Coffeelake thread, benchmarks, reviews, input, everything.

[raghu78]

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!

8600k is priced at USD 257. 8600k / 8700k is a going to be more attractive than Ryzen 5/7 series due to competitive MT and vastly superior ST. Anyway this is not a sprint contest but a marathon. AMD will be back with a response in late Q1 2018. Hopefully they have some significant improvements in clocks and we are back to having very strong competition for the consumer's money. I think the next few years will provide unprecedented value for consumers.

 

[moonbogg]

8600k is priced at USD 257. 8600k / 8700k is a going to be more attractive than Ryzen 5/7 series due to competitive MT and vastly superior ST. Anyway this is not a sprint contest but a marathon. AMD will be back with a response in late Q1 2018. Hopefully they have some significant improvements in clocks and we are back to having very strong competition for the consumer's money. I think the next few years will provide unprecedented value for consumers.

I hope AMD improves clocks by a lot. Otherwise, they will once again be the cheap budget option with significantly less performance, regardless of cores because at a certain point, having more cores doesn't sound appealing when they are slower than hell. Coffeelake is looking pretty wicked really.

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.

Honestly, the same way they went from 4 to 6. Its easy. They just get off their ass and give us an 8 core mainstream chip. You telling me AMD can do it but Intel can't? Intel can and they will, very shortly. They will also do it without sacrificing very much regarding clocks. It might have slower stock clocks than the 6 cores, but I expect it to OC just as well (look at X299 chips) at the expense of a little more power, but no one cares about a little more power for OC so long as its reasonable.

This is so simple. Intel has to do this. Zen is going to improve and they know its coming soon. Intel wants to not just have parity with the competition. They want to regain their dominant position so that no one needs to question who has the better CPU, regardless of work load. It will once again be a matter of what you want to pay, but you will know who has the best. Everyone will know for sure who has the best, but right now its not really clear. An 8 core lineup on the mainstream will make it very clear.

 

[Dayman1225]

Intel shared a graph with no numbers on it, that is all that I know of.

I assume this is the graph you speak off

EDIT:
For anyone looking for where this slide came from here yah go

https://newsroom.intel.com/newsroom.../2017/03/Kaizad-Mistry-2017-Manufacturing.pdf

 

[StinkyPinky]

I wonder if Intel will release a 8790k factory overclocked CPU like they did with the 4790k. I'd buy it, probably binned the best.

 

[krumme]

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.)

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.

Man dont trust that vid.
I have glued my eyes to bf1 mp operations 64 for several hundred hrs on a fast i5 and dips to 30fps is common in the worst maps. Even a i7 can be send to 40.
My experience mirrors computerbase frametime testing. And there is vids on that on youtube if you prefer that.

It highly depends on map and situation. If you eg play sniper and stay back on conquest no probs at all but if you play assault and goes for the grenade action with several tanks and stuff in a huge mess in more rush clusterfuck explode situations what you want then is a 1600x or a 8600 to get the dips as low as possible.

Dont care about avg framerate for fps !
You are severily throughput limited in bf1 when the going gets tough. Like serious. I see i5 tanking all the time. Dont go there for bf1. Overwatch yes its okey for 60fps min. Bf1. No. You will regret it. You also want to play the next in line bf without changing cpu.
The most stupid i did years back was to get a i5 4t and not i7.
Consider yourself warned now.

 

[krumme]

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!

The lineup is much better because the selection is far wider for mainstream/enthusiast. Not the usual what 4c should i get but we actually have to decide between cpu that is really fundamentally different.
I like the 6 core lower tdp variants most.

 

[elhefegaming]

Z390 and 8/16 chips coming less than a year later

I'm almost convinced that the Z370 will have some sort of way to running the 8/16c CPUs.
370 supports IMVP9 so that's something

 

[moonbogg]

I'm almost convinced that the Z370 will have some sort of way to running the 8/16c CPUs.
I don't know why, but I just feel it.

I doubt it will. They know people will buy the 8 core chips so they will sell Z390 boards to go with them because they can. Hell, I'd buy it so long as it wasn't prices like their HEDT line. It they price it like a mainstream chip then I'd go for it ($400 or less).

 

[eddman]

Man dont trust that vid.
I have glued my eyes to bf1 mp operations 64 for several hundred hrs on a fast i5 and dips to 30fps is common in the worst maps. Even a i7 can be send to 40.
My experience mirrors computerbase frametime testing. And there is vids on that on youtube if you prefer that.

It highly depends on map and situation. If you eg play sniper and stay back on conquest no probs at all but if you play assault and goes for the grenade action with several tanks and stuff in a huge mess in more rush clusterfuck explode situations what you want then is a 1600x or a 8600 to get the dips as low as possible.

Dont care about avg framerate for fps !
You are severily throughput limited in bf1 when the going gets tough. Like serious. I see i5 tanking all the time. Dont go there for bf1. Overwatch yes its okey for 60fps min. Bf1. No. You will regret it. You also want to play the next in line bf without changing cpu.
The most stupid i did years back was to get a i5 4t and not i7.
Consider yourself warned now.

It seems you are missing the point. A few drops in one game suddenly doesn't mean that a quad core is not worth getting for $120.

You don't need to "warn" me. I don't even play BF1 multi. I just wanted to show that if it's able to do ok in such a heavy game, then it's more than enough for what I play at such a price. I also don't mind an occasional 30 FPS min framerate in two or three games. I'm not a framerate enthusiast.

 

[elhefegaming]

I doubt it will. They know people will buy the 8 core chips so they will sell Z390 boards to go with them because they can. Hell, I'd buy it so long as it wasn't prices like their HEDT line. It they price it like a mainstream chip then I'd go for it ($400 or less).

Hopefully you're wrong, but I definitely agree with you.

 

[krumme]

It seems you are missing the point. A few drops in one game suddenly doesn't mean that a quad core is not worth getting for $120.

You don't need to "warn" me. I don't even play BF1 multi. I just wanted to show that if it's able to do ok in such a heavy game, then it's more than enough for what I play at such a price. I also don't mind an occasional 30 FPS min framerate in two or three games. I'm not a framerate enthusiast.

You wrote the 7500 would get 60fps consistently in bf1 mp64. It was just wrong.
A 7500 plus 1070 is too weak on the cpu side in bf1 mp. It will be the cpu that defines the fps experience. I know excactly that combination from first hand experience.
For other games its different and its nicely balanced.

Edit. Take a look at this recent thread.
https://forums.anandtech.com/index.php?posts/39095703
Its typical of the situation. He have a hsw i7 and is cpu bottleneck but cant really understand it.

 

[mikk]

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...

Looks like there was some kind of Multicore enhancement enabled, Cinebench R15 is 5% faster there than Intels reference score. But it shouldn't change too much. Power consumption looks pretty good considering that it run slightly overclocked. i7-8700k is a very good effort, overall way faster than Ryzen 1800X for example with two less cores. Unfortunately almost all gaming benchmarks are bottlenecked by its GPU in this test, not really useful what they did.

 

[PeterScott]

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.

I assume this is the graph you speak off

EDIT:
For anyone looking for where this slide came from here yah go

https://newsroom.intel.com/newsroom.../2017/03/Kaizad-Mistry-2017-Manufacturing.pdf

Judging by that 10nm performance will be behind 14nm++ until it gets to 10nm++, in 2020 or so.

10nm will be better for laptops because of lower power, but until 2020 or so, high clocked desktop chips will be better at 14nm++.

 

[moonbogg]

Judging by that 10nm performance will be behind 14nm++ until it gets to 10nm++, in 2020 or so.

10nm will be better for laptops because of lower power, but until 2020 or so, high clocked desktop chips will be better at 14nm++.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I don't entirely believe Intel regarding these claims. I think they are telling people this so we don't feel inclined to wait for 10nm products. They want us to buy 14nm stuff still even though 10nm stuff is probably right around the corner. They say, "Don't even worry about it. 10nm totally sucks, just buy 14nm CoffeeLake right now".
Therefore:

Don't buy Zen
Don't wait for 10nm
Just buy CoffeeLake right now
Get it?

 

[MarkPost]

Looks like there was some kind of Multicore enhancement enabled, Cinebench R15 is 5% faster there than Intels reference score. But it shouldn't change too much. Power consumption looks pretty good considering that it run slightly overclocked. i7-8700k is a very good effort, overall way faster than Ryzen 1800X for example with two less cores. Unfortunately almost all gaming benchmarks are bottlenecked by its GPU in this test, not really useful what they did.

multicore enhancements? what we have there is just a motheboard ocing a cpu (8700k, running 400mhz over Intel all core specs) vs. cpus (the rest) running at their default specs.

 

[PeterScott]

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I don't entirely believe Intel regarding these claims. I think they are telling people this so we don't feel inclined to wait for 10nm products. They want us to buy 14nm stuff still even though 10nm stuff is probably right around the corner. They say, "Don't even worry about it. 10nm totally sucks, just buy 14nm CoffeeLake right now".
Therefore:

Don't buy Zen
Don't wait for 10nm
Just buy CoffeeLake right now
Get it?

If the tinfoil hat fits...

From all the issues Intel had getting 10nm to market, I don't have any trouble believing it is going to take them time to get the clock rate up to high levels.

Intel doesn't need to have people look at some obscure process slide to convince people to buy it.

Coffee Lake is probably going to be nearly sold out for months, this is the biggest CPU jump from Intel in nearly a decade, it moves ahead without compromise.

 

[moonbogg]

If the tinfoil hat fits...

From all the issues Intel had getting 10nm to market, I don't have any trouble believing it is going to take them time to get the clock rate up to high levels.

Intel doesn't need to have people look at some obscure process slide to convince people to buy it.

Coffee Lake is probably going to be nearly sold out for months, this is the biggest CPU jump from Intel in nearly a decade, it moves ahead without compromise.

You think it will be sold out for a long time? That makes me really want to snatch one up and then brag all about it to those who were too slow to hit the buy button. I remember feeling a sense of panic when I bought my 2600K on release day. I almost died of a heart attack buying my 1080ti. I can feel that CoffeeLake blood pressure rising already and I probably won't even buy one...probably.

 

[jpiniero]

Coffee Lake is probably going to be nearly sold out for months, this is the biggest CPU jump from Intel in nearly a decade, it moves ahead without compromise.

Hey now, they threw in two extra cores and it clocks 5% higher. It's a nice product and really for gaming you shouldn't really consider anything else at this point, but lets be real about it.

Tigerlake might be worth waiting for but that's two years away.... and that's only if they do manage to get the clocks meaningfully above 5 Ghz. Which I am skeptical...

 

[eddman]

You wrote the 7500 would get 60fps consistently in bf1 mp64. It was just wrong.

No, I didn't. Based on what I saw I said it didn't drop below 60 (taking into account the recorder). That's all. You say it drops even to 30 FPS. Fine. Even if there are such deep drops here and there, it's still ok for such a CPU. I don't know why some drops below 60 FPS somehow means "unplayable".

Been playing games in the 30-60 FPS range for years. Never bothered me.

Sure, if I get the money, I'd spend it on a CFL i5. For now I see nothing wrong with CFL i3.

 

[Aikouka]

Asus Apex and formula previews:

That Formula board is quite nice. They've fixed a lot of the problems since my old Maximus VI Formula board, but I'll probably go with the Hero instead. The three big things I'm looking for are a considerable number of USB ports (8+), no Killer networking, and 2+ M.2 slots.

Hm, looking at it closer, I don't think the Hero has two M.2 slots or even enough USB ports. I might have to go with the Formula after all. Although, I did watch a video that says the Maximus X Code is pretty much the Formula without the extra junk. So, maybe I'll take a look at that one. Although, I do like that the ASRock Fatal1ty board has 10G Ethernet, but I'm sure that board will be pricey enough that I could just buy an expansion card (~$200) for the difference.

 

[epsilon84]

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.

This. I've been running BF1 on both my desktop (2500K @ 4.5GHz) and laptop (i5 7300HQ) and BF1 is more than playable. Sure my framerates drop below 60fps when it gets hectic but its far from unplayable, especially on my desktop which runs a FreeSync monitor.

Honestly, if I was still playing competitively like I used to, I would upgrade my CPU for BF1. Better fps = better aiming in twitch fps games, we all know that. But I'm just a casual gamer these days so the occasional dip in frame rate isn't of a huge concern to me. The game is perfectly playable on my current hardware, but I'll probably upgrade to CFL anyway since my desktop is ancient now and I'm getting the itch to have a new toy to play with!

So in summary, to keep this on topic
The 4C/4T i3s will be more than capable of playable framerates even in heavily threaded titles like BF1. Yes, you will get better min fps on the 6C i5 and i7s. If you want a consistent 60fps+ experience, get a 8700K and overclock it to 5GHz. Problem solved.

 

[moonbogg]

Even the Haswell and Broadwell 6 cores don't drop much below 100fps in BF1, like ever. So these high clocked CoffeeLake 6 cores can easily feed well north of 100fps all the time everywhere IMO. The only problem with such a ridiculously fast CPU like this is doing it justice with proper GPU power and monitor technology. I want one, but if I do break down and get an 8700K I already know I won't benefit from it except maybe in Battlegrounds a little bit since that game is still CPU unoptimized like crazy. Other than that I won't ever notice or see any difference. I have one GPU at 3440x1440 and I'm limited to 100hz. Don't do any threaded work on the PC either so...bah its a tough call. BAH!

 

[DrMrLordX]

Overall, CL puts Intel back on top without question. The AMD argument will revert to the Value argument.

Now now, we don't really want to see the AMD argument in this thread, do we?

 

[krumme]

Even the Haswell and Broadwell 6 cores don't drop much below 100fps in BF1, like ever. So these high clocked CoffeeLake 6 cores can easily feed well north of 100fps all the time everywhere IMO. The only problem with such a ridiculously fast CPU like this is doing it justice with proper GPU power and monitor technology. I want one, but if I do break down and get an 8700K I already know I won't benefit from it except maybe in Battlegrounds a little bit since that game is still CPU unoptimized like crazy. Other than that I won't ever notice or see any difference. I have one GPU at 3440x1440 and I'm limited to 100hz. Don't do any threaded work on the PC either so...bah its a tough call. BAH!

Bwe 6c slightly oc is just a fast cpu and still rock 144 gaming fine. Yes you are st limited in pubg but so is the rest of the world but to me its coding problem. The game is hardly looking like bf1.
The 8700k is attractive because its gets bwe perf plus aprox 25% on mt and st. Both oc. I wouldn't upgrade from bwe until fast 8c comes 2018/2019 icelake/zen2. Those will probably be cheaper and leaner too if it matters.

 

[phillyman36]

Edited the post you can check z370 on the side

https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-Republic-of-Gamers-Products/

https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/ROG-MAXIMUS-X-HERO-WI-FI-AC/



Here ya go TheF34RChannel