@TahoeDust
Incase you were curious about the 6800K as well in this test with my 1080Ti.
It's amazing how quickly this thread can derail! Regarding coffee lake, I am wondering what if anything would cause a gaming performance regression from kaby lake? From what has been seen, it seems like the 8700k >=7700k in every aspect. The only things I could imagine would be thermal throttling resulting from having +50% cores, or some fatal design flaw.
I wouldn't expect a fatal flaw, but every significant change brings a chance that there will be minor regression in some benchmarks, because of cache is organized slightly different, or just because the previous CPU was so popular it was the target of direct optimization and any small change might no longer be optimal for those optimizations, maybe a bit lower clock speed.
But I am thinking/hoping CL will be great, a 6 core that is provides great IPC and clock speed.
Is that benchmark one anybody can run by downloading a file for free ? If so, please link me., maybe I can try it.
It should be good, but they should have released it sooner when 6 core chips used to be a big deal. Now they are basically entry level chips and nothing to get excited over.
Is that benchmark one anybody can run by downloading a file for free ? If so, please link me., maybe I can try it.
Nice! What were your clocks? CPU & GPU?
I think the 8700K should be impressive and sell very well.It should be good, but they should have released it sooner when 6 core chips used to be a big deal. Now they are basically entry level chips and nothing to get excited over. Less than a year ago, 6 core was the most horsepower you could get without spending $1000, but now you can get one for $200. Intel held back way too much and kept 6 core mainstream chips out of the sunlight, and now its not going to be a big deal. Its just going to be the fastest gaming chip again (maybe), but still cost $400, lol.
I expect Intel to simply price a lot of people out of Coffee lake. I expect most gamers to simply buy a quad core i3 from now on, and why not? Who the hell needs to blow $400 on a gaming CPU from intel when a 6/12 solution can be had for, yet again, half the price or simply get a quad i3 for $125 or whatever?
The would have had more cores sooner, if they did't have issues with 10nm not panning out as planned.
If the 8700K does not best the 7700K in all areas, it will be a disappointment to me.
I doubt they would have. They were absolutely LOVING the quad core milk strategy. And charging $700 for a 6 core chip with extra PCI lanes? Holy Godchild, who wouldn't love that!? No my son, the reason we haven't seen 6/12 on mainstream is because AMD had to do it first and Intel is Intel.
@TahoeDust
CPU was 4.2 or 4.3 (can't remember) and GPU was around 2130. Uncore stock, ram 3200 CAS16.
Wow!...yeah, that will do it. The other ones in this thread were run @ 2025-2038. I wish my GPU would clock that high. Nice score!@TahoeDust
CPU was 4.2 or 4.3 (can't remember) and GPU was around 2130. Uncore stock, ram 3200 CAS16.
Don't forget the quadcore Skylake/Kabylake + IGP were already at 91watts. 2 additional hyperthreaded cores would've needed about 125watts at same clocks. For a mainstream specced processor, a significant tdp change like that would've been a very unpleasant affair. Plus, we're talking about top-tier mainstream here. An i3 or Pentium is enough for the usage needs of the vast majority of users around the world, imho.I doubt they would have. They were absolutely LOVING the quad core milk strategy. And charging $700 for a 6 core chip with extra PCI lanes? Holy Godchild, who wouldn't love that!? No my son, the reason we haven't seen 6/12 on mainstream is because AMD had to do it first and Intel is Intel.
@TahoeDust
CPU was 4.2 or 4.3 (can't remember) and GPU was around 2130. Uncore stock, ram 3200 CAS16.
It wasn't about "quad core milk strategy" at all.
These chips are designed first and foremost for notebooks, and it wasn't really feasible until 14nm++ to increase the core count while staying within a reasonable power envelope.
Any of you Ryzen or Threadripper boys reading want to get in on this?
This is you defending Intel. Intel could have launched a Skylake 6C/12T core i7 if they wanted to a couple of years back. Intel's turbo clocking is very sophisticated and they needed to lower base clocks for 6C/12T to fit in the respective power envelopes for notebook and desktop. Since most desktop workloads rarely push all these cores the CPU will be turboing very high at all times. We know very well Intel did not do so because there was no competition from AMD and they were more bothered about maximizing gross margins than providing more cores to the mainstream consumer. AMD are going to bring 4C//8T Raven Ridge APUs with TDP as low as 15w. So why can't Intel provide 6C/12T at 35-45w TDP for notebooks inspite of having a superior process node. Just wait and see how Intel start to ramp core counts up at 10nm. Intel stayed at 4 cores for mainstream from the ancient 45nm to 32nm to 22nm and finally to 14nm node . Lynnfield came with 4 cores for mainstream in late 2009. Thats an eternity in the PC industry. The transition from 4 to 6 cores in mainstream took 8 years. Just watch how quickly Intel move to 8 cores.