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

Sweepr

Diamond Member
May 12, 2006
5,151
1,128
131
$359 for the 8700K, $257 for the 8600K. Really nice pricing for these chips.
Let's not forget their entry 4C and 6C offerings. Core i3-8100 4C 3.6 GHz at only $117 (iGPU included) is extremely tempting. Core i5-8400 6C 3.8-4.0 GHz (Turbo) could very well match Core i7-7700K's MT performance at only $182. Lots of value here, especially for gamers.

At the end of the day, much better than the single 6C/12T model priced like a Core i7-6800K and no other change to the lineup that some predicted. We also get 12 MB L3 and competitive clocks at the same TDP as Kaby Lake with 50% more cores. :p
 
Last edited:

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
4,300
5,494
136
Core i5-8400: $182
Here we go, this is what I was hoping for. In theory this offsets the higher price for a Z chipset (when compared with the competition), and if this chip allows forced all core turbo + increased TDP on a Z board it will become a force to reckon with. At 4Ghz all it needs is a fast memory kit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phynaz

Bouowmx

Golden Member
Nov 13, 2016
1,103
493
146
Despite being practically identical to its K sibling, Core i7-8700 goes down in price.
i5-8600K goes up in price. $15 up at the middle is more sensitive than $15 up at the top.
i5-8400 is now very convincing.
i3-8350K is priced too close to i5-8400. I think actual price would be corrected.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
50,897
6,314
126
Core i3-8100 4C 3.6 GHz at only $117 (iGPU included) is extremely tempting.
Wow. Incoming price drop on Ryzen 3 CPUs?

Edit:: And that i5-8400 pricing. If that's not a mistake... expect a similar situation to the G4560 shortages. Wow! (Price drop on Ryzen 5 1600, to $160?)
 
Last edited:

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,837
2,587
136
The original leak was correct at the end of the day, they managed to increase the core count and improve Turbo clocks (up to 4.7 GHz) with another iteration of 14nm. All-around looks like an impressive little chip, and I really like the fact that Intel is confident to compare it to Kaby Lake where the latter does best (gaming). Some interesting tidbits:



Up to 25% faster than Core i7-7700K @ Gears of War 4. The game doesn't seem to scale much with more than 4C/8T, so I'm guessing extra cache + uncore + faster RAM are helping here. New gaming king in town? :D
Uh 195 FPS in Gears of War 4 isn't 25% faster than 7700K, according to the graph you've linked. It's more like 15%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
21,338
9,412
136
And what motherboard is required for an 8700K again ? and how much is it ?
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,572
2,613
126
Nice price for the Core i5 8400, but since you cannot OC more than 4GHz of its Single Core turbo it may lose to the R5 1600 that has 12 Threads.
Also gaming performance should be very close between the two (3.8GHz to 4GHz OC for the R5 1600).
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
4,300
5,494
136
Nice price for the Core i5 8400, but since you cannot OC more than 4GHz of its Single Core turbo it may loose to the R5 1600 that has 12 Threads.
4Ghz R5 1600 won't beat 4Ghz 8400 in gaming. It's one thing to argue against the 4c/4t Kaby Lake line which had resource problems in some games, and a completely different adventure to imagine the same once computation and cache are increased beyond 7700K levels.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,572
2,613
126
At 4GHz the difference in gaming will be very small, but in MT loads the R5 1600 will have an advantage due to SMT.
 

imported_bman

Senior member
Jul 29, 2007
262
54
101
That 8700 non-K is impressive, 6 cores with a turbo all the way up to 4.6GHz at only 65W TDP. I hope that Apple offers the non-K version in their 2018 Imacs to avoid the noise issues that the 95W 7700Ks have caused in their 2017 Imacs.
 

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,837
2,587
136
That 8700 non-K is impressive, 6 cores with a turbo all the way up to 4.6GHz at only 65W TDP. I hope that Apple offers the non-K version in their 2018 Imacs to avoid the noise issues that the 95W 7700Ks have caused in their 2017 Imacs.
It's impressive only because it has a 500MHz lower base clock than the 8700K. Intel TDP is defined at base clocks.
 

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,837
2,587
136
8400 has way too low base clocks at 2.8GHz when the 7500 base clocks are at 3.4GHz, that may be a problem with games though.
I still believe the R5 1600 is better overall but it is also more expensive currently.
Intel chips don't operate at base clocks unless all you're doing is moving windows around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcp7

imported_bman

Senior member
Jul 29, 2007
262
54
101
It's impressive only because it has a 500MHz lower base clock than the 8700K. Intel TDP is defined at base clocks.
Is that really the case? I have always thought the 25W-30W difference in TDP for K versus non-K CPUs comes from the difference in turbo-bins. The power-frequency relationship is a power law, so small differences at high frequency result in significant differences in power.

 
Last edited:

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,837
2,587
136
Is that really the case? I have always thought the 25W-30W difference in TDP for K versus non-K versus S or T CPUs came about from the difference in turbo-bins.

Check the "?" mark on the TDP of any product listed on ark:
Thermal Design Power (TDP) represents the average power, in watts, the processor dissipates when operating at Base Frequency with all cores active under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload. Refer to Datasheet for thermal solution requirements.
 

pantsaregood

Senior member
Feb 13, 2011
993
37
91
Got my i7-7820X set up.

On an ASRock X299 OC Formula and NH-D15, I'm running it at 4.8 GHz/1.25V. Temperatures peaked at about 91C when open air testing. Testing with my case in my desk can force temperatures to almost hit 100C, so I've limited the long term boost power consumption limit.

This processor pulls up to 275W at this clock speed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coffeeblues

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,757
1,152
136
Check the "?" mark on the TDP of any product listed on ark:

Thermal Design Power (TDP) represents the average power, in watts, the processor dissipates when operating at Base Frequency with all cores active under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload. Refer to Datasheet for thermal solution requirements.
Exactly. That is why TDP is somewhat meaningless and the minor TDP difference between the 7700k and 8700k is highly misleading. 8700k will use a lot more power. That's why it need a new socket spec and hence a new mobo compared to 7700k. OCed 7700k uses a lot of power. 14nm++ adds some efficiency so the 8700k will likely use another 35% more power (50% more cores minus efficiency gains).

A 7700k can easily use 180w of power when OCed. Add 35% to that and we are at 243W. No wonder it needs a new socket.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
50,897
6,314
126
Got my i7-7820X set up.

On an ASRock X299 OC Formula and NH-D15, I'm running it at 4.8 GHz/1.25V. Temperatures peaked at about 91C when open air testing. Testing with my case in my desk can force temperatures to almost hit 100C, so I've limited the long term boost power consumption limit.

This processor pulls up to 275W at this clock speed.
That seems a little... egregious? Your post is making me re-think my foray into X299. Do the KBL-X CPUs have similar TDP / power usage issues as Skylake-X?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY