Core i3 8300 with Four Cores and Eight Threads Spotted
Click here to post a comment for Core i3 8300 with Four Cores and Eight Threads Spotted on our message forum
ultraex2003
big fake
Noisiv
Everyone says fake, and that was my 1st thought too, but...
Answer me this:
i5 8400 being 6c/6t
what core config would you expect for i3 8300?
Ricepudding
if this was a year ago before ryzen i would just totally agree, however Ryzen 3 must have shook intel up, they can't really keep selling dual cores when AMD is selling quad cores for the same price and better in many applications, i guess they just had to step up their game... really this should have happened years ago. but guess we shall see when they come out if they are real or fake, personally i don't see why it couldn't be real
Jagman
In taskmanager it shows the i3 with the same L1, L2 and L3 cache as a Kabylake i7..... something smells iffy.
Fox2232
So, basically... this information just killed anyone's desire to buy current desktop i3, i5, i7.
I do not think intel is this kind of careless. At best it is fake meant to reduce Ryzen 3/5 sales.
Prince Valiant
I think even the staunchest Intel fans would be pissed if they did something like this. Time marches on and all that but it doesn't make sense that i3 would suddenly jump too 4c/8t, 4C/4T would make more sense to me.
Valken
Could be real. IF I was an Intel shareholder, I would be asking WTF are Intel doing to counter the big AMD bulldozer 😀 ready to steam roll the consumer, workstation and server market.
Despite what we enthusiasts think, the market has in the past supported AMD heavily when they had good products.
This could be a real what if scenario Intel is looking at the moment or preparing for to address this issue.
Win win for everyone in my book.
schmidtbag
I thought of this too, but I think a 4c/4t is perfectly reasonable for an i3. A product like that is plenty competitive with a Ryzen 3, when you consider the OC potential. Also if the 8300 is a quad core and comes out before AM4 APUs, that will be a hefty win for Intel.
In another perspective, it could make more sense for the i3 to have been 6c/6t while the i5 would be 4c/8t.
schmidtbag
If Intel cared about countering AMD, they'd have made X299 a lot less crippled.
I would argue the exact opposite. Despite the Athlon 64, people still insisted going for Intel, and Intel still made a hefty profit. When AMD shows the slightest sign of doing better, Intel cranks up the marketing heat.
How, exactly? If this is true, we don't yet know what the prices are. If this costs more than an i5, it is a fail. If this isn't true, Intel doesn't have anything exciting up their sleeves except the 6 core i5.
Aura89
I don't get it. If this is true, what exactly is the point of an i5? Unless all i5's become 6 core processors (still without hyperthreading, i'm sure)
tsunami231
seem suicidal for intel to do such thing? a i3 with 6700k performance there will be lot people pissed over this, i would be specially if priced less I know i would be super pissed over this if true.. providing it really. it would prove intel has been purpose sandbagging there performance
I dont think intel can really afford to alienate it consumers do doing such thing then again people would still buy intel stuff either way
Ricepudding
Far as been rumoured intels line up should look like this:
i3 4/4 and/or 4/8
i5 4/8 and/or 6/6
i7 6/12
They also just can't let AMD own the bottom market, a lot of money comes from there, with AMD doing cheap 4/6 cores intel cant still be selling a dual core for the same price.
From a marketing stand point it would make sense to do this, they want to get more sales not lose them, i3's i doubt have been making them too much in the first place, and going forward who is going to buy a dual core when you can get a quad core from AMD
Loophole35
This train of thought is flawed. You are advocating they continue what they have been doing the last 5 years with this statement.
schmidtbag
The difference is in the past 5 years, Intel didn't have much of an incentive to improve. Now, they have to.
Noisiv
6c > 4c/8t
because 4c with HT gives you +50% at best with well multithreaded apps (compared to 4c);
while 6C under same workloads gives you flat +50%
All i5 that we know so far are 6C (with or without HT)
tsunami231
no i not advocating they keep sand bagg there cpu performance, but I dont think it good idea to pissed off people that spent 300+ for 6700k about 2 years later by releasing a i3 with same performance for half that price, that to me they could been doing that all along but didnt cause they wanted to price gauge.
And no one here can remotely deny intel has been price gauging for years. which where pissed off part come in, they could been making i3 that 4c/8t all this time for the prices they sell i3 for they just didnt want to cause they want to price gauge or (premium price) call it what you want it same thing.
Aura89
I mean, with there being confirmed i9's with 4/8, i'm not sure how accurate that is. That'd essentially mean the lowest end i7s are better then the lowest end i9.
Loophole35
Really because I bought a 1070 for half the price of a 980Ti a year and a half later. I didn't see 980ti owners getting pissed. It's the tech industry two years and the performance you have is half the price comes with the territory.
7900x 10 core is the lowest i9.
Noisiv
So which is it?
Do you want Intel to up their game and offer significantly more perf/$,
or not?
tsunami231
Which part of them doing this proves they could of been doing this for years on i3 but didnt cause they want to price gauge it not hard to under stand it means they purposely sandbag performance, meaning the i5/i7 could been so much more for there price do not people get? that is enough to pissed off one with half brain.
legitimate performance gain there vs what intel has been doing with performance by releasing cpu with lil gains over previous gen
