i5 still stuck on 6 threads when Ryzen 5 has up to 12? :bang:

The non-K SKU's look to be 65W not 95W but can't confirm. That picture was taken with a potato.

Looking at the Kaby Lake clocks in the photo, the clocks are listed in this order: Base clock / Max turbo (1-core turbo) / All cores turbo 7700K - 4.2 /4.5 / 4.4 7700 - 3.6 / 4.2 / 4 So the turbo clocks in the article's chart for Coffee Lake are incorrect. Let's see (base/max turbo/all core turbo): 8700K - 3.8 / 4.? /4.3 (95W) 8700 - 3.2 / 4.4 / 4.2 (65W) 8600K - 3.8 / 4.4 / 4.2 (95W) 8400 - 2.8 / 3.8 / 3.5 (65W) 8350K - 4.0 (95W) 8100 - 3.6 (65W) I just can't make out what's the max turbo for the 8700K, maybe 4.5?

Looking at the Kaby Lake clocks in the photo, the clocks are listed in this order: Base clock / Max turbo (1-core turbo) / All cores turbo 7700K - 4.2 /4.5 / 4.4 7700 - 3.6 / 4.2 / 4 So the turbo clocks in the article's chart for Coffee Lake are incorrect. Let's see (base/max turbo/all core turbo): 8700K - 3.8 / 4.? /4.3 (95W) 8700 - 3.2 / 4.4 / 4.2 (65W) 8600K - 3.8 / 4.4 / 4.2 (95W) 8400 - 2.8 / 3.8 / 3.5 (65W) 8350K - 4.0 (95W) 8100 - 3.6 (65W) I just can't make out what's the max turbo for the 8700K, maybe 4.5?

I think it was already mentioned somewhere it's 4.7 for single core. All core turbos are then 4.3, 4.2, 4.2 an 3.5 it seems?

I think it was already mentioned somewhere it's 4.7 for single core. All core turbos are then 4.3, 4.2, 4.2 an 3.5 it seems?

Possibly, either 4.5 or 4.7 could fit there, but it's hard to tell with how blurry it is. And yeah, looks like those are the all core turbos, unless my eyes are playing tricks on me.

So the turbo clocks in the article's chart for Coffee Lake are incorrect. I just can't make out what's the max turbo for the 8700K, maybe 4.5?

Yeah actually I had just corrected that table, matching your assesment as well. I just pulled some ninja like photoshop tricks, I think I can read 4.7 Turbo 3.0 for 8700K Btw.

Yeah actually I had just corrected that table, matching your assesment as well. I just pulled some ninja like photoshop tricks, I think I can read 4.7 Turbo 3.0 for 8700K Btw.

Alright. ^^ Hmm, one interesting thing to note, the photo has incorrect TDP values for the Kaby Lake i3 CPUs, they're being listed as 95W and 65W parts despite actually being 60W and 51W parts. Same for the 7600K and 7700K, they're 91W parts and not 95W.

I don't know Chinese but the horizontal lines look to me like performance comparison to kaby lake in single- and multi-thread.

I don't know Chinese but the horizontal lines look to me like performance comparison to kaby lake in single- and multi-thread.

Will be interesting to see what they compare and to what on that % and where. For sure multi-thread is easily better. But single the clock difference is 4.5% so there could be 6.5% improvement in IPC in some cases maybe possibly.

I'm going to order a whole new comp in the next couple of weeks, it's mostly for gaming. I was considering a Ryzen 1600X but that i5-8600K might be the better choice... Hope they'll price it competitively.

In this day and age what's the point of a 6C/6T CPU ? How is it going to compete against say i7 7700K 4C/8T ?

In this day and age what's the point of a 6C/6T CPU ? How is it going to compete against say i7 7700K 4C/8T ?

If we are to believe the claimed percentage increases then the 6c/6t i5 will be faster in multi-threaded apps than the 7700K in fact it will be very close to the R5 1600/x while decimating both the 7700k and 1600x in single thread. Of course this needs a grain of salt. The 8700k according to this will match the 1700x in multi-threaded as well.

The 8700K on paper looks like it will be the new gaming machine CPU to replace the 7700K's spot. I don't wee anything not to like with the 8700K.

If we are to believe the claimed percentage increases then the 6c/6t i5 will be faster in multi-threaded apps than the 7700K in fact it will be very close to the R5 1600/x while decimating both the 7700k and 1600x in single thread. Of course this needs a grain of salt. The 8700k according to this will match the 1700x in multi-threaded as well.

To my understanding, the performance increase is compared to the i5 7600K. It has 50% more cores and the turbo is about 5% higher. I'm assuming the "19%/55%" represents "single/multi". In terms of multi-threading, the IPC of the 8600K is going to be roughly 0% over the 7600K. For single-threaded, I'm not sure - 19% sounds way too high for an architectural refresh. So yeah, when you account for Hz, I'm sure the 8700K is going to be competitive. But, if AMD can figure out how to get beyond 4GHz without LN, I don't think Coffee Lake is going to be a resounding win. That's a real big "if" though.

The 8700K on paper looks like it will be the new gaming machine CPU to replace the 7700K's spot. I don't wee anything not to like with the 8700K.

Price may be something to concern about.

In this day and age what's the point of a 6C/6T CPU ? How is it going to compete against say i7 7700K 4C/8T ?

HT doesn't add 100% extra performance, optimistically its maybe 30% at best (and often less). The cores are busy already, HT just uses performance that would otherwise be unused, but there isn't twice the hardware or anything like that. 2 cores more is a 50% increase. So a 6/6 should be faster in MT workloads then an 4/8. Of course a 6/12 would be even better.

To my understanding, the performance increase is compared to the i5 7600K. It has 50% more cores and the turbo is about 5% higher. I'm assuming the "19%/55%" represents "single/multi". In terms of multi-threading, the IPC of the 8600K is going to be roughly 0% over the 7600K. For single-threaded, I'm not sure - 19% sounds way too high for an architectural refresh. So yeah, when you account for Hz, I'm sure the 8700K is going to be competitive. But, if AMD can figure out how to get beyond 4GHz without LN, I don't think Coffee Lake is going to be a resounding win. That's a real big "if" though. Price may be something to concern about.

Single core turbo is higher on the 8600k over the 7600k but the cashe difference may be the boost. If we assume Intel will keep it's pricing structure in place it will not be more than $350. Likely an MSRP of $335.

Hyperthreading can make a huge difference depending on the game. It's more evident if we look at dual core CPUs with HT since almost all games nowadays benefit from four cores/threads. These tests on Anandtech are a bit old now, but show how poorly the Pentium 3258 compares to the i3 4330 in well threaded games. The minimum FPS in Battlefield 4 almost double on the i3, and the Pentium can't even come close even when running at 4.7 ghz. http://www.anandtech.com/show/8232/overclockable-pentium-anniversary-edition-review-the-intel-pentium-g3258-ae/4

Single core turbo is higher on the 8600k over the 7600k but the cashe difference may be the boost.

To my understanding, the single-core turbo is what's only 5% higher. That's not much. You have a good point about the cache though - that's almost doubled. I still don't think that would make up for the remaining 14% of performance. Interestingly, it seems the cache doesn't contribute to the multi-threaded performance. I wonder if perhaps the 7600K is starved for more L3? As another thought, maybe the first number is actually IGP performance, not single-threaded performance. I could definitely believe Intel accomplishing a 19% improvement there.

If we assume Intel will keep it's pricing structure in place it will not be more than $350. Likely an MSRP of $335.

It is important to keep in mind that the i5 is meant to be a mainstream product. Assuming it manages to handily outperform the 7700K or 1600X, that doesn't warrant a nearly $100 price increase. At $335, the 8600K would be priced against Ryzen 7. In Intel's eyes, it looks great that their mainstream competes with AMD's high-end, but I'm not sure most consumers are going to look at it the same way. $300+ is not a mainstream price point for just a CPU.

Hyperthreading can make a huge difference depending on the game. It's more evident if we look at dual core CPUs with HT since almost all games nowadays benefit from four cores/threads.

To my understanding, HT is great when you've got something designed with it in mind. Since HT basically uses any spare processing power in a CPU core, I'm assuming it uses the same L1 and L2 cache. If both threads are processing roughly the same information and are not supposed to complete in-parallel, then I figure HT could theoretically offer a near-100% performance improvement. Games that do things like post-processing would likely benefit from this. What HT is especially bad at is parallelization. The threads are run one after the other so it is impossible for them to finish simultaneously, and this is why some tasks actually lose performance with HT enabled. Otherwise, HT is especially useful for multi-tasking, where background tasks only need a small amount of attention.

Hyperthreading can make a huge difference depending on the game. It's more evident if we look at dual core CPUs with HT since almost all games nowadays benefit from four cores/threads. These tests on Anandtech are a bit old now, but show how poorly the Pentium 3258 compares to the i3 4330 in well threaded games. The minimum FPS in Battlefield 4 almost double on the i3, and the Pentium can't even come close even when running at 4.7 ghz. http://www.anandtech.com/show/8232/overclockable-pentium-anniversary-edition-review-the-intel-pentium-g3258-ae/4

When comparing CPUs with the same number of cores, yeah, hyperthreading can make quite a difference, but, when comparing 4 cores with hyperthreading to 6 cores without hyperthreading, I doubt 4c/8t can beat 6c/6t.

It is important to keep in mind that the i5 is meant to be a mainstream product. Assuming it manages to handily outperform the 7700K or 1600X, that doesn't warrant a nearly $100 price increase. At $335, the 8600K would be priced against Ryzen 7. In Intel's eyes, it looks great that their mainstream competes with AMD's high-end, but I'm not sure most consumers are going to look at it the same way. $300+ is not a mainstream price point for just a CPU.

Oh I was referring to the i7 8700k not he i5 8600k. The 8600k at $330 would be horrible value but $225-250 would be okay considering Intel.