I guess the "PCI Express lane problems" are mostly about running something like 2 Samsung 960 PRO attached to chipset and not being able to get full read speeds from the 2 at the same time.
Doesn't seem like I was off (except the 8400 Turbo was higher than I expected. Either yields are up or Coffee Lake will down-throttle more to base clocks than Kaby Lake did). That assumes that Sweepr's numbers are correct:It shows basically what we should expect from Coffee Lake:
- Turbo clock will be about the same as Kaby Lake for the equivalent chip.
It's very rough dullard....Wait for the release. You'll never accurately guess what they will release. And that's for everyone.So, a very rough estimate would be to take any 4-core Skylake, add 2 more cores...
- Coffee Lake 8700K: 6 cores, base 3.7 GHz, turbo ?
- Coffee Lake 8700: 6 cores, base 3.2 GHz, turbo ?
- Coffee Lake 8600K: 6 cores, base 3.6 GHz, turbo ?
- Coffee Lake 8400: 6 cores, base 2.8 GHz, turbo ?
Were my predictions close enough?Looks like Core i5-8400 and Core i5-8600K are the initial models. I'm impressed by Intel's aggressive approach with the new base model, especially if prices remain the same (Core i5-7400 has a $182 MSRP). Now come on, I want some predictions first.
If true, then Intel will be following their decades-long tradition of pricing new chips in the old chip's same price level (give or take a dozen dollars).Core i7-8700K to cost around $349
The Intel Core i5-8600K ... and we can expect a price range of around $249 US
The Intel Core i5-8400 ... pricing can be less than $200
Kinda get the feeling that the price will be higher but only slightly. Like $10 more. This is really going to wreck Kaby-X and the 7800X, but I guess that's part of the game when you bring something in like this.
Those lanes coming from the PCH is exactly the problem. Attaching your m.2 via PCH is a waste of money because the PCH bottlenecks the m.2 performance. Latency is most of the problem. Save your money and get an 850 evo instead.Lanes for your M.2 come from the chipset, not the CPU so I'm not sure what you're on about? Please do the research first before saying something randomly. Ah I only just now see you end with how Ryzen is better, so that's your aim. Well, thanks for your thoughts and enjoy being a glorified bug and beta tester for AMD
If I were Intel, and not lazy / stupid / driven by marketing, I would put x20 PCI-E lanes on the CPU... but if you wanted to have backwards-compatibility with the older socket 1151 chipsets, that slightly complicates matters.20 PCI-e lanes has become mandatory if you want a high end storage solution. It is totally reasonable to expect this on a 350$ priced high-end product. In this context it makes sense to point out that the competition is even doing it on it's cheapest 110$ value product of the new line.
Those lanes coming from the PCH is exactly the problem. Attaching your m.2 via PCH is a waste of money because the PCH bottlenecks the m.2 performance. Latency is most of the problem. Save your money and get an 850 evo instead.
True, 8 PCI-e lanes won't bottleneck your GPU performance now for gaming. I honestly don't know how things look with compute. But I usually want my system to last 6-8 years with a GPU upgrade along the way. PCI-e 3.0 is kind of ageing already, cutting the bandwidth in half does not seem like a good idea in the long run.
If I wanted to buy Ryzen I would have done so already and I wouldn't be here complaining about upcoming Intel products. Also: Going OT by fuelling an Intel vs AMD discussion with pointless polemic is not my style. With the developments of storage technology over the past 3(!) years, 20 PCI-e lanes has become mandatory if you want a high end storage solution. It is totally reasonable to expect this on a 350$ priced high-end product. In this context it makes sense to point out that the competition is even doing it on it's cheapest 110$ value product of the new line.
Are there some benchmarks to demonstrate how the PCH is bottlenecking a good M.2 drive?
I guess the "PCI Express lane problems" are mostly about running something like 2 Samsung 960 PRO attached to chipset and not being able to get full read speeds from the 2 at the same time.
Those lanes coming from the PCH is exactly the problem. Attaching your m.2 via PCH is a waste of money because the PCH bottlenecks the m.2 performance. Latency is most of the problem. Save your money and get an 850 evo instead.
True, 8 PCI-e lanes won't bottleneck your GPU performance now for gaming. I honestly don't know how things look with compute. But I usually want my system to last 6-8 years with a GPU upgrade along the way. PCI-e 3.0 is kind of ageing already, cutting the bandwidth in half does not seem like a good idea in the long run.
If I wanted to buy Ryzen I would have done so already and I wouldn't be here complaining about upcoming Intel products. Also: Going OT by fuelling an Intel vs AMD discussion with pointless polemic is not my style. With the developments of storage technology over the past 3(!) years, 20 PCI-e lanes has become mandatory if you want a high end storage solution. It is totally reasonable to expect this on a 350$ priced high-end product. In this context it makes sense to point out that the competition is even doing it on it's cheapest 110$ value product of the new line.
Intel should not shove aside the 1151 owners. KL is only a few months old and what upgrade will there be beyond 7700k? Sad if Intel doesn't provide any 6 core sku's for SL/KL users. Quite a few SB persons has already moved to AM4 and others are still happy with what they have. But there still are quite a few waiting for the full scene to be revealed. My wife's 2500k new upgrade for example.
Unless Intel already planned to have 6 core Sku's on the current mobo's, the pin out may not work out even if a similar socket. With AMD now kicking it, they would be better off with CL compatibility with 170/270 chipsets even if only selling a chip instead of chip and chipset like they're used to plucking from people in the past.
Well, thanks for your thoughts and enjoy being a glorified bug and beta tester for AMD
What are the actual problems with Threadripper (X399)? I haven't heard of anyI don't like being beta tester either and definitely don't want a buggy product. The new Threadripper is going to have same problems like Ryzen as it will be the same revision so for me the clear choice is Skylake-X. Coffee lake is going to have too few cores and it will be the top CPU available. I will rather get the 7900X or even 7980XE (if it surprises me positively). The amount of problems Skylake-X has and Ryzen has/had is uncomparable.
What are the actual problems with Threadripper (X399)? I haven't heard of any
It should be fine out of the gate. The Ryzen launch should have cleared up most of the bios issues by now.What are the actual problems with Threadripper (X399)? I haven't heard of any
So when is the CFL release date?
That i5-8400 has massively higher turbo boost (4.0 single core) compared to i5-7400.
Kind of makes me think the prices will be higher for the whole line, compared to Kaby Lake. After all, Intel doesn't really want to make KBL unsellable and be forced to discounts.
Quick question.
I use a Noctua D14 on my 2500k. Afaik LGA1155 and LGA1151 have the same mounting holes. So the D14 will be able to be used on a 8700k, correct?
That i5-8400 has massively higher turbo boost (4.0 single core) compared to i5-7400.
Kind of makes me think the prices will be higher for the whole line, compared to Kaby Lake. After all, Intel doesn't really want to make KBL unsellable and be forced to discounts.