Coffeelake thread, benchmarks, reviews, input, everything.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
24,336
2,564
126
Quote from other thread:
The real question here is: are people willing to spring for Z370 when it's a one-off platform for only Coffeelake? Wait awhile longer for Z390 + Coffeelake and you get compatibility with Icelake plus some extra features (if you care).

I can't help but think that Intel messed up by announcing so much about Z390 so far in advance.
All we really know is from this image:
http://hexus.net/media/uploaded/2017/8/077382dc-f61f-46b6-9fee-0e16bc3f7534.jpg

The key difference to me between the Z370 and the upcoming 300 series platform is limited processor compatibility at launch. But, I've never once upgraded a processor without also wanting an upgraded motherboard, so, to me that isn't a concern. And I'm unlikely to drop from a 6-core processor down to a 2 core one. The rest doesn't seem very important. So what if the chipset doesn't have quad-core audio? I haven't had quad core audio and am quite happy with my computer sound. Most of the other features missing in Z370 will be added by the motherboard (such as USB 3.1 Gen2 and Wi-Fi).

So, really the difference to me is that the Z370 might require a motherboard that costs a few dollars more. I am willing to spend a few extra dollars to get a computer this fall rather than wait until some unknown time in 2018.

What percent of people actually upgrade processors to a different generation? I honestly do not know. Does it even reach 1%? This is more of a very niche issue for very limited number of people. Worst case scenario: you sell your old motherboard with your old processor for a few dozen dollars lost then upgrade to a new motherboard + new CPU.
 

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
12,862
4,147
136
It appears now that Icelake is not coming to desktop (desktop sockets anyway). The 2018/2019 desktop is Coffee Lake rebranded, with an 8 core version thrown in the mix.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
What are your sources? I'm ever the skeptic ha ha
At best I would count on waiting about a year after Coffee Lake before there is a new desktop offering. That is pretty much the norm for Intel, even for minor offerrings like Skylake -> Kabylake.
 

Athadeus

Senior member
Feb 29, 2004
587
0
71
as I said on VC's comments , I7-8700K:
3.7 GHz Base
4.3 GHz 6-core Turbo
4.4 GHz 4-core Turbo
4.6 GHz 2-core Turbo
4.7 GHz 1-core Turbo

Idk what's exactly the meaning of stock? Turbo means increasing clock ,on other hand, "OC".
What's OC ? by Users or Processor ? some even believes OC means User because You're increasing clock.so those guys think If OC is done by Processor,It's not OC, rather It's turbo.What if you see crazy result? do you believe OC or Stock?
Any leaks on what the turbo rates for 8700 non-k are? There's no way the TDP is honest if they didn't neuter those hard compared to 8700k, but I'm hoping for near performance parity at stock, not power savings.
 

eddman

Senior member
Dec 28, 2010
239
87
101
Exactly.
You're right, this is indeed uncharted territory, specially if Z390 is going to support both 8xxx and 9xxx (or so they say) then I see no reason whatsoever for z370 just supporting 8xxx

We'll see what happens, I know i'm getting z370 anyway, not sure on the CPU yet.
That makes sense. First there were rumors that intel's first 8 cores will be ICL, which pretty much meant no Z370 compatibility and is sort of understandable, but then came the rumors that there might be 8 core CFL parts in 2018. If so, I really hope intel would not hang Z370 owners out to dry. It would really be a horrible move and the first in a long time.

Any leaks on what the turbo rates for 8700 non-k are? There's no way the TDP is honest if they didn't neuter those hard compared to 8700k, but I'm hoping for near performance parity at stock, not power savings.
There is nothing to back any of these up, but apparently 8700 non-K's boost is just 100 MHz lower, except for 6 core boost which is the same, 4.3 GHz.

It seems that with intel, TDP does not mean much when it comes to achieving high frequencies. If you put a good, say 130 W or even lower, cooler on your 8700, it should be able to hold a stable max boost.
 
Last edited:

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
That leak that suggested an 8+2 CFL is coming next year; alongside the other leak that Z390 is now not coming until this time next year. It'll still be considered 9th gen, I bet.
I think this post was the leak that got some excited about 8 cores:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/eurocom-tornado-f5-eurocom-tornado-f7-with-6-core-coffee-lake-cpus.804068/
"We are planning to update Tornado F5 to Z390 chipset supporting 8C/16T CPUs coming in H2/18. "

I read that as the Z390 chipset is coming in H2/18, and it supports 8C CPUs. Wether the 8C CPUs land with it, is another matter.

8C Intel CPUs may be landing in H2/18, but that is a year away.
 

Dufus

Senior member
Sep 20, 2010
675
119
101
As mentioned before, Z370 BIOS already has support for 8 cores. As long as power delivery is ample it shouldn't be a problem just needs some entity to release an 8 core variant.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
24,336
2,564
126
Intel's Ark is not always correct, but it looks like the integrated graphics got a tiny (4.3%) boost in Coffee Lake from 1.15 GHz to 1.20 GHz:
https://ark.intel.com/compare/97129,126684

As video cards are currently priced out of reach with the mining craze, I'll probably start with integrated graphics, so it is a nice thing to see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikk and Zucker2k

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
24,336
2,564
126
Some comparison at 4.5GHz
Pretty much what you should expect from a 8700K to 7700K comparison: similar single thread performance, better multi-thread, and not much change in games since most games can't use more than 4 cores.

I see what they were trying to do, but I think a proper comparison would be to use the stock suggested memory speed for each CPU instead of gimping some CPUs with slower memory than they support. In my mind, a proper IPC comparison would have everything at stock suggested conditions except for the CPU frequency. Otherwise, they should put a clear notation on the graphs that some CPUs were using slower memory than they normally would.
 

elhefegaming

Member
Aug 23, 2017
157
70
101
Pretty much what you should expect from a 8700K to 7700K comparison: similar single thread performance, better multi-thread, and not much change in games since most games can't use more than 4 cores.
Well that's because before Ryzen most people didn't have more than 4 threads on their gaming pcs. Cause they were really expensive (and no benefit came from that in the gaming world)

With Ryzen released, giving 6 threads to most people, and now with Intel following suit, we are DEFINITELY going to see A LOT of 6 threads games, and many 8 threads too. Then we will be back where we were before ryzen until something changes.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
Well that's because before Ryzen most people didn't have more than 4 threads on their gaming pcs. Cause they were really expensive (and no benefit came from that in the gaming world)

With Ryzen released, giving 6 threads to most people, and now with Intel following suit, we are DEFINITELY going to see A LOT of 6 threads games, and many 8 threads too. Then we will be back where we were before ryzen until something changes.
Programs aren't hard coded for a number of cores. Any parallel sections, should be n-way parallel.

But you will see diminishing returns because games are not 100% parallel and Amdahls law shows the relationship between cores, percentage parallel/serial and speedup.


Note the bottom Orange and Blue Lines. 50% and 60% parallel. Notice how little performance improves moving from 4 to 8 cores.

It isn't about being coded for specific numbers of cores, it's about the code having significant serial sections that won't be improved by adding more cores, so the gains from multiple cores quickly starts to flatten out.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
24,336
2,564
126
Well that's because before Ryzen most people didn't have more than 4 threads on their gaming pcs. Cause they were really expensive (and no benefit came from that in the gaming world)

With Ryzen released, giving 6 threads to most people, and now with Intel following suit, we are DEFINITELY going to see A LOT of 6 threads games, and many 8 threads too. Then we will be back where we were before ryzen until something changes.
I highly doubt that it will be a lot of games. Some games, sure. But a lot? No.

I know several people at Treyarch (one of three Call of Duty programming companies). They have no plans of going past 4 cores. (a) Many tasks get no benefit from more threads, see PeterScott's graph above and (b) as long as both AMD and Intel keep selling 4 core chips, they aren't going to limit their potential sales. I admit that this is just one company. But, other gaming companies are probably facing similar trade-off decisions.
 

elhefegaming

Member
Aug 23, 2017
157
70
101
Programs aren't hard coded for a number of cores. Any parallel sections, should be n-way parallel.

But you will see diminishing returns because games are not 100% parallel and Amdahls law shows the relationship between cores, percentage parallel/serial and speedup.

Note the bottom Orange and Blue Lines. 50% and 60% parallel. Notice how little performance improves moving from 4 to 8 cores.

It isn't about being coded for specific numbers of cores, it's about the code having significant serial sections that won't be improved by adding more cores, so the gains from multiple cores quickly starts to flatten out.
I do not agree, you code for just 2 threads if you want to. It's up to the devs implementation multithreading.
However it is true that there's a limit to multi thread in gaming, but I don't think we are there yet and that's why we're seeing cpus with more threads now

I highly doubt that it will be a lot of games. Some games, sure. But a lot? No.

I know several people at Treyarch (one of three Call of Duty programming companies). They have no plans of going past 4 cores. (a) Many tasks get no benefit from more threads, see PeterScott's graph above and (b) as long as both AMD and Intel keep selling 4 core chips, they aren't going to limit their potential sales.
Well they could do 6 threads without losing compatibility with 4threads so they wouldnt be limiting their sales.
 

elhefegaming

Member
Aug 23, 2017
157
70
101
We are seeing CPUs with more threads now because we have hit a physics wall where frequency can't be pushed much higher with today's technology. It wasn't because of gaming.
I guess only time will tell if games will be taking advantage of more cores or not.
 

eddman

Senior member
Dec 28, 2010
239
87
101
I guess only time will tell if games will be taking advantage of more cores or not.
It all depends on how much of the game code can be parallelized. I don't know the max percentage possible, but let's say it's 80%.

Based on the amdahl graph, the yellow line, 8 cores would be about 36% faster than 4 cores. Not bad but some developers might not find it worth pursuing compared to the amount of work needed to parallelize the code.

If the parallelized percentage limit is say 70%, then the 4 to 8 cores improvement would be about 24%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcp7

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
I do not agree, you code for just 2 threads if you want to. It's up to the devs implementation multithreading.
In theory you could, but only an incompetent programmer would.

Consider an example, using an RTS with huge numbers of units. Somewhere there is a loop move the units. They each need a slice of time, to do their pathfinding, and move a bit. Hundreds if not thousands of units can be in such a game.

This is essentially a fully parallel section of code. Dividing it into 2 or 4 threads would be idiotic.

In the old Single threaded days, we could use something like this:

for (int i = 0; i < unitCount; i++)
{
MoveUnitSlice(i);
}

Now we use can use something like:

Parallel.For(0, unitCount, i =>
{
MoveUnitSlice(i);
});

You don't manually divvy up the work among some set amount of cores/threads. You use parallel looping constructs that automatically split the work among the available resources.

Wether you have 2 cores or 32 cores, this loop will be efficiently splitting work across all of them, automatically scaling to the available cores.

Parallel code is not hard coded for a specific number of cores.

Well they could do 6 threads without losing compatibility with 4threads so they wouldnt be limiting their sales.
Faulty assumptions. It wouldn't be hardcoded in the first place, and second, there is negligible overhead in using a couple of extra threads even it were.
 
Last edited:

elhefegaming

Member
Aug 23, 2017
157
70
101
Faulty assumptions. It wouldn't be hardcoded in the first place, and second, there is negligible overhead in using a couple of extra threads even it were.
Huh? I think it came out wrong, I was saying the same thing you just said, you shouldn't do "6 core code" you do N core code, so you'd never limit somebody that only has 4 cores so they wouldn't be losing sales over that.
That's what I meant.

I think that if we keep with the current mhz wall, there's no much option for gaming to do "more stuff" other than to improve parallelism. To what degree? I don't know, but if we use your 70% example, I think a 24% perf improvement is definitely worth it.

That's why I'm 'almost sure' that 4 threads is not enough.

On another note, if games were indeed N core based. That'd mean that if I grab one of those games, and I ran it with an 7600k lets say hardclocked at 3.8ghz on all cores and then I do the same with 7700k I should see improvements, some improvements correct? As per that Law from 4 to 8cores there's definitely improvement.
And on the same note, there shouldnt be much difference between the 8600k and 8700k if run at same speeds as the improvement from 6 to 12 threads is not that much according to that Law.

If get some free time I'll try to do that.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
Huh? I think it came out wrong, I was saying the same thing you just said, you shouldn't do "6 core code" you do N core code, so you'd never limit somebody that only has 4 cores so they wouldn't be losing sales over that.
That's what I meant.

I think that if we keep with the current mhz wall, there's no much option for gaming to do "more stuff" other than to improve parallelism. To what degree? I don't know, but if we use your 70% example, I think a 24% perf improvement is definitely worth it.

That's why I'm 'almost sure' that 4 threads is not enough.

On another note, if games were indeed N core based. That'd mean that if I grab one of those games, and I ran it with an 7600k lets say hardclocked at 3.8ghz on all cores and then I do the same with 7700k I should see improvements, some improvements correct? As per that Law from 4 to 8cores there's definitely improvement.
And on the same note, there shouldnt be much difference between the 8600k and 8700k if run at same speeds as the improvement from 6 to 12 threads is not that much according to that Law.

If get some free time I'll try to do that.
Games aren't uniform and never will be. Some will benefit more than others. I doubt there are many 70%+ parallel games, and I don't think many devs will be pushing that amount up either. Developers are going to go after the low hanging fruit, not spend massive efforts to achieve another 10% parallel.

Many games do have n-way parallel sections from what I have seen. Easiest to observe when changing real core counts in the same architecture and clock speed, like Ryzen 8,6,4 cores all running 4 GHz. I expect something close to the majority of modern games will show improvements moving from 4 to 6 to 8 cores. But in many cases those improvements will be small because they have smaller parallel sections.

The problem often is though as core counts increase, clock speeds drop and you your net result on mixed serial/parallel loads is that you are going nowhere.

I think a high clocked 8700K could be a real sweet spot for gaming.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY