• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Who's buying a 6 core Coffee Lake CPU? (Poll Inside)

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

You buying a 6 core Coffee Lake?

  • Yeah, I shall grab me that 6 core 12 thread i7 chip.

    Votes: 62 32.1%

  • Yeah, I shall grab me that 6 core 6 thread i5 chip.

    Votes: 11 5.7%

  • No thanks Intel. I'm not interested.

    Votes: 120 62.2%
  • Total voters
    193
Ajay said:
Well, we don’t know when the 8 core chip drops yet or even whether it is 14nm++ or 10nm+ for sure yet. We are still waiting. Intel probably isn’t going to say with certainty because it doesn’t want to lose hexacore sales.
Click to expand...

14nm++ part would be lower risk in terms of both yields & potential Fmax. The issues that Intel is facing with 10nm really are quite bad.
 
Arachnotronic said:
14nm++ part would be lower risk in terms of both yields & potential Fmax. The issues that Intel is facing with 10nm really are quite bad.
Click to expand...
The downside of having to perfect their current node for longer periods of time while also struggling to develop the next is double the trouble: it means the next node needs to become efficient enough not only to be production worthy, but also to beat a thoroughly perfected previous iteration.
 
Arachnotronic said:
14nm++ part would be lower risk in terms of both yields & potential Fmax. The issues that Intel is facing with 10nm really are quite bad.
Click to expand...

If Intel has been unable to make significant improvements to 10nm yields under the 10nm+ process node; then Intel is in trouble period. Maybe this is why Ashraf Eassa thinks that Intel should be planning a fourth 10nm node. Maybe that node should use EUV, since it seems that SAQP is killing Intel.
 
Ajay said:
If Intel has been unable to make significant improvements to 10nm yields under the 10nm+ process node; then Intel is in trouble period. Maybe this is why Ashraf Eassa thinks that Intel should be planning a fourth 10nm node. Maybe that node should use EUV, since it seems that SAQP is killing Intel.
Click to expand...

Intel definitely seems to have had an issue with moving aggressively to new lithography techniques.

Remember with 22nm, which is probably the last "drama-free" node from Intel, Mark Bohr was talking about how the min metal pitch of 80nm was chosen specifically because it allowed Intel to avoid the hassle of double patterning the densest metal layers.

It was when Intel got it into their minds that they needed to leap ahead and "beat" the rest of the industry to new denser nodes, they started being much more aggressive with the lithography -- SADP at 14nm and SAQP at 10nm.

Had this worked out (and I suspect Intel had a lot of confidence in its ability to get this done), then they could very well have been as far ahead of the rest of the industry that they say they are. But it clearly didn't.

Intel may have been better served by iterating less aggressively with each generation but being able to make more iterations within a certain span of time.

Anyway, whatever Intel is doing just isn't working properly and it's ultimately hurting its ability to release cool new products on time. The moves they did with KBL/KBL Refresh/CFL are certainly nice, but with good planning ahead of time, Intel could've done better in terms of advancing its architectures and processes.
 
Unlike many of the 'FABs' 1/2 nodes, Intel's 10nm is more aggressive vis-a-vis metal and contacted gate pitches. I guess Intel played a game of win or go home. At the moment, they would be screwed if they were not already ahead of the pure fabs @ 14nm. If Intel is really planning 8 cores at 14nm, then it just to be able to get solid quad cores w/iGPU out at 10+ (maybe a hexacore?). Sad news, so much for promoting a guy to CEO with allot of manufacturing background.
 
DaveSimmons said:
intel has announced official prices, specs and turbo clocks:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1186...ation-coffee-lake-hex-core-desktop-processors

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/09/intel-coffee-lake-price-specs-release-date/

The 8700 non-K looks very attractive to me since I'm not interested in overclocking:

Turbo clock = 4.6 GHz, vs. 4.5 GHz for the 7700K, only 100 MHz less than the 8700K . Price per 1,000 is the same, $56 less than the 8700K. TDP is 65 watts!

That should mean no need to delid, and a 120mm air cooler should run silent at idle, quiet under load.
Click to expand...

Doesn't a lower TDP mean it will be more likely to throttle down to base clocks during heavy use due to power limits? I wonder if the 8700 can maintain it's turbo clocks while all cores are at full load with the 65W TDP or if there is a lower power limit on the 8700 than the 8700k. I wonder if even 95W TDP is enough for the 8700k to maintain it's turbo clocks while all cores fully loaded.
 
Dave3000 said:
I wonder if even 95W TDP is enough for the 8700k to maintain it's turbo clocks while all cores fully loaded.
Click to expand...
I hope that CFL isn't like P4 Prescott (PressHOT). That one had so many issues throttling at stock, that they invented BTX form-factor, and the direct side inlet air-duct.
 
Dave3000 said:
Doesn't a lower TDP mean it will be more likely to throttle down to base clocks during heavy use due to power limits? I wonder if the 8700 can maintain it's turbo clocks while all cores are at full load with the 65W TDP or if there is a lower power limit on the 8700 than the 8700k. I wonder if even 95W TDP is enough for the 8700k to maintain it's turbo clocks while all cores fully loaded.
Click to expand...

That's possible, we'll have to wait for real-world benchmarks to see. I don't care about CPU-burner benchmarks though, just real gaming ones.

The 7700 non-K does use 10-20 watts less under load than the K in the benchmarks I've seen, and there are allegedly some improvements in Coffee over Kaby.
 
TheF34RChannel said:
I cannot believe that there are those who are complaining about board compatibility for 20 odd pages! If you're not happy with that fact buy something else. There are far more important things in life and this certainly won't kill you, jeez.
Click to expand...

I could care less for socket compatibility since almost all my mobos never went above the $100 mark, besides what is ~$100 for a new mobo every 3 years?
 
StrangerGuy said:
I could care less for socket compatibility since almost all my mobos never went above the $100 mark, besides what is ~$100 for a new mobo every 3 years?
Click to expand...
I hear you. You would think that socket compatibility would be the number one priority amongst users judging by the amount of posts and complaints on this issue.

Personally I always upgrade my motherboard when I do a CPU upgrade too, because I only upgrade my CPU once every few years.

I then sell off my old CPU and motherboard to recoup some of the cost of the new platform.
 
epsilon84 said:
You would think that socket compatibility would be the number one priority amongst users judging by the amount of posts and complaints on this issue.
Click to expand...
It's not only about using your old motherboard, it's also about availability, pricing, and the flexibility that comes with being able to buy previous gen hardware at very good prices.

For example, instead of buying a brand new Z370 board I could buy a more budget oriented board for my i5 and use my perfectly good premium Z board in a new Coffee Lake build. Another option would be to buy a proven Z270 board if the new Z370 boards were significantly more expensive.
 
coercitiv said:
It's not only about using your old motherboard, it's also about availability, pricing, and the flexibility that comes with being able to buy previous gen hardware at very good prices.

For example, instead of buying a brand new Z370 board I could buy a more budget oriented board for my i5 and use my perfectly good premium Z board in a new Coffee Lake build. Another option would be to buy a proven Z270 board if the new Z370 boards were significantly more expensive.
Click to expand...

And that's why the motherboard makers wouldn't want Intel to keep compatibility of Kaby Lake with 300-series boards 😉
 
StrangerGuy said:
I could care less for socket compatibility since almost all my mobos never went above the $100 mark, besides what is ~$100 for a new mobo every 3 years?
Click to expand...
I don't know about you, but I'm on my 3rd CPU in the same motherboard. It's not just a new motherboard either, since you need a new Windows license if you change motherboards. Yet another expense.
 
scannall said:
I don't know about you, but I'm on my 3rd CPU in the same motherboard. It's not just a new motherboard either, since you need a new Windows license if you change motherboards. Yet another expense.
Click to expand...
IIRC, if you tie your windows license to your MS login it can follow you from build to build provided you aren’t using the same key on multiple builds simultaneously.
 
nitromullet said:
IIRC, if you tie your windows license to your MS login it can follow you from build to build provided you aren’t using the same key on multiple builds simultaneously.
Click to expand...

And it doesn't even require you to do actually manually tie them I believe? Let me know if I'm wrong so I can get that done this weekend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top