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

Glo.

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2015
3,919
1,824
136
Anyone heard anything about possibility that Coffee Lake might have 4C/8T SKU?
 

Bouowmx

Senior member
Nov 13, 2016
983
369
116
Professional overclockers will use the Core i3 X to set all the HWBot 2-core records, but likely serves little other practical purpose.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
And what happened to the i3-8300 that was on the lists in early August, but seems to have disappeared?
 

moonbogg

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2011
9,768
1,295
126
If 8700K is $400 and 8600K is $280, we know which one 90% of gamers will be using. If I were in the market for HEDT again it would have to be for the 10 core model or greater. The 6 core HEDT CPU is truly toast and the 8 core is far less appealing with an 8700K around that will likely game better due to potentially higher clocks and that nice ring bus. I'd trade a couple cores and get better gaming performance and save $200 while I'm at it any day. If I was that much in need of a productivity CPU I wouldn't be looking at an 8 core these days anyway...well, not one that cost $600. I'll just say that much.
I really do think that a huge portion of HEDT buyers have always been enthusiast gamers who just wanted a couple extra cores for that satisfying overkill factor and a little extra head room. For the first time in a long time, the mainstream platform makes more sense for these buyers now. I think 8700K will wreck Intel's own HEDT platform quite a lot, but they had no choice. By the time Intel releases an 8/16 chip on mainstream, the transition will be complete and we will have fully left the quad core era behind. Mainstream will be 8/16 and HEDT will be 10 or 12 cores and up. Actually, with 8/16 on mainstream, I wouldn't bother with any HEDT unless it was 12 cores or greater. That ratio seems like a very smart one and makes a lot of sense. The rumored 2 and existing 4 core options on X299 is quite bizarre really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VirtualLarry

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,143
816
126
The problem is that mobile chips are also lagging behind, I was expecting 10nm mobile chips at H2 2017 but now they will only come in 2018.
Again, why is it a problem? Is there some CPU functionality that is waiting for 10nm manufacturing?
 

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,024
1,290
136
If 8700K is $400 and 8600K is $280, we know which one 90% of gamers will be using. If I were in the market for HEDT again it would have to be for the 10 core model or greater. The 6 core HEDT CPU is truly toast and the 8 core is far less appealing with an 8700K around that will likely game better due to potentially higher clocks and that nice ring bus. I'd trade a couple cores and get better gaming performance and save $200 while I'm at it any day. If I was that much in need of a productivity CPU I wouldn't be looking at an 8 core these days anyway...well, not one that cost $600. I'll just say that much.
I really do think that a huge portion of HEDT buyers have always been enthusiast gamers who just wanted a couple extra cores for that satisfying overkill factor and a little extra head room. For the first time in a long time, the mainstream platform makes more sense for these buyers now. I think 8700K will wreck Intel's own HEDT platform quite a lot, but they had no choice. By the time Intel releases an 8/16 chip on mainstream, the transition will be complete and we will have fully left the quad core era behind. Mainstream will be 8/16 and HEDT will be 10 or 12 cores and up. Actually, with 8/16 on mainstream, I wouldn't bother with any HEDT unless it was 12 cores or greater. That ratio seems like a very smart one and makes a lot of sense. The rumored 2 and existing 4 core options on X299 is quite bizarre really.
The 8600k will be very popular at USD 250 - USD 280. One of the factors that made the 7700k very popular was it had 8 threads. The current generation of consoles had 8 weak cores but popular game engines were designed to scale to eight threads. This saw the 7700k have a good avg lead over 7600k with modern titles like BF1 MP or Watch Dogs 2 showing a significant gap.

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-07/amd-ryzen-3-1300x-1200-test/2/#diagramm-battlefield-1-multiplayer-1920-1080

8600k should cut that perf gap significantly against 8700k making it much more attractive from a perf/$ point of view.

As for HEDT 7800x its basically DOA. 8700k will clock significantly better than 7800X and be faster overall at a much lower cost. 7820x might be able to hold some advantage over 8700k but at a >50% cost for CPU + MB + expensive quad channel memory its appeal might not be so great. I think CFL will push enthusiasts towards the 10-18 core CPUs to really distance themselves from a performance point of view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moonbogg

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,361
2,187
126
Again, why is it a problem? Is there some CPU functionality that is waiting for 10nm manufacturing?
Not problem like a fault but problem of manufacturing roadmaps/timetables and end-user not having smaller process earlier.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,361
2,187
126
The 8600k will be very popular at USD 250 - USD 280. One of the factors that made the 7700k very popular was it had 8 threads. The current generation of consoles had 8 weak cores but popular game engines were designed to scale to eight threads. This saw the 7700k have a good avg lead over 7600k with modern titles like BF1 MP or Watch Dogs 2 showing a significant gap.

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-07/amd-ryzen-3-1300x-1200-test/2/#diagramm-battlefield-1-multiplayer-1920-1080

8600k should cut that perf gap significantly against 8700k making it much more attractive from a perf/$ point of view.

As for HEDT 7800x its basically DOA. 8700k will clock significantly better than 7800X and be faster overall at a much lower cost. 7820x might be able to hold some advantage over 8700k but at a >50% cost for CPU + MB + expensive quad channel memory its appeal might not be so great. I think CFL will push enthusiasts towards the 10-18 core CPUs to really distance themselves from a performance point of view.
8600K at 280usd (300+ Euros including VAT) will not be very popular(will also need an extra cooler if you dont have already one and a more expensive Z370 mobo to be able to OC). 8600K will be very popular with an MSRP of $240 or less.
 

elhefegaming

Member
Aug 23, 2017
154
69
71
Still no 'official' reviews? What the f!
The hype is killing me, and my amd rig is dying, i need to change it asap! cmon intel!
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcp7

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,776
3,598
136
will also need an extra cooler if you dont have already one
This "gonna need an extra cooler" argument reminds me of "gonna need a dGPU" from another recently launched CPU. Equally irrelevant. These chips will be put under decent cooling and overclocked past i7 8700 gaming performance.

If I were a gamer I would set my baseline to 8600K then prioritize RAM speed and GPU performance, and only if budget was not exceeded would I go for 8700 / 8700K.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,361
2,187
126
This "gonna need an extra cooler" argument reminds me of "gonna need a dGPU" from another recently launched CPU. Equally irrelevant. These chips will be put under decent cooling and overclocked past i7 8700 gaming performance.

If I were a gamer I would set my baseline to 8600K then prioritize RAM speed and GPU performance, and only if budget was not exceeded would I go for 8700 / 8700K.
Competition for the 8600k is not 8700k but R5 1600.

If 8600K launch at $280 and you dont have a cooler then the price will lift to $310-320 and you will also need a $120+ Z370 board to OC.
You can get a R5 1600 + B350 motherboard for less than the 8600K + Cooler. And you can OC that R5 1600 to 3.8GHz all cores with the default cooler. You can also put the extra $120-130 you would spend for the Z370 board to a better dGPU and end of game.

So Core i5 8600K really needs to launch at $240 or even lower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moonbogg

witeken

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2013
3,876
152
106
Again, why is it a problem? Is there some CPU functionality that is waiting for 10nm manufacturing?
Intel has been renowned for their clocklike Tick-Tock manufacturing prowess, delivering a new process node with 2x density every 2 years, for many nodes, reliably, leading the industry in performance, density and yields.

Since 14nm, Intel has suffered a lot of delays and simply has failed to deliver on its manufacturing capability. Brian Krzanich' promise of relentless pursuit of Moore's Law has not come true.

TSMC and Samsung, on the other hand after the 20nm hiccup, have delivered on 16nm and 10nm, with no signs yet of any 7nm problems for TSMC.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
2,002
126
Since 14nm, Intel has suffered a lot of delays and simply has failed to deliver on its manufacturing capability. Brian Krzanich' promise of relentless pursuit of Moore's Law has not come true.
Intel's problem is one of arrogance. They believe that if they are having crippling, show-stopping problems, its competitors have no hope of delivering on what they promise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dayman1225 and Ajay

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,024
1,290
136
8600K at 280usd (300+ Euros including VAT) will not be very popular(will also need an extra cooler if you dont have already one and a more expensive Z370 mobo to be able to OC). 8600K will be very popular with an MSRP of $240 or less.
8600k at USD 240 will be a phenomenal chip. It will basically make R5 1600/1600x irrelevant as 8600k would have 25-30% higher clock headroom and higher IPC of <=10% . 8600k at 5-5.2 Ghz will match R5 1600 at 4 Ghz even in CB R15 while killing it in single thread performance against the 1600/1600x . Intel can safely sell 8600k at USD 280 as most users will take the higher single thread performance of 8600k at 5+ Ghz (> 30%) for a 25-30% loss in MT against a R7 1700@ 4 Ghz. Thats even before factoring into account the huge brand advantage of Intel.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,776
3,598
136
Competition for the 8600k is not 8700k but R5 1600.

If 8600K launch at $280 and you dont have a cooler then the price will lift to $310-320 and you will also need a $120+ Z370 board to OC.
You can get a R5 1600 + B350 motherboard for less than the 8600K + Cooler. And you can OC that R5 1600 to 3.8GHz all cores with the default cooler. You can also put the extra $120-130 you would spend for the Z370 board to a better dGPU and end of game.

So Core i5 8600K really needs to launch at $240 or even lower.
You really need to snap out of this line of thinking, we're not in Kaby Lake land anymore. Competition for R5 1600 is i5 8400, the 8600K will be on top of the gaming charts, just bellow 8700K.

Don't underestimate Intel's ability to tune their offering, 8400 won't be the trash silicon 6400 was. The turbo clocks Sweepr talked about should have made this clear a while ago.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
2,002
126
8600k at USD 240 will be a phenomenal chip. It will basically make R5 1600/1600x irrelevant as 8600k would have 25-30% higher clock headroom and higher IPC of <=10% . 8600k at 5-5.2 Ghz will match R5 1600 at 4 Ghz even in CB R15 while killing it in single thread performance against the 1600/1600x . Intel can safely sell 8600k at USD 280 as most users will take the higher single thread performance of 8600k at 5+ Ghz (> 30%) for a 25-30% loss in MT against a R7 1700@ 4 Ghz. Thats even before factoring into account the huge brand advantage of Intel.
I think that's the point. R5 1600/R5 1600X really devastated DIY sales of 7600K in retail if you think the Mindfactory results are representative (which I think is supported by the popularity of the R5 1600 on Amazon, Newegg, etc.); 7700K held up fine because it was a much better value for the money than the 7600K in terms of longevity and per-core perf.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
2,002
126
Intel has been renowned for their clocklike Tick-Tock manufacturing prowess, delivering a new process node with 2x density every 2 years, for many nodes, reliably, leading the industry in performance, density and yields.

Since 14nm, Intel has suffered a lot of delays and simply has failed to deliver on its manufacturing capability. Brian Krzanich' promise of relentless pursuit of Moore's Law has not come true.

TSMC and Samsung, on the other hand after the 20nm hiccup, have delivered on 16nm and 10nm, with no signs yet of any 7nm problems for TSMC.
BTW, Intel's focus on density is almost misguided in doing competitive comparisons. Intel's processes really shine in delivering high GHz in low power envelopes. Products like Kaby Lake Refresh, 7700K, and soon 8700K aren't interesting because of density or whatever; they're interesting because they can hit really high frequencies and deliver some really good performance with reasonable power draw.

Intel should try to advance density, there's no doubt about it, but there are other ways to build interesting products, too. Data center/server needs high density because those workloads want lots of cores, but in client workloads, you can be a little less aggressive on density as long as you do good things with the architecture, implementation, etc.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY