• 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 651 - 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
Okay I will put my hand up and admit I was wrong about Intel pricing Coffee Lake at effectively Kaby Lake price points, as I thought they would make the i7 8700K be at least $400.

Even though I am not in the market for a new PC/CPU, I still look forward to the benchmarking of these beasts.
The only thing that keeps it under $400 are the leaks from retailer websites and they still have time to set the prices.
Intel released pricing for 1k units, if Kaby 1k-to-retail margins would be applied to Coffee 1k prices the retail would easily reach $400.
Coffee is right, these are 1k units prices, not retail, which will be higher.
 

eddman

Senior member
Dec 28, 2010
239
86
101
No it won't. Cause when next gen GPUs arrive, games will be more demanding. And GPU will be bottleneck again. I think for vast majority of gamers, GPU is bottleneck. Therefore, investment in GPU is always better solution.
I never meant not to invest in a good GPU. A fast GPU is still more important, if you can upgrade only one part.

As games' GPU demand start to plateau, thanks to consoles, CPUs will start to play a bigger role. This happened with the last gen too.

P.S. I'm not saying ryzens are bad for games. Quite the opposite, they are more than enough, but intel CPUs simply perform better when the limit is not the GPU.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
9,187
1,812
126
Locked at 4.5 Ghz (?) the 8700K is 18% faster than the 7700K in the Witcher. It's not a core thing too since the 7800X is slower than the 7700K. Overall though, at stock it's a bit of a wash between it and the 7700K. Which is what you should have expected anyway.
 

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,837
2,587
136
DDR4 2400 C14 is bad for health when you have 12 threads fighting for memory access?
Cinebench doesn't care much about RAM. Look at what they get when they clock it at 4.5GHz, much better and in line with what you'd expect with properly functioning turbo. Looks to me like BIOS is not ready.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
9,187
1,812
126
Cinebench doesn't care much about RAM. Look at what they get when they clock it at 4.5GHz, much better and in line with what you'd expect with properly functioning turbo. Looks to me like BIOS is not ready.
Clock speed I imagine. Must have been running roughly around 3.9 Ghz.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
996
704
136
At default the R5 1600 has a base clock of 3.2GHz for 12 Threads and 3.6GHz ST turbo. The Gaming performance difference should be very close (5-10%).

Overclocking the R5 1600 to 4GHz all 12 threads will make it 50%+ faster in MT than the 8400. Yes it will consume more but it will make it a lot faster too.
5 - 10% in GPU bound scenarios, perhaps. CPU bound benchmarks will show a far greater difference

I would expect the gaming performance of the stock i5 8400 to at least exceed that of the 6700K, since they are both clocked at 4GHz but the i5 has a slight IPC advantage and 2 more cores (yes I'm aware the 6700K has 2 extra threads due to HT but the 2 extra cores will more than compensate for that)

So we are looking at >20% performance difference in non GPU bound gaming.

I would be staggered if MT performance is anywhere close to 50% better on an overclocked 1600, perhaps in Cinebench but in any real world scenario the difference would be far smaller. Even at clockspeed parity, Ryzen has to overcome an IPC deficit. SMT adds, at most, ~30% of a 'real' core.
Assuming a 10% IPC deficit (I think its greater than that, but lets wait for reviews) that would mean, at clockspeed parity, Ryzen 5 @ 4GHz would be at most, ~20% faster in MT throughput compared to a 6C/6T i5 8400.

The math doesn't add up to a 50% performance differential, not even close.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sweepr

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,375
722
136
7800x and 8700k seem pretty close with 7800x better in sandra processor multimedia tests and 8700k better in gaming.
The 8700k vs 7800x battle is a great case study mostly for memory bandwidth bottlenecks on the former, as well as the changes in the cache structure of the two systems. Very interesting.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
996
704
136
CB seems to be the odd one out. The rest of the synthetic benches show greater than 40% improvements.
Yeah, it almost appears that the 8700K is stuck at base clocks or something, if you compare the 4.5GHz comparisons between the 7700K and 8700K scaling is at ~47%, almost linear.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,573
126
POV ray single score flops around at the videocardz link. Overclocked 8700K is slower than 7700K, stock it's the other way around. Probably got the overclocked one backwards.
 

coffeeblues

Member
Jun 23, 2017
49
18
36
POV ray single score flops around at the videocardz link. Overclocked 8700K is slower than 7700K, stock it's the other way around. Probably got the overclocked one backwards.
Overclocked were all three to 4.5 while stock 8700k does single boost to 4.7 but then it looks like stock 7700k single boost was not working for that POV ray single thread run.
 

CatMerc

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2016
1,114
1,146
136
Locked at 4.5 Ghz (?) the 8700K is 18% faster than the 7700K in the Witcher. It's not a core thing too since the 7800X is slower than the 7700K. Overall though, at stock it's a bit of a wash between it and the 7700K. Which is what you should have expected anyway.
It is a core thing. The 7800X is just worse at games, so the extra cores are only covering a deficiency rather than pushing it higher. Broadwell-E CPU's did much better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coercitiv

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,573
126
Overclocked were all three to 4.5 while stock 8700k does single boost to 4.7 but then it looks like stock 7700k single boost was not working for that POV ray single thread run.
With the overclock, there shouldn't have been any boosting going on. That's typically turned off when overclocking. I think it's most likely an error in the chart.
 

CakeMonster

Golden Member
Nov 22, 2012
1,013
93
91
Everyone keeps repeating that 8700K will beat the HEDT chips with regards to OC. What is the rationale for concluding this? I certainly hope its the case since Intel yet again has failed to appeal to me with their HEDT platform, but I'm surprised that everyone keeps saying that an unreleased chip is going to be a "beast".
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY