Intel Coffee Lake Rumors: More Cores and Z270 Incompatibility

Subject: Processors | August 3, 2017 - 10:06 PM |
Tagged: rumor, report, processor, Intel, cpu, core i7, core i5, core i3, coffee lake

You may have heard that Intel's upcoming 8th-generation processors, code named Coffee Lake, won't be compatible with the current Z270 chipset motherboards. Last week we had another round of rumors and reports about these upcoming - and totally incompatible - new CPUs, with wccftech reporting some details on what to expect with the new processors. Spoiler: MORE CORES.

View Full Size

Image credit: Tech Advisor

We begin with the Intel Core i7-8700K, which will reportedly be the company's first mainstream 6-core processor, with previous hex-core offerings limited to HEDT and server. The i7-8700K will run slightly below the current 4-core i7-7700K, with a base frequency of 3.7 GHz (vs. 4.2 GHz with the i7-7700K) and single-core Turbo speeds topping out at 4.3 GHz according to the report. Another point of interest with the 6-core i7 part is TDP, with 95W needed where even the current HEDT parts are into the 130W territory. What of the Core i5? This is where things get a little more interesting, as there appear to be 6-core parts in the i5 family as well, without Hyper-Threading of course. Even the Core i3 parts jump to 4-core configurations with Coffee Lake, which would obviously be another first.

View Full Size

Chart credit

To editoralize a bit, AMD seems to be in a highly influential position in the wake of Ryzen and Threadripper, as Intel is (reportedly, of course) upping the core counts for Core series processors. Sure, Intel could have done this anyway, but looking at their pre-Ryzen products they were quite happy selling 2 - 4 core parts for premium prices before. This is great news for anyone in an era of increasingly multi-thread optimized computing (as long as pricing remains at or below current offerings), and with this healthy competition the second half of the year might be the best time in a very long time to upgrade - be it Intel or AMD. Now, if only graphics cards would fall back down to earth...

Source: wccftech

Video News

August 4, 2017 | 02:01 AM - Posted by Lucidor

A hyperthreaded 4 core with integrated graphics that will do 4GHz drawing 65W sounds too good to be true, presuming the 8300 will be priced the same or close to the 7300.
Unless they're feeling disruptive, they could price a part like that at $180 and be competitive against the $170 R5 1400.

August 4, 2017 | 05:44 AM - Posted by John H (not verified)

I7-7700 non k already does 3.6 base 4.0 turbo at 65W. Coffelake is on a better manufacturing process.

August 4, 2017 | 08:18 AM - Posted by Lucidor

I meant at current i3 prices.

August 11, 2017 | 06:13 PM - Posted by Nj444 (not verified)

Thats 4.2GHZ turbo I know because I have one and it rocks for a locked processor. Its a low wattage bone crushing quad for sure.

August 11, 2017 | 06:20 PM - Posted by Nj444 (not verified)

My next build down the road like 4-5 years cause of having to get a new motherboard will most likely end up being an six core i5 bang for the buck cheaper build. This is my first intel machine I built and made AMD systems for years and I can say I have had the fewest issues with this i7 7700. No looking back.

September 11, 2017 | 07:39 PM - Posted by Poker face (not verified)

i7 6700 is already EOL - Next is i7 7700... Gaming market and enthusiasts are moving to min 6 core, 8 core and even 16 cores, and their not looking back either.

Intel is just catching up with (AMD) the times, as Intel has held back the industry long enough. I wont be buying Intel this round, and hopefully the next round too.

September 23, 2017 | 10:36 PM - Posted by nj444 (not verified)

I have had nothing but flaky experiences with AMD. As far as Intel catching up they have had processors with more than 4cores for quite some time. Its just that they are not cheap or you have to get an older cheaper xeon setup. I gave up on AMD they have poor support for thermal sensors in linux not to mention all the weird segmentation faults that I had and lack of proper turbo boost under linux as well. As far as end of life 6700/7700 both those chips will be packing a serious punch for years to come. My 7700 lays waste to my old FX 8320. I have built AMD systems for nearly 20 years. I could not be happier with this rig.

August 4, 2017 | 02:26 PM - Posted by maroon1 (not verified)

"they could price a part like that at $180 and be competitive against the $170 R5 1400.:

Is this a joke ?! Have you ever looked at review or benchmarks (other than just cinebench)

Intel Qaud core CPU with HT at 4GHz should easily beat 1500X let alone 1400

However, I think the specs of i3 8300 is fake. It is too good to be true. It can even hurt the sales of intel own 65w i5 coffee lake.

August 4, 2017 | 10:02 PM - Posted by Photonboy

Why do you think the i3-8300 specs are fake?

Intel has changed the naming scheme for desktop now since they have a higher core-count. i3 with four cores. i5 with six cores...

Why would it hurt sales? There's no PRICING GIVEN but I think we can assume pricing similar to an i7-7700/7700K, and NOT pricing similar to an i3 with only two cores.

August 5, 2017 | 02:21 AM - Posted by Lucidor

Well, the 1500x is basically the same part as the 1400, just with more of AMD's not-so-great L3 cache, so I obviously I meant it would beat that as well.

August 4, 2017 | 02:27 AM - Posted by Jiri (not verified)

The table indicates a boost of all cores to 4.3 GHz and a single-core boost of up to 4.7 GHz, or are you refering to another iteration of the source?

August 5, 2017 | 12:44 PM - Posted by Sebastian Peak

Yes, their table shows that; however, the source article was cited for the information on the i7-8700K, quoted directly below:

"So for the details, the first processor is the Core i7-8700K. This chip has 6 cores and 12 threads. The chip is clocked at a base frequency of 3.7 GHz and has a minimum core frequency set at 0.8 GHz which is for idle mode. The chip features a boost clock of 4.3 GHz on a single core, 4.2 GHz in dual core mode while quad and hexa core boost clocks are rated at 4.0 GHz which is impressive."

(Source link -

August 4, 2017 | 04:18 AM - Posted by James

I have used machines with up to 24 cores (real cores, not hyperthreading) and it is amaizing the kind of speed you can get for things that can take advantage of all of those cores. It is also really annoying when you hit something single threaded and you are stuck running at less than 5% utilization on a 24 core machine. They shouldn't have been selling anything less than 4 cores for a while now. Even cell phones mostly have many cores these days.

August 4, 2017 | 05:18 AM - Posted by PeterG (not verified)

Haha, yeah and a quadcore from phone is like 1/4 of a single core on desktop in terms of power.

You can make 1000 cores that are slower than a single core. IPC. Clocks. Architechture.

More cores is not always better, in the end it's up to the software.

August 4, 2017 | 12:40 PM - Posted by James

Obviously, but the performance increase you can get from going multithreaded software is huge compared to any increases you can get from single thread performance. Single thread performance hasn't really increased much in years. Staying single threaded limits software to a tiny fraction of the available power on a multi-core machine. On a 24 core, one core is only 4.16 %. On a 32 core Epyc processor, one core is only 3.125 % of the processing power. Converting software to multithreaded is more difficult and requires software developers that know what they are doing. Intel keeping the baseline at 2 to 4 cores holds that back. With the overhead on modern systems, optimizing by converting to multithreaded doesn't make much sense on a 2 core. If the base line is at least 4 core, then it will make a lot more sense. Low power devices are already better off being many low power cores than a small number of high power cores.

August 4, 2017 | 10:07 PM - Posted by Photonboy

PLENTY of people don't need more than what a G4560 CPU (2c/4t) offers though for basic network tasks.

Cell phones have more cores because it's more efficient to run them at LOWER FREQUENCIES so they need extra cores.

No point in buying a machine that costs more with four cores if you don't use them. Same goes for memory and storage.

It also affects the COOLING requirement in laptops which adds an additional cost in the cooler and the battery.

August 6, 2017 | 01:47 AM - Posted by lexx

most phones use big and little cores now a days (if it says its a quad core its a dual core if its a 8 core its 4 core, as it can only use the low power or high power it can't use both at the same time)

August 4, 2017 | 06:41 AM - Posted by Isaac2 (not verified)

Isn't amazing how Intel can come up with all these new processors with increased number of cores, higher speeds, lower tdp etc. It just shows how they have been milking the
Market (i.e. us). Wonderful what a little competition can do.

August 4, 2017 | 10:09 AM - Posted by Edkiefer (not verified)

moving to higher core count was listed yrs ago. the higher server count wasn't AFAIk (12-18core x299).
It did get moved back cause it was suppose to be on 10nm (cannonlake or something, I forget).

August 4, 2017 | 06:55 PM - Posted by Kevin A (not verified)

Yeah, there was a leaked Intel roadmap from 2014 that showed Coffelake. Sorry if that shoots your 'oh snap, now AMD is bringing the fire to their feet' theory.

August 5, 2017 | 09:43 AM - Posted by PeterG (not verified)

Yep, big thanks to Jim Keller

August 4, 2017 | 07:38 AM - Posted by Zaxx

Hmmm...the i3 8300...a 4ghz quad-core i3 w/ 8MB cache? most interesting indeed! Slap a K on it and watch world+dog flip

August 4, 2017 | 08:55 AM - Posted by JohnGR

Probably we will see two kind of i3s. The 8300 with 4cores/8threads and the 8200, 8100 with just 4 cores no HT. I wouldn't expect Intel to start selling 8 threads processors from $100.

What is certain is that, people who like to change their hardware often, should consider putting on sale their Z270 + 7700K combo TODAY.

August 5, 2017 | 08:04 AM - Posted by Zaxx

A 4 core i3 w/8mb cache makes some sense...but 4 core with HT would cannibalize i5/i7 sales...unless they plan to really raise the bar high for the i5s.

August 4, 2017 | 10:10 AM - Posted by Anonymousss (not verified)

But what about the PCI-e lanes????

August 4, 2017 | 11:34 AM - Posted by seventyfive (not verified)

yea I was hoping for more PCIE lanes to be honest...

I only update my CPU mobo every 5 years or so, it would be nice to have 3x ultra m.2 for future expansion

August 4, 2017 | 06:57 PM - Posted by Kevin A (not verified)

Yeah, be sure to get 3x of the the 2TB size M.2, pay just $6000 and then complain about a CPU being $190.

August 4, 2017 | 10:33 PM - Posted by Photonboy

How many people really need more than 20 dedicated CPU lanes anyway?

That's sufficient for the graphics and a fast M.2 SSD. The chipset can provide 24 more lanes which is plenty for most people for other PCIe devices and SATA drives.

People that "need" multiple M.2 drives and/or more graphics bandwidth are pretty rare.

I appreciate AMD having options for much more PCIe lanes but again very few people will benefit from them.

August 4, 2017 | 01:41 PM - Posted by Mr.Gold (not verified)

Pricing should be interesting.

AMD selling the 65w 8 core unlocked R7 1700 for $270 with a high quality cooler will put a dent on how much Intel can charge.

So I expect the new i7 to be $379 to cover the margin loss from the larger 14nm die. Intel wont be able to go over $400 (Even so they will benchmark extremely well)

August 4, 2017 | 10:19 PM - Posted by Photonboy

Hard to guess. On one hand there is AMD competition though it's hard to tell exactly how worried Intel is. We need data on exactly how Ryzen has been selling and whether Intel needs to be aggressive in pricing.

The i7-6850K Max Turbo value is 3.8GHz, but if we assume 3.5GHz for all six cores and compare to the new i7-8700K which is 4.3GHz thus 23% higher frequency. With architectural changes it's hard to guess (depends on program) but let's call that up to about 30% higher.

I won't guess at relative overclocking differences.

So will the better performance be offset by more aggressive pricing?

I think $400 is probably a good guess though.

August 5, 2017 | 09:43 AM - Posted by PeterG (not verified)

Ryzen killers incoming

August 6, 2017 | 03:50 AM - Posted by Max Settings (not verified)

So you spend $300+ (?) on a 6C Coffeelake, another couple of hundred on a new 370 motherboard...Then ~6 months later 6C Ryzen+ comes out, and you realize (too late) that you should have just bought a Ryzen in the first place.

August 6, 2017 | 08:27 PM - Posted by Pyotr (not verified)

Then 9th gen Intel comes out and devastates Ryzen IPC, like a cannon blasting it out of the water.

August 7, 2017 | 10:17 AM - Posted by WSJ-SJW (not verified)

Intel actually delivering a significant performance increase in a new CPU generation, what year is this, 2005? Thanks AMD!

August 7, 2017 | 10:58 AM - Posted by shillintel (not verified)

this is a shill move from intel the non compatibility thing

August 7, 2017 | 03:16 PM - Posted by agello24 (not verified)

they are still taxing the shit out of their 4 core i7's. i just dont get it. thats like civic and corolla owners twin turbo charging their 4 banger.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.