1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Eight core Coffee Lake Procs Finally Spotted?

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Mar 20, 2018.

  1. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,380
    Likes Received:
    2,024
    GPU:
    -NDA +AW@240Hz
    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.
     
  2. thatguy91

    thatguy91 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,650
    Likes Received:
    97
    GPU:
    XFX RX 480 RS 4 GB
    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.
     
  3. Koniakki

    Koniakki Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,828
    Likes Received:
    434
    GPU:
    ZOTAC GTX 1080Ti FE
    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. :p

    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
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2018
    Embra, -Tj- and Fox2232 like this.
  4. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,380
    Likes Received:
    2,024
    GPU:
    -NDA +AW@240Hz
    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.)
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2018

  5. jaggerwild

    jaggerwild Master Guru

    Messages:
    631
    Likes Received:
    228
    GPU:
    Many
    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?
     
  6. Koniakki

    Koniakki Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,828
    Likes Received:
    434
    GPU:
    ZOTAC GTX 1080Ti FE
    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. :)


    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2018
  7. Noisiv

    Noisiv Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,607
    Likes Received:
    461
    GPU:
    RTX 2070 Strix
    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:

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,380
    Likes Received:
    2,024
    GPU:
    -NDA +AW@240Hz
    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
     

Share This Page