• 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 68 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
jpiniero said:
Intel may have at one point wanted to call Coffee Lake Refresh 8xxx like Whiskey/Amber.
Click to expand...
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/i...390-could-be-14-nm-coffee-lake-after-all.html
 
Last edited:
Accord99 said:
It's for the 8C/8T; an 1800+ score would be indicative of 5.2+ GHz at least for that configuration.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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:

1507184097w6igx0tfz2_3_4.png


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.

1507184097w6igx0tfz2_3_5.png
 
Last edited:
jpiniero said:
Test conditions don't really matter in this case, since it was obviously overclocked.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Markfw said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
VirtualLarry said:
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.
Click to expand...
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....
 
frozentundra123456 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
VirtualLarry said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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+
 
slashy16 said:
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+
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top