Coffeelake thread, benchmarks, reviews, input, everything.

[StinkyPinky]

I think if they do that 8 core cpu, it was come out just around the time AMD release their new 8 core cpus....

 

[jpiniero]

Coffee Lake 8 core coming?

Not surprising, they are probably continuing their testing. You have to remember that Intel had originally planned for Z390 to be released as part of the January CFL release. I imagine they will just sit on it and will release it alongside the 8 core CFL in 2H next year.

 

[Campy]

Not surprising, they are probably continuing their testing. You have to remember that Intel had originally planned for Z390 to be released as part of the January CFL release. I imagine they will just sit on it and will release it alongside the 8 core CFL in 2H next year.

I think Z390 will come quite soon and wouldn't be surprised if it's released before march. It's the "real" coffee lake chipset after all, whereas Z370 was just a re-hash of Z270 in order to release coffee lake early. I'm guessing the octacore will drop sometime during summer, and it will be interesting to see whether it works on Z370 boards though somehow I doubt it.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I think Z390 will come quite soon and wouldn't be surprised if it's released before march. It's the "real" coffee lake chipset after all, whereas Z370 was just a re-hash of Z270 in order to release coffee lake early. I'm guessing the octacore will drop sometime during summer, and it will be interesting to see whether it works on Z370 boards though somehow I doubt it.

Nah, won't come out in March. Mobo makers aren't going to want to obsolete the Z370 so soon, and I bet they'd appreciate the additional time to get their Z390 boards right.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I thought Z390 was June/July 2018?

 

[epsilon84]

Coffee Lake 8 core coming?

Makes sense, the 8700K is pretty much maxed out frequency wise, so the only way to increase performance at this stage is to add cores. I just hope they will be compatible with existing Z370 mobos.

 

[ozzy702]

Makes sense, the 8700K is pretty much maxed out frequency wise, so the only way to increase performance at this stage is to add cores. I just hope they will be compatible with existing Z370 mobos.

Somehow I doubt it, but if they are compatible I'll sell my 8700k and pick one up assuming pricing isn't insane and clock speed wouldn't take a huge hit. 4.6-4.7ghz 8-core CFL... yum.

 

[psolord]

I did a few 3dmark runs with my 8600k@5Ghz and GTX 1070@2GHz.

Ice storm
https://www.3dmark.com/is/4266332

Cloudgate
https://www.3dmark.com/cg/4151074

Sky Diver
https://www.3dmark.com/sd/4885073

These benchmarks are primarily cpu limited, that's why in the first two, it gave me a rating better than 99% of the database. For Sky Diver which is a little heavier on the graphics only 98%.

I am not an elitist redacted. I had a 2500k until recently. Just stating some facts of the strength of Coffeelake.

Here are the three comparisons between my 8600k@5GHz,2500k@4.8GHz and i7-860@4GHz. Feel free to add them to your comparisons and post. Especially 8700k users. I'd like to see what HT can do in those. Not e-pen. Just technical curiosity.

Ice Storm
https://www.3dmark.com/compare/is/4266332/is/4087123/is/4133184

Cloudgate
https://www.3dmark.com/compare/cg/4151074/cg/3947578/cg/3997470

Sky Diver
https://www.3dmark.com/compare/sd/4885073/sd/4550394/sd/4630014

Will post API overhead tests next week. My 2500k system is dismantled for now, since I have to finish some testing with the i7-860+1070, before I bid this system farewell for good.

Keep it clean in here... no profanity in the tech forums.
Moderator VirtualLarry

 

[jpiniero]

https://www.notebookcheck.net/First-Impressions-Microsoft-Surface-Book-2-Convertible-Review.263954.0.html

Notebook check has a partial review of the Surface Book 2. This is the first review I've seen with the 8650U. They've only benchmarked Cinebench R15; and got a excellent score of 177 on the ST, and got 673 on the MT on the first run... but sustained seems to alternate between 500ish and 530-540ish. Keep in mind the CPU is passively cooled so that might be playing a part in it not being consistent.

 

[Jan Olšan]

I posted this already in the other thread where this was discussed earlier, but this place is probably more proper. (Sorry for the double posting, lots of work is not good for your mind's focus..)

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12057/intel-to-use-additional-assembly-lines-for-coffee-lake-cpus

So Coffee Lake chips are getting second assembly line - but it only affects the hexa-core versions. Probably another proof that i3-8100/i3-8350K are Kaby Lakes and that's why they show better supply situation.

 

[Glo.]

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12077/intel-8th-generation-and-9th-generation-processor-lists-leaked-coffee-lake-refresh

 

[jpiniero]

B is probably 45W parts. As to why Intel would do that I have no idea.

 

[Bouowmx]

How can one fit i5-8420, 8500, and 8550 between 8400's 3.8 GHz and 8600K's 4.1 GHz?

 

[dooon]

benchmark.pl Intel Coffee Lake: unofficial processor specifications for PCs (polski)

Pentium Gold

 

[StinkyPinky]

i5-8650k? Considering you can already overclock at 8600K to 5Ghz, I'm assuming the 8650K is just a factory overclock of the same thing. Perhaps a slightly better binning?

 

[LTC8K6]

i5-8650k? Considering you can already overclock at 8600K to 5Ghz, I'm assuming the 8650K is just a factory overclock of the same thing. Perhaps a slightly better binning?

Maybe a different IGP? Maybe certified for faster ram? There doesn't seem to be much room for higher frequencies, so I am guessing it's feature differences.

If you get the i5 much faster, we won't need the i7 at all.

There is also the nearly confirmed 8 core chip in there somewhere.

 

[Glo.]

It appears that Core i3's will truly be 35W TDP CPUs. I may even take a shot at 8300T, if it will stay at certain power level.

Otherwise, I will just buy 8100 and set the power target for it at 35W in the BIOS.

 

[Arachnotronic]

i5-8650k? Considering you can already overclock at 8600K to 5Ghz, I'm assuming the 8650K is just a factory overclock of the same thing. Perhaps a slightly better binning?

That's exactly what it'll be, since stock speeds still matter to many people.

 

[dullard]

How can one fit i5-8420, 8500, and 8550 between 8400's 3.8 GHz and 8600K's 4.1 GHz?

I really hope those processors come quickly. The 7600 was quite an under-appreciated value in chips, especially for those of us that don't get much if any benefit from hyperthreading (meaning the i7 line isn't a good choice). The 7600 was more than 10% cheaper than the 7600K, but was only 2.5% slower all-core turbo and only 7.9% slower base speed. So the price/performance was much better on the 7600--all while having a 29% lower TDP. The 7700 vs 7600 comparison is even more lopsided in favor of the 7600 (paying 28% more just for the often useless hyperthreading was too steep). I was eagerly awaiting an 8600 equivalent for my next computer, but it wasn't in the first Coffee Lake batch, leaving me quite disappointed.

How can they fit in? For those of us with real-life computers (OEM builds with non-ideal cooling, gathering dust over years, in enclosed computer desks), CPUs more often than not run at base speeds. Yes, that is a shock to those who have high-end coolers benchmarking only new dust-free processors, in high-end cases on top of their desk. But running at base clock speeds does happen for the non-enthusiasts. There is a significant base speed gap between the 2.8 GHz 8400 and the 3.6 GHz 8600K.

I could easily see 200 MHz base speed boosts for each of those chips (8420 around 3.0 GHz, 8500 around 3.2 GHz, and 8550 around 3.4 GHz). I could also see iGPU differences (the 1100 MHz speed from Kaby Lake is missing in the current Coffee Lake lineup and will likely be in the 8500 and 8550). There is only a little turbo speed gap, but the all-core 3.9 GHz and 4.0 GHz speeds are available. Also, I can see price space as the 8600K is 41% more expensive than the 8400. Pair it with cheaper 300 series motherboards (H370 or H310 chipsets) next year and the low-stock premium worn away and the 8550 might very well be my next CPU. But the 8650 might tempt me too.

 

[Abwx]

SB vs CFL at computerbase.de, somewhat unfair given the core count but with some OC the old brother is competive in games...

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-11/cpu-aufruesten-benchmarks-test/

 

[beginner99]

SB vs CFL at computerbase.de, somewhat unfair given the core count but with some OC the old brother is competive in games...

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-11/cpu-aufruesten-benchmarks-test/

Realistically you should compare OC vs OC. So the 8700k at least at 4.8 Ghz and with 3200 Mhz CL 14 RAM.

Still at 4k you are GPU limited and CPU won't make a huge difference. Still on BF1 multiplayer the difference will be a lot bigger than these tests seem to suggest. Buying a 8700k doesn't make sense if you don't plan on playing multi-player games at 120hz+.

 

[jpiniero]

BTW, Silicon Lottery's recent results show a small but noticeable drop in max overclock, and they've dropped the 5.3 bin. Shouldn't be surprising I guess since Intel is likely sending the absolute best to the mobile parts now.

 

[epsilon84]

SB vs CFL at computerbase.de, somewhat unfair given the core count but with some OC the old brother is competive in games...

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-11/cpu-aufruesten-benchmarks-test/

The 8700K is also 'only' running DDR4-2666, as opposed to the maxed out 2600K with DDR3-2133 (fastest memory supported by SB). Not to mention, no O/C on the 8700K as you said.

A 8700K @ 5GHz w/DDR4-3200 would easily score 10 - 15% higher than those scores and dominate the O/Ced 2600K at 1080P.

This is coming from a 2600K user btw. As good a chip as it is, I know that it doesn't come close to a properly tuned (or overclocked) 8700K in gaming.

 

[Abwx]

A 8700K @ 5GHz w/DDR4-3200 would easily score 10 - 15% higher than those scores and dominate the O/Ced 2600K at 1080P.

.

At stock it run in a 4.3-4.7 range, likely at 4.5 on games, so you ll hardly get 10% by ocking at 5GHz..

Other than this the i7 8700 delivered to the press had 110W TDP instead of the claimed 65W, result is that once it is set to this latter TDP it will barely be on par with a R5 1600X...

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-12/medion-erazer-x67015-aldi-gaming-pc-test/2/

 

[epsilon84]

At stock it run in a 4.3-4.7 range, likely at 4.5 on games, so you ll hardly get 10% by ocking at 5GHz..

Other than this the i7 8700 delivered to the press had 110W TDP instead of the claimed 65W, result is that once it is set to this latter TDP it will barely be on par with a R5 1600X...

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-12/medion-erazer-x67015-aldi-gaming-pc-test/2/

Most games will use 6 cores to some level and hence run at 4.3GHz. DDR4-3200 will be ~5% quicker than DDR4-2666 also,

4.3 - 5.0GHz = 16% o/c. Along with your ~5% gains from the faster RAM and you have your 10% easily, perhaps more in CPU bound games.