There will be many of those, just as there are many Ryzen users with GT710 or HD5450s right now.Honestly I do not think there will be many 8700k users without some kind of dGPU.
.
There will be many of those, just as there are many Ryzen users with GT710 or HD5450s right now.Honestly I do not think there will be many 8700k users without some kind of dGPU.
.
Actually Cannonlake 8C whould have beaten Ryzen to market. CFL-S is just a plan B if that failed.But I do thank AMD for prodding Intel into finally doing so, after all these years, of only quad-core max on mainstream sockets. (Q6600 came out when???)
Nice. What is the score of each?MT, my 1700X at stock is about ~5-6% faster than my 7800X oced at 4.5
Yeah, if the i5 6C/6T is indeed priced under $200, that's going to be a strong competitor, especially for gaming, with the Ryzen 5 1600/1600X CPUs, especially if it can be clocked above 4Ghz.
I don't hate CoffeeLake, quite the opposite, really. I'm thrilled that Intel is finally upping the core-counts of "mainstream" CPUs. But I do thank AMD for prodding Intel into finally doing so, after all these years, of only quad-core max on mainstream sockets. (Q6600 came out when???)
I might even get an unlocked 6C/6T CoffeeLake to mess with, or use as my "gaming" rig. But I likewise cannot deny the strong value proposition that my Ryzen 5 1600 CPUs have given me. For the same price as a Kaby Lake locked i5 4C/4T CPU, I got an unlocked 6C/12T CPU. Can't really beat that, can you? (Well, not currently.)
Edit: And then, there's this:
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/incredible-deal-on-ryzen-r7-1800x-mircrocenter-349.2512725/
Ryzen 7 1800X for $349.99 at Microcentr.
You'd have to be naive to think that Intel didn;t know much about Ryzen, unlike leakers or speculators they knew a lot. That's the same for AMD/Nvidia btw since their product cycles & all kinds of investments depend an awful lot on knowing something, or many things about the competitor. Then there's your theory that 6 core would've launched anyway, despite Ryzen btw previously there was the 4790k, well between the 7700k & 8700k what would you choose? The same goes for the new i3 vs previous gen i5 & the latest i5 vs 7700(k) so you're telling us that Intel made a whole lot of their products obsolete, jut because?While AMD deserves a lot of credit recently, they had very little to do with Intel introducing 6+ cores to mainstream. This move was planned years ago. AMD may have prodded Intel to push their releases up, but the 8700K was planned long before Ryzen came along.
You'd have to be naive to think that Intel didn;t know much about Ryzen, unlike leakers or speculators they knew a lot. That's the same for AMD/Nvidia btw since their product cycles & all kinds of investments depend an awful lot on knowing something, or many things about the competitor. Then there's your theory that 6 core would've launched anyway, despite Ryzen btw previously there was the 4790k, well between the 7700k & 8700k what would you choose? The same goes for the new i3 vs previous gen i5 & the latest i5 vs 7700(k) so you're telling us that Intel made a whole lot of their products obsolete, jut because?
You know they weren't comparable to the current Zen or KBL, they were even sued for it ~ wrongly so IMO.This post is off on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.
1. Let's talk about core count, shall we? AMD had "8 core" processors how many years ago? Why didn't Intel launch more cores then?
They're not really, take a look at best case SMT performance. Scroll down to the 7zip, Winrar & AES benchmarks & see if you can spot a trend?2. AMD said that Zen would improve IPC by 40%. That would've placed it around SB. They came in a little higher than that but they're still well below Skylake and KabyLake. If Intel took AMD at their word, why would they be afraid?
And Zen was in the works for close to half a decade. Where does this invalidate my point, as you rightly said that the 6 core was probably moved up a few quarters?3. Intel launching a 6 core now isn't my "theory." As MANY others have also stated, this move was roadmapped years ago for all to see. The thing Intel missed on was Cannonlake, which was supposed to be out about now and likely would've had 8+ cores. So if anything, Intel is behind their original roadmap so AMD should count their blessings.
You know they weren't comparable to the current Zen or KBL, they were even sued for it ~ wrongly so IMO.
Performance, that's why, many of the resident Intel followers on this forum were also pleasantly(?) surprised by what Zen did. Would an Ivy Bridge level performance illicit a six core or 18 core response from Intel? If not then you have your answer.
It just strikes me as a little weird, that if this 6-core mainstream CPU wasn't a "rush job", that if it had been "on the roadmaps", then:Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and that Intel magically developed Coffee Lake in the span of a year or so out of "fear" of Ryzen. Guess what? Who cares and you know why no one cares? Because when Coffee Lake lands, it will likely not only beat the Ryzen 5 badly, but it could be right up there with the Ryzen 7.
It just strikes me as a little weird, that if this 6-core mainstream CPU wasn't a "rush job", that if it had been "on the roadmaps", then:
1) Why are we getting re-used cores, with no real IPC improvements in the cores themselves, with just layout / floorplan changes? I mean, even the 65nm to 45nm Core2 shrink had nearly a 3-5% IPC improvement. If they had so much time, why didn't they "tweak" the cores?
2) Why isn't it compatible with existing Socket 1151 motherboard infrastructure? If it had been in development / planning for as long as the "it's not due to AMD" crowd says it was, then surely, they could have made initial changes to socket 1151 to accommodate CFL-S.
These two factors indicate to me that it WAS a "rush job", and my best explanation why, is because AMD is finally competitive again.
You're assuming Intel can just cram in some more IPC in their SKL derivatives, not unlike the argument that Atom failed (in mobiles or tablets) because Intel didn't pay enough heed to them, or that they weren't serious even after throwing billions at them.Looks like it is going to be a hell of a chip for a "rush job". Crushing their competitor in single core performance, while matching it, or better, in multicore performance...with 25% fewer cores. Just imagine what intel could do if they took their time.
So, you do not think Coffee Lake will be significantly better in single core and equal or better in multicore compared to their competition?You're assuming Intel can just cram in some more IPC in their SKL derivatives...
Competition as in Ryzen ~ yes but nothing has markedly improved over SKL or KBL, except the core count. Though MT results (for 8 core Zen) will largely depend on how applications make use of AMD's SMT, in my last reply you can see AES gain over 70% with it.So, you do not think Coffee Lake will be significantly better in single core and equal or better in multicore compared to their competition?
I do not believe this. I am not sure what I posted that gave you the impression I do. We will not see any significant gain in IPC until 10nm.As for your argument ~ the theory that Intel can improve IPC of SKL just willy nilly perhaps without sacrificing core speeds is just wishful thinking.
Well this is what you said ~I do not believe this. I am not sure what I posted that gave you the impression I do. We will not see any significant gain in IPC until 10nm.
They do not need to improve IPC to beat the competition. I will not say the name of said competition, because if I do I will probably get an infraction.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1950?vs=1903Looks like it is going to be a hell of a chip for a "rush job". Crushing their competitor in single core performance, while matching it, or better, in multicore performance...with 25% fewer cores. Just imagine what intel could do if they took their time.
It just strikes me as a little weird, that if this 6-core mainstream CPU wasn't a "rush job", that if it had been "on the roadmaps", then:
1) Why are we getting re-used cores, with no real IPC improvements in the cores themselves, with just layout / floorplan changes? I mean, even the 65nm to 45nm Core2 shrink had nearly a 3-5% IPC improvement. If they had so much time, why didn't they "tweak" the cores?
Cannon Lake-S died, and in its place was inserted Coffee Lake-S, which had fewer cores and lower IPC than the Cannon Lake part,
This post is off on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.
1. Let's talk about core count, shall we? AMD had "8 core" processors how many years ago? Why didn't Intel launch more cores then?
2. AMD said that Zen would improve IPC by 40%. That would've placed it around SB. They came in a little higher than that but they're still well below Skylake and KabyLake. If Intel took AMD at their word, why would they be afraid?
3. Intel launching a 6 core now isn't my "theory." As MANY others have also stated, this move was roadmapped years ago for all to see. The thing Intel missed on was Cannonlake, which was supposed to be out about now and likely would've had 8+ cores. So if anything, Intel is behind their original roadmap so AMD should count their blessings.
It is a little tiresome having to continue to argue with diehards on BOTH sides. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and that Intel magically developed Coffee Lake in the span of a year or so out of "fear" of Ryzen. Guess what? Who cares and you know why no one cares? Because when Coffee Lake lands, it will likely not only beat the Ryzen 5 badly, but it could be right up there with the Ryzen 7 in MT and will slaughter it in ST.
Lacking an igp, and being slower than the Intel i7 chips in lightly threaded tasks and gaming, the 1800x should be selling well below $300 to be "viable." The faster 7700k (in gaming and light-threaded tasks) is only $279 at microcenter.Yeah, if the i5 6C/6T is indeed priced under $200, that's going to be a strong competitor, especially for gaming, with the Ryzen 5 1600/1600X CPUs, especially if it can be clocked above 4Ghz.
I don't hate CoffeeLake, quite the opposite, really. I'm thrilled that Intel is finally upping the core-counts of "mainstream" CPUs. But I do thank AMD for prodding Intel into finally doing so, after all these years, of only quad-core max on mainstream sockets. (Q6600 came out when???)
I might even get an unlocked 6C/6T CoffeeLake to mess with, or use as my "gaming" rig. But I likewise cannot deny the strong value proposition that my Ryzen 5 1600 CPUs have given me. For the same price as a Kaby Lake locked i5 4C/4T CPU, I got an unlocked 6C/12T CPU. Can't really beat that, can you? (Well, not currently.)
Edit: And then, there's this:
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/incredible-deal-on-ryzen-r7-1800x-mircrocenter-349.2512725/
Ryzen 7 1800X for $349.99 at Microcentr.
Kaby Lake Refresh has an improved ring bus, although no details given. Maybe Coffee Lake too.In CPU-monkey pre-release benchmarks of Cinebench 11.5, Cinebench R15, and Geekbench 3 (minus PassMark because it is estimated, and Cinebench OpenGL for obvious reasons), Coffee Lake consistently shows ~104% score per Hz over Kaby Lake, except Core i5-8600K in Cinebench 11.5 MT and Geekbench 3 64-bit MC. This improvement is because of change in architecture? Or that the benchmarks can be gamed? Or fake news?