THANK YOU BASED INTEL

>3.9 ghz on 1.05v
AMD tards jelly as fuck

Excuse me, I don't buy CPUs with TIM under IHS as a rule.

File: Average.png (38KB, 1309x956px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 1309x956px

>>61491714
Oh boy, I can't wait to get my Intel® version of a Ryzen 1600!

>>61492489
>3.9GHz
>Ryzen 1600

>>61491714
>80 watts
>clocks don't match previous leaks
>level 2 blanked out

Seems legit bro.

File: 1475211353488.jpg (108KB, 782x782px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 782x782px

>>61492545
DELETE

File: Power.png (39KB, 1309x956px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1309x956px

>>61492503
>4.7GHz
>i7-7800X

>>61492489
Thing is Coffee Lake S is going to be Kaby Lake with more cores and less clocks. No mesh bullshit or fucked with cache.

>>61492873
enjoy your 10% performance advantage over ryzen then

>>61491736
>>3.9 ghz on 1.05v
>AMD tards jelly as fuck

While using 80 watts

File: 1491166649444.jpg (66KB, 568x612px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 568x612px

>>61492979

Intel users have been enjoying that since Pentium 4.

File: 1499957247669.png (84KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 653x726px

Just Wait™ AMD you're gonna get what's coming to you

File: 1500513737776.png (246KB, 882x758px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 882x758px

>>61494285

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd,685-29.html

>>61494285
Kill yourself, tripfag.

>>61492787
INTEL REBRANDXEON HOUSEFIRES

>>61494326
IM Wait™ !!!!

>>61492489
DELIT DIS!!!!

>Level 2
>halfway erased
Bad ms paint job.

>>61491714
Doubt it'll even outperform Broadwell-E with the snipped L3.

>>61496004
It's not using the mesh or cache changes Skylake-X is. It's literally more cores Kaby Lake.

>>61496106
But it only has 12MB L3 versus 15MB on previous hexa core Intel chips (prior to the current infernos).

>>61496565
7700K has 4C, 8M L3. This has 6C, 12M L3, it's Kaby with more cores

>>61496599
Yeah, you already said that. I'm not sure what that has to do with my point though. Previous Intel hexa cores had 15MB of L3 cache. This has 12MB of L3 cache. This puts it at a disadvantage compared to those chips. What is confusing you about this?

>>61496745
I'm not the other guy. You specifically said
>>61496004
>snipped L3
which is factually incorrect. This is based on Kaby Lake which has always had 2MB L3/core, as such it has 12MB, because it has 6C instead of 4. Nothing has been snipped and it's unlikely 3MB of extra L3 will make it perform worse than a Broadwell-E 6C because Kaby Lake has slightly superior clocks and slightly superior IPC. Yeah, IPC is slightly better on Skylake/Kaby Lake despite having less L3.

>>61496861
It was blatantly obvious what I meant. You're just being a bore to try and look clever on the internet. But you don't, because it's entirely irrelevant how much L3 cache the lesser core variants had. Intel's previous hexa core chips took previous mainstream architectures that had a 2MB/core L3 setup initially and upped that to 2.5MB/core for the higher core count chips. There was literally nothing stopping Intel from doing the same thing with Coffee Lake, beyond wanting to cut costs (after all, this is a mere mainstream chip). So yes, it absolutely has been snipped relative to Intel's previous form for moving existing architectures to higher core counts.

As for how it'll affect performance, your hypothesising is irrelevant, as is your estimate of potential clocks. If you're expecting Coffee Lake to hit 7700K-esque speeds, you're sorely mistaken. It's unlikely to clock any higher than current or previous hexa core parts. And we've already seen the impact that reduced L3 cache size has had on Skylake-X in terms of gaming performance at least. I don't see it outperforming a 6800K/6850K, and I expect to be proven right. I'll be sure to screencap this and use it for internet points later when I am.

>>61497020
Those were HEDT, this is mainstream.