• 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

Kayant

Member
Source - https://videocardz.com/72112/intel-claims-i7-8700k-to-be-11-faster-than-7700k
Code:
Intel 7th Gen	  Single/Multi-Thread Boost	Intel 8th Gen
i7-7700K (4C/8T)	+11% / 51%	        i7-8700K (6C/12T)
i7-7700 (4C/8T)	        +18% / 58%	        i7-8700 (6C/12T)
i5-7600K (4C/4T)	+19% / 55%	        i5-8600K (6C/6T)
i5-7400 (4C/4T)	        +29% / 61%	        i5-8400  (6C/6T)
i3-7350K (2C/4T)	+17% / 65%	        i3-8350K (4C/4T)
i3-7100 (2C/4T)	        +16% / 61%	        i3-8100 (4C/4T)

Chipset news - https://videocardz.com/72103/intel-to-launch-b360-motherboard-chipset
Just as I said before there’s a problem with the naming schemes of the new motherboard chipsets. AMD ‘borrowed’ the naming from Intel for their mid-range (B?50) and enthusiast series (X?99), leaving Intel with a tiny problem: how to avoid confusion with their upcoming 300-series.

While no one expects X399 chipset from Intel (they always skip one generation X79 -> X99 -> X299 -> X499), there is a problem for mid-range series, which are released for each CPU generation. The B350 chipset was already taken by AMD, so Intel simply could not use it anymore.

According to the report from MyDrivers, Intel has a solution: rather than name their new chipset B350, they will name it B360. This chipset is expected to be released next year, as only Z370 Coffee Lake motherboards are to launch later this month.

More details at source.

Troll me with numbers if old.
 
The picture is kind of hard to see, is it faster at the same clock speed? Because an increase to single-threaded performance at the same clocks would be good to see!
 

Xyphie

Member
I believe it when I see it when it comes to single-threaded performance. Very much doubt there are any significant IPC improvements (if any at all) over Kaby Lake and the increased boost clock is not going to make up the difference.

Perhaps in some cherry-picked benchmark that benefits from the extra L3 cache.
 

Kayant

Member
The picture is kind of hard to see, is it faster at the same clock speed? Because an increase to single-threaded performance at the same clocks would be good to see!
Hard to say eyeballing it I see 3.6/4.1/4.5 which I would guess would be base clock/boost 2.0/boost 3.0.

Of course as mentioned above cherry-picked manufacturer benchmarks also to be considered.
 
Yeah, any interest in Intel's offerings is always going to be offset with "is it going to overheat on stock clocks" after the bullshit with the 7700K.

I have no idea why Intel has such shit TIM applications on these things. You'd think they'd try to optimize that shit before beginning the production process.
 

TSM

Member
Having 50% more cores gives the 8700k a 51% multithreaded improvement over the 7700k. Mindblowing stuff there.

I have no idea why Intel has such shit TIM applications on these things. You'd think they'd try to optimize that shit before beginning the production process.

The explanation I've read is that the TIM Intel is using isn't actually bad. It's just that Intel is prioritizing long term chip life over heat transfer. The TIM they use is super stable over multiple years and thousands of thermocycles. Also I've read that the issue is less the TIM Intel uses and more the poor attachment of the heat spreader. The adhesive they use to attach the heat spreader is put on poorly and build ups cause the spreader to have a larger gap between the CPU and itself than it should.
 

ISee

Member
The usual +10% paired with 2 additional cores. Sounds reasonable. I wonder what the base and boost clocks are going to be.
 

Mareg

Member
That 7600k to 8600k is what I'm most interested about. It is impressive.
I hopped on the Ryzen for the foreseable future. But it is great to see Intel fighting back.
 

Swarna

Member
Current Ryzen is not really for me on a 240hz monitor. If this boosts x264 encoding performance while gaming to a degree where game frames aren't affected that'd be the sole reason for my upgrading. Curious to see how 6c/12t with Intel's single-threaded performance stacks up with next-gen Ryzen with presumably an improvement on their single-threaded end.
 

No_Style

Member
So nice to finally see mainstream core counts going up. Thanks, AMD.

Like Richard Leadbetter said in his Coffee Lake video, while AMD has being doing good work as of late, it takes years to design chips, so it's way too quick of a turnaround for a response to Ryzen. If these upcoming CPUs come in costing less than previous generations, we can definitely credit AMD though!
 
Like Richard Leadbetter said in his Coffee Lake video, while AMD has being doing good work as of late, it takes years to design chips, so it's way too quick of a turnaround for a response to Ryzen. If these upcoming CPUs come in costing less than previous generations, we can definitely credit AMD though!

Coffee Lake was originally going to launch in early-to-mid 2018. There's a reason we're getting these in August.
 

ethomaz

Banned
I believe it when I see it when it comes to single-threaded performance. Very much doubt there are any significant IPC improvements (if any at all) over Kaby Lake and the increased boost clock is not going to make up the difference.

Perhaps in some cherry-picked benchmark that benefits from the extra L3 cache.
The new CPUs will be clocked higher plus IPC increase... of course single will be boosted.
 

LCGeek

formerly sane
Current Ryzen is not really for me on a 240hz monitor. If this boosts x264 encoding performance while gaming to a degree where game frames aren't affected that'd be the sole reason for my upgrading. Curious to see how 6c/12t with Intel's single-threaded performance stacks up with next-gen Ryzen with presumably an improvement on their single-threaded end.

You do know that scanout speed is an effect users appreciate regardless of the fps in their games right?

blur-busters-gsync-101-scanout-speed-diagram.png

What you said is nothing more than placebo hogwash. Lightboost at 120hz is still 2x faster than that monitor unless you're using LMB on it.
 

-shadow-

Member
Really curious what they're going to do with the pricing if all this is true. I'm planning on putting a new PC together, depending if they aren't completely insane I might actually go for the new line.
 
As far as I can tell, the 7700k and 8700k both boast a single core max turbo of 4.5GHz, which if so means we're getting a pretty standard ~10% IPC improvement.

Nice to see though, every bit helps, particularly since more cores are now included too.
 
does it mean my 2500K is finally obsolete?

It is obsolete when it doesn't fill your needs anymore, not when some new hardware releases. ;)

Personally, my 2500K is still fine for my needs, as I'm only aiming for no more than 60 fps and the vast majority of games don't need a stronger CPU to reach that goal. As long as that doesn't change I won't feel any need to upgrade.


Still, glad to see that we're finally seeing some more progress in mainstream CPUs. I'm curious if the numbers will hold up and if Intel made some noteable improvements on the power efficiency side too.
 

sirap

Member
Thanks AMD!

I'm replacing my aging (lol) 5820k with Threadripper. It's going to be exciting seeing Intel's answer to that.
 

Swarna

Member
You do know that scanout speed is an effect users appreciate regardless of the fps in their games right?



What you said is nothing more than placebo hogwash. Lightboost at 120hz is still 2x faster than that monitor unless you're using LMB on it.

???

What exactly are you addressing in my post? I am absolutely confused. Yes, I am aware of scanout speed benefiting you regardless of your FPS, it's precisely why I got a 240hz screen.

I made a simple observation regarding my situation. I have a 6700k right now and Ryzen would just reduce my performance and lose me frames, full stop. At the same time, I envy the ability for x264 video recording on Ryzen chips without losing performance as a secondary concern and so I'm curious to see how the 8700k will perform in that regard in comparison to the theoretical performance on a next-gen Ryzen with presumably improved single-threaded improvements in games.

I don't understand why you're bringing up Lightboost or what that has to do with me. Regardless, what do you mean by speed? Because Lightboost, let alone a lower 120hz, certainly adds on input lag.

Also, what are you talking about with regards to placebo? Because there is certainly a difference between 144 FPS and 240 FPS in feel and motion.
 

low-G

Member
If they actually manage to straight up improve ST performance (MT is a given) across the board like that in real world situations (including gaming) I'll be both surprised and impressed.

That's like, I'm gonna start planning a new build impressed. Although I'll probably wait for 10nm, since I'm on 14 now.
 

Timu

Member
Current Ryzen is not really for me on a 240hz monitor. If this boosts x264 encoding performance while gaming to a degree where game frames aren't affected that'd be the sole reason for my upgrading. Curious to see how 6c/12t with Intel's single-threaded performance stacks up with next-gen Ryzen with presumably an improvement on their single-threaded end.
Yeah, I wonder how it will stack up to Ryzen as well, definitely in multi threaded games and apps.
 

LCGeek

formerly sane
???

What exactly are you addressing in my post? I am absolutely confused. Yes, I am aware of scanout speed benefiting you regardless of your FPS, it's precisely why I got a 240hz screen.

I made a simple observation regarding my situation. I have a 6700k right now and Ryzen would just reduce my performance and lose me frames, full stop. At the same time, I envy the ability for x264 video recording on Ryzen chips without losing performance as a secondary concern and so I'm curious to see how the 8700k will perform in that regard in comparison to the theoretical performance on a next-gen Ryzen with presumably improved single-threaded improvements in games.

I don't understand why you're bringing up Lightboost or what that has to do with me. Regardless, what do you mean by speed? Because Lightboost, let alone a lower 120hz, certainly adds on input lag.

Also, what are you talking about with regards to placebo? Because there is certainly a difference between 144 FPS and 240 FPS in feel and motion.

first there are plenty of ryzen benchmarks especially the better chips that can take on your 6700k, so way to walk yourself in to more falsity. Post bios and ram updates the better ryzen chips are giving more frames than the cpu you mentioned, period. I would love to see what 2nd gen ryzen does vs new intel cpus and then make decision vs just coming in throwing one architecture under the bus with mere conjecture. Hence my ire. Unless your're using a lesser ryzen chip it's not true in the current climate not one bit unless you utterly manage to misconfigure your ryzen setup.

Comparing 8th gen intels vs 1st gen ryzen is a bit unfair considering amd is going to have a response to them. We have no precise clue how the next gen of either company cpu will perform outside of leak speculation. So again asserting ryzen is going to be worse with no evidence well again rubs me wrong.

I'm not arguing 144fps and 240fps don't feel different either. If you're going butcher my point don't bother. 120hz lightboost is still smoother in pixel persistence than 240hz I'm not talking fps when I make that comment either as that is solely refreshrate. The site I linked tested so before you reply you might want to look up the evidence they take across the subject.Input lag has jack all to do with pixel persistence but if that's a factor good on you doesn't change what I mentioned.
 

Pasedo

Member
Im wondering whether this will be the time to upgrade but when it comes to gaming what will be the real world difference upgrading from a i7 3770k with a gtx 1080 card?
 
Im wondering whether this will be the time to upgrade but when it comes to gaming what will be the real world difference upgrading from a i7 3770k with a gtx 1080 card?

Digital Foundry made a really cool video comparing the i7 3770K, 4790K, 6700K and the 7700K at the same clock speeds in a couple of games.

Core i7 7700K vs 6700K/ 4790K/ 3770K Gaming Benchmarks (YouTube)


In their testing all of the CPUs were able to run almost every game at 60+ fps except for Ashes of the Singularity. The newer CPUs are able to run games with higher average and minimum frame rates which offer a smoother gameplay experience if you're targeting frame rates above 60 fps.

From the i7 3770K with 2400MHz memory to the i7 7700K with 3000MHz memory gains of around 20% can be seen on the i7 7700K in CPU limited scenarios.
Faster memory can improve reduce CPU limitations, Richard touches on this subject here in Digital Foundry's i7 7700K review.

Potentially more performance can be gained if you pair a CPU like this with faster memory, however this all relies on you being CPU limited, if you're GPU limited you'e probably not going to be seeing any gains.

TechSpot did some benchmarks with 4000MHz memory, showcasing the gains in performance that can be had in CPU limited scenarios in a couple of games, with some games gaining an additional 3-20% of performance from 3000MHz memory to 4000MHz memory.

DDR4 Memory at 4000MT/s, Does it make a difference? (TechSpot)


Should Coffee Lake feature IPC improvements that lead to single-threaded performance gains of around 10% on top of Kaby and Skylake which also manifests itself in gaming performance, I speculate you could potentially be looking at roughly a 30% gain in performance in CPU limited scenarios which are single-thread dependent with 3000MHz memory, and maybe somewhere around 30-40% with 4000MHz memory.
The additional cores are also likely to be advantageous depending on the game, as the number of games that take advantage of more than 4 cores/threads has increased over the years.

However, this all depends on the software being CPU limited on your system, because if you're you're GPU limited you're likely going to see little to no performance gains.
 

Swarna

Member
first there are plenty of ryzen benchmarks especially the better chips that can take on your 6700k, so way to walk yourself in to more falsity. Post bios and ram updates the better ryzen chips are giving more frames than the cpu you mentioned, period. I would love to see what 2nd gen ryzen does vs new intel cpus and then make decision vs just coming in throwing one architecture under the bus with mere conjecture. Hence my ire. Unless your're using a lesser ryzen chip it's not true in the current climate not one bit unless you utterly manage to misconfigure your ryzen setup.

Comparing 8th gen intels vs 1st gen ryzen is a bit unfair considering amd is going to have a response to them. We have no precise clue how the next gen of either company cpu will perform outside of leak speculation. So again asserting ryzen is going to be worse with no evidence well again rubs me wrong.

I'm not arguing 144fps and 240fps don't feel different either. If you're going butcher my point don't bother. 120hz lightboost is still smoother in pixel persistence than 240hz I'm not talking fps when I make that comment either as that is solely refreshrate. The site I linked tested so before you reply you might want to look up the evidence they take across the subject.Input lag has jack all to do with pixel persistence but if that's a factor good on you doesn't change what I mentioned.
Your point was already butchered because I frankly had no idea what the goal of your original post was. I'm only deducing now, based on the content of your second post, that you were trying to say that Ryzen is good enough to drive a 240hz monitor, assuming that the reason I said it wasn't for me was because of a deficiency in performance, and pointing out that variable refresh rates are better than on higher refresh rates, anyways, due to scanout times. Am I correct? Because that is not at all what any reasonable person could have been able to discern from your first post. I didn't even knock on Ryzen, wtf. lol I said current Ryzen was not for me (because it would be one step backwards in frame rates for me) and that I'm looking forward to comparisons between the 6c/12t 8700k and next-gen Ryzen (because next-gen Ryzen will undoubtedly improve ST performance). The context of this greater discussion is obviously because a lot of people are looking to jump from Intel to AMD for their next CPU, so I put in my 2 cents regarding that. My response, in turn, was as general of a response as I could make it, over-addressing what you were saying, because I honestly didn't know what point you were trying to make.

Like, I have no idea why you brought up Lightboost or why it was relevant to me in particular. lol Yes, Lightboost improves motion clarity...and? Even if you wanted to go down that rabbit hole, the BENQ XL2540/XL2546, a 240hz monitor, is the best option for motion clarity on any LCD panel today when downclocked to 182hz. Better than any current 120hz ULMB/Lightboost solution. But again, I fail to see how it had any relevance to my original post.

As for the new point about my 6700k, I've not seen any indication of what you're talking about as of late. Overclocked 6700k is still better than/equal to stock 7700k which performs better than the 1700 (about the same performance as 1800x for all gaming purposes). These are the most current CPU benchmarks comparing 7700k OC'd + stock and 1700 OC'd + stock I could find. I'm under the impression that the 1700x performs similarly at the same clocks as the 1700 but you're free to show me recent benchmarks if you have any.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3009-amd-r7-1700-vs-i7-7700k-144hz-gaming
 

Pasedo

Member
Digital Foundry made a really cool video comparing the i7 3770K, 4790K, 6700K and the 7700K at the same clock speeds in a couple of games.

Core i7 7700K vs 6700K/ 4790K/ 3770K Gaming Benchmarks (YouTube)



In their testing all of the CPUs were able to run almost every game at 60+ fps except for Ashes of the Singularity. The newer CPUs are able to run games with higher average and minimum frame rates which offer a smoother gameplay experience if you're targeting frame rates above 60 fps.

From the i7 3770K with 2400MHz memory to the i7 7700K with 3000MHz memory gains of around 20% can be seen on the i7 7700K in CPU limited scenarios.
Faster memory can improve reduce CPU limitations, Richard touches on this subject here in Digital Foundry's i7 7700K review.

Potentially more performance can be gained if you pair a CPU like this with faster memory, however this all relies on you being CPU limited, if you're GPU limited you'e probably not going to be seeing any gains.

TechSpot did some benchmarks with 4000MHz memory, showcasing the gains in performance that can be had in CPU limited scenarios in a couple of games, with some games gaining an additional 3-20% of performance from 3000MHz memory to 4000MHz memory.

DDR4 Memory at 4000MT/s, Does it make a difference? (TechSpot)



Should Coffee Lake feature IPC improvements that lead to single-threaded performance gains of around 10% on top of Kaby and Skylake which also manifests itself in gaming performance, I speculate you could potentially be looking at roughly a 30% gain in performance in CPU limited scenarios which are single-thread dependent with 3000MHz memory, and maybe somewhere around 30-40% with 4000MHz memory.
The additional cores are also likely to be advantageous depending on the game, as the number of games that take advantage of more than 4 cores/threads has increased over the years.

However, this all depends on the software being CPU limited on your system, because if you're you're GPU limited you're likely going to see little to no performance gains.

Thanks for the info! So these days is it fair to say that games utilise very little cpu and most work is now done by the gpu? Also is that the future? I just get this sense that faster cpu refreshes for gaming is becoming obselete.
 

spuckthew

Member
So nice to finally see mainstream core counts going up. Thanks, AMD.

I was on the verge of upgrading a couple of months ago because my 4670K has been giving me headaches, but I managed to rectify the issues I was having and hold off.

That 6C/6T i5-8600K makes me very happy.
 

ISee

Member
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.
 

LCGeek

formerly sane
Your point was already butchered because I frankly had no idea what the goal of your original post was. I'm only deducing now, based on the content of your second post, that you were trying to say that Ryzen is good enough to drive a 240hz monitor, assuming that the reason I said it wasn't for me was because of a deficiency in performance, and pointing out that variable refresh rates are better than on higher refresh rates, anyways, due to scanout times. Am I correct? Because that is not at all what any reasonable person could have been able to discern from your first post. I didn't even knock on Ryzen, wtf. lol I said current Ryzen was not for me (because it would be one step backwards in frame rates for me) and that I'm looking forward to comparisons between the 6c/12t 8700k and next-gen Ryzen (because next-gen Ryzen will undoubtedly improve ST performance). The context of this greater discussion is obviously because a lot of people are looking to jump from Intel to AMD for their next CPU, so I put in my 2 cents regarding that. My response, in turn, was as general of a response as I could make it, over-addressing what you were saying, because I honestly didn't know what point you were trying to make.

Like, I have no idea why you brought up Lightboost or why it was relevant to me in particular. lol Yes, Lightboost improves motion clarity...and? Even if you wanted to go down that rabbit hole, the BENQ XL2540/XL2546, a 240hz monitor, is the best option for motion clarity on any LCD panel today when downclocked to 182hz. Better than any current 120hz ULMB/Lightboost solution. But again, I fail to see how it had any relevance to my original post.

As for the new point about my 6700k, I've not seen any indication of what you're talking about as of late. Overclocked 6700k is still better than/equal to stock 7700k which performs better than the 1700 (about the same performance as 1800x for all gaming purposes). These are the most current CPU benchmarks comparing 7700k OC'd + stock and 1700 OC'd + stock I could find. I'm under the impression that the 1700x performs similarly at the same clocks as the 1700 but you're free to show me recent benchmarks if you have any.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3009-amd-r7-1700-vs-i7-7700k-144hz-gaming

You literally mentioned doing gaming while encoding why you would starve yourself when ryzen will do both is beyond me. I'm glad new intel chips will be joining the party but for now there's a clear choice. Considering your own comment no it's not happening and I never disputed gaming performance when it's done alone.

I mentioned lightboost cause it would give the biggest motion boost to a screen besides gysnc not mere refreshrate as you were implying. Keep amending things to imply more than you actually gave information. For instance you never mention once what you enabled so considering what you gave the response is just that. Not using gysnc or ulmb once you have the means at any high refreshrate is just plain insane these days. Also I wasn't disputing two lightboost modes you're own original post just list 240hz nothing else, blame yourself.
 

THEaaron

Member
I was on the verge of upgrading a couple of months ago because my 4670K has been giving me headaches, but I managed to rectify the issues I was having and hold off.

That 6C/6T i5-8600K makes me very happy.

I will go straight to the 8700K from my 4670k. It is a pretty fast cpu but frametimes make it pretty clear that there is a need for more than 4 threads. I hope the 8700k delivers.
 

Xyphie

Member
The new CPUs will be clocked higher plus IPC increase... of course single will be boosted.

There's a 200 MHz increase in single core boost on the 8700K which is 4% at best assuming linear frequency scaling. I think it's extremely doubtful there will be a 7% IPC increase in CFL.
 
Top Bottom