Moonbogg:

Core i5 still only 6 threads? What a pile of crap.

Octopuss:

Your brain is pile of crap.

:D 😀

1. Intel still releasing $200 chip for $300 motherboard, Z490 won't be cheap, Z480, B460 or whatever won't come early 2. Intel still releasing same chips for different chipsets 3. Intel still releasing $200 motherboards with locked multiplier 4. Intel still TIM 5. Intel still HOT

Sadly enough, Intel is gonna win again. The bigger brother of 8700K holding 8c/16t will cost at average 33.3eur more per core plus 16.67eur per thread. Mathematically that means ((33.3x2)+(16.67x4))=66.6+66.68=133.28eur. With other words, it is gonna cost exactly as much as i7 7820X. But it will crush this server wannabe PoS. We are talking about a real gaming cpu and a new generation. Well everyone has eyes for 9 series of intel and ryzen 2.

BigMaMaInHouse:

The sad truth is that without Ryzen- i7 8700K could be 7700K with same 100~200 Mhz boost with new MB and chipset... But most of the "Gamers" don't remember this, and for the 5% @720P~1080P performance boost they choose to pay to Intel Again- instead Helping AMD to keep the competition. I get it when AMD had only FX 83XX and performace difference was massive, but now when the gap is less then 5%? those "Gamers" do deserve to be stuck with Intel's WalletRippers 😡.

Exactly. More people need to understand this point. We still have "gamers" saying they'll buy Intel to get every possible single-thread Hz. Must be somebody told them that, because no one can see a small difference in CPU during a game. And, there aren't any games worth compromising the market future for. Buy AMD - that's the best way to get a great processor today AND the chance of having fantastic ones 5 years from now. https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/core-i9-7920x-7900x-core-i7-78xx-series-specs-hit-the-web.414505/page-2#post-5431215

This doesn't really make sense to me. 100-200MHz is really only going to be enough to compensate for all performance losses of the Spectre and Meltdown patches. Is Intel really going to do absolutely nothing else with this lineup? I mean really, we haven't see any noteworthy IPC changes since Skylake.

schmidtbag:

This doesn't really make sense to me. 100-200MHz is really only going to be enough to compensate for all performance losses of the Spectre and Meltdown patches. Is Intel really going to do absolutely nothing else with this lineup? I mean really, we haven't see any noteworthy IPC changes since Skylake.

I don't think there is much they can do. Much like their outdated server solutions, they need a complete overhaul to make meaningful progress. The most they can do is add more cores and try to squeeze out every last bit of MHz from their current lineup. Despite their size and influence, Intel cannot work miracles. Intel still has an army of loyal fans who will buy anything they make (kind of like Apple sheeple, who buy and praise anything Apple creates). There were scores of people who paid well over MSRP for a binned and delidded 8700K, and these are the same people who Intel will be hoping to sell their 9000-series chips to. Even if the improvement is 2%, there will be mobs of people tripping over themselves to buy the best gaming CPU (whether it makes an actual difference in games is inconsequential). In other words, Intel will be fine.

D3M1G0D:

I don't think there is much they can do. Much like their outdated server solutions, they need a complete overhaul to make meaningful progress. The most they can do is add more cores and try to squeeze out every last bit of MHz from their current lineup. Despite their size and influence, Intel cannot work miracles.

To my knowledge, the only difference between Coffee Lake vs Haswell (in regards to the CPU itself, maybe not the IGP) is DDR3 support and some die shrinks. For 4 years they have done nothing to improve the architecture, and they're about to go a 5th year. I find it really hard to believe a company with this much money has had no plans for a succeeding architecture in this amount of time. Even if they were doubtful of AMD's recent successes, that's still not an excuse to have no plan B at all. And sure, they are looking a little bit into things like ASICs, quantum computers, and GPUs, but none of those are replacement products to x86 CPUs.

Intel still has an army of loyal fans who will buy anything they make (kind of like Apple sheeple, who buy and praise anything Apple creates). There were scores of people who paid well over MSRP for a binned and delidded 8700K, and these are the same people who Intel will be hoping to sell their 9000-series chips to. Even if the improvement is 2%, there will be mobs of people tripping over themselves to buy the best gaming CPU (whether it makes an actual difference in games is inconsequential). In other words, Intel will be fine.

Intel will be fine, but there's a lot of important factors to take in regarding the last several generations: * Despite being mostly the same as Haswell, Skylake sold well because AMD still wasn't much of a competitor, and, DDR4 was a selling point. * To my recollection, Kaby Lake actually had worse IPC than Skylake, but, it sold well because both Skylake and Ryzen had rusty launches. In other words, Kaby Lake had very little redeeming qualities, but it didn't carry any burdens at launch date. Furthermore, Kaby Lake had higher clock speeds to make it look more appealing. * Coffee Lake was only successful since it gave people something they've been wanting for many years - 6 core i5s and i7s. CL also panned out well since quad and dual cores shifted down a performance tier, resulting in lower prices than the KL counterparts. And, CL once again increased clock speeds. So, what does the 9000 series have to offer? With all the vulnerability patches, the IPC is going to be worse. To my knowledge, it still won't get 10nm, there's no new Thunderbolt or USB tech, and there won't be another shift in performance tiers.

schmidtbag:

To my knowledge, the only difference between Coffee Lake vs Haswell (in regards to the CPU itself, maybe not the IGP) is DDR3 support and some die shrinks. For 4 years they have done nothing to improve the architecture, and they're about to go a 5th year. I find it really hard to believe a company with this much money has had no plans for a succeeding architecture in this amount of time. Even if they were doubtful of AMD's recent successes, that's still not an excuse to have no plan B at all. And sure, they are looking a little bit into things like ASICs, quantum computers, and GPUs, but none of those are replacement products to x86 CPUs. Intel will be fine, but there's a lot of important factors to take in regarding the last several generations: * Despite being mostly the same as Haswell, Skylake sold well because AMD still wasn't much of a competitor, and, DDR4 was a selling point. * To my recollection, Kaby Lake actually had worse IPC than Skylake, but, it sold well because both Skylake and Ryzen had rusty launches. In other words, Kaby Lake had very little redeeming qualities, but it didn't carry any burdens at launch date. Furthermore, Kaby Lake had higher clock speeds to make it look more appealing. * Coffee Lake was only successful since it gave people something they've been wanting for many years - 6 core i5s and i7s. CL also panned out well since quad and dual cores shifted down a performance tier, resulting in lower prices than the KL counterparts. And, CL once again increased clock speeds. So, what does the 9000 series have to offer? With all the vulnerability patches, the IPC is going to be worse. To my knowledge, it still won't get 10nm, there's no new Thunderbolt or USB tech, and there won't be another shift in performance tiers.

I don't think they need a brand new architecture, it's just that the hiccups in their 10nm process has thrown a monkey wrench into their plans. All they can do for now is try to squeeze out the last bit of performance from their existing process until they work out the kinks with 10nm. The 9000-series chips will most likely be a stop-gap measure. It's certainly a bad position to be in, but historically they've been able to rely on their fab advantage to thwart their competitors so they were most likely relying on it again. Even if they have a plan B, their best chances of success is still plan A so I think they're going to try to make it work before resorting to more drastic measures.

I dont know why so many are bashing on intel but it still is the go to CPU if you play on a 144hz monitor. For now it is still noticeable if you want to get the lowest frames as high as you possible can get.

A strong AMD will force Intel to update which is good for all of us consumers/share-holders.

D3M1G0D:

they need a complete overhaul to make meaningful progress..

Ice lake architecture is the answer, complete redesign and no more roots from Sandy bridge.. The question is when?? there was talk this year in q4, but I'm not holding my breath.

D3M1G0D:

I don't think they need a brand new architecture, it's just that the hiccups in their 10nm process has thrown a monkey wrench into their plans. All they can do for now is try to squeeze out the last bit of performance from their existing process until they work out the kinks with 10nm. The 9000-series chips will most likely be a stop-gap measure.

10nm is not going to offer that great of a performance difference. I'm sure they've actually had it working for a while, but it probably requires lower clocks to be stable, so they figure the small gains in efficiency are outweighed by the performance loss of the lower clocks. Nobody else seems to be able to reach 5GHz at 12nm or smaller (meanwhile, Intel isn't the only one to reach 5GHz at 14nm). So, if Intel is actually hoping to get the same clock speeds at 10nm as they do at 14nm, personally, I see that as a pipe dream. They're wasting too much time on this, and should instead be focusing development on a new architecture (which again, they have had PLENTY of time to do). They have the resources to do both. Anyway, my point is they won't be squeezing more performance out of their existing process. It's pretty much maxed out, and the Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities have only worsened IPC. 100-200MHz will only mask those losses. Like I said before, the 9000 series doesn't have anything especially different about it. It doesn't have any leverage over Coffee Lake, except things like the rumored 8-core chip (and I don't think that's going to be a best seller).

It's certainly a bad position to be in, but historically they've been able to rely on their fab advantage to thwart their competitors so they were most likely relying on it again. Even if they have a plan B, their best chances of success is still plan A so I think they're going to try to make it work before resorting to more drastic measures.

Historically, sticking to your guns with a regressing plan practically never helps in the long run, especially when the rest of the entire industry has moved ahead. Historically, underestimating an opponent who isn't dead yet will backfire. Historically, investors get afraid when companies aren't being innovative, and back out. Intel wouldn't have had to resort to "drastic measures" if they had better future-planning. Remember, Intel's net revenue in a single year is higher than all of AMD's assets combined. For them to have put only some of their eggs in just 1 basket while leaving the rest to rot is just asinine. When Nvidia is ahead, they don't slow down that much. They invest in new technologies. They attempt stuff like GPP (even though they didn't need to). They have definite plans in the [unlikely] event AMD pulls ahead by a wide margin. People whine about the 1100 series but they fail to realize everything else Nvidia has done with Volta. I would like to point out AMD in general has very little to do with what I'm talking about here. They're not the only ones Intel should be worrying about. IBM, ARM, Nvidia, and RISC-V should all be putting on the pressure.

schmidtbag:

This doesn't really make sense to me. 100-200MHz is really only going to be enough to compensate for all performance losses of the Spectre and Meltdown patches. Is Intel really going to do absolutely nothing else with this lineup? I mean really, we haven't see any noteworthy IPC changes since Skylake.

From what i understand Intel can´t do much about this line up because this line wasn´t not supposed to exist! From what i understand Skylake or Kaby Lake were supposed to be the last CPUs using the 14nm process and current arch and then Ice Lake should have been released on a 10nm process with a brand new arch. The problem is that the 10nm process is broken and their new arch is tied to it making it very difficult to port it to 14nm. So with Ice Lake delayed until they can fix the 10nm mess, Intel only had one solution for their CPU releases, to carry on with their current CPUs with some small tweaks, like increased clocks or cores. So in the end this all Intel can do for the moment until they sort out their 10nm so they can release a new CPU architecture. Good thing that their current CPUs are still good enough otherwise things would be problematic.

vazup:

I dont know why so many are bashing on intel but it still is the go to CPU if you play on a 144hz monitor. For now it is still noticeable if you want to get the lowest frames as high as you possible can get.

This. If you like high framerates, then you need all the IPC you can get. This is less important the better games are made, but that really only applies to specific AAA releases. Many games are still limited by the power of a single thread. (And as below, even Intel's CPU still can't manage it without issue) Crysis is an example of a game that needs a re-release to fix this. [youtube=PcYA-H3qpTI] Intel is like Nvidia, you'd like to purchase a competitor's product. But because of weaknesses in specific areas, it doesn't make it desirable in all scenarios. I'm not one to talk as Ryzen 2 is clearly still a big improvement in IPC compared to my 1st generation i7. (Which in a lot of scenarios is easy to see the result of the weaker IPC. Even at only 60FPS). I'm still heavily leaning towards a Ryzen 2 for my next CPU anyway.

schmidtbag:

Historically, sticking to your guns with a regressing plan practically never helps in the long run, especially when the rest of the entire industry has moved ahead. Historically, underestimating an opponent who isn't dead yet will backfire. Historically, investors get afraid when companies aren't being innovative, and back out. They wouldn't have had to resort to "drastic measures" if they had better future-planning.

It's certainly true that AMD caught Intel with their pants down, but this isn't really a surprise - it's what happens when companies gain a monopoly for an extended period of time. Board meetings would focus on how to maximize quarterly profits - the odd person who stresses more R&D to counter a potential future threat from a small rival would be regarded with scorn ("crazy Bob is at it again with his Zen talk :P"). AMD was out of the loop for so long that Intel forgot how to compete. Remember that AMD stock was cheaper than a happy meal at one point, with many people predicting bankruptcy or liquidation due to the massive debt and endless quarterly losses. The market had almost entirely given up on the company, and only a few would have imagined that they would come back with a viable product. In some ways, it's similar to how people talk about AMD regarding GPUs today - most people would say that Nvidia is so far ahead that AMD will never be able to catch up. Can any of us really imagine AMD coming out with a product that can match or exceed Nvidia's best? I don't really blame Intel for being in their current situation. Zen was a truly ambitious project and there was no telling how it would do against Intel CPUs, which had the benefit of market dominance and years of software optimizations (we saw this in the first Ryzen 7 reviews, where it trailed badly in some games). My guess is that Intel thought any new architecture that AMD created could be countered by their Core chips, and to a large extent this was true. The challenge for them is to continue the fight when AMD moves on to 7nm with Zen 2, which depends largely on how quickly they can get their 10nm process going.

Octopuss:

Your brain is pile of crap. How many cores should (the new) i7 have by that twisted logic then?

8, obviously, the way it should be without Intel deciding to try and rip people off every time they get.

Yea? Who says it won't? I lived under the impression the upcoming CPU will have 8 cores. The guy was babbling some crap about the i5 variant only having six. Wtf? That makes no sense.

Octopuss:

Yea? Who says it won't? I lived under the impression the upcoming CPU will have 8 cores. The guy was babbling some crap about the i5 variant only having six. Wtf? That makes no sense.

He was "blabbing" about the fact that the i5 next gen still only has 6 threads instead of 12, which is rightfully so. Of which you asked how many cores should the new i7 have, which doesn't make any sense, since they did not specifically talk about cores, they talked about threads. As well, if you think the new i7 series is going to have 8 cores and 16 threads even though it is seeming they are going to have 6 core 6 thread i5s, i don't really know what logic you are using to come to that conclusion. If they make the new i5 be 6 core 6 thread, and the new i7 be 8 cores 16 threads, where are the 6 core 12 threads going to (what is currently the i7s)? Or are you implying they are just not going to have 6 core 12 thread processors? Both scenarios make zero sense. You seem very new to PC electronics and/or simply not paying attention to what is actually said, and deciding to insult people by saying their "brain is pile of crap". I think you'll go a long ways on this forum, for sure. Here i'll leave you with what you quoted and what you stated so you can figure out what it is you didn't read and what you stated because of what you didn't read

Moonbogg:

Core i5 still only 6 threads? What a pile of crap.

Octopuss:

Your brain is pile of crap. How many cores should (the new) i7 have by that twisted logic then?

Oh, wait. He wrote threads and I read cores. Ok, I apologize then!

Honestly, still not seeing me buying an Intel CPU next year, sorry. Let's see what Ryzen 2 brings to the table. People probably would be happier with a 100-200MHz bump on Ryzen clocks than on Intel's...