Coffeelake thread, benchmarks, reviews, input, everything.

[LTC8K6]

I'll be surprised if any of the three are not soldered.

 

[PeterScott]

I'll be surprised if any of the three are not soldered.

9600K is just a refresh/rebrand of 8600k. I'd really be surprised if they bothered to solder an i5 refesh at this point.

 

[LTC8K6]

9600K is just a refresh/rebrand of 8600k. I'd really be surprised if they bothered to solder an i5 refesh at this point.

Well, there seem to be pairs of chips with the exact same specs listed. 8650k/9600K 8650/9600 8550/9500 8420/9400 8120/9100.

 

[jpiniero]

Well, there seem to be pairs of chips with the exact same specs listed. 8650k/9600K 8650/9600 8550/9500 8420/9400 8120/9100.

Intel may have at one point wanted to call Coffee Lake Refresh 8xxx like Whiskey/Amber.

 

[LTC8K6]

Intel may have at one point wanted to call Coffee Lake Refresh 8xxx like Whiskey/Amber.

Hmmm... those new 8000 numbers are listed in the 8/8 microcode update.

https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/sa00115-microcode-update-guidance.pdf

A leaked one had both sets listed.

https://www.techpowerup.com/img/UkSPi9rtWdLc1m2m.jpg

We've seen the 906EC cpuid before related to the 9000 chips, so it looks like we will have 906EA, 906EB, and 906EC?

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-8-core-lga1151-processor-for-z390-could-be-14-nm-coffee-lake-after-all.html

 

[jpiniero]

https://twitter.com/momomo_us/status/1033301774906454016

9700K at 5.5 Ghz, 250 in CB15 Single.

 

[PeterScott]

https://twitter.com/momomo_us/status/1033301774906454016

9700K at 5.5 Ghz, 250 in CB15 Single.

Freaky, but 7.31 MP Ratio, indicates it wasn't holding anywhere near that clock while running CB on all cores.

 

[Accord99]

It's for the 8C/8T; an 1800+ score would be indicative of 5.2+ GHz at least for that configuration.

 

[PeterScott]

^ Thanks, I missed that, I was thinking it was looking really low for 8/16.

 

[Zucker2k]

https://twitter.com/momomo_us/status/1033301774906454016

9700K at 5.5 Ghz, 250 in CB15 Single.

Jeez! Forget about cores, Intel is selling Hz. The extra cores are the icing on the cake. Let's hope those ridiculous prices are fake. The main question here is supply, otherwise, the price gouging shenanigans will hit the ceiling this time.

 

[Markfw]

https://twitter.com/momomo_us/status/1033301774906454016

9700K at 5.5 Ghz, 250 in CB15 Single.

It does not say anything about test conditions, and no proof. I will wait until reputable sites produce benchmarks. And when we see the prices.

All this speculation is crap IMO

 

[Abwx]

It's for the 8C/8T; an 1800+ score would be indicative of 5.2+ GHz at least for that configuration.

It s just that with 8 threads CB scaling is at least 99%...

So either it s running at 5.1 or else IPC decrease with frequency due to cycles skipped by the pipeline to maintain coherency when gates delays become significant, wich shouldnt be the case here...

 

[Accord99]

Looking at a few other reviews with overclocked Coffee Lakes, IMO the 5.5 GHz all core score is reasonable. The scaling by clock speed and core count compared to Hardocp's 5GHz 8600k and 7600K scores is almost dead on:

If there's anything anomalous, it's the single core score which seems for a 10% clock boost compared to Hardocp's scores (which roughly concurs with my own 8700K at 5GHz) a bit high. It's a score that should take 5.7-5.8 GHz to get.

 

[jpiniero]

It does not say anything about test conditions, and no proof. I will wait until reputable sites produce benchmarks. And when we see the prices.

Test conditions don't really matter in this case, since it was obviously overclocked.

 

[Markfw]

Test conditions don't really matter in this case, since it was obviously overclocked.

Of course they matter. Maybe I don't believe the 5.5 ghz, maybe it never happened, and he made it all up. Can you prove otherwise ?

I stick by my post, I will wait until a reputable site benchmarks these, and see what they are selling for.

 

[jpiniero]

Of course they matter. Maybe I don't believe the 5.5 ghz, maybe it never happened, and he made it all up. Can you prove otherwise ?

I stick by my post, I will wait until a reputable site benchmarks these, and see what they are selling for.

Silicon Lottery is currently selling 5.3 8086K's, so 5.5 really isn't stretching it if Intel improved the transistor quality at all on the 8 core.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Silicon Lottery is currently selling 5.3 8086K's, so 5.5 really isn't stretching it if Intel improved the transistor quality at all on the 8 core.

Maybe so, but still... generally, more cores, means more thermals and power, and at a certain point, you have to scale back clockspeed as you add active cores, not increase it.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Maybe so, but still... generally, more cores, means more thermals and power, and at a certain point, you have to scale back clockspeed as you add active cores, not increase it.

8700K will overclock at least as high as 7700k, (maybe a bit higher) will it not? In any case, Intel has a huge advantage in clockspeed whether it is 5.0, 5.2 or 5.5. The thing for which I am "waiting for proof" is that 7nm Ryzen will be the magic sauce that many are assuming will allow AMD to match Intel in clockspeed.

 

[TheGiant]

Maybe so, but still... generally, more cores, means more thermals and power, and at a certain point, you have to scale back clockspeed as you add active cores, not increase it.

Well Imo its not the case here. If you look at the *lake core and its area, adding 2 cores may not increase heat flow density.
I definitely consider harder to cool 7700K@5GHz than 9900K@ 5GHz with current coolers, which are designed for high power but struggle with small surface areas....

 

[TheGiant]

https://twitter.com/momomo_us/status/1033301774906454016

9700K at 5.5 Ghz, 250 in CB15 Single.

250 point single threaded with current IPC and absolutely 1:1 scaling (I take 215 points with CFL 5GHz) means 5,81GHz single core. Imo that is a fake completely ....

 

[french toast]

8700K will overclock at least as high as 7700k, (maybe a bit higher) will it not? In any case, Intel has a huge advantage in clockspeed whether it is 5.0, 5.2 or 5.5. The thing for which I am "waiting for proof" is that 7nm Ryzen will be the magic sauce that many are assuming will allow AMD to match Intel in clockspeed.

If Intel can overclock 8 cores to 5.5ghz...well AMD 7nm zen2 is certainly not going to match that, not with a wider core anyway, not to mention more cores.

I would be very happy with 5ghz single thread turbo stock and a 5ghz 8 core overclock.

 

[Zucker2k]

Maybe so, but still... generally, more cores, means more thermals and power, and at a certain point, you have to scale back clockspeed as you add active cores, not increase it.

The 9700k, without HT, is likely going to be no hotter than an 8700k at the same clocks. It may actually run cooler. HT really piles on the heat when running significant loads.

 

[StinkyPinky]

250 point single threaded with current IPC and absolutely 1:1 scaling (I take 215 points with CFL 5GHz) means 5,81GHz single core. Imo that is a fake completely ....

It's probably throttling. The voltage is very high

 

[slashy16]

Intel has a home run on their hands if this chip is capable of running all 8 cores at 5ghz stock voltage which right now appears likely. If this chip is available at launch and under $500, I imagine a lot of people will jump all over it. This chip will be a huge upgrade over the 7700k and everything under it. I know a lot of people sitting on the 7600k/7700k and wanting a serious upgrade with 8 cores and not willing to settle for poor IPC/Clock speeds of AMD. They also want to use their DDR4-2400 and not be forced to buy newer DDR4-3000+

 

[Markfw]

Intel has a home run on their hands if this chip is capable of running all 8 cores at 5ghz stock voltage which right now appears likely. If this chip is available at launch and under $500, I imagine a lot of people will jump all over it. This chip will be a huge upgrade over the 7700k and everything under it. I know a lot of people sitting on the 7600k/7700k and wanting a serious upgrade with 8 cores and not willing to settle for poor IPC/Clock speeds of AMD. They also want to use their DDR4-2400 and not be forced to buy newer DDR4-3000+

So you can get an AMD 8 core that does 4.3 ghz stock, and 90% of the IPC of the Intel for $319, but $500 for 5 ghz makes them "poor" in IPC and clockspeed ? And Intel and AMD both gain on fast ram, but AMD can run just fine on 2400. For over 50% more cost I think the AMD is a better value than the Intel, but yes, that is a nice chip IF it will do 5 ghz at stock vcore.

We will see.