• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

[Leak] Intel claims i7-8700K to be 11% faster than 7700K in ST and 51% in MT and more

B

Broken Hope

Member
Lonely1 said:
Nope. I'm not. The multicore reported performance seems kinda low.
Click to expand...

How? 50% more cores for 51% more performance seems about right, you have to take into account that the 11% more single threaded will be based on 1 core at 4.7GHz, where's the multicore at 51% will be based on a lower clockspeed.
 
L

Lonely1

Unconfirmed Member
Broken Hope said:
How? 50% more cores for 51% more performance seems about right, you have to take into account that the 11% more single threaded will be based on 1 core at 4.7GHz, where's the multicore at 51% will be based on a lower clockspeed.
Click to expand...
That's why I said 11% IPC. :p
 
Z

Zombie James

Banned
Mobile Coffee Lake:

W3ENOtg.png


Frequency takes a hit but core counts go up here as well. Should be nice for the next Macbook refresh.
 
C

Canklestank

Neo Member
So when can we expect 8c/16t from an Intel i7? Is that a reasonable expectation for Cannonlake?

EDIT: And by that I obviously mean in this range: Entry/Mainstream.
 
O

opticalmace

Member
Broken Hope said:
How? 50% more cores for 51% more performance seems about right, you have to take into account that the 11% more single threaded will be based on 1 core at 4.7GHz, where's the multicore at 51% will be based on a lower clockspeed.
Click to expand...

Oh the 8700k is going to hit 4.7ghz on one core? Didn't know that, nice. I thought it was sticking to 4.5ghz.
 
I

icecold1983

Member
Dont think many people will deem the improvement in an increasingly smaller number of single threaded games worth such a cost increase over ryzen
 
P

PHOENIXZERO

Member
ISee said:
People thinking that Intel is only going for 6 cores because AMD released new 6/8 core CPUs a couple of months ago are crazy. Ryzen was first demonstrated in march 2017, the plans for coffee lake were already set in stone at this point in time. It is impossible to change the already prepared manufacturing process to go from 4 to 6 cores in just 6 months. I'd even make the statement that coffee lake production startet at least 1 month ago. Intel was probably forced to speed things up (as much as possible), but the 6 core decision was made a long time ago.
Click to expand...

Of course it was but we've known for a long time as well now what Zen was going to be doing in terms of core count and at least a rough idea of performance and so has Intel, this was absolutely being done in response to Ryzen, they've been planing for years to do this to counter but of course Coffee Lake is mainly due to their fab issues but they were seemingly caught off guard by how well Ryzen actually turned out and that's likely if not certainly had an effect on the release window of Coffee Lake.
 
J

Jarnet87

Member
Been holding off on a build so I may as well wait to see what the 8700k can do. If it's on par with the 7700k for gaming and runs a lot cooler I will probably spend the extra cash.
 
U

UserDoesNotExist

Member
Never trust Intel's MT numbers. They've been gaming the statistics on MT for over a decade now, especially in my field (computational physics) where other viable parallelization strategies exist.
 
dr_rus

dr_rus

Member
icecold1983 said:
Dont think many people will deem the improvement in an increasingly smaller number of single threaded games worth such a cost increase over ryzen
Click to expand...
This "increasingly smaller number" of yours is actually the bulk of all modern and not so recent games on the market as can be clearly seen from the results of 7700K.

Lonely1 said:
So, no big IPC increases?
Click to expand...
Nope. It's the same Skylake essentially.
 
M

Mrbob

Member
499 for the 8700k? Wasn't the 7700k 399? Typically prices don't go up for replacements. Also curious to see if the 1080ti isn't cpu limited by the 8700k. Right now Nvidia is advancing GPU technology much faster than amd and Intel cpu technology.

If the 8700k is 499 I might make a cheap amd 1700 build for my desktop to hold me out until tiger lake.
 
dr_rus

dr_rus

Member
Mrbob said:
499 for the 8700k? Wasn't the 7700k 399? Typically prices don't go up for replacements. Also curious to see if the 1080ti isn't cpu limited by the 8700k. Right now Nvidia is advancing GPU technology much faster than amd and Intel cpu technology.

If the 8700k is 499 I might make a cheap amd 1700 build for my desktop to hold me out until tiger lake.
Click to expand...

7700К is $350 and 8700K is unlikely to be more expensive than 7800X which is ~$400.
 
Z

Zombie James

Banned
Wonder if Apple will update their Macbooks sooner rather than later now since the mobile chips are just Kaby Lake refreshes. They were only updated two or three months ago but at the prices they're selling at and with the competition rolling out these new chips in just a few weeks, I don't know if they can afford to wait until January/February.
 
J

Josman

Member
Theoretically, how much of an improvement would I see in emulation and VR by going with a new i5? I'm a 4670 user, future VR headset owner, but I need to see if there's already a reason to upgrade.
 
F

franklyshankly

Member
Mrbob said:
I didn't want to start a new thread but the 8700k is looking like the gaming cpu to get:

http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-8700k-cpu-benchmarks-leak-faster-than-8-core-ryzen/

Not too surprising considering it is looking like a slightly better 7700k with two more cores, but that should make it handle games extremely well.

Now just don't be too expensive. Crossing my fingers for 350, bracing for 400.
Click to expand...

Curious to see how this translates to the i5. Hoping those extra two physical cores go a long way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rumor: Desktop Coffee Lake CPUs to be available Oct 5th
3 4 5 6 7
331
51K
Zojirushi replied
Top Bottom