schmidtbag:

These stories keep popping up because people suspected Intel has been intentionally obsoleting hardware for no [good] known reason. Turns out that was true. Also, the amount of cores isn't directly correlated to how complex it is to get the CPUs working. For example, I doubt a 2c/4t CPU would be any easier to get working than a 4c/4t. I'm sure the reason 6-core CLs don't work is because there is no KL equivalent to spoof for the motherboard.

2 core and 4 core aren't inherently different on these platforms. 6 core is different to some degree, hence nobody is able to get the 6 core to work. I don't disagree that Intel artificially limited the 4core coffee lakes from working with last gen chipset, but the 6 core is another story. Frankly who cares if they can get i3 8100 to work on 100 series. People with 7600k, 7700k aren't interested in anything but 8600k and 8700k 6 cores.

Agent-A01:

2 core and 4 core aren't inherently different on these platforms.

I know - which is why it should be equally possible to get 2 and 4 core CL variants to work on 100 and 200 series boards.

6 core is different to some degree, hence nobody is able to get the 6 core to work. I don't disagree that Intel artificially limited the 4core coffee lakes from working with last gen chipset, but the 6 core is another story.

Agreed; I have clarified these points myself. I personally don't expect people to get the 6-cores to work on older 1151 motherboards.

Frankly who cares if they can get i3 8100 to work on 100 series. People with 7600k, 7700k aren't interested in anything but 8600k and 8700k 6 cores.

I agree that the 6 core models are the real interest. But proving the 8100 works on a 100 series board is more about the principle of the matter - it shows Intel has planned obsolescence, which is not very consumer-friendly. The 6-core CLs aren't really a whole lot different than their lower-core counterparts, but like I said, there's no KL equivalent to spoof. It is reasonable to assume Intel knew they were going to make these 6-core models many years in advance. Their architecture is very mature, so there's no excuse for this to not work other than wanting more sales. My point about Intel's architecture being mature is a relevant one, because if it were immature, Intel could argue "we don't want to deal with the mess AMD put themselves in with their AM4 APUs". Though AMD is more consumer-friendly in their longevity, it's not consumer-friendly to buy something that has a good chance of not working, while requiring tedious and user-unfriendly fixes. But this wouldn't have been a concern for Intel. Worst case scenario, there might have been some ACPI issues that'd be fixed in a BIOS update, for example.

Agent-A01:

2 core and 4 core aren't inherently different on these platforms. Frankly who cares if they can get i3 8100 to work on 100 series. People with 7600k, 7700k aren't interested in anything but 8600k and 8700k 6 cores.

Well, I care -- and here's my use case. I just built myself a plex server with an i3-8100 as was forced to buy a z370 motherboard, which absolutely no benefit. Had I been able to use a cheap H110 or even B250 instead, I could have saved myself $100.

schmidtbag:

I agree that the 6 core models are the real interest. But proving the 8100 works on a 100 series board is more about the principle of the matter - it shows Intel has planned obsolescence, which is not very consumer-friendly.

My guess is that 6 cores are different enough that they aren't going to work with the last gen 100 series and to avoid confusion they artificially locked out 4core coffee lakes from working. If 6 core is not possible and they had the 4 cores available on 100 series, it would only cause consumer confusion. "WHY DOES 4 CORE WORK BUT NOT 6 CORE WORK ON 100 SERIES" etc.

schmidtbag:

Interesting. Do you have pictures of this rig, other than your avatar? I don't think I've ever seen such a thing.

I can take a couple of pictures when I get home.

Agent-A01:

My guess is that 6 cores are different enough that they aren't going to work with the last gen 100 series and to avoid confusion they artificially locked out 4core coffee lakes from working. If 6 core is not possible and they had the 4 cores available on 100 series, it would only cause consumer confusion. "WHY DOES 4 CORE WORK BUT NOT 6 CORE WORK ON 100 SERIES" etc.

I very much doubt that. It's not like customers keep themselves up to speed on CPU generations, and all that would be needed is a note by retailers indicating compatibility. I think customers would have very much appreciated being able to use a 8th gen Core i3 on a 100 or 200 series motherboard.

xrodney:

If you dont count server cpus, only available more than 8 core cpu in HEDT was Broadwell-E based Core i7-6950X. Anything else come after Ryzen launch.

Let's say X99 chipset, because actually it was Haswell-E: https://ark.intel.com/products/codename/79427/Haswell-E But effectively your argument remains "true", only that until lately nobody needed more than 4 CPU cores, and those people got an AMD CPU or like you mentioned, a Xeon. Even today I'm not sure I need my 6 cores tbh.

From what I read from that topic, a lot of folks are saying they have the same amount of pins but 300 series 1151 motherboards have a different pin out for power? A number of them are saying that the 8700k for example wouldn't have enough power available on a 100/200 series board. Can anyone confirm this?

vbetts:

From what I read from that topic, a lot of folks are saying they have the same amount of pins but 300 series 1151 motherboards have a different pin out for power? A number of them are saying that the 8700k for example wouldn't have enough power available on a 100/200 series board. Can anyone confirm this?

Considering how high you can overclock on the 100 and 200 series boards, I would find it very hard to believe power distribution is a problem, even if it's limited compared to the 300 series. Worst case scenario, assuming you actually could run an 8700K on a 100 or 200 series board, you might be limited as to how high you could OC it. But... I'm pretty sure the thermal paste they're using is going to limit you more than a couple pins here and there. Chances are, if you're in enough of a financial bind to use an older motherboard, I don't think you're going to delid your CPU.

schmidtbag:

Considering how high you can overclock on the 100 and 200 series boards, I would find it very hard to believe power distribution is a problem, even if it's limited compared to the 300 series. Worst case scenario, assuming you actually could run an 8700K on a 100 or 200 series board, you might be limited as to how high you could OC it. But... I'm pretty sure the thermal paste they're using is going to limit you more than a couple pins here and there. Chances are, if you're in enough of a financial bind to use an older motherboard, I don't think you're going to delid your CPU.

Not power delivery, but the pin outs from Skylake and Kabylake are different from Coffee lake for power is what they're saying?

vbetts:

Not power delivery, but the pin outs from Skylake and Kabylake are different from Coffee lake for power is what they're saying?

Assuming these guys aren't lying about their success of running the i3 on a 100 series board, this must mean the CL 1151 CPUs use the same power and ground pins as older 1151s. But, it wouldn't surprise me if CL also uses additional power pins, that are just dummies/blanks on the older generations. I suppose you could say more pins technically fits under the definition of "different". Think of it like the PCIe power connectors: The 6-pin connector is actually just 2x 12v and 3x ground, where the middle "12v" pin is actually just a sense pin. In 8-pin connectors, all 3x 12v pins distribute power while one of the 5x ground pins is the new sense pin. You're using the same amount of 12v connections but they're not distributing the same amount of power. That being said, you can use a 6 to 8 pin adapter for GPUs, as long as the wire gauge is adequate (also accounting for the metal), though I advise against it. I'm sure it was cheaper and easier for Intel and motherboard manufacturers to use a similar approach. Since Intel was expecting more cores and higher frequencies with CL, they likely wanted to play it safe and just add more power/ground pins not found in older motherboards. But, I have a hard time convincing myself that was their reasoning.

If at the end only i3's can work on older chipset would have been a nice update for the 7xxx and 6xxx series pentium and i3 users . Why people act like only the 7700 and 7600 exists? 😛

i suspect the main obstacle for 6core coffee lake is the me firmware , as the the 4 core "coffelake" cpus dont appear to be anything more than newer revision kabylake chips, they dont use the same die as the 6 core chips.

Venix:

If at the end only i3's can work on older chipset would have been a nice update for the 7xxx and 6xxx series pentium and i3 users . Why people act like only the 7700 and 7600 exists? 😛

totally agree^ 8100 is $119 ....I5 7600 is $200

Interesting...so does this mean it's possible to get a 8600k/8700k working on my Asus Z170-A? Edit: nevermind.. Helps to read before posting I guess.

tensai28:

Interesting...so does this mean it's possible to get a 8600k/8700k working on my Asus Z170-A?

So far, no, and I wouldn't hold my breath for it either. The 8000 series i3s are probably the best you're ever going to see, unless Intel releases a 4c/8t i5 (which doesn't seem likely).

schmidtbag:

So far, no, and I wouldn't hold my breath for it either. The 8000 series i3s are probably the best you're ever going to see, unless Intel releases a 4c/8t i5 (which doesn't seem likely).

or a 4c/8t i3 ....I don't care what they call it...:D i5 will be 6 core from here on out

airbud7:

or a 4c/8t i3 ....I don't care what they call it...:D i5 will be 6 core from here on out

4c/8t would have closer performance to 6c/6t. Both products could be priced the same with the same TDP, but the 4c/8t model would be clocked slightly higher. Basically, you'd just buy whichever handled your workload better. I think Intel would anger a lot of customers if they released a 4c/8t i3 when the same product was considered an i7 in the last generation (while being nearly twice as expensive). So not only would it be a real slap in the face to have such a cheaper "downgrade", but requiring a new motherboard would just be insulting. Come to think of it, I wonder if Intel hasn't made any 4c/8t CLs because doing so would cannibalize their 7700(K) sales. Those are still pretty popular, but they would sit on the shelves forever if you could get the exact same thing for a much lower price. As for 4c/4t i3s vs 7600(K), that's a bit of a different story, because i5s have more features like Turbo Boost.

if in the future Intel ever did another 4c/8t it would be called i3

airbud7:

if in the future Intel ever did another 4c/8t it would be called i3

Or a low power i5 in desktops and laptops.

Loophole35:

Or a low power i5 in desktops and laptops.

true^ (not desktops though) ...they will be 6