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

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

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

  1. Silva

    Silva Master Guru

    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    312
    GPU:
    Asus RX560 4G
    Having a 1080 you sure saw difference. I had a R9 270X and was hoping to get an RX570. I wouldn't notice a single frame difference between 2500k and 6700k.

    Battlefield 1 also uses well past 4 cores. Give him 8 cores and it will use them all.
    i7 choke on that game.

    No, it is not. Specially if you wanna stream/record. Plenty of games can use more than 4 cores. You bought intel so you're ****ed: want a new CPU? buy a new motherboard. As for DDR4, the next gen is still some time away.
     
  2. warlord

    warlord Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,371
    Likes Received:
    778
    GPU:
    Null
    No no no. They did make that release happen sooner because of AMD's dominance. We should not support intel for a couple of years. They should learn by their mistakes and greed. Unless someone is a console gamer with 1080ti and i9 who doesnt love evolution and he is not a true part of pc master race group.
     
  3. Corbus

    Corbus Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,348
    Likes Received:
    45
    GPU:
    1080 Ti FTW3
    Had a 780 Ghz edition back then, but yea i see your point.
     
  4. fry178

    fry178 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,145
    Likes Received:
    124
    GPU:
    MSI 1080 X@2GHz
    @RzrTrek
    Right, cause no one ever buys a computer to do more than gaming and ocing. :)

    And buying a certain part only because it can oc, means you're not willing to get the next faster one (for whatever reason) and has nothing to do with the product, nor does it make it "better" than another.
    Neither intel nor amd will guarantee any clocks beyond stock anyway, so no difference between them.

    And sure, isee the value of being able to oc chips, but so far I've seen more gains in adding cores rather than cranking up clocks (cpu) and would have gone for a 6/8C, and wouldn't even care if its locked.

    I dont mind losing a bit ocing headroom (vs intel) as i spend less than what a 7700 cost, while outperforming 58xx/68xx (even oced ones), with R7 running stock clock (just ask ppl in the forum that already got them).

    And to be able to "extend" usage/timeframe a bit because i can raise clocks a little in a few years, is nice,
    but I will never waste money on an unlocked intel again.

    Especially since clocks are getting less relevant, besides benchmarks or single thread software.
     

  5. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,941
    Likes Received:
    1,242
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    I have little interest in hexa-core CPUs, but hopefully they will encourage game developers to develop for more cores/threads. Of course modern games run well on quad-cores, but I think the very fact that 6- and 8-core CPUs were limited to the extreme high-end provided a disincentive for developers to code for more than four cores (it would be a waste of time, money and resources to optimize games for the 0.1% of gamers with more than four cores).

    That being said, I think quad-cores will dominate for a few more years. After all, there are quite a number of users on Steam who are still using dual-core CPUs. Change doesn't happen that quickly.
     
  6. Reddoguk

    Reddoguk Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,727
    Likes Received:
    132
    GPU:
    Guru3d GTX 980 G1 Gaming
    Does anyone even care anymore about these new chips? Lets all just buy a TR and be done with it.

    TR will last you a few years at least ^^. I mean come on who isn't already dreaming of a TR/X399 combo. Super Computer @Home basically.
     
  7. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    2,199
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    If I was into CF, I would say yes. But No CF, no need for special TR features. and core count itself is overkill for me.

    When I do productivity stuff I much more appreciate ram amount and HDD read speed.
    Both of those are plenty on AM4.
     
  8. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,356
    Likes Received:
    835
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    If they release a 8c/16t TR I become more intrigued but $800 for a CPU I would never fully utilize seems like an awful waste of money no?

    8 core at $499 with X399 MB at $270 would fit the bill since you will be forced to basically drop $300 on RAM.
     
  9. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,427
    Likes Received:
    1,359
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    I've wanted a 6-core i5 for at least 4 years. Such a product would've been a best seller every year they made it. You're too late, Intel.

    There are Guru3D readers who already have or are planning to get X299 platforms. There are legitimately good reasons to get X299, though I personally feel Threadripper is a much, much more practical and logical choice.


    EDIT:
    Based on the way you said that, it seems you don't really want the extra memory channels, but feel like you should since they're there and otherwise that's wasted potential. So why not just go a Ryzen 7 and not worry about it? Need the PCIe lanes?
    For the record, I do think an 8c/16t socket TR4 would be a good "low-end" product. Ryzen 7s make sense in a lot of cases, but some workloads need more memory bandwidth or PCIe lanes than others, but not necessarily more threads.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2017
  10. wavetrex

    wavetrex Master Guru

    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    273
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX1080 AMP!
    They could have put 6-cores out on the mainstream market many years ago, during the age of Ivy Bridge or Haswell (@22nm), but noooo... more 4-cores, and they would still release 4-cores with 3-5% increments ad infinitum if AMD didn't woke up.

    But ok, it's good to have options !
    Better late than never.
     

  11. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,356
    Likes Received:
    835
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    I just fear that the poor 1080 performance will creep into 1440+ resolution with AM4. Seeing as memory bandwidth appears to alleviate some of the gaming performance issues I would most definitely want to utilize all 4 memory channels. My comment on the RAM was more at the recent hike in DDR4 prices.
     
  12. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,427
    Likes Received:
    1,359
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Haha, I put it in quotes for a reason. Considering the roadmap for socket TR4 involves Epycs involving 32c/64t, 8c is relatively small. When you consider there will be dual-socket TR4s, 8c is really small. Not sure if quad sockets will be available, but that will certainly be interesting.

    Makes sense. Though unless you've got a display above 90Hz, I don't think the performance issues are really going to matter that much at 1440p+. Also after all the patches, most of the performance issues aren't so glaring anymore.
    And yeah, I understood your point about RAM prices - if you want good Ryzen-compatible RAM, you're going to be paying a lot due to inflation. You don't have to buy all the RAM at once though. Just get what you need and wait for prices to die down.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2017
  13. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,356
    Likes Received:
    835
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/geforce-gtx-1080-ti-review,31.html
    It kinda is showing up at 1440 now with a 1080ti. And my display is set to 100Hz most of the time. I am definitely starting to see my 2600k's age with this GPU.
     
  14. aKiss

    aKiss Member

    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 1050ti LP
    how did they managed to get that fast these products ready ?
    did they "glued together" two 4c 8t cpus and disabled 2 dies ?
     
  15. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,427
    Likes Received:
    1,359
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    They probably took one of their existing Xeon parts, took away any extra features (like cache), and added OC support.

    The 5960X also has a 300MHz difference. That's a 7% difference. Most of the tests you linked to are less than 7% slower, with Deus Ex and Tomb Raider being pretty awful exceptions.

    Personally, I would recommend sticking with Intel if you want 100Hz+. But, I guess we'll see what comes of socket TR4. The extra memory channels could help with game performance (though the extra CCXs I suspect will worsen it), and maybe there will some day be an 8c/16t model.
     

  16. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,356
    Likes Received:
    835
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    I just don't think Intel deserves my money this time around. I'm too damn conflicted. I hope TR matches Intel in gaming. I may pay a premium over getting CL.
     
  17. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,941
    Likes Received:
    1,242
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    Eh? Why would anyone use TR for gaming?
     
  18. xrodney

    xrodney Master Guru

    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    46
    GPU:
    Aorus 1080ti xtreme
    Then you are out of luck, it will be the same socket but require a new chipset.
     
  19. xrodney

    xrodney Master Guru

    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    46
    GPU:
    Aorus 1080ti xtreme
    I am considering 12c TR as well for gaming but only because I could use more PCI-e lanes for non-gamming stuff.
     
  20. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,356
    Likes Received:
    835
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    If you had noticed my previous post I'm hoping for a 8core 16 thread TR. I would use that for gaming if it beats Intel in gaming. Otherwise might as well limp this Sandy Bridge along another year or two.
     

Share This Page