Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

[frozentundra123456]

$385 USD is a bit steep, for the i7-8700K 6C/12T, when you can get a Ryzen 5 1600X for $230. Sure the Intel will clock higher, and that might be useful for games, but still.

Edit: At $300-$330, I could see it being viable at that price, but not $385.

That is only 10 to 15 percent in a thousand dollar system, for better IPC and probably 15 to 20% (or more) faster clocks. Doesnt seem at all prohibitive to me. If I were building a system, I would not hesitate to pay it. Unless building a budget system, I would be very reluctant to buy any cpu that is lucky to hit 4 ghz, no matter how many cores it has.

 

[jpiniero]

When the pricing list came out for KBR, yeah it was pretty much a given it was going to be $15-20 more. I think it'll be closer to 370.

 

[Markfw]

That is only 10 to 15 percent in a thousand dollar system, for better IPC and probably 15 to 20% (or more) faster clocks. Doesnt seem at all prohibitive to me. If I were building a system, I would not hesitate to pay it. Unless building a budget system, I would be very reluctant to buy any cpu that is lucky to hit 4 ghz, no matter how many cores it has.

If this wasn't an Intel thread, that would be trolling. As it is, it just tries to insult my intelligence. More cores and at a reasonable speed, and less expensive is a smart buy in many use cases.

 

[coffeeblues]

If this wasn't an Intel thread, that would be trolling. As it is, it just tries to insult my intelligence. More cores and at a reasonable speed, and less expensive is a smart buy in many use cases.

Your pretty obvious moderation bias doesn't bode well for your intelligence and don't flaunt your inflated status to force your opinions in to other people's discussions.

Moderator Callouts are not tolerated on our forums. Members that post they "Like" Moderator Callouts are also not tolerated on these forums. “Liking” a Moderator Callout is the same thing as a Moderator Callout.

Insults are also not tolerated.

For your further information: Those with Moderator concerns need to post in the Moderators Discussion Forum.

Smoke
AnandTech Moderator

 

[TheGiant]

The pricing seems very reasonable.

The value maybe not always better than AMD offering, but its better than previous Intel offering by a mile.

The 8600K made the 7700K obsolete in a evening. I'll take 6C/6T CPU any time over 4C/8T CPU.

If the 8600K overclocks to 5GHz with air cooling, its the 2600K level of value to me.

 

[JoeRambo]

If this wasn't an Intel thread, that would be trolling. As it is, it just tries to insult my intelligence. More cores and at a reasonable speed, and less expensive is a smart buy in many use cases.

Agreed, except that "many use cases" part. I've said this before: this forum has way higher % of people who do DC, video encoding, VM farming etc. Reality is that main use cases of "fast" CPU for masses is web browsing and gaming. And that is where Intel has huge advantage.

Markfw: think about it from this angle, in these very forums there are people who upgraded C2Q->Nehalem->SB->Ivy->Hsw->Skl even if some of those upgrades were 5% ST improvement at best. And now You are trying to "sell" them a system that is missing 35% ST Cinebench score versus 8700K ( talking about those stock clocks Ryzen 167 vs 2XX score leaks here).

 

[coffeeblues]

I agree, especially with the timing being this close. I originally thought that the Z370 being a essentially a Z270 was a negative, but in reality it should mean that the Z370 boards should be pretty solid from the get go (probably only needing patches for microcode updates).

Z370 would have the benefit of being available earlier, and a familiar and more polished platform with a cost of not having cannonlake pch and thunderbolt with it.

Bingo. I don't know what the future compatibility situation will be, but if Z370 also works with Ice Lake (which should be another worthwhile jump due to more IPC, more cores, etc.), then that'd be gravy.

I expect Kaby | Cannon PCH split to be used to mark the divide for beyond Coffee compatibility.

The 16th is on a Saturday; extremely unlikely - more like impossible.

16th of September could be start of preorders day.

 

[eddman]

$385 USD is a bit steep, for the i7-8700K 6C/12T, when you can get a Ryzen 5 1600X for $230. Sure the Intel will clock higher, and that might be useful for games, but still.

Edit: At $300-$330, I could see it being viable at that price, but not $385.

I think an 8600K would be capable enough to compete with 1600X, and their MSRP should be about the same. Yes, it doesn't have SMT, but the combination of higher all-cores boost (4.1 vs 3.7) and IPC should be enough to counter SMT and help it match and even surpass 1600X.

Similar situation with 8700K. Two less cores compared to 1700X, but its much higher all-cores boost (4.3 vs. 3.5) and better IPC should make it more than capable to compete.

Also, those listed prices are probably not MSRP but retailer prices. Retailers do tend to price stuff higher during launch periods.

 

[VirtualLarry]

That is only 10 to 15 percent in a thousand dollar system, for better IPC and probably 15 to 20% (or more) faster clocks. Doesnt seem at all prohibitive to me. If I were building a system, I would not hesitate to pay it. Unless building a budget system, I would be very reluctant to buy any cpu that is lucky to hit 4 ghz, no matter how many cores it has.

You know, not everyone overclocks. You really think that EVERYONE that buys an unlocked KBL or CFL runs at higher than 4Ghz? Sure, some of the gamer / enthusiasts on THIS board do, but the vast majority of Intel customers probably dont.

That said, point taken, and this is the Intel thread. I expect that CFL-S will have higher IPC (slightly) and higher clock speeds when overclocked (again, slightly). Yet, it's MORE than just "slightly" more expensive.

I'm sure that Intel will play up those points, and I'm curious how AMD will respond. (7nm Ryzen 2nd-gen?)

But there will definitely be a bit of a racehorse, for both the Intel and AMD camps, with these two CPUs. (i7-8700K versus Ryzen 5 1600X, or Ryzen 7 1700X.)

Note that I only brought up the equal-core-count chips. When you compare CPUs by price, rather than core count, you can see that you can get higher core counts for the same or less price with AMD. Which may be the smarter move, for some people. (Content-creation / engineering, rather than 144Hz 1080P gaming.)

 

[TheGiant]

But there will definitely be a bit of a racehorse, for both the Intel and AMD camps, with these two CPUs. (i7-8700K versus Ryzen 5 1600X, or Ryzen 7 1700X.)

If the numbers of 8700K CB15 score are true, I fully expect the 8700K to compete with 1700X-1800X in MT performance with those clocks and IPC. When overclocked definitely. Talking about ST/low thread apps its uncomparable.

I used to ask how will Intel handle the 7800X vs 8700K situation. Now I consider the 7820X vs 8700K situation. On desktop ofc.

A high clocked high IPC 6C is always more that lower clocked lower IPC 8C, desktop use.

 

[mikk]

From the same shop the price is close to I7-7700k.

i7-7700k $462.41 https://www.pccanada.com/viewitem.asp?id=522700
i7-8700k $484.44 http://www.pccanada.com/viewitem.asp?id=644845

By the way: Estimated to arrive on 2017-09-16

http://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_core_i7_7700k-664-vs-intel_core_i7_8700k-763

CPU-Monkey says ~350 USD vs ~370 USD which is reasonable.

 

[PeterScott]

If this wasn't an Intel thread, that would be trolling. As it is, it just tries to insult my intelligence. More cores and at a reasonable speed, and less expensive is a smart buy in many use cases.

~4GHz * 8 Cores * 1.0 IPC factor = 3.2
~5GHz * 6 Cores +1.1 IPC factor = 3.3

It is not unreasonable to expect the 8700K match or even potentially exceed the R7 1800X, at fully multi-threaded loads, as it most assuredly will at lightly threaded ones, while costing less than an R7 1800X.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

CFL should be mid september and the 8700k should be ~$350. 6c/12t that clock like a 7700k. IMC that will support 4000MHz+ memory like Sky-x.

Things are about to get shaken up again. The current value champ may not be that for long. Fun stuff.

I can't wait to see how CFL benches in games vs. your 7820. It still might be close enough to push me to 7820.

 

[multippp]

The i9-7820X is not soldered.
The i9-7820X has no holes in the heat spreader.

http://www.coolenjoy.net/bbs/27/1593037

 

[raghu78]

I can't wait to see how CFL benches in games vs. your 7820. It still might be close enough to push me to 7820.

CFL 8700k will most probably be the fastest gaming CPU edging out even the 7740X and 7700k. My guess is 8700k will be atleast 10% faster against 7820x. Here is a comparison of 7700k at 4.9 Ghz vs 7800x at 4.7 Ghz.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1450-core-i7-vs-ryzen-5-hexa-core/page9.html

~4GHz * 8 Cores * 1.0 IPC factor = 3.2
~5GHz * 6 Cores +1.1 IPC factor = 3.3

It is not unreasonable to expect the 8700K match or even potentially exceed the R7 1800X, at fully multi-threaded loads, as it most assuredly will at lightly threaded ones, while costing less than an R7 1800X.

True. 8700k OC could definitely match or even edge out Ryzen 7 at 4 Ghz at multi threaded workloads. My guess is 5 Ghz is the low end of 8700K oc. I think it could end up at 5.2 Ghz even on avg. CFL 8700k has the edge until Pinnacle Ridge arrives. AMD needs around 15% higher clocks with Pinnacle Ridge to become more attractive against CFL.

 

[Zucker2k]

$385 USD is a bit steep, for the i7-8700K 6C/12T, when you can get a Ryzen 5 1600X for $230. Sure the Intel will clock higher, and that might be useful for games, but still.

Edit: At $300-$330, I could see it being viable at that price, but not $385.

You were suggesting a $$$$ Threaripper system to a 4930k owner for gaming iirc How could you even suggest with a straight face a 8700k @ "$385" is not viable?

 

[frozentundra123456]

You know, not everyone overclocks. You really think that EVERYONE that buys an unlocked KBL or CFL runs at higher than 4Ghz? Sure, some of the gamer / enthusiasts on THIS board do, but the vast majority of Intel customers probably dont.

That said, point taken, and this is the Intel thread. I expect that CFL-S will have higher IPC (slightly) and higher clock speeds when overclocked (again, slightly). Yet, it's MORE than just "slightly" more expensive.

I'm sure that Intel will play up those points, and I'm curious how AMD will respond. (7nm Ryzen 2nd-gen?)

But there will definitely be a bit of a racehorse, for both the Intel and AMD camps, with these two CPUs. (i7-8700K versus Ryzen 5 1600X, or Ryzen 7 1700X.)

Note that I only brought up the equal-core-count chips. When you compare CPUs by price, rather than core count, you can see that you can get higher core counts for the same or less price with AMD. Which may be the smarter move, for some people. (Content-creation / engineering, rather than 144Hz 1080P gaming.)

Well, the vast majority of intel customers aren't buying an 8700 *K*, (emphasis on K) cpu either. Assuming 8700K overclocks to 4.7 or 4.8 ghz, which seems reasonable, since most 7700K can reach 5ghz, that is a 20% frequency advantage, which I dont consider "slight" at all, but I guess you can define your terms however you want to make the case you are trying to prove.

 

[Timmah!]

The i9-7820X is not soldered.
The i9-7820X has no holes in the heat spreader.

http://www.coolenjoy.net/bbs/27/1593037

Thanks for the info. While it most likely it is not soldered, i dont think the lack of the hole in the IHS is a proof of that.

 

[StinkyPinky]

I guess the 7800x still has a market as a workstation level CPU. Quite a niche market though.

CFL 8700k will most probably be the fastest gaming CPU edging out even the 7740X and 7700k. My guess is 8700k will be atleast 10% faster against 7820x. Here is a comparison of 7700k at 4.9 Ghz vs 7800x at 4.7 Ghz.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1450-core-i7-vs-ryzen-5-hexa-core/page9.html



True. 8700k OC could definitely match or even edge out Ryzen 7 at 4 Ghz at multi threaded workloads. My guess is 5 Ghz is the low end of 8700K oc. I think it could end up at 5.2 Ghz even on avg. CFL 8700k has the edge until Pinnacle Ridge arrives. AMD needs around 15% higher clocks with Pinnacle Ridge to become more attractive against CFL.

Would love to be proven wrong but I think you are a bit optimistic to expect 5.2 on a 6 core cpu

 

[raghu78]

Would love to be proven wrong but I think you are a bit optimistic to expect 5.2 on a 6 core cpu

14++ (CFL) has 10% higher transistor performance vs 14+ (SKL 7700k/7740x) and 4.4% higher single core turbo (4.7 Ghz vs 4.5 Ghz). 7740X is hitting 5 Ghz avg OC easily. I think 8700k has a good chance of hitting 5.2 Ghz avg OC for 24x7.

 

[Zucker2k]

14++ (CFL) has 10% higher transistor performance vs 14+ (SKL 7700k/7740x) and 4.4% higher single core turbo (4.7 Ghz vs 4.5 Ghz). 7740X is hitting 5 Ghz avg OC easily. I think 8700k has a good chance of hitting 5.2 Ghz avg OC for 24x7.

With what cooling?

 

[phillyman36]

So will we get to see the Z370 mobos coming out tomorrow as well?

 

[raghu78]

With what cooling?

My guess is you would need a AIO liquid cooler to hit those speeds. On air it might be possible but don't bet on it.

 

[eddman]

So will we get to see the Z370 mobos coming out tomorrow as well?

The only thing that worries me is 300 chipsets' future gen support. If they turn out to not support Ice lake (which apparently will be the direct successor of CFL instead of CNL), that would be extremely infuriating.

 

[VirtualLarry]

You were suggesting a $$$$ Threaripper system to a 4930k owner for gaming iirc How could you even suggest with a straight face a 8700k @ "$385" is not viable?

How could you even compare HEDT platforms with mainstream, in terms of cost? Or are you admitting that Intel is starting to price their mainstream parts, like HEDT?

Edit: And please point out where I recommended a TR rig, "for gaming". I may have recommended TR to someone that was interested in moving from Intel HEDT to Ryzen, but that's because Ryzen is mainstream, and someone moving from Intel HEDT to AMD HEDT would want to move to Ryzen TR, not Ryzen (mainstream).