Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Monday September 25 2017, @11:58PM   Printer-friendly
from the yeah-but-we-want-risc-v dept.

PCWorld:

Intel's new 8th-gen Core chips now include six cores on the high end, attacking one of AMD's Ryzen advantages.

[...] Orders for the Intel's new Core desktop chips will begin on Oct. 5, Anand Srivatsa, general manager of the desktop platform group at Intel, said. They will begin shipping later in the fourth quarter. Though Intel executives didn't use the term, the new chips have been referred to as part of the "Coffee Lake" family.

Of the six new desktop chips that Intel announced, the flagship offering is clearly the Core i7-8700K, which Srivatsa touted as its best gaming processor ever. The new Core i7-8700K will offer an additional 25 percent in frames per second running Microsoft's Gears of War 4, versus its 7th-gen Core i7-7700K—a 4-core, 8-thread part. Multitasking, though—such as gaming, streaming, and recording using the popular Player Unknown: Battlegrounds—will be a whopping 45 percent faster than a 7th-gen part, executives said.

Tom's Hardware:

Intel indicated that this 8th-generation part is built on what it calls a 14nm++ process. The company would not comment on the die size or transistor count at this time…

The company has added a few more knobs for the overclocking crowd to turn, as well. Turbo Boost 2.0 is still supported, but you now get per-core overclocking, a maximum memory ratio up to 8,400 MT/s, memory latency control, and PLM Trim controls. We've included a slide from Intel's press deck below. It lists some of the key specs and pricing. Notably, the high-end Core i7 part is $20 higher than initial Kaby Lake pricing; the Core i5 sits $15 higher. This move is likely designed to cover the additional costs of the silicon along with avoiding cannibalizing the existing Kaby Lake models. Cache sizes are higher and base clocks are lower, comparatively, but the single-core max frequencies are higher. TDP is also higher, presumably to support the higher core count.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:39PM (1 child)

    by linkdude64 (5482) on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:39PM (#573136)

    Can we please get some more data when statements like this are made? Power consumption? Clock speed? Price?!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:54PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:54PM (#573150) Journal

    I think the idea here is that for many users, Intel's lead in single-threaded performance makes it a better choice than AMD's high core multithreaded approach. So a gentle increase from 4 cores to 6 cores is more useful than AMD's 8 cores.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]