Intel Six Core Lineup exposed - Core i7-8700K and Core i5-8600K

This is what AMD has given us. Intel has been able and willing to offer 6 core / 12 thread mainstream performance parts for years but had no one pushing the market. They are using the same 14nm process just bumping to 6 cores to compete with AMD's 8 core parts. Hopefully this starts a back and forth in the mainstream performance segments of one pushing the other 6 months apart.

 

Just need to know how many PCIe lanes the 6 core 12 thread supports and how much RAM it can handle. If the price tag is decent then maybe it will do well.

 

What's with the slow clock speeds? Nowadays the clock speeds should be at least 4Ghz minimum.

 

Intel could easily release an 8 core mainstream model if they would only remove that IGP. It would cost the same or less to produce considering it doesn't need to waste resource on the igp part of the die.

 

I hope these won't suffer from poor core to core latency just like I9-7900x does. That's by assuming these come with mesh, instead of ring-bus.

 

I'm always impressed at the amount of insider information some people seem to have on the interwebz ... :3eyes:

 

I read somewhere 16 - 3.0 PCIe lanes from the proc. Same as Kaby Lake/Skylake. Not certain about RAM.

 

Im still waiting to upgrade my i7 4790k, id love a 6 or 8 core with min base clock of 4ghz, not going to settle for less

 

This CPUs are only interesting to me in case they can be used with Z270 MBs so they can provide a future upgrade path. Otherwise i don´t care.

 

I was expecting at least 4.0ghz. Intel is really desperate isnt it?

 

So where are all the fanboys saying 4 cores for gaming is enough?
An i5 with 6 cores? How intel has changed this year...
My 2500k is still running strong, haven't even pushed more than 4.0Ghz on it.
Wont upgrade for less than 6c/16t and everyone knows i7 are overpriced BS so I know where's my money going (for now).
Also, that 8400 at 2.8Ghz...unless it turbos to 4Ghz, it will be in trouble.

 

It really is, though. At least today. In the future? Who knows. My crystal ball is on strike.

But that doesn't mean we should not innovate. The world doesn't revolve around gaming.

 

Year ago, I would buy that 6C/6T on the spot. Today I consider minimum 6C/12T.

And interesting thing will come now. Because there are 2 possibilities:
1) Intel drops prices of 4C/4T & 4C/8T considerably to make space (Considering their 4C/$C pricing on X299, I do not think it will happen.)
2) Intel drops prices of 4C/4T & 4C/8T tiny bit and adds expensive 6C/6T & 6C/12T as options for those willing to pay that extra.

Either way it is bad move. In 1st case it will alienate many people who recently bought those now cheaper chips. And rest will consider price difference as big milking.
In 2nd case, big price for those new chips will not make them as attractive as AMD's.

Especially those locked ones. There is no reason to buy intel's locked ones when AMD offers equal performance at same price with OC-ability. Those unlocked ones may prove to be stronger, but price premium intel asks for unlocked chips ...

And I really wonder if intel improved IPC that much this time, so they can clock them so low.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself, why spend twice the amount of money on i7's for a minimal performance gain in games or Ryzen that can barley overclock?

 

I don't care about clock speed, but what I do care about is performance. I would actually prefer a higher performance part at a lower clock speed. I think higher clock speeds are the most primitive and simplistic way of achieving higher performance. Eventually you can't manufacture parts on a smaller process, and you can't practically deal with the excess heat produced by simply upping the clocks. I can't think of an Intel part that didn't perform better than the previous generation at the same clock speed.
It's not new or uncommon for new architectures to have better performance than previous architectures at the same clock speed. Remember when the Athlon64 came along and had much better performance than Intel's Pentium D at lower clocks, then Core2 came along and had much better performance than Athlon64 at lower clocks.
Megahertz has been a marketing gimmick. AMD tried to move away from it with their AthlonXP chips, using names like "3200+" for a 2.2Ghz part. AMD claimed their architecture was different than Intel's and couldn't be compared using just clock speed. They were right, and the same applies to different architectures within the Intel family.

 

Rise of the tombraider and fallout 4 would like to disagre with you , i se RoTB max out my i5 4460 in a lot of instances , same for fallout 4 , so no 4 cores are not enough for gaming , and that's only two of the games i play , i am pretty shure there are more who enjoy more cores.

 

I moved from an 2500k @ 5ghz to this 6700k and i have @stock double the fps that i had at 5ghz with that 2500k while playing GW2 in crowded areas. It all depends on what you're playing.

 

Fallout 4 is a bad game engine. RoTR is just fine on a i7. Yes 4 cores are becoming inadequate however they will still be viable gaming CPU's for a while still.

 

For now is more than enough. In the future, i really don´t know. In case more cores are needed it would be cool to have a CPU that i can simply slot in my system instead of having to buy a new MB and RAM. Simple as that.