Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Intel Coffee Lake 6-core (Out Now)
AmazingAvery
Age of Conan AdvocateMember UncommonPosts: 7,188
- What is it? Intel's 8th-generation 14nm Core processor
- When is it out? The second half of autumn 2017 (or sooner)
- What will it cost? Likely as much as current Kaby Lake CPUs
Core i5 with 6 cores? The most interesting part of the rumor are 6-core processors from i5 series. The major difference compared to i7 is a lack of Hyperthreading. The i5-8600K processor is said to be clocked at 3.6 GHz with the same TDP as i7-8700K (95W).
According to CPC Hardware the six-core series will not end at 8600K. The slowest 6-core desktop CPU is allegedly the Core i5-8400 with a core clock of 2.8 GHz and TDP at 65W. This is a direct response to AMD’s Ryzen 5.
Intel’s 6-core for mobile - For the first time, Intel will also introduce pure mobile 6-core CPU. Compared to desktop variants, Coffee Lake Mobile is to feature much lower clock speeds (~2.0 GHz) with TDP at 45W.
The report ends at Coffee Lake U quad-core processor with impressive 28W TDP. This is the first quad-core CPU from Intel’s U-series (low power notebooks).
Looks like a 1151 v2 socket. More L3 than 7800X and I would guess no mesh. 7800X is obsolete and out of place on HEDT, just like Kaby Lake-X. But this is more a mainstream CPU with low core count.
Wonder what the pricing will be?
Comments
https://videocardz.com/70978/intel-preparing-multiple-6-core-coffee-lake-cpus
Not sure who copied whom, and you might have intended to mark off the bulk of your post as a copy/paste. But the wording is too close to be an accident.
As for the substance of the post, it sounds like Covfefe Lake will dial back the clock speeds from Kaby Lake in order to make room for six cores. Having an integrated GPU means it's the platform for laptops, mainstream desktops, and low end servers that used to be Xeon E3 but is now Scalable Bronze.
A well designed 6 core architecture could be good for particular workloads. The Phenom II x6 was the last time that AMD had a competitive CPU outside of 1 workload. If they kept the chip and kept die shrinking it with a modern platform, then it would have been a stable contender.
Having a 6-core mainstream CPU means the industry can finally move forward from 4 cores after a decade.
I agree with Cleffy - "with 6-core mainstream CPU means the industry can finally move forward from 4 cores"
The thing is AMD still can't equal single thread gaming performance.
If Intel can can improve the IPC of the 8700K to match 7700k performance it could be a nice upgrade for quite a few people. Then again it really depends on the pricing and if done right will offer decent food for thought.
I mean, sure, a 4C/8T i7 games better than a Pentium, but not by nearly as much margin as either the price tag or core counts would indicate, and there's virtually no difference between a 4C i5 and 4C/8T i7. And it's not like quad cores haven't been mainstream and/or available for quite some time. The situation does not improve at all moving forward to the new i9 line.
Heck, you could easily argue that full 6C and 8C have been affordably available for a long time now, and no one seems to be willing to move away from IPC/Mhz as king.
I still think Intel is tilting at windmills with all these changes. It is like they have not had any competition in so long they don't have a clue how to respond to such.
Unless I see a competitive price, I will still be recommending the 7700 to gamers who want Intel. Very few people stream, so that is not a real factor.
I've never done it, I have no ambition to do it, (I don't have the bandwidth to do it), and I don't really care to watch other people play games when I could be playing them myself. I think I'm too old to "get it".
Yes, the newer X series on the x299 chips are more expensive - those are also on an "Enthusiast/HPDC/HEPD" platform (whatever the latest 4LA is). That doesn't doesn't really mean much any more unless you need a lot of cores for some good reason; apart from that it apparently a tax on those who want to have a machine cost a lot and have a cool acronym associated with your computer.
Rumors are that CL will have SKUs with 6 cores (both i5 and i7). I don't expect those to be on price parity with existing 4C models, but I would expect 4C CL SKUs to more or less compare to existing 4C KL SKU pricing (i.e. a i7 7700K 4C/8T at about $350 => a "i7 8700K" 4C/8T about the same price)
When will the RIcky lake Intel cores come out ??
I would pay double the price for a Ricky Lake version of the intel ^__^
really what is with the Lake portion of the name ? Coffee lake ? is that even a real lake ??? hahahah
For my money intel needs to take a reality check. They can't overcharge people anymore the days of no real competition are over.
Well the market disagrees with you, and the market never lies.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
And Intel Core - X rumours
Exactly - obfuscation occurred with release of Bulldozer. They compared it to Intels top enthusiast chip, a $999 part to highlight the price/performance difference while completely ignoring the regular i7 performance part (about $340) which still beat the hell out of it in most benches.
Gamers have lots of applications running besides the game these days and the more cores the less those applications interfere with the game. I build a lot of systems and many for gamers and my most popular build right now is the 1700, it out performs your I7's in a lot of situations.
The problem with the Ryzen systems is that they are practically two 4 core chips glued together through the infinity fabric. This is memory dependent. If you manage to get 3200mhz memory or AMD decides to released it's APUs as a single 4 core chip, they will have a much more competitive product in the lower end consumer products.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1457-ryzen-7-vs-core-i7-octa-core/
Intel gets very little benefit from faster memory while it really helps the AMD chip to be very competitive. So if you are building an AMD system, get the faster memory you can get.
Part of my point is that if you get a Core i7 you are not a normal gamer. You are using it for an atypical use. If you are just gaming, then there are only a couple games that would make the Core i7 more ideal than the Core i5. It also moves the ball forward in technology game companies will target.
Nice to see 6C more or less confirmed, but if that is such a good thing or not depends on the price. It will be a regression if the entry level i7 6 core costs $440, the 6C/6T i5 costs what the previous i7 did, and there is no longer a 4C/8T option unless you jump to X299 KL-X (which is a horrible thought). Although performance wise, 6C/6T should perform more or less equivalent to 4C/8T even in multithread, I still remain skeptical (and pessimistic) that whatever we see come out of this will be for the better.
i don't know anything about what the pricing, will be but it would be typical of Intel.
At least the 2 core cpu is going away. Still looks like the I7 7700 is still king as far as gaming goes. I still wish Intel would stop wasting die space with their GPU nonsense at least on the higher end CPUs. It makes sense for CPUs that are used in laptops, it makes zero sense for CPUs used in desktops.
And yeah, the total removal of hyperthreading is an interesting move. It's a total and typical Intel thing to do though. On a geeky level, yeah it's very frustrating to see capacity that is present in the chip just sit latent, but on the other hand, it wasn't really all that useful in the first place, real cores beat it out, and Intel is upping the real core count, so really it's a wash on the i7 line, and a good upgrade on the i3 and i5.
It all comes down to pricing on if this ends up being an actual good thing, or if it's just a shuffle of the lineup and an excuse for Intel to just inflate the price tiers a bit more.
Obviously the package is different, but there one has IGP and the other doesn't, or has it disabled, idk. That's the real question here, are they the same die in a different package, or two different dies?
The answer to that question goes back to Ozmodan's comment: Desktops/Servers don't typically need IGP, mobile and lower power parts do. Yes, right now they are all coming from the same bin, but KL-X may prove that they don't necessarily have to - Intel is just doing that for "because".
They could easily continue to make the T/U/Y/HQ packages, that's where they are needed. Those are usually installed as BGA directly onto motherboards as well, so those are already in a different package than the 1151 socket.
Then put the 1151 socket CPUs, and use the additional head room in TDP from the missing IGP into Turbo, you can use the die space for additional cores or cache, and all sorts of other fun stuff.
And Intel does do that, it's just not on 1151 - they do it on X99/X299. Gamers just keep buying the 1151 because it's ~much~ less expensive, and the performance doesn't really suffer for it. If folks jumped on X299 in droves, you can bet that Intel would adjust their marketing accordingly, but so long as X299 motherboards are astronomically priced, it's not going to hit that point.