|
God drat, I thought Coffeelake was better. https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2025?vs=1728 Stock to stock the 6850K already beats the 8700K and the 6850K overclocks more, proportionally, compared to the 8700K. I now say buy it with no hesitation.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
Do we have any idea how many pci lanes are supposed to be on the 8-cores and z390 chipsets next year?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
WAR DOGS OF SOCHI posted:Do we have any idea how many pci lanes are supposed to be on the 8-cores and z390 chipsets next year? They're not going to voluntarily exceed the number of lanes you get on the entry-level Sky-X system, which is 28. Figure they'll cap consumer/enthusiast chipsets at 24-26 for the foreseeable future. If AMD goes to 28+ on Zen+ or Zen 2, who knows, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
craig588 posted:God drat, I thought Coffeelake was better. https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2025?vs=1728 AT was one of the sites that got the Gigabyte board with a bad bios. I dunno if they are gonna retest or not, though. Computer Base has some good interactive graphs with the 6850K in there for comparison. 8-25% performance advantage on most stuff, with the average in games at 1080p being 9%. Not sure if thats really worth the upgrade price. https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10/intel-coffee-lake-8700k-8400-8350k-8100-test/5/ Although the same performance that cost $800+ a year ago now costing half that is pretty cool. #thanksamd Cygni fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Oct 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
The coffee lake paper launch was really quite genius, Intel sent a bunch of 5.2 GHz binned samples to the youtubers, a handful of retail boxes to e-tailers and now gets to watch Ryzen sales fall off a cliff until Q2/2018. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Speaking of the 8700NK   I ordered mid morning on the 5th Central Time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
I just got my 8600K this morning. Now I'm only waiting for nicer RAM, as I accidentally got 2133 MHz stuff at first. What's the difference between the 8700K and the 8700NK that people keep mentioning? Google gives me nothing if I search for 8700NK. ohgodwhat fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Oct 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:I just got my 8600K this morning. Now I'm only waiting for nicer RAM, as I accidentally got 2133 MHz stuff at first. It the locked version of the 8700K. Its listed as the i7-8700.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Volguus posted:I'll probably be going too from a 3930K to an 8700K. Not really willing to throw money at the HEDT platforms anymore, even if gaming is a secondary/tertiary usage for me. Current Intel HEDT (Skylake-X) sucks for gaming anyways due to its mesh bus and modified cache structure, 8700k is the way to go for now if you want a mix of good gaming performance and good multithreaded performance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Oh, NK = "non-K". Never heard that before. Wow, the 8700K is actually behind the 6850K in a lot of stuff (at stock), that's weird. Does the 8700K really overclock proportionately less than the 6850K? I guess there's no real reason to upgrade from my 5820K then, since I should be real close to a 6850K. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
LASER BEAM DREAM posted:Speaking of the 8700NK I ordered on the 6th and im still showing "we will email when we know" for delivery date 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
eames posted:The coffee lake paper launch was really quite genius, Intel sent a bunch of 5.2 GHz binned samples to the youtubers, a handful of retail boxes to e-tailers and now gets to watch Ryzen sales fall off a cliff until Q2/2018. Doesn't it hurt Kaby lake sales too, though? Oh well, I guess Intel can take a sales hit as long as it affects AMD too. Boo
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Welp I got everything I need but an 8700k. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Lube banjo posted:Doesn't it hurt Kaby lake sales too, though? Oh well, I guess Intel can take a sales hit as long as it affects AMD too. Boo It's not really a sales hit if they're still buying Intel. That's like saying Haswell took a huge sales hit when Skylake came out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Not to mention Kaby lake hardware will be getting liquidated out the OEM dell/hp/whoever channels for at least another year or two
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
eames posted:The coffee lake paper launch was really quite genius, Intel sent a bunch of 5.2 GHz binned samples to the youtubers, a handful of retail boxes to e-tailers and now gets to watch Ryzen sales fall off a cliff until Q2/2018. Didn't AMD send binned Ryzens to reviewers too? The reviewers all got 4.0-4.1 and most people are only getting 3.8-3.9.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Oh, NK = "non-K". Never heard that before. This is confusing to parse, but The 6850K stock turbos to 3.7-3.8GHz and most of them will overclock to at least 4.3GHz while the 8700K stock turbos to 4.3-4.7GHz while these early review samples seem to average around 5GHz, they might be binned too and the retail ones might average out a multiplier or two lower. Percentage wise the amount of speed increase you get from overclocking a 6850K is more than you get from a 8700K. If you mean the 7800K then no, the 7800K overclocks proportionally more than the 6850K, but the whole market segmentation, heat, and overall platform weirdness make it a bad choice for everyone. The 8700K is faster, lower power, and cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Well this is some junior varsity bullshit: http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-will-no-longer-disclose-multi-core-turbo-boost-frequencies.html Might as well just call them the Core 8 4700+.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
That's how they used to market them so explicitly disclosing the per core turbo speeds might have been an experiment that didn't work out. I literally was thinking today about how it's about to get confusing with 8 core processors possibly having to list up to 9 speeds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Intel no longer intends to disclose the 'all cores' maximum. It could be a way that they don't need to test all cores maximum anymore, or it means that all cores is just the base clock. Or all cores load frequency could be less than the base clock.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
craig588 posted:This is confusing to parse, but The 6850K stock turbos to 3.7-3.8GHz and most of them will overclock to at least 4.3GHz while the 8700K stock turbos to 4.3-4.7GHz while these early review samples seem to average around 5GHz, they might be binned too and the retail ones might average out a multiplier or two lower. Percentage wise the amount of speed increase you get from overclocking a 6850K is more than you get from a 8700K. Derp, about three too many edits there. Just answer like I asked the intelligent question so I can maintain my e-cred  I'm not sure all that many 6850Ks get to 4.3 GHz without hilarious amounts of voltage and even then most probably won't, but I see where your math is coming from. Disappointing, I guess I thought it'd improve on single-thread performance a little more with clocks that high, but I guess the L3 cache carries the day in games? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I'm not sure all that many 6850Ks get to 4.3 GHz without hilarious amounts of voltage Ag, this is so annoying. I have a 4.7GHz 5820K and I want to eventually move to an 8 core 6900K because the 8 core 5960Xes draw 400 watts while overclocked. I've accepted it'll probably be a per core speed decrease, but I'm hoping it'll be close.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
I just happened to buy a 6500k with 16GB of DDR4 and a Z270 motherboard about one day before Intel launched their new CPU/chipset, efficiently wasting money. It's still ok fast. On FreeBSD, using a RAID5 software ZFS/array with 3x 128gb ssds, with -j8 and ccache, the kernel compiles in about 2 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Well this is some junior varsity bullshit: http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-will-no-longer-disclose-multi-core-turbo-boost-frequencies.html Oh cool the figure where I said "look at the K and the non-K reaching the same point of the curve when all the cores are running wide open" is going to go invisible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Goonerousity posted:I just happened to buy a 6500k with 16GB of DDR4 and a Z270 motherboard about one day before Intel launched their new CPU/chipset, efficiently wasting money. Heh. With the latest and greatest CPU you may be able to cut that time in half. Compiling on tmpfs even more so (Linus got his kernel compiled in a bunch of seconds some time ago on tmpfs). Then again ... isn't 2 minutes enough? In my days it would take me 40min to 1 hour for the drat thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
craig588 posted:Ag, this is so annoying. I have a 4.7GHz 5820K and I want to eventually move to an 8 core 6900K because the 8 core 5960Xes draw 400 watts while overclocked. I've accepted it'll probably be a per core speed decrease, but I'm hoping it'll be close. Apart from lanes I don't think we have any reason to upgrade. The only way the 5960X gets to 400W is under Prime95 and yeah, AVX synthetics are going to suck on Intel's processors since they have so much AVX horsepower. Honestly I'm not actually sure the 6900K is going to be any lower-power with a heavy overclock. Both Broadwell-E and Haswell-E suck it down pretty badly and my opinion is that (core-for-core) BW-E doesn't offer any significant advantage for enthusiasts over Haswell-E in any department at all. It is a straightforward tradeoff of clocks for IPC and everything else (including power) remains more or less the same, with equivalent single-threaded performance. It was not a very interesting release unless you bought the 6950X or were running at stock clocks - it was 100% intended for the server guys and enthusiasts got the leftovers. That said, the 6900K is probably going to be cheaper than a 5960X, but I've been watching Microcenter and prices remain stubbornly high for the nicer SKUs. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
The Great Liquidation Begins: https://www.techbargains.com/dell-xps-8700-deals
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
I miss the days when all you had to worry about was the processor type and frequency. So much simpler like going from a 486/66 to a Pentium/133.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
VulgarandStupid posted:Didn't AMD send binned Ryzens to reviewers too? The reviewers all got 4.0-4.1 and most people are only getting 3.8-3.9. Not really. It just turned out that the 1800x was a slightly better binning of the 1700 so a little bit more likely to get up to 4.0 and *maybe* break 4.1 other than that, at least as far as I remember, most of the review chips landed in the 3.8 to 4.0 OC band that 95% of the chips apparently hit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Three-Phase posted:I miss the days when all you had to worry about was the processor type and frequency. So much simpler like going from a 486/66 to a Pentium/133. I remember the only thing that got me a Pentium 'back in the day' was when Intel put out those "Overdrive" 83Mhz chips that turned our 486SX/33 with 12MB of system RAM into something that could realistically run Windows 95. Another friend was unsuccessful convincing his parents to go from a 486DX/66 to a Pentium 60, because (the number is less), but I guess that was a good call by them in the end seeing as the P60 had a lot of issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
So what will the retro-computing platforms of that era be? Pentium Pro? K6-3? Coppermine? Thunderbird, Athlon XP?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:So what will the retro-computing platforms of that era be? Pentium Pro? K6-3? Coppermine? Thunderbird, Athlon XP? Gotta be Celeron 300A, could overclock like mad AND run dual socket.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
priznat posted:Gotta be Celeron 300A, could overclock like mad AND run dual socket. The dual socket support was useless for most contemporary games, they were primarily designed to run on Win 9x which only supported single CPU core, and when you switched over to NT 4.x to get multicore support you lost a lot of game compatibility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The dual socket support was useless for most contemporary games, they were primarily designed to run on Win 9x which only supported single CPU core, and when you switched over to NT 4.x to get multicore support you lost a lot of game compatibility. Sure it was mostly useless but it was pretty drat cool that a low end part could do that! I never had one personally, I went to pentium II-350 if memory serves from a pentium 90. But I knew folks who had duals running at 450MHz which was pretty neat. I have no recollection on what they actually did with them, though
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
r_smp 1
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The dual socket support was useless for most contemporary games, they were primarily designed to run on Win 9x which only supported single CPU core, and when you switched over to NT 4.x to get multicore support you lost a lot of game compatibility. Win2k was pretty amazing for the time, but WinXP was where NT got merged in to the general-purpose codebase and there will be horrible legacy installations lingering on for decades. IE8 browser traffic: Because Legacy Windows XP Running Unshielded On The Internet Still Exists™ 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Keeping CPUs for 5 years can't be that uncommon, right? I've still got a 3570k I plan on putting back into commission once I can grab a cheap z77 motherboard, and I'm sure it'll be a just-fine gaming machine once I pair it with a 1080 and overclock it a bit. And I've got another Skylake PC which I built over a year ago, and OC'ed to 4.5, I can't really imagine having to replace it within the next 5 years. These are strictly gaming machines, though, so I guess that matters since everything these days is a console port.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
Shrimp or Shrimps posted:Keeping CPUs for 5 years can't be that uncommon, right? Naw, the homeless shelter has plenty of public computers with 5 year old cpus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Shrimp or Shrimps posted:Keeping CPUs for 5 years can't be that uncommon, right? The 2500k/2600k is still a decent chip for gaming and that's gonna be 7 years old soon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
MaxxBot posted:The 2500k/2600k is still a decent chip for gaming and that's gonna be 7 years old soon. 3930k owners got their loving money's worth, goddamn Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 05:05
|
|