>a i5 with 6 cores

>>61496664
D E S P E R A T E D

>>61496664
Does Kaby Lake even have ability to set all those different core turbo speeds?

File: 1422520723513.png (98KB, 600x500px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 600x500px

>>61496664
I hope this is ringbus

File: 1419279114653.jpg (27KB, 284x305px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 284x305px

just add more cores

File: dead-horse.gif (129KB, 300x232px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 300x232px

A day late, a dollar short

>>61496664
I wonder if it'll work as bad as 7800x

File: 1419634154238.jpg (1MB, 1845x1923px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1845x1923px

>>61496664
>lga1151
Slot in upgrade for z270? Has the jew finally been beaten into submission?

File: Impressive.webm (643KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 320x320px

>i5 8400
>2.8ghz locked clock
>people will still buy this over a r5 1600 even if it costs 260$ vs 199$ for the AMD chip

Its impressive how stupid people actually are

>>61496731
Does not guarantee backwards compatibility.

>>61496731
Ha ha just like Broadwells were drop-in upgrades for 80 series chipsets amirite?

>>61496748
I mean they have literally nothing new on the chipset this time around, skylake to kaby was drop in upgrade.

>>61496757
When broadwell was out intel was in full jew moad, times may be changing anon.

>>61496775
4c is like 65w, 95w seems about right

>>61496775
It's gonna be
A
H O U S E F I R E.

Good. We've been stuck at four cores for too long.

>>61496748
Bet it will require a kaby lake cpu to upgrade the bios a min
Also I doubt most z270 mobos will have the VRM to OC the 6 core chip anyway
Its going to be slower than the 7700k in gaming as its clocked much lower across the board
Maybe the i3 will come as a quad core finally relishing the dual cores HT chips to pentium and below
Core i3 chips have been around as dual core four thread overpriced shit for 7.5 years now
Its time to stop. I dont think any i3 chip has been worth the price they are charging.

File: vrdsux1407739643252.jpg (29KB, 384x384px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 384x384px

I guess 1152 pins on a new +240$ motherboard socket and +2% improvement are out of the menu by now

>>61496812
Yes, not its +0% improvement, but with moar coarz!

>>61496731
No, it's just that they still haven't managed to crank out a new µarch, which is where new sockets usually come in (SNB, HSW, SKL).

>>61496728
It's not using mesh or changed cache layout. It's Kaby Lake with more cores and less clocks.

File: 1487444227569.jpg (99KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 600x600px

i5-8600K
>6c/6t
>3.5GHz base
>1.5MB L2
>9MB L3
>95W TDP

R5 1600
>6c/12t
>3.6GHz base
>3MB L2
>16MB L3
>65W TDP

Is Intel taking the piss?

File: 7700K OC.png (84KB, 837x903px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 837x903px

>>61496788
Yeah you're right according to this thing. I think we can also determine an OC to 4.5 GHz would eat up ~135 watts.

>>61496931
Seems like they're putting all their cards on the "MUH FLAGSHIP" i7-8700K and hoping everyone just buys that one.

>>61496844
While it's probably true that there's just no reason to not have moar coars with modern fabrication, it's also doubtful that there's much reason to. I'm considering buying a Ryzen just because it's fun with a new microarch, but I'm currently doing virtually nothing where I'm even using the four non-SMT cores on my i5.

>a i5
>a
>not an

fuck you OP

>>61496951
>less than 10% performance gain over default clocks even at the extremes
Why would anyone mess around with custom coolers, heat up their rooms and risk silent data loss for this shit? Overclocking desire should be classified as a disease.

>>61496969
>>61496931
yeah, I think they're still gonna try to aim for single core performance only so that they can go show how "Intel has better gaming performance" on their presentations about servers
also i did a mistake on that 3.6GHz base for R5 1600, should be 3.2GHz

>>61497046
>single core perf with 6 Intel cores
Not gonna to happen.

>>61496740
Her legs are going to be massive if she ever slims down.

>>61497046
1600X XFR's to 4.1 GHz
i7-8700K Turboboosts to 4.3 GHz on one core (if these leaks are correct)

Even when you factor in IPC that's not a huge difference.

File: Intel-Coffee-Lake-Core-i7-8700K-6-Core-CPU.jpg (381KB, 1242x1121px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1242x1121px

Only CPU on this list that looks remotely interesting is the i7-8700K. What appears to be the i5-8600K looks rather anemic.

>>61496993
Fuck you, Op.
ftfy

>>61496664
Is anything known about the release date. I'll laugh my ass off if it's after Zen+.

>>61497526
there won't be zen+

covfefe lake will probably arrive before zen2 and attract all the dumb people unfortunately

>>61497146
Based on kaby arch, teorically chips could support up to 5ghz on a fair number of dies. All up to oc.

>not even 8cores/16threads

BACK TO THE RYZEN THREAD.

INTEL IS FUCKING FINISHED!!!

File: intel glue.png (81KB, 244x274px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 244x274px

>>61497630
If only they had some sort of .. glue .. to hold them all together.

>>61497698
>inteltards buy coffee lake
>zen2 comes out a few months later, giving a 8 core cpu running at 4.5GHz and able to overclock to 5GHz and also a 10% IPC increase
>now AMD has processors with better single and multi threaded performance than intel

>>61496740
holy shit that table was made by dwarven Ironworkers

>>61497301
4ghz all core turbo? The very same numbers that are killing x299 at stock, doesn't look good.

File: Koala.jpg (763KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

763KB, 1024x768px

>>61496664
Hmm, i5 8400 whould be interesting if there comes itx boards that can bclk oc like on some 1151 boards. It it's priced sanely...

>socket 1151
Neat.

>>61497915
BCLK overclock only worked on Z170, and that needs a BIOS update to use CPUs newer than Skylake

(((Conveniently))) that BIOS update blocks BCLK overclocking

t. currently using an i3 6100 at 4.6

Napkin math time. By my crappy calculations i7-8700K will be 15% faster single core and 9% faster multicore at stock. OCs are still pretty unknown at this point.

>>61498004
Oops forgot to mention I was comparing against a 1600X.

>>61497980
Yea I know, doubt we'll ever see it again sadly.

A friend upgraded to i5 6600k and a b150 board, he couldn't even set his ram to their stock 2400mhz, 2133 is all you get goyim.

INTEl NOOOoooOOOooooo

>>61498147
INTEL YES

>>61496718
You're not funny.

>>61497888
see
>>61496951
It's basically 64 watts*1.5=96 watts which is within expected range.

>>61497856
I for one welcome our new overlords

>>61498026

And it will be double the price because intel is fucking retarded.

Finally made the jumo from my 3570k to an R7 and im not looking back. Love my ryzen and really love the price. AMD did a damn good job shaking things up with Intel, i wish they wete able to do the same woth GPUs though

Revised shitty napkin math:

15-17% single core
9-11% multicore

>>61498551
MSRP will probably be $340-$350 just like before, I'd be really surprised if they raised the MSRP.

1600X MSRP is $250 so you're looking at $100 more for potentially single digit improvements. Unless you delid and OC at which point you're looking at a much higher price tag for more expensive cooling and an OC capable Z370 motherboard etc.

File: amazaryzen.png (68KB, 766x668px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 766x668px

>>61498573
Yeah at least Polaris was a good mid-range performer before the miners swarmed in.

File: 1377849836966.jpg (13KB, 254x230px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 254x230px

>>61496664
So Pentium is now 2c/4t, i5 is going to 6c/6t and i7 is 6c/12t.

Did they do the Pentium hyperbreading in preparation for 4c/4t i3's?

>>61498772
As core counts increase, they're running out of ways to artifically segment their market.

>>61496931
ID is 2438507 on Gelbooru. You're welcome.

File: 11.png (744KB, 956x871px) Image search: [Google]

744KB, 956x871px

>>61498607
>i
Yeah i was lucky enough to grab an rx480 for 180 on sale right before that. still wish i had like 1070 level performance tttas all i really need rx480 is just a tad under what i need.

>>61496740
good for her

>>61498106
wut. I'm running on 3k.

>>61498963
Yep, shame the fatties NOT at the gym.

>>61498963
>>61499748
being at the gym but still eating shit doesnt do anything and makes you die faster.

>>61499689
Sorry

>>61496906
>It's not using mesh
Source?

what a time to be alive. seeing intel so desperate is great.

fuck you fucking bastards. fuck you and your overpriced shit.

posting from my shitty i3 3200 ivy nigger bridge cpu and from my atom n2600 fucking abortion

>>61496969
i7 8700k
>6c/12t
>3.7 GHz base
>1.5 MB L2 (256KiB per core)
>12 MiB L3
>95W TDP

R7 1700
>8c/16t
>3.7 GHz base
>4 MB L2 (512KiB per core)
>16 MiB L3
>65W TDP

So, why would anyone buy a 8700k instead of a much cheaper R7 1700?

>>61496718
You are funny.

is their a ascii goatse sticker, i need one

>>61502700
I have various old Intel CPUs (and AMD) and still want to see them suffer for what they did in the Bentium 4 days.

>>61497972
>socket 1151v3

Forgot that part

>>61504895
Not confirmed yet. It's more of a sidegrade from Kaby Lake anyway.

Well, it can't be any worse than the Skylake-X abortion.

But it looks like it's launching late 2017, and Pinnacle Ridge is off a few months from it

>>61504910
>Pinnacle Ridge
Is probably cancelled.

>>61504928
Nothing indicates that.

>socket 1151
does this mean my z170 board was a good investment. three generations on one chipset.

>>61504944
>three "generations"
Which are Skylake with moar niggahurtz or moar corez.

>>61502844
the 1700 is a 3.0ghz base you fucking mook

File: mpv-shot0053.jpg (136KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1280x720px

>>61505003
The comparison is pointless since Intel's TDP figures have nothing to do with reality.

>>61505041
TDP ≠ power consumption

>>61505088
Yeah, especially when power consumption goes 3x over rated TDP

Not even Presshot was outright lying like this.

>>61502844
Gaymen.

>>61505165
Yeah just think off all those games optimized with Intel compilers.

>>61496664
"leak"

>>61505165
I don't even think 6 core Cofeelake will be something special, people are forgetting that the more cores you add the more latency you have, and 6 cores high clocking cores at 2 channels is far from optimal.
If Intel could have just slapped 2 cores already on skylake easily, it would have happened, those two cores need more bandwidth, more uncore and more everything and it seems like that "more everything" stays the same as the 4 core versions.

Secondly I don't believe for a second Intel would humiliate half its HEDT lineup with a mainstream CPU

>>61505203
>Secondly I don't believe for a second Intel would humiliate half its HEDT lineup with a mainstream CPU

if intel has proven anything this year it's that they're absolutely fucktarded enough to cannibalize their own sales

>>61505203
Maybe they've already written X299 off as a loss.

>>61497301
I would rather have a 1600X overclocked to 4Ghz on all cores than that 8700k that turbos to 4Ghz on all cores.

No game needs more than 4Ghz with modern IPC to do at least like 90fps. And most games do near or above 144 at that.
The gains for overclocking Kabylake to 4.5-5GHz on all cores are so tiny and not worth the motherboard/cooler cost.

>>61499773
How do you know that she is not eating well? People do not instantly get thin when they start working out and eating right.

>>61506341
I would rather have a 1600X period. 8700K is $100 more expensive for marginal gains and I can't upgrade to Zen 2 when it comes out.

>>61506341
>n IPC to do at least like 90fps. And most games do near or above 144 at that.
>The gains for overclocking Kabylake to 4.5-5GHz on a
90 fps? what do youneed 60 fps for? help hes trying to get 30 fps

>>61496664
THANK YOU BASED AMD

>>61496731
Punished Jew

>>61496740
at least she's trying man

>>61496812
Pls delet this photo

>>61496684
kek

>>61505088
A computer's heat is literally the electricity wasted to internal resistance.

>>61496664
>Lowering clockspeeds
>Chips will be slower than 7700k in all programs that use don't use more than 4c/8t

>>61508090
It's a sidegrade compared to 7700K. Better than 6700K which was literally nothing and arguably worse.

>all these AMDrones shook
>muh PinappleRidge
(lol

>>61498914
thanks, anon

>>61508364
t. Brain JUSTnich

File: lisa su smug.png (123KB, 240x286px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 240x286px

>>61508364
Yep, we're all terrified that a $350 1600X and a $240 Phenom II is gonna BTFO everything AMD has to offer.

>>61508234
?

The 6700K and 7700K have identical performance clock for clock, and only a 200MHz or so margin in terms of average max overclocks. The number of people actually running their 7700K at 5GHz for anything more than benching is tiny as well, because the heat and power draw just aren't worth it.

>>61508445
That's what I meant. I probably worded it poorly.