• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Coffeelake thread, benchmarks, reviews, input, everything.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
R0H1T said:
I thought he was talking about total system power consumption, was pretty obvious looking at the charts, or did he assume that as just CPU power consumption?

Might be a golden sample, but yes plausible.
Click to expand...

which should theoretically be in line with the TDPs of those CPUs
Click to expand...
Yes, I think with that line he was trying to figure CPU consumption using system power numbers. I think that's a bit sketchy.
 
Dayman1225 said:
https://www.techpowerup.com/237434/core-i7-8700k-reviewed-by-lab501
Click to expand...

Performance is slightly better than I expected, generally matches or beats the 1800X in even heavily threaded applications (except Cinebench of course) and also a very good showing against the similarly priced 7800X. It pretty much renders the 7800X redundant IMO, unless you absolutely NEED the features of the X299 platform.

Also, would have been good to see the 8700 overclocked also. They overclocked the 8600K but left the 8700K at stock...

EDIT - They actually overclocked both chips, but didn't include the overclocked 8700K in the benchmark graphs.

http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipset...-8600k-coffee-lake-aorus-z370-ultra-gaming/20

5GHz solid for the 8700K @ 1.35V, 5.1 - 5.2GHz benchmark stable but I guess not 24/7 stable and the voltages used (1.4V) are not probably suitable for daily use unless you have exceptional cooling and aren't worried about the power usage 😛
 
Last edited:
epsilon84 said:
Performance is slightly better than I expected, generally matches or beats the 1800X in even heavily threaded applications (except Cinebench of course) and also a very good showing against the similarly priced 7800X. It pretty much renders the 7800X redundant IMO, unless you absolutely NEED the features of the X299 platform.
Click to expand...
Not bad for throwing something together at the last moment... 😀
 
LTC8K6 said:
Not bad for throwing something together at the last moment... 😀
Click to expand...

LOL! I know that was sarcasm, but I think quite a few people don't realise that CPUs take years, not months, to plan and build. Coffee Lake has been on Intel roadmaps for a couple of years now, maybe more. It's not exactly a knee jerk reaction to the competition.
 
epsilon84 said:
Performance is slightly better than I expected, generally matches or beats the 1800X in even heavily threaded applications (except Cinebench of course) and also a very good showing against the similarly priced 7800X. It pretty much renders the 7800X redundant IMO, unless you absolutely NEED the features of the X299 platform.
Click to expand...

- Core i7-8700K is faster in: Handbrake Photoshopt, 3D Studio Max, Blender, WinRAR, 7-ZIP, wPrime, POV-Ray (single-core) and all gaming tests, with a huge advantage in minimum FPS in almost all titles (except Titanfall and Metro)
- Ryzen R7 1800X is faster in: Cinebench R15 (MT), POV-Ray (multi-core)

Looking good for Coffee Lake. And let's not overlook the small gaming gem Core i5-8600K, better than current Core i7-7700K in almost every sense, for a cheaper price. Both chips pushed to 5.0-5.2 GHz.
 
Last edited:
And in Content creation, 8600K is still slower than 1600X. On the other hand 8600K appears to consume less power than 1600X, under load.
 
Sweepr said:
- Core i7-8700K is faster in: Handbrake Photoshopt, 3D Studio Max, Blender, WinRAR, 7-ZIP, wPrime and all gaming tests, with a huge advantage in minimum FPS in almost all titles (except Titanfall and Metro)
- Ryzen R7 1800X is faster in: Cinebench R15, POV-Ray

Looking good for Coffee Lake. And let's overlook the small gaming gem Core i5-8600K, better than current Core i7-7700K in almost every sense, for a cheaper price. Both chips pushed to 5.0-5.2 GHz.
Click to expand...

True, but to be fair to the 1800X, some of those 'wins' for the 8700K are by the tiniest margins and can be effectively called a 'tie', at least in my eyes. The 8700K only has clear wins (5 - 10%) in 3DS Max and Blender, by the same token I think POV-Ray is close enough to be called a tie as well, unless we are counting 1 - 2% margins as significant (I don't).

Still, as I said earlier, the 8700K comes out slightly better than I expected, I was expecting it to be competitive in MT against the 1800X but not come out ahead overall. I'll wait for more reviews and benchmarks before making a final judgement on that though.

Minimum framerates are undoubtedly a lot better on the 8700K (compared to Ryzen) but not so much compared to the 7700K. The 8700K is only a minor improvement over the 7700K in that regard.

Agreed re: the 8600K being the 'sweet spot' chip for gaming, pretty much as fast as the 7700K for a significantly lower price. It would have been good to see the 8350K in there too, but we can pretty much extrapolate its gaming performance based on the i5 7600K.
 
Last edited:
eddman said:
I don't know if I should trust these numbers but if they are accurate, 8700K really does quite well against 1800X and yet price-wise, is supposed to compete with 1700X.

These are high MT tests though. In tasks with 12 threads and less, it'll simply hammer ryzen 7.
Click to expand...

Well, AMD has yet to adjust their pricing on the Ryzen line, we may well see some price cuts soon, they will need to if they are to stay price/performance competitive. Also, the 1800X sits in a rather poor spot value wise as the top end SKU, the 1700/1700X are far better value and aren't much slower.

Agreed about lightly threaded tasks/games, CFL will dominate there, no surprises.
 
Glo. said:
And in Content creation, 8600K is still slower than 1600X. On the other hand 8600K appears to consume less power than 1600X, under load.
Click to expand...

It's a split on Content creation. The stock speed 8600K wins:

Handbrake
Photoshop
Pov Ray

The overclocked 8600K wins everything.

I really want to see the 1600x OC vs 8600K OC. Since these are the ones I am considering.
 
PeterScott said:
It's a split on Content creation. The stock speed 8600K wins:

Handbrake
Photoshop
Pov Ray

The overclocked 8600K wins everything.

I really want to see the 1600x OC vs 8600K OC. Since these are the ones I am considering.
Click to expand...

Not hard to estimate, the stock 1600x is already clocked at 3.6GHz (4GHz Max turbo) so a 4GHz overclock would probably be ~10% faster compared to stock.
 
epsilon84 said:
Well, AMD has yet to adjust their pricing on the Ryzen line, we may well see some price cuts soon, they will need to if they are to stay price/performance competitive. Also, the 1800X sits in a rather poor spot value wise as the top end SKU, the 1700/1700X are far better value and aren't much slower.

Agreed about lightly threaded tasks/games, CFL will dominate there, no surprises.
Click to expand...

1800X was always a poor value, Coffee Lake doesn't change that much. I doubt many 1800x CPUs were sold.

Since you can OC the entire lineup with equal success, I bet the big sellers are plain 1600 and 1700.

Coffee Lake achieves all it needs to. Ties are plenty good in rendering type benchmarks.

Overall, CL puts Intel back on top without question. The AMD argument will revert to the Value argument.
 
epsilon84 said:
Not hard to estimate, the stock 1600x is already clocked at 3.6GHz (4GHz Max turbo) so a 4GHz overclock would probably be ~10% faster compared to stock.
Click to expand...

I'd still like to see it, along with a slightly more tame OC (maybe 4.8) on the 8600K, they hit 91C running at that speed. I'm not comfortable running that hot.

Though in the end, we get a good enough idea. It should be a pretty much a dead heat in the fully parallel multimedia stuff, with clear wins for 8600K most other places, making the 8600K a clear winner. I have no problem with the small price premium for the 8600K, but the MB premium is harder to take (they are about $100 CDN more around here for a Z270 vs B350). I miss the old days when there were independent chipset makers to keep Intel from gouging on that front.
 
PeterScott said:
I'd still like to see it, along with a slightly more tame OC (maybe 4.8) on the 8600K, they hit 91C running at that speed. I'm not comfortable running that hot.

Though in the end, we get a good enough idea. It should be a pretty much a dead heat in the fully parallel multimedia stuff, with clear wins for 8600K most other places, making the 8600K a clear winner. I have no problem with the small price premium for the 8600K, but the MB premium is harder to take (they are about $100 CDN more around here for a Z270 vs B350). I miss the old days when there were independent chipset makers to keep Intel from gouging on that front.
Click to expand...

Well the Z series motherboards are the 'premium' line, a better comparison would be to compare the Z270 to X370 as they are both the top end chipsets.

Granted, we don't have the H and B series chipsets for CFL yet, so for now, we are stuck with Z370 and rather expensive motherboards. This will affect the budget buyers more, for example a $120 i3 8100 coupled with a $150 - $200 Z370 motherboard makes little sense. I doubt the 8700K users will care that much though, if you are overclocking the Z based motherboards are pretty much the de facto standard if you want to achieve maximum overclocks and performance.

In saying that, often H series mobos have tweaked BIOSes that enable overclocking, so budget conscious buyers are probably better served waiting a few months for those mobos to come out.

I won a H97 mobo a few years back in a competition and it overclocked surprisingly well, got my G3258 to 4.5GHz without a sweat, even popped in my friends 4770K to compare how it would overclock compared to his Z87 mobo and the final overclock was only 100MHz less, I got to 4.7GHz stable and he was 4.8GHz stable on his own rig.
 
I would totally pay ~$100 extra for 8700 non-K/Z370 over 1700 non-X/B350 for much better ST and DDR4-3200 compatibility.

1600X/1700X/1800X are just terrible from a value perspective even if CFL didn't exist.
 
epsilon84 said:
In saying that, often H series mobos have tweaked BIOSes that enable overclocking, so budget conscious buyers are probably better served waiting a few months for those mobos to come out.
Click to expand...

I may wait till post holiday slow period, so hopefully some of the high prices on everything drops a bit (RAM, SSD, GPU, etc...). I am definitely not going to chase a new release with early adopter tax on it.

I won a H97 mobo a few years back in a competition and it overclocked surprisingly well, got my G3258 to 4.5GHz without a sweat, even popped in my friends 4770K to compare how it would overclock compared to his Z87 mobo and the final overclock was only 100MHz less, I got to 4.7GHz stable and he was 4.8GHz stable on his own rig.
Click to expand...

From what I am reading, it is more locked down today and you pretty much need a Z MB to overclock. I am looking for budget overclocking but budget overclocking MBs don't seem to exist on the Intel side.
 
i7-8700K & MAXIMUS X APEX
Launch Records?
tgHAzP0.jpg


i7-8700K @6.6GHz (LN2)
CINEBENCH R15 : 2179 cb
http://www.coolaler.com/threads/2017-asus-z370.347460/
 
Zucker2k said:
This might just be confirmation then....

d6e8e0fb087e284a3960e485b7def261.png


Crazy clocker!
Click to expand...

Indeed. You would think that the majority of 8600/8700Ks will be able to hit 5GHz for them to implement this quick overclock feature. I wonder how it works out what voltages to use though? I know some motherboards have a way to 'estimate' the voltage required for certain clocks but they tend to be on the aggressive side and you often need far lower voltages to be stable.
 
epsilon84 said:
Indeed. You would think that the majority of 8600/8700Ks will be able to hit 5GHz for them to implement this quick overclock feature. I wonder how it works out what voltages to use though? I know some motherboards have a way to 'estimate' the voltage required for certain clocks but they tend to be on the aggressive side and you often need far lower voltages to be stable.
Click to expand...
Pretty much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top