• 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."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

Page 599 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
49,560
5,606
126
Lacking an igp, and being slower than the Intel i7 chips in lightly threaded tasks and gaming, the 1800x should be selling well below $300 to be "viable." The faster 7700k (in gaming and light-threaded tasks) is only $279 at microcenter.
Depends on your perspective, I guess, but who buys an 8C/16T CPU for "lightly threaded tasks"? Likewise, shouldn't the 7900X be selling for under $279, since it's slower for 1080P gaming than the 7700K? Ignore the core counts, after all, we're talking about customers that buy these chips for "lightly threaded tasks" - according to you.
 

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
49,560
5,606
126
Kaby Lake Refresh has an improved ring bus, although no details given. Maybe Coffee Lake too.
Honestly, if they're re-using the cores from SKL and KBL in CFL and KBL-R, then I highly doubt that they went in and tweaked the ringbus architecture at all.

The difference is perhaps one of process tech, and they simply clock the ringbus higher by default. At least, that's my guess.
 

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
49,560
5,606
126
What I personally want, is, an updated mini-STX PC, ala the ASRock DeskMini H110W units, that takes CFL-S 65W 6C/6T (locked, if that's what fits under the TDP limit, you won't be overclocking with a mini-PC like that anyway).

That would be an ideal desktop rig for me. It's really, really, a shame that CFL-S won't fit into existing S1151 boards. Otherwise, I'd just drop a couple of them into my existing builds.

Edit: Sweepr, got any contacts at ASRock, that want to leak info about any upcoming mini-STX PCs compatible with CFL-S? I need the juicy details if one is going to be released.

I could even see them releasing one with a Z370 chipset, but disabling CPU overclocking, or TDP-limiting it hard in UEFI, but allowing higher-clocked RAM to be utilized.

Do they make GSkill DDR4-3200 SO-DIMMs? That would be really interesting to see, some Cinebench runs with DDR4-3200 in a DeskMini, with a 65W 6C/6T or even 6C/12T CFL-S CPU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,263
631
136
Depends on your perspective, I guess, but who buys an 8C/16T CPU for "lightly threaded tasks"? Likewise, shouldn't the 7900X be selling for under $279, since it's slower for 1080P gaming than the 7700K? Ignore the core counts, after all, we're talking about customers that buy these chips for "lightly threaded tasks" - according to you.
For the mainstream, lightly threaded tasks and gaming is all the rave. Care to list AMDs mainstream CPUs?
 

witeken

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2013
3,876
154
106
Honestly, if they're re-using the cores from SKL and KBL in CFL and KBL-R, then I highly doubt that they went in and tweaked the ringbus architecture at all.

The difference is perhaps one of process tech, and they simply clock the ringbus higher by default. At least, that's my guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
49,560
5,606
126
For the mainstream, lightly threaded tasks and gaming is all the rave. Care to list AMDs mainstream CPUs?
That's slightly ironic that I'm even debating this point. I used to advocate running an overclocked Skylake Celeron/Pentium (above 4.0Ghz), or even a G3258 Haswell at 4.0Ghz+, for running Firefox, since it isn't heavily threaded.

But this forum collectively told me that "I was doing it wrong", and "browsing is FASTER with MORE CORES", and "Use Chrome, it's multi-threaded" (blech, spyware).

And I would call AMD's Ryzen 5 1600X a "mainstream" CPU, it clocks relatively high (turbo to 4.0Ghz), has decent (Broadwell-esque) IPC, and has 6C/12T, something that Intel is only JUST NOW (soon) coming out with in their mainstream lineup.

And it's great for gaming. Within 5% of a 7700K, with better minimums.
 

nvgpu

Senior member
Sep 12, 2014
629
201
81




Update: Along with the product specs for the new mobile SKUs, Intel has also uploaded the new box art for the desktop 8th Gen Core parts to their website. The boxes confirm, among other things, that once these desktop parts will launch they'll have 6 cores (with HT for the i7) and require 300 series motherboards.
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,513
439
126
Is that it? Was hoping for some more info on the desktop side of things. Still have no idea of the release date....
 

witeken

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2013
3,876
154
106
Plot twist: Intel will still announce their 8th Gen desktop CPUs today, at their Facebook event?
 

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
49,560
5,606
126
"One of the great things about 8th Gen Core is the scalability"... is that why 8th Gen Core, is made up of KBL-R, CFL-S, and CNL-U? Three different designs? So much for ultimate "scalability".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

Dribble

Golden Member
Aug 9, 2005
1,849
388
136
Right. If you're a gamer on a limited budget, it makes more sense to spend the money on the GPU and not the CPU. The problem for AMD is that the 8700K isn't the only release - the new i5 also has 6 cores but is quite a bit cheaper. It may not have HT but I'd probably trade that for the ST advantage.
As someone still using an i2500k that has lasted through many GPU upgrades l disagree. Spend more, get a decent CPU and it'll still be doing the business 5 years later, unlike your GPU which will feel ancient. It's also much easier and cheaper to change your GPU - a CPU upgrade is probably going to require a new motherboard and memory too.
These new 6 core Intel chips are the ones to buy, got the cores and the IPC to make them both a worthwhile upgrade from any older mainstream CPU, and should last many years giving high end gaming performance.
 

USER8000

Golden Member
Jun 23, 2012
1,517
741
136
Only on this tech forum are people going on about how companies never respond to competition,when in every sector around them,competition is what drives things forward. People are very naive if they didn't think Intel was aware of what AMD was planning to do with Ryzen a while ago,and people with short memories forget Ryzen was actually delayed from a launch late last year. Intel knows very well AMD would try to fight using more cores,and they had a design which had much better single core performance than before. AMD has used more cores in the Phenom II and Bulldozer periods. It is not rocket science.

I find it very hard to believe Intel would have not even gotten tidbits of what AMD was upto even in 2015,as AMD would have had to finalise the design even back then,for a late 2016 release,but perhaps expected Ryzen maybe to be less competitive. So,only hardware enthusiasts on forums think Intel would not have tried to have a response in the pipeline.

I mean look at the fact we have a stop gap Z370 followed by Z390 chipset months later,or that Kabylake is going to be replaced in well under a year together with its chipsets. Intel has pushed this forward due to competition,and made Kabylake one of its shortest live "generations" in years.

I have only bought an AMD CPU once in my life like over a decade ago,but I think some are just getting to caught up with what they have in their PC,and trying to defend it.
 
Last edited:

witeken

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2013
3,876
154
106
I mean look at the fact we have a stop gap Z370 followed by Z390 chipset months later,or that Kabylake is going to be replaced in well under a year together with its chipsets. Intel has pushed this forward due to competition,and made Kabylake one of its shortest live "generations" in years.

I have only bought an AMD CPU once in my life like over a decade ago,but I think some are just getting to caught up with what they have in their PC,and trying to defend it.
Uhm.

Broadwell-U announced in January '15.
Skylake-U announced in August '15.

Kabylake-U announced in September '16.
Kabylake-R announced in August '17.

KBL-R is a completely normal 1 year cycle. So who was Intel responding to when they launced Skylake-U?
 

Timmah!

Senior member
Jul 24, 2010
735
63
91
Well, if anything, the box-art looks really nice :)

The package seems to have different proportion than Core X and last years CPUs though - its thicker? Any idea why? If i did not know better, i would almost think, there is cooler inside, based on that pic.

For comparison:

 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,491
553
126
As someone still using an i2500k that has lasted through many GPU upgrades l disagree. Spend more, get a decent CPU and it'll still be doing the business 5 years later, unlike your GPU which will feel ancient. It's also much easier and cheaper to change your GPU - a CPU upgrade is probably going to require a new motherboard and memory too.
These new 6 core Intel chips are the ones to buy, got the cores and the IPC to make them both a worthwhile upgrade from any older mainstream CPU, and should last many years giving high end gaming performance.
If you're on a limited budget, spending more on the CPU at the expense of the GPU means you're probably going to see issues sooner than the reverse. I have a 2600K currently. If I had stuck with the original GPU in this build (Radeon 6870), I'd be in trouble whereas if I stepped down to a 2500 or 2400 and bought a better GPU (the 6970), it would've been viable for a year or maybe two longer.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,491
553
126
They aren't "well below SL or KL". Intel's top chips trade blows with AMD's chips. Where have you been? Go pull up Anandtech bench if you don't believe me. CL 6 core is a pressured response to AMD stealing marketshare. If Ryzen had not been what it is, coffee lake 6 core would have never made it out the door. Intel has been milking those cheap quad cores for years.
Where have I been? A place called reality - I suggest diehards on both sides try it. Do you actually own a Ryzen? Have you actually owned an Intel CPU in the last few years? Do you dispute that the 7700K isn't the best ST chip on the market?

The suggestion that Coffee Lake is a rushed design or effort because of Ryzen is absurd and I am sorry, but those suggesting that are clueless. As I said, the only thing Intel has done as a response to mainstream Ryzen is release it in September as opposed to Q1. CPU designs take years to complete, and this release was on the roadmaps years ago. As to the comical notion that some have - "But....but...Intel had secret info on Ryzen years ago that caused all of this!", I suggest those folks enroll in some business classes because the notion that Intel would try to anticipate competitor's lineups and plan a response years in advance is EXACTLY what any business is trying to do.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
2,003
126
Where have I been? A place called reality - I suggest diehards on both sides try it. Do you actually own a Ryzen? Have you actually owned an Intel CPU in the last few years? Do you dispute that the 7700K isn't the best ST chip on the market?

The suggestion that Coffee Lake is a rushed design or effort because of Ryzen is absurd and I am sorry, but those suggesting that are clueless. As I said, the only thing Intel has done as a response to mainstream Ryzen is release it in September as opposed to Q1. CPU designs take years to complete, and this release was on the roadmaps years ago. As to the comical notion that some have - "But....but...Intel had secret info on Ryzen years ago that caused all of this!", I suggest those folks enroll in some business classes because the notion that Intel would try to anticipate competitor's lineups and plan a response years in advance is EXACTLY what any business is trying to do.
Solid post showing a strong understanding of how this industry works.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,491
553
126
It just strikes me as a little weird, that if this 6-core mainstream CPU wasn't a "rush job", that if it had been "on the roadmaps", then:
1) Why are we getting re-used cores, with no real IPC improvements in the cores themselves, with just layout / floorplan changes? I mean, even the 65nm to 45nm Core2 shrink had nearly a 3-5% IPC improvement. If they had so much time, why didn't they "tweak" the cores?
The funny thing is that the 7700K was released in what, January? Ryzen was released in what, February or March? If Intel had all this advanced intelligence years in advance, they knew when Ryzen was likely releasing - AMD, AFAIK, was always targeting fall of 2016. If Intel had been sandbagging all these years but yet had this incredible intelligence on Ryzen's performance and were scared, why wasn't the 7700K a larger leap in performance? As you mention above, we've largely seen single digit increases since Sandy Bridge with maybe the exception of Ivy --> Haswell.

As to Coffee Lake's performance and "tweaking" the cores, preliminary leaks indicate we may see a 10-11% boost in ST performance. Much of that is likely due to cache changes, but that's still a nice performance increase. Remember, you guys are missing the fact that Intel's original roadmap from YEARS ago had Cannonlake arriving late last year or early this year and it had more than 4 cores.

2) Why isn't it compatible with existing Socket 1151 motherboard infrastructure? If it had been in development / planning for as long as the "it's not due to AMD" crowd says it was, then surely, they could have made initial changes to socket 1151 to accommodate CFL-S.
Why would they? Socket 1151 was also designed years ago. Intel never intended to release Coffee Lake and maybe not even Kaby Lake, because they were fully focused on Cannonlake. When they ran into process issues they had to keep working on those while doing a product refresh, which turned out to be KBL/CFL. I suspect CFL isn't a direct insert into today's boards because of VRM specs but I don't know for sure. Intel had several versions of socket 2011 as well, so this is along those same lines.

These two factors indicate to me that it WAS a "rush job", and my best explanation why, is because AMD is finally competitive again.
It was a "rush" job only in the sense that Cannonlake was cancelled on the desktop and Intel had to do another product release to satisfy shareholders, keep sales going, etc. It was not a response to AMD other than them changing the release date.
 
Last edited:

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,491
553
126
Only on this tech forum are people going on about how companies never respond to competition,when in every sector around them,competition is what drives things forward. People are very naive if they didn't think Intel was aware of what AMD was planning to do with Ryzen a while ago,and people with short memories forget Ryzen was actually delayed from a launch late last year. Intel knows very well AMD would try to fight using more cores,and they had a design which had much better single core performance than before. AMD has used more cores in the Phenom II and Bulldozer periods. It is not rocket science.
Au contraire, the fact that certain folks act as if Intel planning products years in advance based on what they feel the competitive landscape might be in the future is somehow because of "fear of Ryzen" is what is shocking. Every company has a duty to try to figure out the direction that their industry and competitors are taking and to plan responses. Intel planning responses to competitors years in advance is just business as usual, not some uber secret, black ops secret.

I find it very hard to believe Intel would have not even gotten tidbits of what AMD was upto even in 2015,as AMD would have had to finalise the design even back then,for a late 2016 release,but perhaps expected Ryzen maybe to be less competitive. So,only hardware enthusiasts on forums think Intel would not have tried to have a response in the pipeline.

I mean look at the fact we have a stop gap Z370 followed by Z390 chipset months later,or that Kabylake is going to be replaced in well under a year together with its chipsets. Intel has pushed this forward due to competition,and made Kabylake one of its shortest live "generations" in years.

I have only bought an AMD CPU once in my life like over a decade ago,but I think some are just getting to caught up with what they have in their PC,and trying to defend it.
Folks can't have it both ways - they can't claim Intel was sitting on a competitive intelligence goldmine YEARS in advance, has been sandbagging performance for years, and even when AMD releases their new product or is close, Intel sticks to their roadmap with just modifications to release schedules. The only area where Intel clearly directly responded to AMD was in HEDT with the 12+ core CPUs, and those are very obviously something Intel had already had been testing as a contingency plan. That isn't indicative of "fear" of AMD, that's simply the responsibility of any good business to have contingencies ready for their competitors.
 

Sweepr

Diamond Member
May 12, 2006
5,151
1,127
131
And the most impressive part, 4.2 GHz 1-2 core Turbo and 3.9 GHz 4-core Turbo (Core i7-8650U). This is 45W H class performance from a 15W U SoC. 14nm+ is really impressive. At only 124 mm² it should be significantly smaller than Raven Ridge as well, which is closer to 200 mm².

Desktop in the fall probably means early fall, about a month from now if PC Canada's ETA is correct.

Plot twist: Intel will still announce their 8th Gen desktop CPUs today, at their Facebook event?
I believe the perfect place to announce it is at GamesCom like DigiTimes originally predicted (August 22-26), focusing on the excepcional gaming performance these chips will have.
 
Last edited:

USER8000

Golden Member
Jun 23, 2012
1,517
741
136
Uhm.

Broadwell-U announced in January '15.
Skylake-U announced in August '15.

Kabylake-U announced in September '16.
Kabylake-R announced in August '17.

KBL-R is a completely normal 1 year cycle. So who was Intel responding to when they launced Skylake-U?
Last time I check this is an enthuasists forum,so only in your mind do you think Kaby Lake desktop CPUs and their associated chipsets which released in January have a "normal" cycle. No they don't,since its well under a year. The only other recent desktop CPU which had such a short replacement date was Broadwell on consumer desktop which was barely released.

So if that is the case,we should skip Coffeelake since it might be released by 10NM products in under a year??

If that is the normal Intel lifepsan for desktop CPUs since 2017,I think I will wait another year! :)



Au contraire, the fact that certain folks act as if Intel planning products years in advance based on what they feel the competitive landscape might be in the future is somehow because of "fear of Ryzen" is what is shocking. Every company has a duty to try to figure out the direction that their industry and competitors are taking and to plan responses. Intel planning responses to competitors years in advance is just business as usual, not some uber secret, black ops secret.



Folks can't have it both ways - they can't claim Intel was sitting on a competitive intelligence goldmine YEARS in advance, has been sandbagging performance for years, and even when AMD releases their new product or is close, Intel sticks to their roadmap with just modifications to release schedules. The only area where Intel clearly directly responded to AMD was in HEDT with the 12+ core CPUs, and those are very obviously something Intel had already had been testing as a contingency plan. That isn't indicative of "fear" of AMD, that's simply the responsibility of any good business to have contingencies ready for their competitors.
I find it hard to believe on tech forums people actually believe companies like Intel won't be keeping tabs on what their competition is doing especially since Zen was in development for years.

Also some of you really don't understand that people in the industry to talk and communicate with each other - its not something like the silly forum wars with bricked up walls between the sides. No wonder when several people have worked for competing companies throughout their careers.Sure NDA stuff will stay that way,but its not going to be easy to keep projects 100% secret,as these are not some government black project!!

I should know I have mates who work for large tech companies in R and D(they also fund many labs in unis,and I have touched on this in the past) - OFC they will be judging their responses on what the competition has in the pipeline,and the ones who don't usually end up going tits up. Look at Nokia and Kodak for examples of companies which didn't do so.

It happens everywhere else. Its seems hardware enthusiasts have this weird concept,companies just make products without even evaluating what the market will be in the next few years. What the competition will have will be a consideration,and Intel knows this very well after what happened with the Athlon 64. They won't be making the same mistake twice.Like I said the ones which don't usually collapse.

Only the paranoid survive! ;)
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY