Intel plans to released the eighth generation of its Core i7 CPUs, based on Coffee Lake, in the second half of 2017 and according to the latest rumours, the mainstream chips will feature more CPU cores than their predecessors. French website CPCHardware has shared some details about two Core i7 and two Core i5 models.
Naturally, take everything you are about to read with a grain of salt. According to CPCHardware, the Intel Core i5 8400 will feature 6 CPU cores and 9MB of L3 Cache, won’t support Hyper Threading, will be clocked at 2.8Ghz, and its TDP will not be exceeding (theoretically) 65W. On the other hand, the Intel Core i5 8600K will also feature 6 CPU cores and 9MB of L3 Cache, won’t support Hyper-Threading, will be clocked at 3.6Ghz and its TDP will be at 95W.
Regarding the Core i7 CPUs, CPCHardware revealed two models: Intel Core i7 8700K and Intel Core i7 8700. The only difference between them is that the non-K version will be clocked at a lower frequency (Core i7 8700K is reported to be clocked at 3.6Ghz whereas the non-K version will be clocked at 3.2Ghz). Apart from that, they feature the exact same features. Both of them come with 6 CPU cores and 12MB of L3 Cache, support Hyper-Threading, and offer a TDP of 95W.
What’s also interesting here is that according to CPCHardware, this CPUs will be compatible with the LGA 1151 socket, meaning that those already owning these mainstream motherboards will be able to upgrade to the newest CPUs without any issues. All they will need is a bios update that will add compatibility to these new CPUs, so here is hoping that the motherboard manufacturers will not drop the ball.
According to Intel’s roadmap, these new Coffee Lake CPUs are planned for release in the second half of 2017. We expect the Laptop versions to be the first ones available to the public, with the Desktop versions following at a later date. As such, the Desktop versions of Coffee Lake may slip to 2018.
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
Eh, it’s desperation. I’m still going with Ryzen for my next build and I’ve owned almost entirely Intel CPUs up to this point.
lmao, that edit
Well I would certainly f*cking hope so considering we’ve been on quad cores for damn near a decade now. Competition is geeeeewd!
It’s also amazing, almost pure godlike when devs make complete and full use of every single core, which we’ll hopefully see thousands of games doing so within say 1-3 years?.
Yes competition is good, but so is competition when it’s being made use of. I want all those Ryzen cores being used to their full capacity and not being throttled for giggles either. Same goes for Intel.
That’s a good point. More and more games are making use of the 4/6 cores. But really they should thrive for better efficiency and higher clock rate imo. I mean, the pc developper market is so slow at adopting/using headroom from more cores it’s sad.
I dreammmm of a 6 core ht@5.0ghz native ddr4-3600cas12
Dream of this..
Allow me to say that, the owners of a 1151 platform will be able to upgrade only if their chipset will have an update introducing compatibility for those new CPUs. Basically, it’s very possible that people with Z170 motherboards won’t receive any compatibility update, even more possible people with H170 and B150.
yeap, I thought it was obvious but just added a new sentence for clarification purposes
Fair enough.
I think that a lot of 1151 mobo owners will change their builds to Ryzen in the near future.
They did it on the 2011v3 platform. They introduced new cpus along with new motherboards AND along with bios updates for those that had the previous gen. Works fine on the R5E Vanilla.
But nothing says they’ll do it this gen. Also there’s the fact that native specs might change enough to prevent this from working. But then again it worked for the x99 platform.
More frame in game please.
F@cking finally!!!
Nah, Ryzen had no infuence on Intel lineup, not even a bit. Serously.
100% this, they would of milked it forever other wise.
Agreed. Intel has grown fat and lazy from lack of competition and charging high prices for minimal gains each generation. Ryzen was the wake up call that Intel badly needed and I bet we don’t see yet another delay in 10nm Cannonlake either.
Competition is vital for a healthy market.
The Ryzen effect. Nice one AMD.
The sad thing is that it’ll have what 20lanes of pcie ? That’s really low. 24 at best ? Intel really is playing a stupid game with it’s customers by locking 40lanes to hgh end 2000$CDN Cpus. I’m glad i still have my 5930. That has 40lanes and which i paid 600$CDN.
They’re rippin’ people off that’s for sure.
M.2s are going to become more relevant. I have 3 myself. Via add-in cards. 20lanes isn’t enough. Can’t even proper sli or crossx (if youre into that).
Yea but the same bottom line stays. Intel is charging so fkin high for 40lane cpus right now it’s insane. They’re locking this in the ultra enthusiast.
It should not be.
At this point I could hardly care, mainly because games are not making full if not decent use of multiple cores let alone 4. Adding more cores isn’t instantly going to make all games better from the get go. Speed has been playing a good part though.
We can snort and giggle about how AMD pushed Intel, but let’s be honest, before Ryzen came out it was all about beating Intel in general, now it’s all about the cores and workstations, magically we’ve all become workstation rig users.
We do not have a plethora of games making 100% logical use of all those Ryzen cores…
Yeah and then we grant all powers to another group’s fave underdog and create a new Intel monopoly, fun for everyone.
We should thank amd and their ryzen at last a push in the cpu market
so i3 will have 3 core
i5 will have 5 core
i7 will have 7 core :v hahahahhaha
Can’t agree more lolz
DSO should not publish rumors as articles
it’s childish and unprofessional
don’t stoop to PCgamer’s levels, you’re better than this!
Wait a minute: with frequencies TANKING like that (from 4.2 to 3.6), those i7s will be much worse at gaming than the 7700K!!!
Holy dung!!!
mainstream intel 6 core processors have been available since at least the i7 980X in 2010; and games still almost entirely make no use of more than 2 cores, sometimes 4. So for gaming not much to see here. Would be more interested if they were pumping out quad core 15Ghz processors.
That argument really hasn’t been true for a while now.
Actually it is still true to this day; I have quad and hex core CPUs and for gaming with the same GPU the difference is nil; frequency on average matters far more than having more than 4 cores. As you can see here:
http://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/g6CPmWq2TJxinmAbcfRU26-650-80.png
You’ve already been explained why games want frequency. Do you not know how to read or are you just ignoring facts?
Nice try, can you not comprehend English?
Can you not comprehend it? You’ve been disproven at multiple angles. Just give up already.
And with Ryzen, still invalid http://www.pcgamer.com/the-amd-ryzen-7-review/5/
That was a 1000 dollar processor, definitely not mainstream by any means.
Just as mainstream as a 3960X, 4960X, 5960X, and 6950X; regardless 3930K was released in Q4 2011; so almost 6 years ago; there have been 6 core+processors available for gamers to use for 7 years at this point, and you could count on one hand the number of games that see any significant benefit from more than 4 cores, 4 threads on the intel side, not counting AMD’s version since the Phenom II X6 1100T BE in 2011 as well with six cores.
Those are high-end desktop processors derived from server processors, so this is not mainstream, it is high-end. Jesus christ, how can you call 1000 dollar CPUs mainstream? Look at Steam survey what mainstream gamers generally use. Most gamers couldn’t afford anything above 4-core 8-thread, so no surprise games do not take advantage of them yet. Now, when you can buy really mainstream 6-core from AMD and soon from Intel, 6-core adoption can finally get on track and future games can get optimized for them.
Still available to the enthusiast gamer; and again, the point is that 6 cores have been available to the market for 7 years now, 6 if you want your cheaper variants , and still practically nil in terms of games caring for the extra cores past 4. However, games do care much more about frequency overall. That’s why a quad core with high clocks is still top dog overall for gaming, regardless of six cores hitting the market and being used by gamers since 2010; those extra cores aren’t doing much for 99.9% of games, even DX12 games show a similar trend, with only one or two showing significant benefit and for the rest none, or worse performance. Yes, you can really buy 6 core processors from both AMD and intel since 2011, and now you can buy it from AMD with Ryzen again; however the landscape hasn’t changed much, they provide little to no benefit on average. What matters more (as usual since 2010) is having the highest possible clocked four cores.
Wow, finally, ENTHUSIAST gamer. Now how many of those exist compared to your mainstream gamer? Well, not enough to make a difference. When you make a game, you won’t optimize for example the 5% that have 6-core and above, you optimize for the 95% who have 4-core and lower. Only when 6-core starts being popular this can change. Games yet do not use 6-core and above, because not enough people have them, just like there was time when 4-core was not used by games, because nearly everyone had dual-core at best. The landscape can’t change if the adoption is low and prices are high. Prices have to come down first and that is what is happening now.
Irrelevant; gamers have been using 6 core cpus for 7 years, and for AMD that was definitely a lot of 6+ cores on the cheap for almost the same amount of time. So nice try, but you are still delusional , nothing has changed, this is not a core2duo moment right now. When there were no quad cores used by games that was because there weren’t any, so really an irrelevant comparison. Like apples to balloons. Also fyi, over 45% of pc gamers on steam have 3 cores or less; and only 52.06% have 4 cores. If you think that 45% is going to magically jump up and grab a six core CPU all of a sudden; or all that 52.06% is going to do the same with a 6+core cpu; you’re out of your mind.
No, they were not, I see you have the enthusiast ignorance. So finally you see the numbers, 94% of Steam’s sample have 2-cores and 4-cores. 6-cores and more are mere 2%. So I am the delusional when you keep pretending you do not know how come the games are not optimized for such a minority of gamers?
No, I do not expect everyone to upgrade now, but new buyers can finally buy a 6-core instead of quad-core without paying hundreds more and you can keep pretending it is not a big change for the better at all when it is.
Yes, they were. From both AMD and intel since 2011, from intel since 2010. I know facts are hard, but try.
Not on mainstream platform at mainstream prices which was kind of my point from the start.
Wrong again; LGA 1366 was mainstream. i7 920; LGA 1366. i7 980X: LGA 1366. AMD Six core cpus were bargain bin price. Apparently you consider nothing mainstream if it doesn’t fit your alternate reality.
You are wrong. 1156 was the mainstream socket, not 1366. Intel never puts 1000 dollar CPUs on mainstream sockets, they use HEDT platform for that. You must be doing this on purpose now.
AMD’s previous six-cores were not independent six cores like today with Zen, it had 3 modules with shared resources and so it was a failure.
Apparently you consider everything mainstream, but it is bs, so stay ignorant as you like.
False, 920 was mainstream; try again; and still six cores on the AMD chips. And still unable to dethrone the fact that six core cpus have been part of the gaming market for 7 years now, with barely a weak bump to 52% to quad on the gamer side in 9 years and ne’er a care by the developers 99.9% of the time on the game side. Ryzen isn’t some revolution; it’s all been seen before; and it performs worse than stock higher clocked quad intels anyway on average for gaming. And it doesn’t exactly shine against old quads either as shown in the article above; so even less reason for those with older quads to bother. This is not the revolution you are trying to convince yourself you are looking for.
920 was quad-core, jesus christ, but still on high-end platform. Just because there is quad-core even today on HEDT X299 lineup does not make it mainstream platform. You are really dense as f..ck. Ryzen and Coffee Lake are revolution because finally hexa-cores are available to MAINSTREAM for MAINSTREAM prices and their adoption can finally rise. There were not any true hexa-cores in $200-$300 price segment before, so you are either trolling or just being ignorant.
Yes, it was a quad core, no kidding. And it was mainstream. I know this is hard for you. There there now, the revolution is upon you, just as you say; that 45%+ on 3 and less cores and 52.06% on quads will go out within the year and all buy shiny new 6+core CPUs, because obviously that 45% didn’t buy a quad core for the same or less as ryzen…because….
Oh, and that 42%+still below 1080p and 48% on 1080p? Why, they’re all going to buy 1440p screens, as well.
Let’s not forget, that 73%+ with less than 16GB of RAM; color me pink, they’re also going to jump up to that 16GB by golly (even that 37% with less than 8GB of RAM).
Hold on to your horses, we’re not done yet! That 66%+with less than 4GB of VRAM? I foresee them all going straight to 8-11GB; the revolution calls for nothing less.
There were true hexacores available; there were also quad cores available, but as you can see, a big chunk of pc gamers didn’t think even quad cores to be attractive enough. Obviously whatever swayed them to not upgrade to quads will not matter any more now that they can get a hex core for the same price as that quad core. That’s the thing about the mass, they only care about good enough. What are we looking at in terms of 6+core adoption here? Looking at steam hardware survey; looks like a .12% increase since June of last year, +.06% for July’s hardware survey. I fully expect superawesomeamanzing multithreaded games to be released from this point forward, taking full advantage of 6-8 core CPUs, forgetting about all those plebs with 4 or less cores.
You are just making stuff up at this point, so I won’t waste any more time with you.
LOL…um the ridiculous part was to match your delirium. As to the statistics, look them up yourself on the steam hardware survey.
His delirium? More like your stupidity.
It’s not that ‘games do care much more about frequency overall’; it’s more like ‘it’s more difficult to code in a multithreaded way and devs tend to be lazy on the PC platform’. But yeah, I get your point.
But the high core count trend is starting to take off, more game engines are starting to be coded with better multithreaded capabilities, plus the new consoles are all 8 cores (and the next ones will feature more cores or threads who knows?).
Well it’s not here yet; I spend a lot of time benchmarking my systems, and for the recent demanding games, it isn’t core count that makes the most difference by a long shot; given how lazy devs are being with DX12 outside a couple of games, and the huge chunk of gamers sitting on less than 4 cores, I don’t expect devs to shift massively for a long time when they are currently looking at a pc gaming market that is of such a deficit just with 4 cores. Also, current consoles have been out a while now with multiple cores, really not a revolution in multicore development since they released, maybe a few, but nothing groundbreaking.
I’m sticking with AMD, just to avoid feeding the greed machine that is Intel. I mean, they’ve obviously been holding performance back behind ridiculous pay walls for no other reason then they can.
It’s still putting them in the same shoe at the end of the day.
We want competition, not another monopoly.
Virtually no business in all existence is your best pal. People really, really need to let that childish thought go.
I’m not arguing on behalf of Intel, I’m a bigger fan of AMD. I’m just saying that it’s not going to happen over night is all. Sorry if that came out wrong.
My bad.
Now AMD will spend the next 5 years catching up.
Nah. Threadripper will launch on august, right? That 16 core/32 threads beast will have the performance crown in most multithreaded scenarios again. At least for a time.
Real competition just remember folks Intel would have delayed and delayed this if it wasn’t for Ryzen.
Amd is back and close enough from a per core basis to challenge Intel.
Even Intel fans should love ryzen, Intel hasn’t had competition in the high-end for 10 years now they do.
O RLY?
another year same bullshit from intel
the 8500 and 8600 should not exist i think it’s time to stop the bullshit this cpus are the varried only by locked lowered clocks artificial segmentation
and the i7 8700 seriously why there’s a locked i7 again
and why there’s no hyperthreading again in i5?
it would made more sense if i5 was 4cores 8 threads, and i7 6cores 12threads
one i5 and one i7 both unlocked, clean and clear cpu lineup , it’s 2017 and there’s ryzen out there, locked cpus should be thing of the past it’s stupid
psst: amd too is guilty of the stupid segmentation like 1800x and 1700x and 1700
3 indentical cpus segmented by a fking X letter and increase in one digit, that’s stupid, and all the bs about XFR is nonesense its making no difference, it’s just segmentaion for the sake of it
but at least with ryzen you can get 1700 and run the same clock as 1800x unlike intel locked cpus
I would take an Intel CPU over AMD any day of the week… They are proven to be faster in gaming and that is what 100% of this site is dedicated to… Anyone picking AMD over Intel are only doing it if gaming is secondary… And if they are picking AMD over Intel and gaming is their number 1 priority then they are making a fools choice.