Coffeelake thread, benchmarks, reviews, input, everything.

[coercitiv]

IIRC, the 8400 should run at 4.0 on all cores under load with a Z board.

That's my bet as well, but I'm going to make the estimate as safe as possible. Personally I see no reason why the Multicore Enhancement won't work the way it did in prior gen chips considering the current competitive environment.

 

[coercitiv]

I wouldn't expect that behavior with non-K CPUs with 65W TDP.

They will be mounted on Z boards:

• Multicore Enhancement
• Configurable TDP

It will probably take 2 clicks to setup the "overclocked" i5 8400.

 

[mikk]

https://videocardz.com/73155/intel-core-i7-8700k-delided

The leak with 149 mm² was correct as we can see. Didn't some people claim Intel is unable to fit 12MB within 150 mm²? What happened to these people?

It's more likely that 6C+9MB L3 is what they can fit in 149 mm^2, rather than 6C+12MB L3.

They'll need something bigger than 149mm^2 if they are to fit 2MB L3/core.

We know 6C/6T is 9MB L3, and unless die sizes are official, I'm not wrong - perhaps they are using a bigger die than 149mm^2 or the 149mm^2 figure was inaccurate to begin with.

There goes the 12MB L3.

 

[eddman]

I would like to know that as well, and also, in motherboards that make it possible to use 1 core turbo on all cores, would that work on a non-K CPU?

I just checked a 7600 review by tom's and it manages to hold 3.9 GHz turbo under heavy load.

If 8400 manages to do the same, it's going to be a superb buy for the price.

 

[moonbogg]

8700k sold out, lawl. Probably stay sold out till March-April.

 

[elhefegaming]

8700k sold out, lawl. Probably stay sold out till March-April.

Sold out on the only site that put it up for sale 1 day before release. We don't even know if it was somebody that screwed up and there were like only 5 available.
We 'll see tomorrow.

 

[LTC8K6]

Says who? I think you basing that on a bios bug, in an early test of a K CPU.

I wouldn't expect that behavior with non-K CPUs with 65W TDP.

Based on previous non-K chips and Z boards.

A 4790S will happily run all it's cores all day at 4.0 under load with a Z chipset, for example.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

Never mind

 

[PeterScott]

They will be mounted on Z boards:

• Multicore Enhancement
• Configurable TDP

It will probably take 2 clicks to setup the "overclocked" i5 8400.

I'll let someone else prove that first.

But as cheap as I am, I would still pay the extra to get to the i5-8600K at 5GHz, and when someone did a poll, I was in the extreme minority for choosing the 8600K when everyone was picking the even more expensive 8700K.

On Newegg, the 8600k/8700K are both sold out. The i5-8400 is in stock.

 

[Pookums]

I'll let someone else prove that first.

But as cheap as I am, I would still pay the extra to get to the i5-8600K at 5GHz, and when someone did a poll, I was in the extreme minority for choosing the 8600K when everyone was picking the even more expensive 8700K.

On Newegg, the 8600k/8700K are both sold out. The i5-8400 is in stock.

I do not think your necessarily wrong. One of the two chips SHOULD cannibalize some of the sales of the other. Either the 8600k cannibalizes 8700k, or the 8700k cannibalizes some of the 8600k. The purpose of these two chips is either maximum game performance or all around chip. The only issue with an all around chip is you need to consider Company workloads if your a small business of a few persons/friends, who also game. Would it be better to buy a large number of all around chips say 8 of the 8700ks, or would it be better to buy 3-4 8600ks for direct development, and make a large 1-2 rack renderfarm with the r7 1700? This is of course assuming your buying ALL new(many of course will only update 1-2 units per year, which further complicates development).

Overall some might choose A and some might choose B. However, there might be a greater preference to one side, which should become apparent once initial purchases die down and coffee lake production ramps up (not to mention limited purchases until 2018 delaying the ability to get read on the situation).

8100, 8350k, and 8400 are the more interesting parts for coffeelake imo. 8700k OCed should not be significantly faster in ST or MT than a Well OC haswell 6core or OC broadwell (10%) or in rarer cases for those who OCed all aspects including the mesh of skylake-x 6 core.

 

[PhonakV30]

any review ? I thought It's today ?

 

[ezodagrom]

any review ? I thought It's today ?

It's tomorrow.

 

[coercitiv]

But as cheap as I am, I would still pay the extra to get to the i5-8600K at 5GHz

It's not only the overclock that you're buying with the K part, the chip itself is better binned. Even if you don't overclock, you still get more for the extra dollars you're spending. Back when Skylake launched the 6400 was an obviously inferior chip, with higher voltage requirements at high speeds. (as highlighted when BCLK overclocking was briefly unlocked for non-K parts)

Personally I would still go for 8600K or 8700K depending on performance requirements, but this time I wouldn't shy away from recommending the 8400 if on strict budget (and reviews show it's decent silicon ofc).

 

[AtenRa]

Am expecting the 8350Κ at 4.8GHz to be faster than 8400 in games.

 

[Arachnotronic]

The leak with 149 mm² was correct as we can see. Didn't some people claim Intel is unable to fit 12MB within 150 mm²? What happened to these people?

BenchLife.info doesn't post fake info. Also, the way that Skylake architecture is setup, there is 2MB of L3$ right next to the core, so it would make no sense to not have the extra 2MB/core slices in a 6 core part.

 

[coercitiv]

Am expecting the 8350Κ at 4.8GHz to be faster than 8400 in games.

The only thing that makes me curious about 8350K is the larger cache relative to the older 7600K/6600K. There have been claims over the years that the larger cache of the i7 influenced gaming performance more than HT did, and I guess this time we'll have a definitive answer.

 

[tamz_msc]

The only thing that makes me curious about 8350K is the larger cache relative to the older 7600K/6600K. There have been claims over the years that the larger cache of the i7 influenced gaming performance more than HT did, and I guess this time we'll have a definitive answer.

I'm familiar with a few tests regarding L3 cache and it's effect on gaming performance, albeit with two cores.The difference was ~10% between a Haswell Celeron with no L3 and an i7 with 8MB L3. It would be interesting to see how it really affects quad-cores.

 

[TheLycan]

any review ? I thought It's today ?

You have sone reviews from lab501 and wasd

 

[DrMrLordX]

I do not think your necessarily wrong. One of the two chips SHOULD cannibalize some of the sales of the other.

I was more thinking that the 8600k and 8700k would push former HEDT users back onto the mainstream platform, cannibalizing Skylake-X sales. Which is basically logical. If you formerly had 6c/12t on x99, the prospect of a 5 GHz hexcore Skylake would be pretty damn tempting. And it worked just as well as it promised when announced so why not?

 

[RichUK]

Hmmm

 

[psolord]

The 1600x beats the 8700k in both Tom Clancy's games?

What sorcery is this?

 

[elhefegaming]

The 1600x beats the 8700k in both Tom Clancy's games?

What sorcery is this?

the same sorcery that makes 7700k beat the 8700k in that game and fallout4.
i call wrongly tested

 

[RichUK]

Yeah. Lifted it from another forum. Some of the numbers don't make sense.

 

[Eddward]

Yeah. Lifted it from another forum. Some of the numbers don't make sense.

Then give this "another forum" a credit
Author also commented what he thinks about the numbers and what will do, so I guess there is no problem to use google translator ?

 

[TheLycan]

At what hour today the rest of the reviews will be published?