• 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

benjii said:
That was my earlier point. It's a 50% performance boost over a 7700k with 50% more cores. That means per core, it's exactly the same. Unless you're running something that will utilise the extra 2 cores, then you won't notice a difference.
Click to expand...
Sure you will. You'll have a bigger hole in your wallet. :p

In all seriousness it'll be better for multitasking while gaming, just like Ryzen is.
 
jrwagh333 said:
I highly doubt it. Higher price for the CPU and likely a much higher cost for the MoBo and RAM
Click to expand...

You could always go dual until you get more ram. Board prices will be a little more yes but there are z270 boards that cost more than a x299.
My point being they need to make it cheaper than the HEDT version.
I meant the 7800x too, not the 7820x
 
BriT said:
Hmm £350 would be my max to spend on it.
Click to expand...
A CPU with 50% more cores than the 7700k which itself iis a fairly new processor, for the same price, very unlikely unless Intel feel they need to keep the price low because of a threat from AMD.
I reckon around £400 but what's £50? No a lot. But you can of course get 8 cores for £518 albeit on a more expensive platform and without onboard graphics (I assume the 8700k will have that?)
 
I found a graph yesterday (but didnt bookmark and cannot find it again).

Basically someone collected data on 1000s of PC games on what are consider multi core friendly.

If a game only loads up 2 cores or less its considered not friendly, whilst 4 cores or more it is.

The graph had a tiny slice in a pie chart format with multi core friendly games, and then the same guy revealed that the games that get reviewed by major review outlets nearly all fell in that tiny pie slice, giving a false impression that its the norm in the gaming industry to load up all cpu cores, when its not. I already knew this from experience, but its annoying to lose this data as it would help me present this argument.

Not a single game that is considered unoptimised (runs like crap on all hardware) tends to be used by reviewers either, when they should do as thats a not too rare event, instead of looking for perfectly optimised games for high core counts.

Unless intel pull of a minor miracle a 6 core mainstream product I think will be a regression as peak performance will be compromised for extra cores.
 
chrcoluk said:
I found a graph yesterday (but didnt bookmark and cannot find it again).

Basically someone collected data on 1000s of PC games on what are consider multi core friendly.

If a game only loads up 2 cores or less its considered not friendly, whilst 4 cores or more it is.

The graph had a tiny slice in a pie chart format with multi core friendly games, and then the same guy revealed that the games that get reviewed by major review outlets nearly all fell in that tiny pie slice, giving a false impression that its the norm in the gaming industry to load up all cpu cores, when its not. I already knew this from experience, but its annoying to lose this data as it would help me present this argument.

Not a single game that is considered unoptimised (runs like crap on all hardware) tends to be used by reviewers either, when they should do as thats a not too rare event, instead of looking for perfectly optimised games for high core counts.

Unless intel pull of a minor miracle a 6 core mainstream product I think will be a regression as peak performance will be compromised for extra cores.
Click to expand...
Yes but AAA games that feature in reviews are also typically the most demanding. A lot of games that aren't heavily threaded, especially in the Steam era, don't require much CPU grunt anyway.
 
DarrenM343 said:
A CPU with 50% more cores than the 7700k which itself iis a fairly new processor, for the same price, very unlikely unless Intel feel they need to keep the price low because of a threat from AMD.
I reckon around £400 but what's £50? No a lot. But you can of course get 8 cores for £518 albeit on a more expensive platform and without onboard graphics (I assume the 8700k will have that?)
Click to expand...

1800X is £400 now with 8 cores
 
BriT said:
1800X is £400 now with 8 cores
Click to expand...
True although I was thinking of the Intel product lineup.6 cores, probably higher clocking than the 1800X with on-board graphics included. Although many of us don't use on-board graphics, it's still a feature that adds a few £ and can be useful when between graphics cards. Starting to think £400 may be optimistic :D
 
Last edited:
DragonQ said:
Yes but AAA games that feature in reviews are also typically the most demanding. A lot of games that aren't heavily threaded, especially in the Steam era, don't require much CPU grunt anyway.
Click to expand...

not in my experience ;)

Play lightning returns, maxed out cpu core that cripples frame rate even on a intel chip clocked at 4.5ghz. On a laptop with say AMD pre ryzen 2ghz its brutal.
 
What I want to know is core for core hz for hz comparison. The games I play like Iracing don`t use all cores effectively I heard something about scaling being an issue with more cores. In these gaming type instances, would they actually be worse for performance if hz being equal? each core slightly weaker and a worse bottleneck, but of course overal stronger for those games that of course can use 6 cores?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom