Who's buying a 6 core Coffee Lake CPU? (Poll Inside)

[Madpacket]

Easy for you to say when you don't have to sell an i7 CPU to buy a Ryzen 7 CPU.
You can say that on the sidelines as a person with no actual skin in the game just throwing out random comments.
For actual i7 users, your comments are hilariuos. I have never once considered Ryzen 7 to be a viable upgrade for my CPU.
I'm actually waiting for Zen 2 before I see if AMD is up to par for my use.
AMD is great for a budget option don't get me wrong. If you need raw price/perf AMD wins. But when you just want power? That's the reason I am going intel, and that's the reason I'm switching to Nvidia.

I am an actual i7 owner/user (4790K) but thanks for assuming I have no skin in the game. I also own a 6600K / Z170 with no upgrade path to Coffee Lake due to.....reasons. I also have two general purpose Ryzen systems (1700 and 1700X). Sure for gaming they're not much of an upgrade over a highly clocked Haswell or newer i7 (for now), but last time I checked many people use PC's for more than just PC gaming. I don't see why you think AMD Ryzen is just a budget option, that's a little insulting given they outperform Intel in virtually every task but gaming.

Yes Coffee lake is Intel's answer to Ryzen, it'll likely be 10 to 15% better overall in gaming like the 7700K (why upgrade to Coffee Lake if you're just a gamer and already an i7 owner?) and perhaps also beat it in some multithreaded applications, although Ryzen SMT appears superior to Hyperthreading so it should be interesting if Intel's clock speed advantage will give it the edge here.

I'm excited there's finally competition but Intel really needs to humble themselves and stop screwing over their customers. They could start with lowering the price of the CPU's ($500+ CAD is a little unreasonable for the 8700K) or forcing users to upgrade to the latest chipsets, or having to buy Z series boards to overclock K series chips, and packing in a decent CPU cooler to save ~+-$40.00 instead of forcing customers into another purchase.

 

[StinkyPinky]

I'm going to wait. I really want one but a couple of things are stopping me.
1. Banner Lord is not released and I don't know if it will choke my i5-2500k
2. ddr4 prices
3. I'd really like 8 cores. If Intel gets an 8 core Coffee/Ice lake, or AMD gets a higher clocking/better IPC Ryzen out.
4. Price/Performance. I like a good deal. If its not a good bit faster than a 6800k OC then price will have to be very good for me not to look at a used system.
5. Wife.....

1 is most important, and for 5, what she doesn't know....

Funnily enough I just read that Bannerlord is expected to be heavily CPU bound due to the battle settings (more people in the battle, more cpu bound).

Would be interesting to see if cores make a difference.

 

[CHADBOGA]

A post from the main Intel thread: http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...s-out-page-554.2428363/page-635#post-39078181

Z390 supports Ice Lake 8-core, coming 2018 H2.

May affect some user's decisions to buy a Coffee Lake 6-core.

It will be at least a year after Coffee Lake, before we see Ice Lake.

 

[tential]

At some point you need to pull the trigger. There's always something better coming from the manufacturers in this space.

No matter when you buy the cpu and pull the trigger it's been shown so far that your i7 will last.

Then you can upgrade as a want, not as a need.

 

[dullard]

I think you need to reread what you just quoted. I never said CPUs, I said GPUs. When have you ever seen a GPU that had a small handful of cores with very high clock speeds?

Oops. In a long CPU discussion, you changed topics to GPU randomly and I missed it.

 

[cytg111]

As my CPU is still more than enough for me, it doesn't matter how good any new CPU is currently, until software arrives that I want to use and my CPU can't adequately run it.

Then I will upgrade.

Your poll options could be better.

This. It is easy to get starstruck looking at threadripper and skylake-x amount of cores but down to reality, haswell i7 is still doing *everything* it needs to do and then some.

 

[Glo.]

IF I game only in 1440p and in Overwatch, Heroes of the Storm and Heartstone I think I will settle with 4C/8T Icelake 35W TDP CPU, and fast RAM, with GTX 2050 Ti, if it will allow for 60 FPS in 1440p.

 

[moonbogg]

This. It is easy to get starstruck looking at threadripper and skylake-x amount of cores but down to reality, haswell i7 is still doing *everything* it needs to do and then some.

These days its not about needing to upgrade. The luxury of actually needing an upgrade and experiencing the awesome satisfaction of watching your FPS double, triple or even more is a thing of the long ago past. These days, its all about wanting to chase the shadow of the glory days. Its about seeing something new and powerful, deciding you want it and then undergoing as many mental gymnast tricks as necessary to convince yourself that its a justifiable and legit thing to upgrade to. The box arrives, you remove the plastic and breath in that wizardly magical new electronics aroma and whisper to yourself as you exhale, "Core i7, 6 cores, powerful, all mine, glory, magic". You envision yourself as the king of the digital battlefield with your new hardware. No noob can touch you. you realize it was worth it, if only in your mind.

 

[JimKiler]

No matter when you buy the cpu and pull the trigger it's been shown so far that your i7 will last.

Then you can upgrade as a want, not as a need.

I disagree, I was still on an Phenom II 955 until 3 years ago and i had no problems playing games and a Phenom 2 was never the leader in benchmarks when it came out. You can keep overpaying for Intel or you can get a solid Ryzen system which may not be the fastest at games. I will stick with Ryzen unless it becomes a bulldozer compared to Intel.

 

[epsilon84]

I disagree, I was still on an Phenom II 955 until 3 years ago and i had no problems playing games and a Phenom 2 was never the leader in benchmarks when it came out. You can keep overpaying for Intel or you can get a solid Ryzen system which may not be the fastest at games. I will stick with Ryzen unless it becomes a bulldozer compared to Intel.

So in other words, you'll accept lower performance in games in order to support the underdog (AMD)? Each to their own I guess. I'm not quite so noble, I tend to buy what is best at the time, regardless of the brand.

Oh and I'm sure no one said a Phenom (or Ryzen) can't play games adequately, they just simply aren't as quick as Intel in terms of pure framerates (when matched with a suitably fast GPU, it must be stressed).

Regardless of whether you think Intel is overpriced or not, Coffee Lake is a welcome addition to the Intel lineup as it addresses their biggest weakness against Ryzen, which is MT performance, whilst not having to sacrifice ST performance.

As for 'overpaying' for Intel, I should point out that CL is not just about the 8700K (even though, as an enthusiast forum, it gets the most attention here) the cheaper 8600K will also be very capable and there is also an i3 8350K 4C/4T chip as well, assuming that sells for ~$150 like current i3s I would hardly call that a 'bad deal'.

 

[Ghost of Cyrix]

I changed my vote from yes to no in light of this morning's news regarding the octocore i7 and Z390. Also, while I certainly wouldn't bother with Ryzen with its current per-core performance limitations and am looking forward to mainstream higher core counts with more Kaby Lake levels of per-core performance, I have to say I'm disgusted with what seems to be Intel's rapid and artificial chipset obsolescence plans (on top of the lack of soldered IHSs on just about every Intel CPU now). Hence, the wait for Z390 now I suppose. Such a shame.

 

[JimKiler]

So in other words, you'll accept lower performance in games in order to support the underdog (AMD)? Each to their own I guess. I'm not quite so noble, I tend to buy what is best at the time, regardless of the brand.

Oh and I'm sure no one said a Phenom (or Ryzen) can't play games adequately, they just simply aren't as quick as Intel in terms of pure framerates (when matched with a suitably fast GPU, it must be stressed).

Regardless of whether you think Intel is overpriced or not, Coffee Lake is a welcome addition to the Intel lineup as it addresses their biggest weakness against Ryzen, which is MT performance, whilst not having to sacrifice ST performance.

As for 'overpaying' for Intel, I should point out that CL is not just about the 8700K (even though, as an enthusiast forum, it gets the most attention here) the cheaper 8600K will also be very capable and there is also an i3 8350K 4C/4T chip as well, assuming that sells for ~$150 like current i3s I would hardly call that a 'bad deal'.

When you put it that way you make Intel sound innocent. The two choices as i see it are AMD for great performance but maybe not top dog game framerates versus buying an overpriced Intel product because lets face it had Ryzen not occured we would not get a 6 core mainstream Intel CPU for a few more years at least. But i have never spend more than $200 on a GPU.

 

[jpiniero]

The thing is that Icelake's IPC will likely not be much better while clockspeed will likely be lower. So there really isn't much reason to wait.

 

[Ghost of Cyrix]

The thing is that Icelake's IPC will likely not be much better while clockspeed will likely be lower. So there really isn't much reason to wait.

Cores. No one wants to upgrade for the first core bump in the mainstream in a decade only to have their purchase eclipsed by the next core bump a mere year later.

 

[IEC]

Gaming FPS is a completely unnoticeable difference at resolutions above 1080p (average 2-3% @ 1440p). At 4K there is zero average difference (within margin of error). 7700K OC vs Ryzen OC.

If you play at 1080p potato and must have the best performance (gain 5-7% FPS on average with a GTX 1080 Ti), then the 7700K or 8700K is for you. If you're on a budget, you can more than make up the difference in FPS by going R5 1600/X + one tier higher graphics card. So instead of a 7700K + GTX 1070 you could get a R5 1600X + GTX 1080, and get overall better performance.

So if you aren't budget-constrained and you are building a pure 1080p gaming rig, 8700K all day. Otherwise, it's not so clear-cut.

 

[CakeMonster]

Cores. No one wants to upgrade for the first core bump in the mainstream in a decade only to have their purchase eclipsed by the next core bump a mere year later.

I'm doing great with 4c8t now. I'm going CFL basically just for the headroom. And I'm still super worried about ST not keeping up.

So, no, Intel planning 8c the following year has no negative influence on my CFL plans. I might not want 8c at all if there's a chance that ST performance doesn't keep up.

 

[Ajay]

The thing is that Icelake's IPC will likely not be much better while clockspeed will likely be lower. So there really isn't much reason to wait.

That a guess on the IPC. By recent historical measures, there won't be a large increase (like 25%) but what will be see - 5%, 10%, 15%? We have no idea - there just isn't enough leaked info and I doubt we will see any meaningful leaks anytime soon. Since Cannon Lake desktops are DOA, I'm reasonably confident we'll see at least a 10% bump in IPC (two generation bump) - maybe a bit more if Intel can find a way. Desktop/laptop sales, while falling, are still too important for Intel's bottom line for them to just brush off performance increases.

Edit: Rats, this is the wrong thread....

 

[epsilon84]

Gaming FPS is a completely unnoticeable difference at resolutions above 1080p (average 2-3% @ 1440p). At 4K there is zero average difference (within margin of error). 7700K OC vs Ryzen OC.

If you play at 1080p potato and must have the best performance (gain 5-7% FPS on average with a GTX 1080 Ti), then the 7700K or 8700K is for you. If you're on a budget, you can more than make up the difference in FPS by going R5 1600/X + one tier higher graphics card. So instead of a 7700K + GTX 1070 you could get a R5 1600X + GTX 1080, and get overall better performance.

So if you aren't budget-constrained and you are building a pure 1080p gaming rig, 8700K all day. Otherwise, it's not so clear-cut.

Except the thing is, the margin is far greater than 5 - 7% at 1080P on a 1080 Ti, its more like a 20% difference.
http://www.pcgamer.com/amd-ryzen-3-review/

With regards to using a cheaper Ryzen CPU and putting the savings towards a faster GPU, you can use the same logic with a ~$250 8600K or ~$150 8350K too, you know?

What do you think would be better suited for gaming, a 5GHz 8600K or a 4GHz R5 1600X? Looking at this chart, even a $150 8350K would beat an R5 1600X (and even an R7 1800X) in gaming.

I'm sorry but I'm just getting a bit tired of the misinformation and overhyping of Ryzens gaming abilities. Perhaps this chart will finally put things in perspective of where things stand in a non GPU limited scenario.

 

[epsilon84]

When you put it that way you make Intel sound innocent. The two choices as i see it are AMD for great performance but maybe not top dog game framerates versus buying an overpriced Intel product because lets face it had Ryzen not occured we would not get a 6 core mainstream Intel CPU for a few more years at least. But i have never spend more than $200 on a GPU.

This isn't about 'innocence'. Please tell me what is so overpriced about the upcoming CFL chips , assuming they are in line with current i7/i5/i3 pricing? The 8700K would be the direct competitor to the Ryzen 7 chips and should be competitive in MT performance whilst having better ST performance. The same goes for the 8600K vs Ryzen 5, and 8350K vs Ryzen 3. So essentially we are looking at comparable MT performance but better ST performance at the same price points of current Ryzen chips. Of course, AMD could easily cut their own pricing and gain a price/performance advantage, that is what they have tended to do in the past when they are behind in overall performance.

Anyhow, throwing a blanket statement that Intel is 'overpriced' really adds nothing to the discussion and is, in my opinion, a rather misleading statement if you consider the facts that I presented above. You have a preference towards AMD, perhaps on moral or ethical grounds based on past Intel practices, I'm not here to argue about that. But from a practical point of view, I really don't see how the upcoming CFL chips are overpriced compared to the current Ryzen prices.

I will agree with you that increased competition from AMD is a good thing, and if it gets Intel back into gear and hastens their resolve, all the better, we all benefit from that in the end.

 

[JimKiler]

This isn't about 'innocence'. Please tell me what is so overpriced about the upcoming CFL chips , assuming they are in line with current i7/i5/i3 pricing? The 8700K would be the direct competitor to the Ryzen 7 chips and should be competitive in MT performance whilst having better ST performance. The same goes for the 8600K vs Ryzen 5, and 8350K vs Ryzen 3. So essentially we are looking at comparable MT performance but better ST performance at the same price points of current Ryzen chips. Of course, AMD could easily cut their own pricing and gain a price/performance advantage, that is what they have tended to do in the past when they are behind in overall performance.

Anyhow, throwing a blanket statement that Intel is 'overpriced' really adds nothing to the discussion and is, in my opinion, a rather misleading statement if you consider the facts that I presented above. You have a preference towards AMD, perhaps on moral or ethical grounds based on past Intel practices, I'm not here to argue about that. But from a practical point of view, I really don't see how the upcoming CFL chips are overpriced compared to the current Ryzen prices.

I will agree with you that increased competition from AMD is a good thing, and if it gets Intel back into gear and hastens their resolve, all the better, we all benefit from that in the end.

I have not seen prices for Coffee Lake so why argue hypothetically? But everything for the last 5+ years was over priced otherwise Intel would not drop prices (at least at micro center) right before Ryzen was released.

If Intel is so much better than Ryzen why should Intel even change their products or prices because of Ryzen. Intel will still be dominate in the CPU market and I no matter what AMD does i do not expect that to change.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I have not seen prices for Coffee Lake so why argue hypothetically? But everything for the last 5+ years was over priced otherwise Intel would not drop prices (at least at micro center) right before Ryzen was released.

If Intel is so much better than Ryzen why should Intel even change their products or prices because of Ryzen. Intel will still be dominate in the CPU market and I no matter what AMD does i do not expect that to change.

MicroCenter CPU prices do not match any other store. They sell CPUs as a loss leader to get in-store traffic.

Dropping prices to match a new model introduced by a competitor is something AMD does all the time with GPUs. By your argument AMD video cards are "over priced" too.

intel has been the leader in CPU performance ever since Core 2 while AMD has had to try to compete on "value." I'll agree that intel has been lazy about increasing that performance in the years after Sandy Bridge but that is not the same as being "overpriced."

This is all subjective and emotional so we should probably stop derailing the thread and agree to disagree.

 

[dullard]

I have not seen prices for Coffee Lake so why argue hypothetically?

The exact US prices at launch are unknown, but several foreign pre-order prices have been leaked in this thread. They are pre-order prices, and include foreign tax, and include risk of currency float, so they should be taken with a little grain of salt. But, overall they are a bit higher than Intel has charged for the top mainstream processor.

If Intel is so much better than Ryzen why should Intel even change their products or prices because of Ryzen.

Intel's needs to compete against Intel's main competitor: other Intel chips out in the wild. If Intel stopped at the 7700K, then why should anyone with a 7700K, 6700K, or heck even the 4790K ever buy another Intel chip?

At the moment, Intel should be far more worried about the existing Intel chips out in the wild than other competition. If no one ever feels the need to upgrade, Intel is all but dead as a company. A good AMD processor might take 20% of Intel's business away. A lack of a reason to upgrade computers takes probably 90+% of Intel's business away (there will always be new computer users and people who destroy their computer, so it won't go away completely).

 

[krumme]

Except the thing is, the margin is far greater than 5 - 7% at 1080P on a 1080 Ti, its more like a 20% difference.
http://www.pcgamer.com/amd-ryzen-3-review/

With regards to using a cheaper Ryzen CPU and putting the savings towards a faster GPU, you can use the same logic with a ~$250 8600K or ~$150 8350K too, you know?

What do you think would be better suited for gaming, a 5GHz 8600K or a 4GHz R5 1600X? Looking at this chart, even a $150 8350K would beat an R5 1600X (and even an R7 1800X) in gaming.

I'm sorry but I'm just getting a bit tired of the misinformation and overhyping of Ryzens gaming abilities. Perhaps this chart will finally put things in perspective of where things stand in a non GPU limited scenario.

We can throw bm at each other all day. I dont know what bm suite is used to get those results and how testing is done. Its a black box and dont show the result we otherwise see.
Pcgamer recommends a 7600. And man
... one should think Jarred doesnt game. Yes in eg old gta and sometimes in pubg its faster than a 1600x but you outright tank in modern engines in bf1 mp64 even for consistent 60fps and in overwatch consistent 144 is not possible. Its only going down the drain.
1600x is imo a far superior buy even for only gaming vs a 7600. It doesnt take long to find many sites that mean the same. People keep their cpu for years these days.
I think recommending a 7600 goes a long way to show how totally out of touch this review is. Its not forbidden to look just a tad forward as thats the way we live our lives.

 

[StinkyPinky]

This. It is easy to get starstruck looking at threadripper and skylake-x amount of cores but down to reality, haswell i7 is still doing *everything* it needs to do and then some.

OF course you are right......but I still want a new toy. I mean, my 2012 Prius is perfectly capable also but if I had the money I'd get myself a Tesla.

 

[krumme]

I guess must benchmarking goes by a script and all sorts of single player modes is run?
Yes if you do play first person shooter single player by all means buy a 4c 4t cpu. But going into heavy mp battles in a modern engine you are quickly throughput limited. And beeing so is a nightmare and for many it takes away a gold part of the experience. And frankly who the h..l play sp these days in mp games???

The value of cl is excactly we get 6c 12t and solid freq at the same time. That is what is needed for high end gaming.