Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

[Eug]

My opinion, I consider Intel Kaby Lake dead; upcoming Coffee Lake increases core count throughout the line-up. I wouldn't consider scratching a Kaby Lake itch,
Except Core m, which will likely remain 2 cores, transitioning to 10 nm Cannon Lake at end of year (Intel target).

That is a good point, but it sounds like Coffee Lake S-series chips that are 65 Watt TDP will likely be quad-core. The 6-core models will be 95 Watt parts most likely.

http://digiworthy.com/2017/06/07/intel-roadmap-8th-gen-coffee-lake-s/

On the Mac side, they usually have two i5 and one i7 27" iMac model. The two i5 machines are 65 Watts, and the i7 is 91/95 Watts. This time around I went with the slowest of the three. I suspect even if Apple were to release 6-core iMac with Coffee Lake, it wouldn't be until 2018 and we'd again have the entry level and mid-tier machines being 4-core, with the high end machine being a 6-core i7 for about 20% higher cost. (That's overall cost, not just CPU cost.)

I'm just guessing of course, but that's how I see it playing out, and given that scenario I don't feel like waiting another year, esp. since Kaby Lake ticks off the other checkboxes I was looking at, including hardware 8-bit and 10-bit HEVC and VP9 decode, as well as hardware 8-bit and 10-bit HEVC encode (and 8-bit VP9 encode). Also, for fiscal year related budget reasons, it makes more sense for me to buy it this year than next.

The other thing I wonder about is single-thread clockspeed. How highly will the 95 Watt 6-core parts be clocked when compared to the 65 Watt quad-core parts of the same general class?

---

Note however, I say this as someone who is coming from a Penryn MacBook Pro and a Lynnfield iMac. Mind you, the last time around I did take your advice. I waited until the iMacs got quad-core options and then eventually bought one. The i5 model iMacs of that period were dual-core, so I splurged and got the quad-core Core i7. For my usage though, the jump from 2-core to 4-core was pretty significant. The jump from 4-core to 6-core will likely be less significant. It should also be noted that at that time the dual-core parts were much higher clocked than the quad-core parts, although I don't see that happening to anywhere near the same extent this time around.

 

[William Gaatjes]

It will be interesting to see what the Stilt , Looncraz and Agner (to just name a few of many knowledgeable people) will discover with respect to the cache changes and the IPC changes that are mentioned in the anandtech article.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11464...ng-18core-hcc-silicon-to-consumers-for-1999/3

 

[TahoeDust]

Do we know for certain yet if the x299 (Asus Strix x299-E in particular) will support a bootable NVMe Raid 0 array?

 

[jpiniero]

Wow, I thought Ice Lake was going to be 2019 - very interesting! Isn't Ice Lake supposed to have DCG on lead?

Intel said 10++ will be server first... which could be Icelake-X. I would not expect anything mainstream Icelake until the end of 2018 though.

I agree, and give that that bit of info was likely from the first stepping, there is still hope. I think stock 3.1 GHz is a bit low as well. Still two months away so....more to come?

That model is probably a locked 6 core at 65W, considering the turbo is the same as the 7700 (4.2 Ghz).

 

[tential]

If you buy a quad-core after hexacore coffeelake is out I feel bad for you. We should start a fund to help those poor souls out.

 

[mikk]

That is a good point, but it sounds like Coffee Lake S-series chips that are 65 Watt TDP will likely be quad-core. The 6-core models will be 95 Watt parts most likely.

I don't think so. CFL 6C is even coming for 45W mobile. And the link I posted could be a 65W SKU because Sisoft reports a power of 81.2W....65W SKU with a Bios configured to 81W is possible. If this is a 95W SKU it wouldn't go below its TDP.

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_r...d4ecddecd4edd4f280bd8dabceab96a680f3cef6&l=en

i7-6700
Power 81.2W


Exactly the same Power report from Sisoft and this is a 65W SKU.

 

[Eug]

I don't think so. CFL 6C is even coming for 45W mobile. And the link I posted could be a 65W SKU because Sisoft reports a power of 81.2W....65W SKU with a Bios configured to 81W is possible. If this is a 95W SKU it wouldn't go below its TDP.

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_r...d4ecddecd4edd4f280bd8dabceab96a680f3cef6&l=en

i7-6700
Power 81.2W

Exactly the same Power report from Sisoft and this is a 65W SKU.

Yeah but the 45W chips are the highest power mobile chips. Most are already quad-core. 45W is to mobile what 95W is to desktop.

IMO it's the 28W mobile chips that would correspond to the 65W desktop chips, and currently all of them are dual-core. I would be very surprised if there was a 6-core 28W mobile part for Coffee Lake.

But then again, it doesn't seem to have HT, so you could be right. Is Core i7 going to be 6-core with HT then?

Also, it's quite possible that even if it is an i5, it could very well be the top-of-the-line i5, with most of the rest being 4-core parts.

In any case, yes the smartest solution might be to wait and see, but I don't feel like waiting another year. I don't expect Apple to update the iMacs again this year. Won't happen until Q1 2018 at the very earliest, and probably Q2 2018 more likely. Unfortunately, I'm currently stuck on a Lynnfield machine with USB 2 and platter drive and want something new with a 5K WCG screen (and buying this year would allow me some tax advantages).

---

Here's my uneducated guess to the Coffee Lake desktop lineup after considering your comment:

Core i7: All 6-core, with HT
i7-8750X 112 Watts
i7-8700K 91 Watts
i7-8700 65 Watts
i7-8700T 35 Watts

Core i5: 4-core or 6-core, no HT
i5-8650X 112 Watts - 6-core
i5-8650K 91 Watts - 6-core
i5-8650 65 Watts - 6-core
i5-8600 65 Watts - 4-core
i5-8600T 35 Watts - 4-core
i5-8500 65 Watts - 4-core
i5-8500T 35 Watts - 4-core
i5-8400 65 Watts - 4-core
i5-8400T 35 Watts - 4-core

Or do you predict the hypothetical i5-8600, 8500, and 8400 will all be 6-core too?

 

[mikk]

Yeah but the 45W chips are the highest power mobile chips. Most are already quad-core. 45W is to mobile what 95W is to desktop.

Nonsense. Despite that mobile might be binned it's the same chip. You don't need 95W on desktop to reach mobile performance.

i7-7700T 35W 2.9-3.8 Ghz
i7-7820HK 45W 2.9-3.9 Ghz

Clock frequency is key, it's all about clock speed and voltage. It's the same chip!

IMO it's the 28W mobile chips that would correspond to the 65W desktop chips, and currently all of them are dual-core.

Another nonsense. 35W desktop correspond to 15W mobile then or what? Good luck finding a 15W 2.9-3.8 Ghz Quadcore.

65W SKUs are dualcore on desktop? Lol.

Core i7-7700T 35W Quadcore
Core i7-7700 65W Quadcore

 

[Eug]

Nonsense. Despite that mobile might be binned it's the same chip. You don't need 95W on desktop to reach mobile performance.

i7-7700T 35W 2.9-3.8 Ghz
i7-7820HK 45W 2.9-3.9 Ghz

Clock frequency is key, it's all about clock speed and voltage. It's the same chip!

Another nonsense. 35W desktop correspond to 15W mobile then or what? Good luck finding a 15W 2.9-3.8 Ghz Quadcore.

65W SKUs are dualcore on desktop? Lol.

Core i7-7700T 35W Quadcore
Core i7-7700 65W Quadcore

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that Intel chooses to market its chips in certain tiers. These are not purely technical categories. They are in large part marketing choices.

Hence, my prediction is that 6-core will remain at the higher end with higher end prices. This should remain true both in mobile and desktop.

IOW, after considering your earlier comments, what I have posted above is my prediction in the desktop category that all i7 chips will be 6-core, and only higher end i5 chips will be 6-core, whereas lower end i5 chips will be 4-core.

What I am asking you is if you think ALL i5 chips will be 6-core, or if the 6-core i5 chips will just be the higher end ones like I was suggesting.

BTW, if I wanted a big boost in performance compared to the i5-7500 I just ordered, I could get that right now. All I would need to do is order the i7-7700K instead. However, it would cost several hundred bucks more (albeit paired with a higher end Radeon GPU). In fact, now that I think about it, perhaps a i7-7700K 4-core at 4.2 GHz might make more sense for many users than a hypothetical i5-8650 6-core at 3.5 GHz.

 

[Eug]

Geekbenches for new Kaby Lake Y m3 and i5 MacBook.

https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/3047596
https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/3059404

m3-7y32: 3901 / 7075
i5-7y54: 3866 / 7319

Note that a lot of the m3 single core scores are more in the 3700-3800 range.

Still, that means the i5 improvement is marginal at best over this year's m3. However, m3 2017 is a huge improvement over previous years.

2015 MacBook Core M-5Y31: 2791/4924
2015 MacBook Core M-5Y51: 3033/5759
2015 MacBook Core M-5Y71: 3314/6176

2016 MacBook Core m3-6Y30: 2969/5582
2016 MacBook Core m5-6y54: 3349/6481
2016 MacBook Core m7-6Y75: 3683/7374

 

[LTC8K6]

What process is used for the 7740K/X? It seems to overclock better on LN2.

https://hothardware.com/ContentImages/NewsItem/41228/content/Intel_Core_i7_Overclock.jpg

 

[Sweepr]

Skylake-X Now Available For Pre-Order in the US

http://www.shopblt.com/search/order_id=825403410&s_max=25&t_all=1&s_all=BX80673&search=Search


Intel® Processor Pricing Effective Jun 07, 2017 Recommended Customer Price Tray Units

i9-7900X (13.75M cache, 10 Cores, 20 Threads, 3.30 GHz, 14nm) - $989
i7-7820X (11M cache, 8 Cores, 16 Threads, 3.60 GHz, 14nm) - $589
i7-7800X (8.25M cache, 6 Cores, 12 Threads, 3.50 GHz, 14nm) - $383
i7-7740X (8M cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 4.30 GHz, 14nm) - $339
i5-7640X (6M cache, 4 Cores, 4 Threads, 4.00 GHz, 14nm) $242

https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/fil...7_Recommended_Customer_Price_List_updated.pdf

 

[mikk]

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_r...efdbe8deead2e3c5b78aba9cf99ca191b7c4f9c1&l=en

Intel(R) HD Graphics Gen9; 694C:C0 (1720SP 47C 1GHz, 528kB L2, 10.4GB 800MHz) (OpenCL)

Could that Sisoft entry belong to Kabylake-G with AMD graphics?

https://gfxbench.com/device.jsp?benchmark=gfx40&os=Windows&api=gl&D=AMD+694C:C0&testgroup=overall

3D Graphics Performance of AMD 694C:C0

 

[CatMerc]

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_r...efdbe8deead2e3c5b78aba9cf99ca191b7c4f9c1&l=en

Intel(R) HD Graphics Gen9; 694C:C0 (1720SP 47C 1GHz, 528kB L2, 10.4GB 800MHz) (OpenCL)

Could that Sisoft entry belong to Kabylake-G with AMD graphics?

https://gfxbench.com/device.jsp?benchmark=gfx40&os=Windows&api=gl&D=AMD+694C:C0&testgroup=overall

3D Graphics Performance of AMD 694C:C0

Only way that would make sense considering comments by both companies is that these are exclusive parts for a company with enough clout to ask for this. Apple comes to mind.

 

[iBoMbY]

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_r...efdbe8deead2e3c5b78aba9cf99ca191b7c4f9c1&l=en

Intel(R) HD Graphics Gen9; 694C:C0 (1720SP 47C 1GHz, 528kB L2, 10.4GB 800MHz) (OpenCL)

Could that Sisoft entry belong to Kabylake-G with AMD graphics?

https://gfxbench.com/device.jsp?benchmark=gfx40&os=Windows&api=gl&D=AMD+694C:C0&testgroup=overall

3D Graphics Performance of AMD 694C:C0

I think you can select more than one device to run the benchmark on, and that's what this is. Like this one.

 

[jpiniero]

Only way that would make sense considering comments by both companies is that these are exclusive parts for a company with enough clout to ask for this. Apple comes to mind.

That's true although Apple did just update the iMac. Maybe the Mini?

 

[LTC8K6]

I think you can select more than one device to run the benchmark on, and that's what this is. Like this one.

Yep. There are two gpus in that system mikk posted. Intel Gen9 IGP, and an AMD card.

 

[Sweepr]

Genuine Intel(R) CPU 0000 @ 2.80GHz (4C 8T 3.81GHz, 3.5GHz IMC, 4x 256kB L2, 6MB L3)

 

[IntelUser2000]

Only way that would make sense considering comments by both companies is that these are exclusive parts for a company with enough clout to ask for this. Apple comes to mind.

Or they are simply denying it because its too early on at this stage. People lie even if they can be held accountable later. In this case there's no repercussions by saying otherwise.

For Intel even if they made a part that was largely due to Apple's insistence they make it available for other markets. Case in point the Iris Pro parts. I think its the only way it makes sense to them, when the potential volume is high. Obviously Apple alone isn't enough. If they make a part with AMD graphics and its a desktop part you'll see it for sale on places like Newegg.

Yep. There are two gpus in that system mikk posted. Intel Gen9 IGP, and an AMD card.

1720SPs are also quite big for an iGPU. That's more than twice the size of what AMD is thinking of with Raven Ridge and probably takes about 200mm2 for the die size and similar to RX 470. You'll also want more than 128GB/s bandwidth to have it properly fed. Oh and TDP of 200W. I am thinking 1024 SPs max would be realistic.

 

[jpiniero]

1720SPs are also quite big for an iGPU. That's more than twice the size of what AMD is thinking of with Raven Ridge and probably takes about 200mm2 for the die size and similar to RX 470. You'll also want more than 128GB/s bandwidth to have it properly fed. Oh and TDP of 200W. I am thinking 1024 SPs max would be realistic.

It's not really an IGP though - think of it more as a discrete GPU within a CPU package (which is also much bigger).

 

[LTC8K6]

Genuine Intel(R) CPU 0000 @ 2.80GHz (4C 8T 3.81GHz, 3.5GHz IMC, 4x 256kB L2, 6MB L3)

New i5?

 

[LTC8K6]

Or they are simply denying it because its too early on at this stage. People lie even if they can be held accountable later. In this case there's no repercussions by saying otherwise.

For Intel even if they made a part that was largely due to Apple's insistence they make it available for other markets. Case in point the Iris Pro parts. I think its the only way it makes sense to them, when the potential volume is high. Obviously Apple alone isn't enough. If they make a part with AMD graphics and its a desktop part you'll see it for sale on places like Newegg.



1720SPs are also quite big for an iGPU. That's more than twice the size of what AMD is thinking of with Raven Ridge and probably takes about 200mm2 for the die size and similar to RX 470. You'll also want more than 128GB/s bandwidth to have it properly fed. Oh and TDP of 200W. I am thinking 1024 SPs max would be realistic.

Well, it says gen9, so I think the IGP is just the regular Intel Gen 9/9.5 IGP. The 1720Sps are the AMD video card.

 

[Sweepr]

Coffee Lake-S SKUs

You're welcome.

 

[Eug]

Coffee Lake-S SKUs

You're welcome.

Ah, so there's a new 80 watt part. That explains the 81W 6-core sneak peek.

Also, does that naming mean there are both 6-core higher end and 4-core mid-range parts, as predicted?

 

[moonbogg]

Skylake-X Now Available For Pre-Order in the US

http://www.shopblt.com/search/order_id=825403410&s_max=25&t_all=1&s_all=BX80673&search=Search


Intel® Processor Pricing Effective Jun 07, 2017 Recommended Customer Price Tray Units

i9-7900X (13.75M cache, 10 Cores, 20 Threads, 3.30 GHz, 14nm) - $989
i7-7820X (11M cache, 8 Cores, 16 Threads, 3.60 GHz, 14nm) - $589
i7-7800X (8.25M cache, 6 Cores, 12 Threads, 3.50 GHz, 14nm) - $383
i7-7740X (8M cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 4.30 GHz, 14nm) - $339
i5-7640X (6M cache, 4 Cores, 4 Threads, 4.00 GHz, 14nm) $242

https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/fil...7_Recommended_Customer_Price_List_updated.pdf

Still too damn expensive.