Eight core Coffee Lake Procs Finally Spotted?

Usual Suspects
Geekbench 3/4, Luxmark, Cinebench r15, 3D Mark FS Standard. And if you have some game with Benchmark built-in.

I sorted them out based on expected ability to show difference.

 

If they did have an 8 core, maybe they did the sensible thing and got rid of the integrated GPU. A very considerable number of people with Intel processors use them for gaming, so they get the higher spec CPU's. They then use a discrete graphics card and the GPU goes to waste. For businesses, they tend to buy the 'lesser' processors, those that gamers won't buy, so integrated GPU's for them makes sense.

I don't see the need for yet another chipset to support these CPU's, I guess it's so people with 6-core Coffee Lakes buy yet another motherboard to make the most of it . Also, there's the probability that the CPU will be an okay-ish price considering, but they'll make that up with the cost of the Z390 boards.

If this release is true, it probably means Ice Lake won't be until next year. This in all likelihood is what will happen due to Intel's ongoing issues with the 10 nm node. Therefore, Ice Lake will probably go up against Zen 2. Zen 2 is the first major upgrade to Zen, and is the successor to the yet to be released Zen+. The Zen 2 will supposedly be on a 7 nm node.

 

All done. Run/tested multiple time to eliminate the variations as much possible.

Also checked with a few other program/benchmarks but difference was either none or negligible.

So, some of the results below I would consider them a "best case" for pointing out differences.

But, in others, yeah, they are clearly there.

P.S: And excuse my horrendous table/format results.

Code:

+---------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|                     |                    Intel i7 8700K@5.0/4.6                    |
+---------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|                     |      2400MHz       |      3200MHz       |      4266MHz       |
|                     | 15-15-15-30-360 2T | 15-15-15-30-360 2T | 17-17-17-38-360 2T |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|                     |                    |                    |                    |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Aida64 Memory       |                    |                    |                    |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|                Read |              37708 |              50049 |              63737 |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|               Write |              37353 |              49949 |              65343 |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|                Copy |              31986 |              43090 |              56438 |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|             Latency |               51.1 |               41.6 |               37.3 |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|                     |                    |                    |                    |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Geekbench 4.2.2     |                    |                    |                    |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|                  ST |               6211 |               6551 |               6807 |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|                  MT |              27287 |              29595 |              31193 |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|                     |                    |                    |                    |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| LuxMark 3.1 C++     |                    |                    |                    |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|         LuxBall HDR |               5082 |               5290 |               5490 |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|               Hotel |               1371 |               1385 |               1415 |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|                     |                    |                    |                    |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| RealBench 2.44      |                    |                    |                    |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|            Encoding |            271,877 |            281,477 |            291,087 |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|  Heavy Multitasking |            222,266 |            249,176 |            267,120 |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|     System Score    |            186,288 |            195,848 |            203,071 |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|                     |                    |                    |                    |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Fritz Chess Bench   |              28508 |              29298 |              29519 |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|                     |                    |                    |                    |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Rise Of Tomb Raider |                    |                    |                    |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|        720p VH/SMAA |                201 |                221 |                226 |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|       1080p VH/SMAA |             168.56 |              173.7 |              177.7 |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|                     |                    |                    |                    |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| x265 v2.1.0 1080p   |              53.83 |              55.84 |              56,82 |
+---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+

DDR4 3200MHz CL15 vs 2400MHz CL15
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/7636528?baseline=7637463

DDR4 4266MHz CL17 vs 2400MHz CL15
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/7639075?baseline=7637463

Intel 8700K@4C/8T
2400CL15: 6232/21537 --- 6232/21314
3200CL15: 6555/22792 --- 6555/22770

 

Great Work. Geekbench is most interesting. Some of workloads are practically unaffected, and some show even 25% scaling up from 2400 to 3200MHz.
Those which did not scale up are workloads which did not hit memory bandwidth limitation.
Those which did scale up require good bandwidth. Now I wonder for one last test:
May you please disable 2cores in BIOS? And run 2400/3200MHz memory + 4C/8T as controlling sample. (Geekbench only)

Looking at ST SGEMM which is in either case 133GFlops, and then MT scales with bandwidth to:
2400MHz - 504
3200MHz - 630
4266MHz - 710
I wonder if just 4C/8T drop it to theoretical 133*4 = 532. (Maybe geekbench 4 started to support SMT, maybe not.)

 

Stop highjacking the thread, with your AMD blow fish lips! Post your numbers when they get a CPU, highjack that thread no mods in here?

 

Results table in the previous post updated. A GB links also at the end for the 4C/8T.

At 2400MHz the results varied a bit, but I would say you were spot on.

 

I like my Intel HD

Total power-in of my PC, while idling on desktop, browsing Guru3D.

75W on Intel HD (via HDMI input/output cable)
125W on R9 290 (via display port 1.2) (mem goes between 300-1250MHz, but this doesn't seem to be culprit)
------------------

That's cool 50W difference just one click away:

 

Thanks. Tiny Variation does not matter at all. Differences between each configurations are incomparably bigger.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/7655359?baseline=7637463
Left: 4C/8T + 3200MHz memory ; Right: 6C/12T + 2400MHz memory.
Shows how starved even 6C/12T can be with 2400MHz. I did series of calculations and following are results:
Approximated based on performance scaling from 4C/8T+3200MHz to 6C/12T+2400MHz; 6C/12T+3200MHz; 6C/12T+4266MHz. While considering average 35% scaling as target (instead of 50%).

Code:

Memory clock [MHz] to extract close to maximum in given Workload from all threads.       
                           6C/12T   8C/16T
AES                        4898     6531
LZMA                       2863     3818
JPEG                       2643     3524
Canny                      4422     5896
Lua                        2221     2961
Dijkstra                   4385     5847
SQLite                     2579     3439
HTML5 Parse                2862     3816
HTML5 DOM                  4562     6083
Histogram Equalization     3826     5101
PDF Rendering              4891     6521
LLVM                       2390     3186
Camera                     2852     3803
SGEMM                      4161     5548
SFFT                       2173     2898
N-Body Physics             2165     2887
Ray Tracing                2411     3215
Rigid Body Physics         2206     2941
HDR                        4209     5613
Gaussian Blur              2863     3818
Speech Recognition         4552     6070
Face Detection             2184     2912