Intel Coffee Lake event photo confirms leaked specs

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Aug 17, 2017.

  1. MegaFalloutFan

    MegaFalloutFan Master Guru

    Messages:
    905
    Likes Received:
    167
    GPU:
    RTX3090
    The new chipset will have 24 PCIe 3.0 lanes on top of whatever CPU will (usually 16)
    So 40 in total is more then enough.
     
  2. MegaFalloutFan

    MegaFalloutFan Master Guru

    Messages:
    905
    Likes Received:
    167
    GPU:
    RTX3090
    8700K is actually not that bad, 5820K had 15Mb of cache 7800x has 8.25mb (But more L1 cache) so 13Mb for 8700K is actually a lot for Intel mainstream CPU.

    P.S. BTW guys, do you know that mainstream Broadwell 5775C is the best quad core CPU Intel ever made?
    It beats even 7700K in many games when utilized properly, Intel cheapened out and never made CPUs like these, they were expensive and still are.
    Its the only CPU that had Iris Pro graphics with 128mb of eDRAM, when you disabled on board graphics, the CPU got 128Mb of L4 cache!

    Thats why its amazing CPU, games that relayed heavy on cache showed incredible boost like 15-25 extra fps and more.

    People usually dont talk about this because the CPU is rare, 6700k came out only couple of months after and it was hard to find, most people dont even know about the L4 cache.

    I wish Intel would start adding such cache to all i7 CPUs, even if they get 20-40$ more expensive.
     
  3. narukun

    narukun Master Guru

    Messages:
    217
    Likes Received:
    24
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 970 1561/7700
    LOL if this is real i'll confirm my ryzen 5 order right now
     
  4. H83

    H83 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,635
    Likes Received:
    1,000
    GPU:
    MSI Duke GTX1080Ti
    The 5775c is a very interesting CPU but apparently Intel decided that the added eDRAM was too expensive so they removed it from newer CPUs...
    But i´m certain that someday eDRAM is going to make a comeback just like HT, the question is when?

    As for the new 8700K/8600K, they look very nice but they are going to need a new chipset so they don´t matter for me.
     

  5. coth

    coth Master Guru

    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    63
    GPU:
    KFA2 2060 Super EX
    Are you running own SQL server or what? If so you'd better go with 20-30-thread CPU instead. You wouldn't notice any difference in games. Unless it's some die hard strategy game.

    Even then 4-thread 7600K outperforms 12-thread 1600X in most games. Ryzen cores are less effective.

    With most games 1600X with SMT set to off makes no difference or even better.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-review,5014-5.html
     
  6. artk2219

    artk2219 Member

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    AsusR9 390 DirectCU
    Less single thread performance but better multithread, and better priced over all. Games performance is really only a "problem" at 1080, but they still push out more than enough frames to be way more than playable on every game, and if there's a game where they cant push out the frames, than neither can intel, because it's GPU limited. It seems like Intel will just be matching the PCI-e lanes in AM4, and if there isn't really an increase in IPC then it's still a good fight. Especially since you can find Ryzen 5 1600's for $190 at microcenter. Throw that with a B350 board and for 250 or so you can have a very decent setup, and have a socket that will still be supported until 2020 in case you want to upgrade the chip in the future. Intel will probably be pricing their I5's too high, and hoping people are still fool enough to pay it.
     
  7. RedSquirrel

    RedSquirrel Active Member

    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    6
    GPU:
    Intel Iris 6100
    So 8 years after i7 Gulftown and it's 6/12 Core i5 Finally gets 6...6 oh.

    And a dribble of PCI-E lanes, because higher end PCs aren't full of lane sucking devices.

    Ryzen 7 1700, overclock, job done for the next 5 years.


    And yes, the 5775c is a great CPU, ******* expensive though.

    As for Intel removing the iGP, won't happen, intel's iGPs have gone from awful to capable of actually playing games on, it's a nice ability to provide and cuts out the cost of a GPU on entry level machines, especially mobile, whilst still being able to easily play HOTS, WoW, WoT, along with beefy multimedia capability.

    Only PC enthusiasts were calling for the multicore boom, which is where the likes of R7 1700 step in and curbstomp equally priced Intel chips, only not having an iGP
     
  8. Emille

    Emille Master Guru

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    27
    GPU:
    1080 Ti Aorus Extreme
    Ryzen 7 performs at like 90 frames to intels 140 on a 7700k because of it's low ipc...you really think it will still be viable in 5 yeara time.

    A ryzen 7 in 5 years would be like a q6600 now.
     
  9. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,190
    Likes Received:
    1,286
    GPU:
    -
    This is not correct. Not really anyways.

    It'll have 16x PCI-Express lanes at full 16x 3.0 speed

    And it'll have 24 PCI-Express lanes at 4x 3.0 speeds.

    Essentially, it'll have 20 PCI-Express lanes.

    Why? Go look into the DMI 3.0.

    Dude, you clearly have no idea what IPC is, and i'd love to see where you got 90 and 140 from, as its more like 110-130 AMD vs 140 Intel, or downright even performance.

    Stop spreading fud around when you have zero clue what you're talking about.

    And, just so everyones clear about this:

    As the future unfolds, the difference between current Intel and AMD processors performance in games will dwindle down to almost nothing. In fact, this whole idea that AMDs processors will "age faster" is a bunch of nonsense, it's more likely it'll age slower then intels processors. Why? Well, facts. It's fact that games do not fully understand how to utilize an AMD processor currently, but that the ones that do, or get patches to better utilize the AMD processor, bridge the gap between Intel and AMD processors, sometimes to the point of there being almost no difference (same frequency vs same frequency wise, or AKA IPC). It's also fact that there's pretty much nothing to be done on Intels side, and that they are already performing as good as they ever will (there will likely be exceptions to this depending on the game).

    Now, these are facts, if you want to deny them, good for you! You have no ability to comprehend, but hey, you be you! Probably best if you stop posting your nonsense though.

    Oh, and Emille, heh...i just wanted to point out you have no idea what IPC is again, why? Because so many people on these forums don't, for some reason. It's a very, very easy thing to understand, yet so many people don't. So you should read this, as well as others.

    There have been many tests done in regards to AMD ryzen vs current Intel processors on an IPC level. But please understand, this is IPC. This is not top frequency, or any frequency for that matter, it's how much can get done WITH a specific frequency.

    AKA, if a processor has 25% less IPC performance then another processor, that would mean if both processors had the same core count and both were 4.0Ghz, that the worse processor would essentially be doing 3.0Ghz performance, if the better processors 4.0Ghz was the baseline, even though both processors would be 4.0Ghz.

    So lets disect your 90 vs 140 why don't we, yeah? You said it was because of its low IPC, which would imply that both the processors you were thinking about had the same frequency, yeah? Well, we already know that's not correct, since the 7700k is much higher in frequency then any AMD processor, which is in Intels favor, obviously.

    But lets play along and say they were at the same frequency, since you are very clearly blaming IPC as the culprit.

    If Intels processor does 140fps, and AMDs processor does 90fps, that would mean the IPC of AMDs processors is about 36% slower then Intels. That's pretty dang significant, and if were true, would literally mean AMD processors would be failing currently, in almost everything, when compared to Intel. As well, it would put it around the same performance as AMDs much older bulldozer architecture. And, unless you've been living under a rock, that's just not true. In fact, some of AMDs 8 core processors have been beating Intels 10 core processors.

    Here's the real deal when it comes to the IPC difference between Intel and AMD:

    There's a 0-5% IPC difference between Intel and AMD, and on the worse case scenarios, it's around 9%. Don't believe me? Don't believe facts? Well, i'd suggest going and doing some research then, that you clearly have not been doing.

    So again, please, take your nonsense elsewhere.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017
  10. Ryu5uzaku

    Ryu5uzaku Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,110
    Likes Received:
    307
    GPU:
    6800 XT
    Not because of low IPC but because of way lower frequency. The IPC difference isn't that big.

    Also 90 to 140 what.

    @coth it does in some games yes. Like 1600x beats it in some games. Bigger thing is frametimes tho especially when games use the cpu properly since those 4 threads will not be sufficient.

    https://youtu.be/4RMbYe4X2LI
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017

  11. Biffo

    Biffo Active Member

    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    ati
    My forensic software says it is 4.5 on the turbo.
     
  12. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,793
    Likes Received:
    1,148
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    The problem shows up in 1440 as well. Keep in mind this is with a 1080 not a 1080ti. The 1080ti would show it even more.
    Hitman (a very CPU heavy game that like a lot of threads)
    [​IMG]

    BTW: If Intel's slide is to be believed the 6c/6t i5 will match the 1600 in multithreaded performance. That's without an overclock.
     
  13. Emille

    Emille Master Guru

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    27
    GPU:
    1080 Ti Aorus Extreme
    Blah blah blah lower clocks....

    https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/11.html there are 3 games in this series of benchmarks where the 1800x at 4ghz is around 50% slower than a 7700k at 4.2.

    IPC= instructions per clock, any even when it is almost clock for clock with intel it is 40-50% slower in fallout 4, hitman and warhammer. That is with a 1080. A 1080ti is 35% faster and would show the gap even more, and that is vs a stock clocked intel.

    It's really easy to use the throwaway excuse for poor game performance and claim it is because of base clock discrepenancy...except of course when reputable hardware sites test and compare said Bulldozer Mk 2 levels of gaming performance fail for people to view.


    So yes, I do know what IPC means, and I also know that these tests compare an overvlocked ryzen to a stock clocked intel..whose overclocking potential is much better. Should we hypothosize about what a 4.6-4.8ghz 7700k on air would look like compared to ryzens fastest and biggest chip, when the massive discrepancy are with a ryzen max overclock vs a 7700 stock?

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017
  14. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,068
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    In case you need reminding, ROTTR and AOTS also lagged significantly, but patches helped close that gap. Large performance discrepancies are not due to IPC, they are due to game optimizations (or lack thereof). As times goes by, we can expect further optimizations for Zen, helping to close that gap even further (time is not Intel's friend here).

    You also conveniently ignore the other game results, which show much closer results. If IPC was the reason then we should see consistently bad results across the board.
     
  15. Emille

    Emille Master Guru

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    27
    GPU:
    1080 Ti Aorus Extreme
    Why would performance be consistent accroas the board when some games require only the slowest if cpus to provide a high and consistent framerate....making any cpu overhead irrelevant as the game is then bound entirely by a gpu.

    That's like saying the speed, acceleration and handling of all cars is irrelevant for comparison because you spend most of your time driving 60-80kph and on straight roads and in good whether.


    The performance where it matters is always the most important. Those aren't some fringe benchmark examples. They are 3 recent popular games that span a variety of game types. It's not like I gave a benchmark of graphically undemanding set of highly threaded RTS games to prove that an i5 is limited there....this is the best ryzen cpu you can get....when overclocked to it's max expected clock speed for almost every sample on air.....and it performs way worse in several games when compared to a stock clock i7 in a gpu bound scenario.....

    There is no bias in those results, just poor performance where it counts for most people spending that bracket of money on a cpu.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017

  16. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,068
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    LoL, so the small handful of games you mentioned are the only ones that make full use of a CPU at 1080p? That's about as ridiculous an assertion as I've ever heard. The far more likely scenario is that those three benchmarks and the exception, not the rule. Seriously man, check your biases.
     
  17. Emille

    Emille Master Guru

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    27
    GPU:
    1080 Ti Aorus Extreme
    'Full use of a cpu' who said that? There are lots of different ways a cpu can be taxed, threads, cpu cache, ipc....clearly ryzen has a massive deficiancy.

    I'll wait for you to find examples of a 7700k being run overclocked to a ryzens stock clock if you like as the scenario here would be reversed to show examples of the 7700k being deficient to the extreme degree seen here.

    Shall we say 3 benchmarks,any games of your choosing. Bench for bench. I'll check back in a bit. Ryzen4lyfe brua.

    These benches aren't some cherry picked examples, some games the cpus perform the same ( slightly in favour of the 7700k every time) and other times it runs like an i5 clocked at 2ghz compared the the 7700k. The same clearly can't be said in reverse. I don't get why ryzen owners have to deny the facts. Not one review of the ryzen 7 cpus said it was either a gaming chip, or preferable to a 7700k for gaming. It's not up for debate. Unless benchmarks are showing the opposite then it's just a budget cpu that performs like a 4 year old i5 half of the time.

    The last time I saw this big a difference between any chips was when the first i7s were 50% faster than the i5s in dragon age, which made use of the extra threads.

    Since then we've been told any old cpu will do but that's clearly not true.

    You were the one so fervently saying that threadripper is not a a gaming chip, why can't you just admit that i that same vein that ryzen is a halfway measure, cores at the cost of performance which shows here.

    I had it in my head that threadripper 1950x was my next cpu until I saw that for a thousand dollars, plus the most expensive motherboard I would ever have bought, plus a new quad channel ram kit....I would have 30-50% worse performance than a $400 intel cpu that goes right into my chipset...

    That is exactly why there is a demand for a high clocked 6 core intel cpu. Ryzen owners have been saying 'lol, rip intel' but when you can get this cpu to 4.6 on air and get the gaming and multithreaded performance without any deficiencies then people will realise that threadripper and to a lesser extend ryzen, were gimmicks.

    EDIT:

    wow. I just did a price check. In aus the 1800x is $659....the 7700k is $465. Almost 50% more expensive for the game performance seen above, may as well call it Rydozer, well even that wouldn't be fair because bulldozer at least had a low price to match it's terrible game performance.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017
  18. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,068
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    LOL, you are the one who claimed that Ryzen had a very low IPC, and you are the one who needs to prove it. You pointed out a handful of games (including Fallout 4, a game that is notorious for its poor optimization) which perform badly while completely ignoring the vast majority of the other results which show close performance. This is nonsense on stilts! You are simply favoring those few results because you can't bring yourself to admit that the IPC difference isn't that big. This is even after I pointed out the cases of ROTTR and AOTS, which you also completely ignored (what, did the ROTTR patch actually patch Ryzen's IPC??? :3eyes:)

    Like I said, if IPC was the real issue with Ryzen then we should see it consistently falling behind the Core i7 by a large margin. The benchmarks should be exactly the opposite of what they are - large deficits for the majority of games, with only a few games showing good performance. Combine this with the fact that patches have shown to dramatically boost performance, and the picture couldn't be clearer - it is the lack of game optimizations which is the issue, not IPC.

    I mean, you even came up with the ludicrous assertion that the majority of games do not stress the CPU much, even at a low resolution of 1080p. According to you, the majority of the reviewers did not do their job properly, since most of their 1080p tests were bottlenecked by the GPU! Imagine that!
     
  19. Netherwind

    Netherwind Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,833
    Likes Received:
    1,663
    GPU:
    MSI 3080 Gaming X
    Upgrading CPU? Nah, seems fairly pointless I guess :)
    Still interesting to see how much faster a 6700K is vs 8700K in games.
     
  20. Emille

    Emille Master Guru

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    27
    GPU:
    1080 Ti Aorus Extreme
    The gpu bottlenecked the cpu that was significantly higher in it's performance....that would be the 7700k. That's how a bottleneck works. The fact that the 1800x even when overclocked performed 50% slower means that even if you remove the gpu bottleneck it won't improve the cpu performance as the cpu bottleneck was obviously lower than that of the gpu. Please tell me you at least understand that.

    That means the 7700k would have an even greater performance lead with a better gpu...
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017

Share This Page