 3DMark benchmarks means diddly squat for most gamers.

 

[ltron]

Some of you need to check the AT forums thread - apparently Intel releasing MOAR cores now,and rushing the X299 launch(and bringing forward the Coffeelake launch) has nothing to do with Ryzen. Apparently its all sheer coincidence,especially when Ryzen was actually meant to be released late last year and the design and core counts would have already been finalised for the basic chip in 2015

Design may have been finalised, but I doubt that clock speed and release date were. Skylake-X is operating far beyond the sweet spot in terms of efficiency and I just think that without Ryzen the clock speeds wouldn't have been anywhere near as aggressive out of the box. Also, the launch was definitely brought forward by a few months and the 12 core and above are coming much later due to Intel probably repurposing Xeons which were never intended to be released to the ordinary consumer market.

I'm pretty sure that without Ryzen we wouldn't be seeing Coffee lake before the middle of next year either and Intel wouldn't have felt the need to make an announcement of this significance months before release.

 

[DragonQ]

You are overthinking it. If the 8700k offers much better single core performance and very close/similar multi core to the similarly priced 8 core ryzens then it would be a better buy (regardless of whether you have to shell out £30 for a cooler), especially for gaming.

I really don't think many people are buying an R7 1700 over an R6 1600(X) for gaming though. I imagine most people are buying it for highly threaded stuff like video encoding or bought it before the Ryzen 5 series was available because they are enthusiasts. If an i7-8700K can nearly match an R7 1700 at a similar price point in multithreaded stuff then it becomes more viable but, again, that price point doesn't just include the CPU itself.

The z270 mobo thing is only relevant to those who bought kabylake recently. Sure it is a bit of a bummer but the tech world moves quickly.

I assume the point was more about the unnecessary chipset changes when the physcial socket doesn't even change. I mean it was bad enough when a motherboard only lasted two generations but we've now had 3 chipsets for 3 generations!