Coffeelake thread, benchmarks, reviews, input, everything.

[eddman]

We have a winner ! Yes, F@H on GPU (34th in the world) and WCG on CPU. over 200 cores on CPU, and 13 video cards on F@H.

I thought it was something more interesting.

 

[Markfw]

I thought it was something more interesting.

Well, if you had cancer, like ME, it would be very interesting doing cancer research.

Now lets get back on topic.

 

[SPBHM]

Real gem are R5 1600/X. Well for that price all them are GEMS.

Anyway 6T threads can easily max out in newer games, maybe we will finally see 12Threads usefull.

it's very rare, and it will continue to be for a game to max 6 fast cores, I think the 8400 is really a great CPU, the base clock is a little scary but it doesn't seem to ever touch that clock for gaming and is more like a 4GHz CPU.

the 1600 needs a price drop,

once they release "h310" and those $50 MBs it will be really difficult to compete with the 8400

 

[IRobot23]

it's very rare, and it will continue to be for a game to max 6 fast cores, I think the 8400 is really a great CPU, the base clock is a little scary but it doesn't seem to ever touch that clock for gaming and is more like a 4GHz CPU.

the 1600 needs a price drop,

once they release "h310" and those $50 MBs it will be really difficult to compete with the 8400

As a gamer I recommend you to buy R5 1600 with 80$ MB and 3200MHz DDR4. For good gaming you need fast ram... BF1 keeps 6 threads at 95-100% whole the time (if you are cpu limited), frametimes and lows are worse than with SMT enabled.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87M3QdEzRFk&t=86s
R5 1600 3,9GHz with same ram would be exactly the same, I know it would be cool to have it at 5GHz as you can have i7 8700K, but is it truly worth 200$ more?
i5 8600K does give good offer - more cores and really good ST, but then again i7 8700 gives you 4,3GHz on all cores.

Maybe its better to stick with AM4 this time or even wait for Z390. You never know what AMD has been preparing with 12nm next year. Overpaying right know might be bad deal ... just remember all i7 7700K@Z270 users.

 

[reb0rn]

Wow, the turbo bins on the 8700 non-k are far far better than I expected.

What they turbo with 6 core use?
As more ppl asked can the bios option "multicore enhancement" be used on non K models

 

[Bouowmx]

Intel Core i7-8700 and 8700K both do 4.3 GHz using all cores. This architecture (Skylake and derivatives), Multi-core enhancement can only be used on K processors.

 

[Burpo]

Oh really, I have been able to use multi-core enhancement on Xeons forever.

 

[eddman]

This architecture (Skylake and derivatives), Multi-core enhancement can only be used on K processors.

I've been looking for information about this all over but couldn't find anything concrete. Do you have a source?

 

[imported_bman]

I've been looking for information about this all over but couldn't find anything concrete. Do you have a source?

It is in the Anandtech review:

 

[eddman]

It is in the Anandtech review:

Turbo speeds are plastered all over the internet. I meant the other thing.

 

[Bouowmx]

All anecdotal results of "Intel Skylake non-K Multi-core enhancement" turn up as negative: it doesn't work. So I also concluded no.

 

[elhefegaming]

I think Ram above processor supported speed speed is almost non relevant, don't know why you are making such a big deal

Benchmarks have shown almost no gains on ram oc

 

[eddman]

R5 1600 3,9GHz with same ram would be exactly the same, I know it would be cool to have it at 5GHz as you can have i7 8700K, but is it truly worth 200$ more?
i5 8600K does give good offer - more cores and really good ST, but then again i7 8700 gives you 4,3GHz on all cores.

Maybe its better to stick with AM4 this time or even wait for Z390. You never know what AMD has been preparing with 12nm next year. Overpaying right know might be bad deal ... just remember all i7 7700K@Z270 users.

Huh? He wrote 8400. It is 15-20% faster than 1600X at 1080, which runs at 3.7 GHz all core boost. A 3.9 GHz OC won't help much.

As for faster memory, Lake CPUs also benefit from it.

A value gamer would not be wrong in going for an 8400.

 

[Bouowmx]

2133 vs 3200 MT/s: https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,45

I think that the lower latency (in time) that 1.35 V, rather than 1.20, offers, more-so than the increased bandwidth, that causes the performance increase in gaming.

 

[ozzy702]

I think Ram above processor supported speed speed is almost non relevant, don't know why you are making such a big deal

Benchmarks have shown almost no gains on ram oc

Not true at all for gaming since Skylake. I suspect that the 8700k will scale very well with fast memory.

https://www.techspot.com/article/1171-ddr4-4000-mhz-performance/page3.html

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,45

 

[elhefegaming]

Not true at all for gaming since Skylake. I suspect that the 8700k will scale very well with fast memory.

https://www.techspot.com/article/1171-ddr4-4000-mhz-performance/page3.html

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,45

Oh yeah, if you have the TOP cpu and SLI of the TOP gpu then it "may" be "useful", because only then, the ram is bottleneck and even not the same result on all games.

I was generalizing as most people may have a top tier cpu, and ONE top tier gpu, in that case the difference is meh. And that's most people

 

[DaveSimmons]

From the links above, going from 2133 to 2400 DDR4 makes a big difference of around 10%, with only another 10% going all the way up to 4000.

For a reasonable budget, the stock 2400 - 2666 speeds seem like the sweet spot.

 

[Bouowmx]

Something better than anecdotal evidence, a review by a trusted source: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_8400/17.html

The second option is to adjust the CPU boost settings, making it so that the highest boost state is enabled not just for single-threaded workloads, but all - no matter the core count.

When we tested the latter, we noticed that no matter what we did, the maximum frequency the CPU would run at was 3800 MHz, not 4000 MHz as you would expect by going with the maximum-rated boost frequency.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Have there been any good 8700 non-K reviews yet? All the links I see are for K only.

 

[Dave3000]

I have a i7-4930k but am thinking about upgrading to an i7-8700k. I noticed in this review (http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i7_8700k_processor_review,7.html) of the i7-8700k in the Cinibench R15 Multithreaded test the i7-8700k was barely faster than the Ryzen 1600x. Can someone explain what might cause this? Did it reach it's 95W TDP and then throttle down to base clock or did it hit throttling temperature? I was thinking about upgrading to the i7-8700k but if it's going to throttle down during stress tests from it's all core turbo clock I might consider upgrading to a Ryzen 1800x instead.

 

[coercitiv]

Something better than anecdotal evidence, a review by a trusted source: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_8400/17.html

I was hoping the multicore enhancement would work on non-K CFL, I remember having seen someone claim to have it working on a locked KBL i5... but I could not find the reference anymore.

However, the fallback option to the 4Ghz was continuous 3.8Ghz boost, and that seems to be in the cards.

I noticed in this review (http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i7_8700k_processor_review,7.html) of the i7-8700k in the Cinibench R15 Multithreaded test the i7-8700k was barely faster than the Ryzen 1600x. Can someone explain what might cause this?

Performance in reviews is all over the place: CB15 "stock" performance varies from the ~1300 score on Guru3D to the ~1440 score on the Techpowerup. It's probably a combination of immature BIOS plus different default configuration the motherboard maker chooses to implement (max MT turbo clock, uncore frequency, power limitations etc)

If you want a more clear image for performance and power in CB15 I suggest you take a look at this chart from Tomshardware:

 

[coercitiv]

Only if we can finally acknowledge that the 7820x is a better gaming CPU than 7700k...lol

Well, one of my less inspired predictions was that SKL-X would be the best gaming CPU of this year, so I definitely had to eat some crow there. Then again, that was way before we learned the L3 cache had been split among the cores.

We've seen the signs with all the big HEDT CPUs and later with Ryzen, but there was always something holding back performance - be it lower ST performance for Haswell & Broadwell or simply a different arch in the case of SKL-X and Zen.

This is the first time we finally have an "almost" apples to apples comparison, the only thing left to approximate is the impact of bigger L3 cache, but now that reviews of the 8350K with 8MB L3 start to come up we'll soon get a better picture by comparing with both i5 7600K /w 6MB L3 and i7 7700 /w 8MB L3 and HT, all of them running 4Ghz stock.

 

[moonbogg]

That 8700K is so fast it just makes everything else look like outdated garbage, lol. Straight up truth and no denying it. If 8 similar (or even better) cores come next year then its just game over. GAME OVER. Its just too damn fast is what the problem is. Its going to kill and obsolete everything on the entire market besides the super high core parts, like 10 or 12+. 6/12 at 5ghz and rumors of 8/16 with similar or better cores...yeah, goooood NIGHT! Those clocks can't be touched.

 

[epsilon84]

That 8700K is so fast it just makes everything else look like outdated garbage, lol. Straight up truth and no denying it. If 8 similar (or even better) cores come next year then its just game over. GAME OVER. Its just too damn fast is what the problem is. Its going to kill and obsolete everything on the entire market besides the super high core parts, like 10 or 12+. 6/12 at 5ghz and rumors of 8/16 with similar or better cores...yeah, goooood NIGHT! Those clocks can't be touched.

But... but...but... It has higher power consumption than the competition!

 

[coercitiv]

That 8700K is so fast ... Its just too damn fast is what the problem is.

moonbogg is in shock mode.

Don't worry, the fun is just getting started, looks like 2018 will bring more of the same.