• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

Page 548 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TheF34RChannel

Senior member
May 18, 2017
782
301
106
How compelling it is comes down to price. They could take control of everything but the super high core count market if they cut the 7700k to 275.00ish and priced the 8700k at current 7700k prices. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening.
I, too, remain skeptical that that'll happen until I see it. Besides, in the Netherlands we pay a nice hefty premium (how delightful) anyway. And then there's the aforementioned availability; the 6700K took weeks after launch to come into stock and prices remained inflated for at least 9 months, I never looked at the 7700K though, and all I hope for is that this won't repeat with the 8700K (I can wait a few weeks to see what the prices do, however I'm hoping to get it at launch).
 

Edrick

Golden Member
Feb 18, 2010
1,915
201
106
I can definitely agree there's too much emphasis on cost, especially on an enthusiast forum such as this, where performance and efficiency should come first. However, there's always a balance between the three, and sidelining cost as near irrelevant can lead to odd assessments. For example, keep in mind this thread is not about HEDT only, in fact it was originally started as a mainstream SKL thread. This inherently narrowed any pricing argument to the sub $400 zone for quite a while.
There is what is "best overall", and there is "what is best for me". Cost definitely comes into play for one of those scenarios.

And you are right, this was not always a HEDT thread, and cost is generally more important in the mainstream market. But my post was not totally discounting cost, I was discounting "median household income" numbers that were being quoted. I wouldn't expect anyone to overpay for a under performing cpu regardless of how much they make.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
How compelling it is comes down to price. They could take control of everything but the super high core count market if they cut the 7700k to 275.00ish and priced the 8700k at current 7700k prices. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening.
The low-mid end of the market is the price sensitive one. The enthusiasts will gladly pay $379+ for 6 core premium chip, and Intel would have to be completely populated by idiots to throw away that premium. I expect the price of the 8700K (assuming this is the name for the 6 core) to be $379-$399 MSRP.
 

TheF34RChannel

Senior member
May 18, 2017
782
301
106
Will this thread gradually morph into one about all future upcoming Intel CPUs as well? If so, I'll close the one I made a while ago as having two makes no sense.
 

RichUK

Lifer
Feb 14, 2005
10,318
672
126
Exclusive: Intel® Core™ i7-8700K Specifications (Coffee Lake)

6C/12T
12MB L3
3.7 GHz Base
4.3 GHz 6-core Turbo
4.4 GHz 4-core Turbo
4.6 GHz 2-core Turbo
4.7 GHz 1-core Turbo
95W TDP

Disclaimer: The source this info comes from has provided accurate Intel leaks in the past. For now, treat it like a rumor, but rest assured I will let you know about any changes. No pricing (MSRP) information yet. Next in line, Core i5-8600K specifications.
Very nice indeed, now we just need some new leaks on when it'll be released!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pick2

Roger Wilco

Senior member
Mar 20, 2017
950
571
136
I have my eye on the 6 core i5, if the rumors are true. I won't need more than 6 threads for the next few years. I'm hoping they price it ~250, but I'm assuming it will be closer to 300.
 

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,117
974
136
If these clocks hold to be true, I know what I'm getting for Christmas!
Am I a bad boy for hoping it lands way before Christmas? :) 4.7Ghz one core turbo is way more than I expected, 5ghz OC should be as easy as on 7700K
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,802
1,031
126
I have my eye on the 6 core i5, if the rumors are true. I won't need more than 6 threads for the next few years. I'm hoping they price it ~250, but I'm assuming it will be closer to 300.
I'm in the same boat. I was going to get a 7600 but I never found an OEM willing to sell it and I didn't have time to build my own. So an 8600 (or similar) will be my next computer.

That said, why would you think it would be closer to $300? Since Sandy Bridge there have only been a small handful of desktop i5 chips above $242 (most of those had Iris Pro graphics). With a truely competitive Ryzen here, why would Intel now choose to make the i5 processors far more expensive?

The Intel 8600K and AMD 1600X should both have the same number of cores, very close to the same clocks, and I think they should be priced about the same in the $240s (give or take a little). AMD will have hyperthreading, but Intel will have better IPC. So it'll be a close battle.

Intel is schizophrenic on many issues, but is extremely consistent on pricing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arachnotronic
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
2,010
126
I'm in the same boat. I was going to get a 7600 but I never found an OEM willing to sell it and I didn't have time to build my own. So an 8600 (or similar) will be my next computer.

That said, why would you think it would be closer to $300? Since Sandy Bridge there have only been a small handful of desktop i5 chips above $242 (most of those had Iris Pro graphics). With a truely competitive Ryzen here, why would Intel now choose to make the i5 processors far more expensive?

Intel is schizophrenic on many issues, but is extremely consistent on pricing.
I agree. In the face of competition, Intel would be downright dumb to raise prices.
 

TheF34RChannel

Senior member
May 18, 2017
782
301
106
Don't do it. This thread needs to gradually die as it is too big. Trying to find anything in it is misery.
I'll keep it open. This thread keeps growing though ha ha so I can't see it gradually dying.

Am I a bad boy for hoping it lands way before Christmas? :) 4.7Ghz one core turbo is way more than I expected, 5ghz OC should be as easy as on 7700K
Well yeah it lands well before then, that's known for quite a while actually :) October is the word on the streets.

Not every 7700K hits 5 and certainly don't expect every 8700K to. Personally I am okay with that as I don't need it; 4.7GHz on all cores will make me well happy, coupled with some fast RAM (I wonder which speed will benefit it most).
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,398
738
136
I'll keep it open. This thread keeps growing though ha ha so I can't see it gradually dying.



Well yeah it lands well before then, that's known for quite a while actually :) October is the word on the streets.

Not every 7700K hits 5 and certainly don't expect every 8700K to. Personally I am okay with that as I don't need it; 4.7GHz on all cores will make me well happy, coupled with some fast RAM (I wonder which speed will benefit it most).
I think only thermals would keep CFL from clocking to 5Ghz. The process seems rather good. 4.7Ghz @ Skylake ipc is the most powerful core to ever grace the desktop, if all this turns out to be true.
 

swilli89

Golden Member
Mar 23, 2010
1,538
1,143
136
I'm in the same boat. I was going to get a 7600 but I never found an OEM willing to sell it and I didn't have time to build my own. So an 8600 (or similar) will be my next computer.

That said, why would you think it would be closer to $300? Since Sandy Bridge there have only been a small handful of desktop i5 chips above $242 (most of those had Iris Pro graphics). With a truely competitive Ryzen here, why would Intel now choose to make the i5 processors far more expensive?

The Intel 8600K and AMD 1600X should both have the same number of cores, very close to the same clocks, and I think they should be priced about the same in the $240s (give or take a little). AMD will have hyperthreading, but Intel will have better IPC. So it'll be a close battle.

Intel is schizophrenic on many issues, but is extremely consistent on pricing.
Are you sure about that? Coffee lake is basically Skylake IPC and Skylake chips when clocked at the same as Ryzen often lose in many tests. clock per clock Ryzen has great IPC.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
2,010
126
Are you sure about that? Coffee lake is basically Skylake IPC and Skylake chips when clocked at the same as Ryzen often lose in many tests. clock per clock Ryzen has great IPC.
Even AMD says that Skylake (client) has higher IPC than Zen. CFL is the same basic core pipeline, but the larger 12MB L3 cache should help boost per-core performance in some applications (since in lightly threaded applications the active cores will have a larger L3 cache to work with).
 

Roger Wilco

Senior member
Mar 20, 2017
950
571
136
I'm in the same boat. I was going to get a 7600 but I never found an OEM willing to sell it and I didn't have time to build my own. So an 8600 (or similar) will be my next computer.

That said, why would you think it would be closer to $300? Since Sandy Bridge there have only been a small handful of desktop i5 chips above $242 (most of those had Iris Pro graphics). With a truely competitive Ryzen here, why would Intel now choose to make the i5 processors far more expensive?

The Intel 8600K and AMD 1600X should both have the same number of cores, very close to the same clocks, and I think they should be priced about the same in the $240s (give or take a little). AMD will have hyperthreading, but Intel will have better IPC. So it'll be a close battle.

Intel is schizophrenic on many issues, but is extremely consistent on pricing.
I was under the impression that Skylake and Kaby Lake already had a small IPC edge over Ryzen. On top of that, Coffee Lake should allow for significantly higher frequencies across all cores (for example, 1600X OCed to 3.9 Ghz all cores vs 8600K OCed to 4.7 Ghz all cores). From my understanding, the 6C/6T i5 should have ~25% more single core performance at the least. Ryzen's benefit is twice the amount of threads, which I'm sure are useful to some users running heavily multi-threaded workloads. I play a lot of RTS/simulation/strategy games, so single core performance is the holy grail I've been seeking after suffering through Bulldozer, but moar cores is enticing for the future of gaming.

I wonder about the price simply because I think it could invalidate and cannibalize Intel's current 4 core cpus. Wouldn't people prefer two additional physical cores over 2 threads? If the 8600K is priced at $250, who is going to buy the 7600K, 7640X, 7700, 7700K, 7740K. It could also be disruptive for the 7800X, especially if it clocks higher and has a more consumer-friendly cache structure.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
21,377
9,444
136
Clock per clock and same thread count?! I would definitely like to see those tests.
What I would like to see, is two chips PRICED about the same competing. So what if one has more cores. Also, whats the power consumption of each ? My wallet does most of the thinking, and for me power consumption also affects my wallet (DC computing 24/7)
 

TheF34RChannel

Senior member
May 18, 2017
782
301
106
I never understood comparisons based on price; it makes zero sense to me as you can compare whatever segments you want and not have a fair game. Like comparing a 4000 USD bicycle to a 4000 USD car. You compare based on specs, and then you can still vote with your wallet.
 
Last edited:

TheF34RChannel

Senior member
May 18, 2017
782
301
106
It looks like Coffeelake is going to be the chip users wanted back when Intel released Skylake and later Kabylake. High clocks, more cores. Better late than never. It ought to carry Intel pretty well for awhile until they can get Icelake on the market.
It won't be too long before we start whispering about similarly specced 8C Ice Lake-S SKUs ;) it won't be for me though; my attention and money will be for Tiger Lake-S and 10nm+(?)
 

Roger Wilco

Senior member
Mar 20, 2017
950
571
136
I never understood comparisons based on price; it makes zero sense to me as you can compare whatever segments you want. Like comparing a 4000 USD bicycle to a 4000 USD car. You compare based on specs, and then you can still vote with your wallet.
When you have very similar products that are both within the same price range, why would you not compare them and determine which product is best for your needs?
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
17,242
6,248
136
It won't be too long before we start whispering about similarly specced 8C Ice Lake-S SKUs ;) it won't be for me though; my attention and money will be for Tiger Lake-S and 10nm+(?)
The main thing I am looking for from Icelake is a major change in uarch. Intel needs to outgrow Core. Apple's chip developments show this already. And no I don't think it's x86 legacy "holding back" Intel except maybe at the very low end. What they need to do is stop leaning exclusively on process advantage. They need to beat Apple and the ARMy with superior design.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
I wonder about the price simply because I think it could invalidate and cannibalize Intel's current 4 core cpus. Wouldn't people prefer two additional physical cores over 2 threads? If the 8600K is priced at $250, who is going to buy the 7600K, 7640X, 7700, 7700K, 7740K. It could also be disruptive for the 7800X, especially if it clocks higher and has a more consumer-friendly cache structure.
If I were product planning, I would not have a 6C/6T part, just like AMD is only expected to disable HT on 4C parts.

Disabling HT is only to create lower end parts and you want to sell all the 6 core dies as Premium parts.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
21,377
9,444
136
I never understood comparisons based on price; it makes zero sense to me as you can compare whatever segments you want and not have a fair game. Like comparing a 4000 USD bicycle to a 4000 USD car. You compare based on specs, and then you can still vote with your wallet.
I am not talking about a silly comparison, BOTH would be CPU's for a PC, BOTH would be about the same price and aimed at the same market segment, BOTH would have very similar features, but one may have 8 cores, and one may have 6 cores or even 4 (as an example). So the one that performs better, AND has the same power consumption or less, gets my purchase.

Actually what I am dying to see or a 16 core TR against a similarly priced Intel, 8 cores, 10, 12 or 16, whatever one is about the same price.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,802
1,031
126
I wonder about the price simply because I think it could invalidate and cannibalize Intel's current 4 core cpus. Wouldn't people prefer two additional physical cores over 2 threads? If the 8600K is priced at $250, who is going to buy the 7600K, 7640X, 7700, 7700K, 7740K. It could also be disruptive for the 7800X, especially if it clocks higher and has a more consumer-friendly cache structure.
As far as Intel's actual customers (Dell, Lenovo, etc) go, they will use up their existing contracts for the 7xx0 chips and then get a contract for the 8xx0 chips.

Intel has no financial need nor desire to keep manufacturing the Kaby Lake chips. (Note: they will do so in limited quantities for legacy purposes). But, Intel only needs us to buy the Coffee Lake chips. As far as Intel is concerned it is Coffee Lake vs Coffee Lake vs Ryzen. Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake is a problem only for the resellers who have to offload their stock of old chips.

The 7800X is the only chip in your list that is really in competition. But those should be completely different customers who need HEDT features. The 7800X will be a good buy if you need HEDT. If not, get Coffee Lake.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY