Intel's Just Launched 8th Gen 'Coffee Lake' Processors Bring the Heat To AMD's Ryzen 137
bigwophh writes: The upheaval of the high-end desktop processor segment continues today with the official release of Intel's latest Coffee Lake-based 8th Generation Core processors. The flagship in the new lineup is the Core i7-8700K. It is a 6C/12T beast, with a base clock of 3.7GHz, a boost clock of 4.7GHz, and 12MB of Intel Smart Cache. The Core i5-8400 features the same physical die, but has only 9MB of Smart Cache, no Hyper-Threading, and base and boost clocks of 2.8GHz and 4GHz, respectively. The entire line-up features more cores, support for faster memory speeds, and leverages a fresh platform that's been tweaked for more robust power delivery and, ultimately, more performance. The Core i7-8700K proved to be an excellent performer, besting every other processor in single-threaded workloads and competing favorably with 8C/16T Ryzen 7 processors. The affordably-priced 6-core Core i5-8400 even managed to pull ahead of the quad-core Core i7-7700K in some tests. Overall, performance is strong, especially for games, and the processors seem to be solid values in their segment.
More more more! (Score:5, Insightful)
More cores! More RAM! More performance! ... and more cost.
Oh, and less PCI-e lanes while we're at it. And let me guess, no NVMe because us plebeians don't deserve it.
Re:More more more! (Score:4, Informative)
The piddly PCIe provisions are a shame though... no improvement (in lane count) whatsoever since they pulled the controllers onto the CPU die (LGA1156, Nehlaem). Note that the addition of each lane requires no less than two additional pins on the socket, so they'd have to re-purpose some pins to do it, and there aren't really a lot to spare. I know there were a fair number (20+) on the 1155 that weren't marked RSVD or anything else, but I'm having some difficult finding data on 1151. From the images I have found, it appears that practically every pin is connected to something, and fewer than 20 RSVD pins remain at all.
Site I'm referencing [eteknix.com]
It looks like they ate about a dozen RSVD pins for more power...
Perhaps the bigger nuisance is that Coffee Lake breaks compatibility with the 100/200 series chipset motherboards.
Re: (Score:3)
Currently running crusty old X79 stuff, a PCIe -> M.2 adapter, running a Samsung 960 Evo 250GB. Pretty sure NVMe just implies a standardized controller interface stitched to PCIe; I've been under the impression that software support is the main issue with it, as it's basically just another PCIe card as far as the hardware is concerned. I see it suggested on the internet (probably old forum posts) that X79 stuff should not be able to use it as a boot device, but my system begs to differ.
The piddly PCIe provisions are a shame though... no improvement (in lane count) whatsoever since they pulled the controllers onto the CPU die (LGA1156, Nehlaem)..
Prove that the PCIe lanes are being maxed out for gaming, daily computing, video editing, etc. and then I'll care. Yes, PCIe lanes matter for specific applications but the vast majority of gaming and higher end enthusiast systems are not maxing out the existing PCIe 3.0 lanes and DMI 3.0 bandwidth.
Current benchmarks show very little difference between SSD and NVMe in boot times and gaming performance. The main difference is transferring large files and loading large files into memory (i.e. video editing).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some m.2 SSD's have a legacy option ROM that can be used to boot. Other boards may have and UEFI driver availible, but it's not going to work out of the box on every system and every drive on the X79 platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Buy xeon?
Re: (Score:2)
Buy EPYC!? (Sorry, OCD made me do it)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Buy washing machines and cars.
I'm a bit of an AMD Fanboi, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
It's Intel's R&D investment; they can sell it or sit on it as they see fit. They are a for-profit corporation, not a public service, and are under no obligation to anyone to sell their technology on any set schedule.
That said, Intel-vs-AMD is a good example of the value of competition to improve products for the consumer. Without AMD on their heels, God only knows how long Intel would have coasted.
Re:I'm a bit of an AMD Fanboi, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless you are concerned about data security...
In which case both Intel and AMD should be viewed with some level of suspicion (as well as AMD/Nvidia videocards) as all of the above hardware is using signed firmware and user inaccessable DRM/NSA processors that could be spying on you, either now or in the near future when they finally feel penetration is deep enough to turn them on.
Most people scoff at these concerns, but an example that hasn't been brought up often enough: Tor and other privacy networks are
Re: (Score:2)
Open Power, FTW. Cost and arm and a leg, but you can build a powerful system tha't s open from the bottom up.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is under an obligation to buy any CPU from any company. If you think AMD is llilly white then you are naive. Personally, I buy what works best for my use case at the time of purchase. I try to leave imaginary ethical stuff aside. If AMD had an edge then they would 'sandbag' too. It is sound corporate strategy.
Re: (Score:3)
This is how smart businesses operate.
I remember years ago when the Geforce was brand new. As in; the original was fresh to market by 1 or so years. Those were the days of the Coppermine 333 which you could clock to 500 without breaking a sweat. Quack 3 Arena absolutely *flew*. It was glorious.
Anyway, the geforce. Another company, I believe it was voodoo at the time, came out with their response to the geforce which ran a tad faster...lo and behold, Nvidia released a driver update which significantly bo
Re:I'm a bit of an AMD Fanboi, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Quack 3 Arena absolutely *flew*.
Was that a reboot of Duck Hunt that I missed?
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck. Drunk posting. Guilty as charged. ...although now I really want to play it.
Re: (Score:3)
If we replace "Intel R&D" with "Mylan", does your comment still stand? If not, why not?
I'm almost libertarian enough to agree with you if the company in question operates on trade secrets and claims no patent protection.
Patent protection, however, is a two-way street: you're granted a r
Re: (Score:2)
Patents have stopped being for the public good a long time ago. They serve as mechanism for intellectual theft from anybody else now and nothing else. Same, incidentally, for copyright. I bet most people here do not know that copyright was created to prevent publishers from ripping off artists by publishing their stuff without permission or payment.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My calculations show that MPEG2 patents expire 18th February 2018, which is a mere 135 days from now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AMD v Intel (Score:4, Interesting)
One wonders whether we would still be running 286s if there were no AMD. It has been AMD that has made Intel actually compete in x86 space for 35+ yrs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:AMD v Intel (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a reason the current instruction set is called AMD64 and not Intel64. Intel actually licenses it from AMD, because they failed to come up with anything competitive. AMD cares more about engineering and Intel more about profits. Now, if only MS would get a credible competitor, maybe this atrocity going on with Windows would finally stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, AMD drives x86 CPU technology forward and not Intel. Apparently you missed that little detail, probably because you mistake money for skill.
Re: (Score:2)
Pick up a copy of the book "Inside The AS/400". The design of the hardware is fascinating and years beyond this PC garbage we've been using for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Intel the dairy farmer, milking the world.
How appropriate. You uh... make CPUs like a cow.
> People fall at my feet when they see me coming!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's reasonable to ask why Intel CPU's have not seen any large jump in performance or features until they had to, due to AMD competition, again.
You've answered that yourself.
Because of lacking AMD competition they didn't had too.
The R&D time and cost on these new chips is multiple years. That means, that Intel can't just roll out a chip in response to AMD, unless they either have good corporate intellignence and knew one to two years ago that AMD was coming back in a big way
No problem.
Intel have improved their cores and production the whole time and have had quad core desktop chips since Core 2. They launched six core Sandy-Bridge-E processors back in 2011 and have had Xeons with many cores too for a very long time.
So it's been around. Intel just haven't put it into the main-stream market. The six-core i7 5820 from 2014 didn't really cost more than the i7 4790K though ($10-$20?) so even back t
Re:I'm a bit of an AMD Fanboi, but... (Score:5, Informative)
See here http://marketrealist.com/2017/... [marketrealist.com] which says "There are rumors that Intel may launch its HEDT (high-end desktop) processors and chipsets and its Coffee Lake microarchitecture a few months earlier than anticipated in response to AMD’s Ryzen 5 and 7 processors. "
That web page is dated April 28, 2017.
Here's another article: https://www.pcworld.com/articl... [pcworld.com] which shows Coffee Lake in 2H17. This article is dated Feb 13, 2017.
So Intel is executing according to plan since first of this calendar year.
Re: (Score:3)
You do not need to ask. Intel had this design basically ready, except for the optimization of the last production steps. This means for years, Intel has screwed over its customers with a sub-standard design at vastly inflated prices. The funny thing is that many of these screwed over customers think Intel can do no wrong.
Sadly, customers that buy from the largest vendor only and do not even consider the competition are the death of competition and quality.
Re: (Score:2)
My sentiments exactly. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I openly admit that I'm a fan of AMD. However, I think it's reasonable to ask why Intel CPU's have not seen any large jump in performance or features until they had to, due to AMD competition, again.
Your confusion is this:
There has not been a large jump in performance for Intel parts. These chips are just higher core count, and you pay more for those extra cores.
You will not see a big boost in performance from Intel until they figure out 10nm, which is 2+ years late now and things still arent looking good. The last word from Intel was "Q4 2017" but that was over a year ago. Intel is in big trouble. They beat everyone to 14nm/16nm by a large margin but then got stuck chasing a 3D transistor fantasy
Re: (Score:2)
Everything I've read in a couple reviews (I know, citation needed) indicates that they basically just bolted on 2 more cores. It doesn't appear there's much new. The extra heat is, apparently, above what AMD shows (though Intel runs at a higher clock speed).
I could argue that the world doesn't need more computing power on each desktop, but "640K is enough!" so...
Tangentially: What I'd like to see are benchmarks run on chipsets that keep the performance numbers pegged at a certain rate and then measure all t
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. The single core performance isn't that much improved, which has been the story since Sandy Bridge. The performance improvements come almost entirely from the fact they have more cores. Keep in mind they've already been building chips like this in the Xeon line, so really it's just a matter of taking the Xeon's they were going to sell, disabling some features, and calling them i7's and i5's. And then taking what was going to be the i5 and making it the i3. There really isn't anything that
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong (Score:1)
Submitter likely meant base but the base frequency isn't even very relevant than the all core boost is higher and the power save brings it lower anyway.
The i5 8400 has an all core boost of 3.8 GHz and a single core boost of 4.0 GHz, so the 2.8 base isn't as bad as it seem ..
It's a great gamers chip.
Meh (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think "bringing the heat" is going to scare the competition very much in this market. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it will scare AMD, you know, when they put a machine running the new chip overclocked next to the AMD's headquarters.
Re: (Score:2)
The leapfrog in performance is going to "put the heat" on developers to create software that takes full advantage of the extra cores and speed.
It's almost like you have no idea how software development works. Anything that can parallelize beyond 4C/8T CPUs already runs on Xeon MP systems with dozens of cores. And no one is going to scream because their CPU is under 100% utilization.
Developers may be able to push a little further or optimize a little less at the high end, but consumer apps still have to run on last-gen i3 and i5 systems. This product creates no serious pressure on developers.
Possible exception for kernel devs---but only because the
Re: (Score:2)
need more pci-e lanes (DMI is over subed) + new ch (Score:2)
need more pci-e lanes (DMI is over subed) + need new chipset is a joke with no pci-e boost.
AMD has more pci-e and usb on cpu die.
Re: (Score:2)
DMI 3.0 is trash tier. Fucking 4 PCIe 3.0 links for all that I/O (including USB)? bottleNECK!
Re: (Score:1)
Ryzen has 24 lanes of which 16x will/may be used for graphics and 4x for the chipset and then another 4x from the CPU and Intel have "20" of which 4 (DMI 3 8 GT/s) is for the chipset right?
So yeah, a lead of 4 for Ryzen.
But if you NEED more PCI-express then Intel have HEDT and AMD have Threadripper. But sure, more would be nice, and Zen+ people speculate will have PCI-express 4.0, that's of course nice. I feel you're right pointing out this flaw and it one but I don't really know what I should be doing abou
Re: (Score:1)
You are forgetting SATA ports and USB 3.1 gen1 and gen2 is also coming from cpu
On Ryzen?
I saw he said that.
Care to link or explain it in full instead of just dropping so little information?
http://www.amd.com/en-us/produ... [amd.com]
List 2+10+6 USB on X370 chipset, and 6 SATA + x2 NVMe or 4 SATA + x4 NVMe + 2 SATA express.
But that's listed on chipset, not processor.
What you mean? Suck that you posted as AC.
Re: (Score:2)
AMD always had vastly superior integration, e.g. the memory controller on the CPU half a decade before Intel.
Re: (Score:1)
Was it you who posted as AC about SATA and USB from the CPU?
At-least it mentioned here.
Can you link some information.
Forget Ryzen (Score:2)
Forget Ryzen. I'd like to see one of the latest CPUs benchmarked against a Core i7-3960X. 6C/12T, 3.3GHz base clock, 15MB of cache, fully buzzword-compliant. Oh, and it's almost six years old.
Honestly, it's hard to get excited about "bringing the heat" when we're talking about single-digit percentage gains. There hasn't been a breakthrough in either clock speed or IPC in years, and even core counts have remained pretty much the same.
Re: (Score:3)
It's about 50% faster in both single and multi-threaded benchmarks with only 20% higher clock speed.
It's 95W instead of 130W TDP. That 95W TDP includes a GPU as well, the 3960X doesn't have one.
And it's being released at less than half the price the 3960x was. (3960k was RRP of $1059, 8700k is RRP of $359)
50% faster, 60% cheaper with 30% less power isn't single-digit. But then that is 6 years.
You're also comparing an "extreme" edition with k-series CPU. Even though the 3960X had quad channel memory (so desp
Re: (Score:2)
It's about 50% faster in both single...... threaded benchmarks with only 20% higher clock speed.
How did they do that? Serious question.
Re: (Score:3)
More instructions per cycle?
Through the different Core generations they've been refining/tweaking the number of ports and the execution units behind them.
don't know what they've done with Coffee lake by skylake/kaby lake is here:
https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/i... [wikichip.org]
Re: (Score:2)
btw SGX looks like a security nightmare, but MPX looks like it could be useful.
Re: (Score:2)
One element is better branch prediction.
Here's a paper detailing the branch predicition improvements of the last Intel platforms and their impact on scripting language execution: https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01100647/document [inria.fr]
Our measures clearly show that, on Nehalem,
on most benchmarks, 12 to 16 MPKI are encountered, that is about 240 to 320 cycles are lost every 1 kiloinstructions. On the next processor generation Sandy Bridge, the misprediction rate is much lower: generally about 4 to 8 MPKI on Javascript applications for instance, i.e. decreasing the global penalty to 80 to 160 cycles every Kiloinstructions. On the most recent processor generation Haswell, the misprediction rate further drops to 0.5 to 2 MPKI in most cases, that is a loss of 10 to 40 cycles every kiloinstructions.
That's an order of magnitude difference. In their their Python benchmark the Nehalem has an average of ~1.5 instructions per clock (IPC) while Haswell has an average of ~2.4 IPC, a 50% increase over Nehalem. The branch predictor is likely a big factor in this.
Of course scripting languages
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It appears to consume 20% more power than an 1800x, while producing 50% higher benchmark scores. Sounds like better performance per watt to me.
But what does anything I said before have to do with an AMD CPU? All the numbers I put up are comparing two Intel CPU's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are no major performance gains to be expected. This technology is now approaching maturity, which means it will slowly get cheaper and consume less power, but it will not get much faster anymore. Maybe we will eventually see something 2x as fast for desktop loads eventually, but that could take half a century or longer. There is still significant potential in writing software better, in particular in making it more parallel, but even that is limited and it is hard to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a solid start, and, unfortunately, it is mostly a finish as well. Unfortunate because when it comes to the ME, we only know what it is *supposed* to do, not what it actually does. It may, for instance, look at an entirely different port than it claims to, or look for certain patterns in packets in other ways, or magic numbers that wouldn't occur normally. Depending on your hardware, you may be capable of disabling the management engine on Intel's via some external hardware reprogramming device, an
Re: (Score:2)
Likely. They have done so in the past. They have been punished for anti-competitive behavior. don't ever expect Intel to play fair.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, possibly. There are so many zero-understanding tech-"journalists" today that this may well just be another useful idiot that was actually not paid off.
Re: (Score:2)
Hyperthreading (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Cost of these parts? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see the price of these guys. Any information out there? And what about the cost of motherboards?
$500 looks to be the base https://www.newegg.com/Product... [newegg.com]
VROC Scam (Score:2)
As long as Intel continues to try and push the VROC scam, I know I'll be taking my business to AMD.
AMD also now offers RAID-0 for NVMe, with similar performance - and without the extra cost of a (still non-existant) "upgrade key".
Even better, M.2 sockets on X399 motherboards are running CPU lanes, where X299 motherboard-mounted M.2s are DMI and actually require an add-on card for full performance.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the speed race (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When did they stop Hyperthreading on all CPUs? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all Intel CPUs have hyperthreading.
Usually, i5 don't and i7 do. That is often the main difference between these two product lines.
Lower end CPUs usually have it to make up for less physical cores.
Re: (Score:2)