LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,575
- 126
8400 seems to have low clocks as well.That's a little unfair because the 7400 has much lower clocks compared to the 7500 or 7600.
8400 seems to have low clocks as well.That's a little unfair because the 7400 has much lower clocks compared to the 7500 or 7600.
Sweet. Since 6 cores is only 50% more than 4, CF must be able to turbo higher/longer, since the MT improvement is more than 50%, although I am sure it is a best case benchmark as well. Only reservation I have is pricing and availability. I think you are very optimistic on the price for that i5-8400. Also too bad they didnt come out a year or two earlier. Could have mitigated the Ryzen frenzy.Massively improved MT performance across the board. Interesting that Core i5-8400 delivers biggest generational improvement, this shows how much attention Intel put into the mainstream offerings. With 6 Skylake cores at aggressive clocks and possibly a <$200 price tag it will be a killer choice for a mainstream gaming build.
It's fuzzy, but the 8700K base clock does not look like 3.7
Looks either 3.6 or 3.8?
What clocks do you think the 8350K might hit?A locked i5 ~ no, otherwise yes since 7700k can be OCed close to 5GHz & that'll beat any locked i5 handily. The locked i7 7700 is such a bad buy right now.
There's already a SiSoftware entry confirming Core i7-8700K @ 3.7/4.3/4.7 GHz like I posted.
Yea, but all core turbo is higher for six cores than the 7400 for four, with the same TDP. Going to be really interesting to see direct comparisons in gaming.8400 seems to have low clocks as well.
OCed, 5GHz with adequate cooling? That's assuming Intel hasn't nerfed them in some way, or another.What clocks do you think the 8350K might hit?
OCed, 5GHz with adequate cooling? That's assuming Intel hasn't nerfed them in some way, or another.
All 7600k reach 5.2 GHz? If not, there's your answer, also cooling matters a lot, at my place temps can reach 50C outside & often close to (or just above) 40C inside the home. So try again.A good 7600k would hit 5.2 with no effort. You think the same config (4c4t) on 14++ won't overclock better?
Kaby Lake-X is a massively popular processor. It even has it's own thread on these forums dedicated to it. Would a "totally brain-dead product" have it's own thread? I think not.
Well, one of the sources seems to be wrong.
All 7600k reach 5.2 GHz? If not, there's your answer, also cooling matters a lot, at my place temps can reach 50C outside & often close to (or just above) 40C inside the home. So try again.
Like jpiniero said, that is because the i5-7400 was the crappiest value in the Kaby Lake lineup. The performance difference between the 7600 or 7600K and 7400 was massive, but the street price difference was miniscule.Massively improved MT performance across the board. Interesting that Core i5-8400 delivers biggest generational improvement, this shows how much attention Intel put into the mainstream offerings. With 6 Skylake cores at aggressive clocks and possibly a <$200 price tag it will be a killer choice for a mainstream gaming build.
40C is hardly absurd, you think everyone lives in an all AC apartment or house? Adequate cooling ensures that your temps don;t go overboard, that still doesn;t mean that your good 7600k will reach 5.2GHz. Talk about arguing just for the sake of itThose kind of ambient temps aren't normal. You said with adequate cooling and then bring absurdly high ambient temperatures in as some kind of example why cooling wont be adequate?
Any 7600k can hit your target for the 8350k, 5.0. I would expect any 8350k to be better than that. Otherwise 14++ isnt really any better than 14+.
I only wait for 35W TDP CPUs. Do you think that we will also see 4C/8T CPUs? Because the numbers of the CPUs suggest that whole lineup will be just 4C/4T, 6C/6T and 6C/12T SKUs.
Also would be interesting to see 35W TDP 6C/12T CPU.
40C is hardly absurd, you think everyone lives in an all AC apartment or house? Adequate cooling ensures that your temps don;t go overboard, that still doesn;t mean that your good 7600k will reach 5.2GHz. Talk about arguing just for the sake of it
Alright let me recap what I said in the last two posts, any 7700k can reach close to 5GHz, an 8350K should be able to do better. Let's say 5% on avg against the 7700k, then you come with your random 5.2GHz, for all we know a good 7600k might do 5.5GHz on water? Would you apply your silicon lottery rule to every (good) processor out there?
I agree but I still expect the avg or median OC to not exceed 5GHz in a meaningful way.I'm not even sure what you're saying now. I have said any 7600k can hit 5.0 and a good one can hit 5.2 easily. Silicon Lottery's bins back this up (however, it appears they have taken down all 7600k pages).
I am only trying to say that I am expecting the 8350k to be better than that, and you should, too.
It's not a normal thing for housing to be 104f+ inside. You clearly live somewhere with out of the ordinary weather and housing that was not designed to match it.
I agree but I still expect the avg or median OC to not exceed 5GHz in a meaningful way.
I've got a single story home that receives sunlight for a good 12~16 hours in the summer, of course I'm talking about the max temps inside the house & some rooms are cooler. This isn;t extraordinarily hot for summers in India, especially with the sunlight we receive.
Your guess is as good as anyone else's at this point.Have there been any leaks about the launch date of those Desktop Coffe Lake models?