Coffeelake thread, benchmarks, reviews, input, everything.

[TheF34RChannel]

This might just be confirmation then....

Crazy clocker!

Personally I don't see such options as a win as they always overvoltage everything, terrible, terrible idea.

 

[MarkPost]

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.

It seems to me that due to some bios bug or whatever, 8700k (Ive not calculated about 8600) is running OCd, I would say @~4.7 all cores instead @4.3. Look at 7800X results, and also the 8700k OC @5.1 (Cinebench run, compared with the supposed stock result). Doesnt make sense.

 

[Zucker2k]

Personally I don't see such options as a win as they always overvoltage everything, terrible, terrible idea.

Of course, it's a terrible idea to have the bios auto-overclock your your chip lol. The win here is that ASUS have sampled enough of these chips to confidently conclude on estimated voltage(s) figure(s) it's comfortable with, and has gone ahead to implement a profile in bios without fear of damaging components. Usually, this means that most overclockers are going to have success reaching this mark with their chips. So it's not the auto-overclock per se, but rather the implications for the overall overclocking potential of the coffeelake chips.

 

[raghu78]

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.

Yes. AMD will have to resort to price cuts till Pinnacle Ridge arrives. Zen needs higher clocks to compete with Coffeelake. The question remains as to by how much can AMD improve clocks from 12LP and physical design optimizations.

 

[Zucker2k]

It seems to me that due to some bios bug or whatever, 8700k (Ive not calculated about 8600) is running OCd, I would say @~4.7 all cores instead @4.3. Look at 7800X results, and also the 8700k OC @5.1 (Cinebench run, compared with the supposed stock result). Doesnt make sense.

There could be throttling going on since they run the whole test on air cooling. I think 4.3Ghz + who knows what little tweaks Intel may have thrown in there? Multicore enhancement?

 

[tamz_msc]

Some of their multi-threaded benchmarks show extremely poor scaling with number of cores. 7900X only 7s faster than 7820X in Blender? Only 4s faster in Handbrake?

 

[MarkPost]

There could be throttling going on since they run the whole test on air cooling. I think 4.3Ghz + who knows what little tweaks Intel may have thrown in there? Multicore enhancement?

Dont think so. My 7800X @4.5 hits 1438 in cinebench. Thats consistent with the 8700k oced @5.1 result, 1631 (about 13% faster with about 13% more freq). So, 1520 to a suppossed 4.3 freq doesnt make sense at all. I think its running all cores to the one core speed boost, 4.7 aprox

 

[eddman]

7900X only 7s faster than 7820X in Blender? Only 4s faster in Handbrake?

Depends on the workload type.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-7820x-skylake-x,5127-7.html

Anandtech has one blender test only, but you can check the handbrake results:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/11839/intel-core-i9-7980xe-and-core-i9-7960x-review/11
H.264 HQ results are close.

This lab501 review does not have enough sample points to draw a complete picture though. Will have to wait for other websites' reviews.

 

[slashy16]

This is looking like one of the most impressive CPU launches from intel since the 2500/2700k. If it indeed hits 5ghz on all cores without issue, I will consider buying two rigs. One to replace by 990x@4.5 and the other to replace my 3770k. I wonder if we will see a 8 core extreme edition of coffee lake sooner rather than later. It looks like Intel's 14nm++ will be competitive for at least another year. It took AMD 10 years to respond to Intel and now Intel takes a sledgehammer to AMD in 6 months. 8700k.. 12 threads at 5ghz? YES PLEASE!

 

[elhefegaming]

This is looking like one of the most impressive CPU launches from intel since the 2500/2700k. If it indeed hits 5ghz on all cores without issue, I will consider buying two rigs. One to replace by 990x@4.5 and the other to replace by 3770k. I wonder if we will see a 8 core extreme edition of coffee lake sooner rather than later. It looks like Intel's 14nm++ will be competitive for at least another year. It took AMD 10 years to respond to Intel and now Intel takes a sledgehammer to AMD in 6 months. 8700k.. 12 threads at 5ghz? YES PLEASE!

I was discussing with a dude on another forum, he's complaining that this gen is irrelevant and I took the time to check i5 and i7 gen to gen improvements and came to the same conclusion you did.

This is the first "big thing" after 2500/2600/2700k, granted not as big of a diff as those but still pretty big.
And if we consider that is same process, same socket, it's even more impressive.

 

[Phynaz]

for games that was old paradigm, because now days games have become more complex with AI and environment simulation. so if the dev was competent enough it can even scale to 16 thread without worry about dismissing return.

Cool, a competent developer can break Amdahl's Law. I didn't know that.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

Intel's product launch schedule has been leaked, looking as far ahead as mid-2018

"The slides below say that additional Coffee Lake-S 6, 4 and 2-core CPUs will release in Q1 2018 alongside new H370, H310 and B360 chipset motherboards. These are all set to be consumer-oriented products with TDPs of between 35W and 65W."

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cp...een_leaked_looking_as_far_ahead_as_mid-2018/1

 

[DigDog]

12 threads at 5ghz?

?
i've read some coffee lake promo material and i was under the impression that 6+6 would clock at 4.2 under turbo.

 

[Dayman1225]

https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comm...el_core_i7_8700k_intel_core_i5_8600k/dnohvv4/

"Hi guys,

The reason for which the temps are lower than max in the screen is that we ran prime after our tests, an some renderings make the cpu hotter. So the real temps are the MAX temps indicated by Real Temp. Please keep in mind we used a Noctua NH-D15 with one stock fan (~1400rpm). Also, please keep in mind that GBT and Asus boards automatically set all core turbo ratio for 8600K at 4300 and 8700K at 4700MHz."


Looks like Multi Core enhancement had the 8700k boosting all core to 4.7ghz and 8600k to 4.3 all core

 

[TheF34RChannel]

https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comm...el_core_i7_8700k_intel_core_i5_8600k/dnohvv4/

"Hi guys,

The reason for which the temps are lower than max in the screen is that we ran prime after our tests, an some renderings make the cpu hotter. So the real temps are the MAX temps indicated by Real Temp. Please keep in mind we used a Noctua NH-D15 with one stock fan (~1400rpm). Also, please keep in mind that GBT and Asus boards automatically set all core turbo ratio for 8600K at 4300 and 8700K at 4700MHz."


Looks like Multi Core enhancement had the 8700k boosting all core to 4.7ghz and 8600k to 4.3 all core

That's a very nice thing to do by Gigabyte and Asus, set the all core turbo automatically to max without user interference.

Last night it hit me that I'll be ordering things in a few days time

Asus Apex and formula previews:

 

[raghu78]

This is looking like one of the most impressive CPU launches from intel since the 2500/2700k. If it indeed hits 5ghz on all cores without issue, I will consider buying two rigs. One to replace by 990x@4.5 and the other to replace my 3770k. I wonder if we will see a 8 core extreme edition of coffee lake sooner rather than later. It looks like Intel's 14nm++ will be competitive for at least another year. It took AMD 10 years to respond to Intel and now Intel takes a sledgehammer to AMD in 6 months. 8700k.. 12 threads at 5ghz? YES PLEASE!

Yes. Coffeelake is the first real upgrade from Sandy bridge. 50% more cores with 25% higher IPC and 10% higher clocks. Finally we will see a lot of 2500k/2600k being upgraded by consumers. Due to the lack of competition we were stuck for what seems an eternity in the 4 core era. Coffeelake is a very good product and a strong response to Ryzen. Intel has the better product with Coffeelake. But the competition is not going to stand still. We will see a response from AMD in late Q1 2018 with Pinnacle Ridge. btw if you are happy with 12 threads at 5 Ghz you ain't seen anything yet. 2019 will bring 24 threads at close to 5 Ghz. Let the core wars begin.

 

[krumme]

We are discussing CFL here, and an i3-8100 for $120 would be a great purchase. An i5-7500 (its near equivalent) usually does 80-100 FPS in BF1 64 player maps on ultra at 1080, without dropping below 60 FPS.

Yes, 6 and 8 cores would do better, but that's still a huge value for the price.

Where do you get that info from?
And why the hell does this wrong info get likes?
Does giving like to this comment magically get a i5 4 thread to perform in bf1 mp64? Hell no. Pathetic. Shows the idiotic of likes.

It does drop below 60fps in bf1 64. And does so even consistently as i have experienced myself on a even faster i5 all the time. Even a 7700 will have seldom dips to 40fps as computerbase have shown.
Bf1 issues 10 threads btw. Get a 6 core cpu for that game.

 

[eddman]

Where do you get that info from?
And why the hell does this wrong info get likes?
Does giving like to this comment magically get a i5 4 thread to perform in bf1 mp64? Hell no. Pathetic. Shows the idiotic of likes.

It does drop below 60fps in bf1 64. And does so even consistently as i have experienced myself on a even faster i5 all the time. Even a 7700 will have seldom dips to 40fps as computerbase have shown.
Bf1 issues 10 threads btw. Get a 6 core cpu for that game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op_lH2SwYrg

This time I watched the entire video with my eyes glued to the FPS meter and on 2 occasions it dropped to 54-56, but that's still a great performance for something that is the same as a $120 i3-8100. (Also there is a recording software working in the background, so add 5-10 FPS.)

I'm NOT claiming quad cores can max out frame rates, absolutely not, and you need 6 cores and more to lift the minimum FPS, but for that price, I see no problem.

The majority of games do not hit the CPU this hard. There is no reason to not consider quad-cores if the price is right.

 

[krumme]

I think you will be fine with four cores. Total overkill actually for Overwatch and HoS.

I know those ow results but i can see at least 40% lower min fps in overwatch mp matches than what is presented here. More like 60%. Still 4c is okey for 60fps but barely so imo if you are really concerned about the slowest say 0.3%. Imo it runs to slow but i guess for most its plenty.

Typically in overwatch like bf1 the dips is in clusterfuck situations. And thats actually where you value your fps most. We have to remember that.
Btw imo ow demands a good deal less than bf1.

 

[krumme]

However, as usual.

Read this excerpt, from this review:
But 35 watts TDP also means absolutely 35 watts of "consumption"? As usual, no, because it only describes how the cooling system has to look. Especially the AVX test in Prime95 leaves Intel processors always run out of the rudder because of increased voltage during consumption, between idle and load the power consumption is then at 75 watts. For real applications from everyday life and the idle, the difference is around 50 watts.

On the other hand, polish site, that is not known to anyone here tested the 7700T, with Voltcraft Energy Logger 4000F, and this is what they have found:

61W difference in power consumption under load, between stock 7700K, and 7700K, which should theoretically be in line with the TDPs of those CPUs.


After thinking about this, I think better way is to go with 8400, buy good MoBo, like ASRock H370 iTX and set the power limit of this CPU to 35W.

Yep. Seems right to me. Nice cpu. You get the added benefit of flexibility if you need more oomph. Min fps concern is a very personal thing like eg. high quality texttures. Like noise whatever. You are covered with this solution.

 

[MarkPost]

https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comm...el_core_i7_8700k_intel_core_i5_8600k/dnohvv4/

"Hi guys,

The reason for which the temps are lower than max in the screen is that we ran prime after our tests, an some renderings make the cpu hotter. So the real temps are the MAX temps indicated by Real Temp. Please keep in mind we used a Noctua NH-D15 with one stock fan (~1400rpm). Also, please keep in mind that GBT and Asus boards automatically set all core turbo ratio for 8600K at 4300 and 8700K at 4700MHz."


Looks like Multi Core enhancement had the 8700k boosting all core to 4.7ghz and 8600k to 4.3 all core

yeah what I suspected, these are oced results

 

[moonbogg]

These chips look damn good. That 8600K if anywhere around $200 is going to end up in a lot of gaming rigs. The motherboards are looking nice too. I'd likely just throw in the towel and go for an 8700K if not for two things on my mind:

1: Overclocking temps caused by TIM paste
2: Z390 and 8/16 chips coming less than a year later

I believe 6 cores are a stop gap measure or a budget option in this new 8 core mainstream era we have entered. Intel knows that coffeelake looks great right now, but how will it look when the Zen revisions hit the scene next year? Intel needs to rush out a mainstream 8 core lineup and they damn well know it. I may hold out for just that thing to happen, because I am fully confident it will be soon. Very soon. If 6 coffeelake cores are this impressive, imagine having 8 of them! Hell yeah!

 

[DaveSimmons]

These chips look damn good. That 8600K if anywhere around $200 is going to end up in a lot of gaming rigs. The motherboards are looking nice too. I'd likely just throw in the towel and go for an 8700K if not for two things on my mind:

1: Overclocking temps caused by TIM paste
2: Z390 and 8/16 chips coming less than a year later

I believe 6 cores are a stop gap measure or a budget option in this new 8 core mainstream era we have entered. Intel knows that coffeelake looks great right now, but how will it look when the Zen revisions hit the scene next year? Intel needs to rush out a mainstream 8 core lineup and they damn well know it. I may hold out for just that thing to happen, because I am fully confident it will be soon. Very soon. If 6 coffeelake cores are this impressive, imagine having 8 of them! Hell yeah!

Sure, for content creation. 6 cores are going to be enough for gaming for a long time. At the end of 2019 I expect to still be happy with "only" 6 cores in my gaming PC.

 

[eddman]

Looks like Multi Core enhancement had the 8700k boosting all core to 4.7ghz and 8600k to 4.3 all core

Off-topic: I don't know much about this. Does it work for non-K CPUs too?

 

[dullard]

Intel needs to rush out a mainstream 8 core lineup and they damn well know it. I may hold out for just that thing to happen, because I am fully confident it will be soon. Very soon. If 6 coffeelake cores are this impressive, imagine having 8 of them! Hell yeah!

There is one thing missing from your post though: how do we get from 6 cores to 8 cores? More power (HEDT method), slower core frequencies (AMD's current method), or better lithography process?

Intel got from 4 to 6 cores because 14 nm++ is so, so much better than 14 nm or 14 nm+ for power efficiency.

Intel's 10 nm is a steaming pile. 10 nm+ isn't any better performance than 14 nm++ (it just saves Intel money since they can make more chips in the same wafer). The only thing we can hope for is lower capacitance (and thus proportionally lower power) to let Intel add more cores. Does anyone have capacitance data? Intel shared a graph with no numbers on it, that is all that I know of.