Rumor: Specs of six-core Coffee Lake CPUs leak

One of the most oft-repeated complaints from Intel's haters is that the company has allowed its mainstream Core lineup to top out at four cores since its inception. That means, depending on how you count it, we've had eight or nine generations of quad-core CPUs as the pick of the litter. We heard this past November that Intel would be bringing six-core CPUs to the desktop platform, and about a month ago a Geekbench result for a six-core Coffee Lake CPU popped up. Today eTeknix seems to have another bit of news corroborating the idea: a chart of unknown origin listing lots of specifications for what are purportedly a trio of Coffee Lake CPUs. Grab the salt-shaker and let's dive in.

Image: eTeknix

For the most part, the table looks legitimate. It even uses Intel's favorite font, Clear Sans. The three processors described are all six-core models with 12MB of L3 cache, so we can reasonably expect that all three would be branded as Core i7s. The main memory interface is still dual-channel DDR4 at 2400 MT/s. Two of the described CPUs have a 95W TDP rating, while the third is spec'd for 65W. Notably, the two 95W chips are unlocked for overclocking.

The fastest of the chips purportedly has a base clock speed of 3.7 GHz, and it's supposed to turbo to 4.3 GHz on a single core. The other 95W CPU has a much lower base clock rate of 3.2 GHz and maximum turbo speed of 3.6 GHz, but otherwise it appears to be identical. The 65W processor once again has a lower base clock rate of 3.1 GHz, but it turbos nearly as high as its top-end cousin, to 4.2 GHz on a single core. Curiously, this list of specifications doesn't include a listing for Hyper-Threading, but it does note that all three CPUs will come with the usual GT2 graphics.

Coffee Lake is the fourth architecture on Intel's 14nm process. Despite that, Intel claims Coffee Lake CPUs could offer as much as a 30% increase in performance in the same power envelope. That claim comes from a comparison between a two-core, four-thread Kaby Lake part versus a four-core, eight-thread Coffee Lake chip, both 15W parts. Moving from four cores and eight threads to six cores and 12 threads on the desktop seems unlikely to produce similar gains. Still, Intel's continuing process optimizations seem to be bearing fruit. eTeknix says Coffee Lake six-core chips will arrive "late this year," so it seems we may have some time yet before we'll know for certain.

Comments closed
    • AMDisDEC
    • 2 years ago

    I’m not impressed.
    This CPU is definitely not Kosher.

    • elites2012
    • 2 years ago

    i see we are back to intel saying core speed does matter.

    • Sahrin
    • 2 years ago

    So basically in leaking this Intel is admitting fort for most users Ryzen is superior to Kaby Lake.

      • Klimax
      • 2 years ago

      Wishful thinking.

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      So Intel is attacked for not releasing anything new but then attacked for releasing something new.

      Or to apply your same logic in exactly the same way with exactly the same factual validity to AMD: Lisa Su appearing in multiple videos to tout ThreadRipper long before its released is AMD admitting for for most users Skylake X is superior to RyZen.

        • K-L-Waster
        • 2 years ago

        Let me help you work this out, because it’s actually completely consistent.

        Whatever Intel does is wrong. Whatever AMD does is perfect except for the vast conspiracy holding them down.

        Any questions?

    • Kretschmer
    • 2 years ago

    I’m curious to see how my 7700K holds up with two fewer cores but higher frequency. I’d be surprised if it falls far behind.

    • Krogoth
    • 2 years ago

    Pricing is the massive variable that will decide whatever Coffee Lake is going to be a hit or a niche product.

    If Intel wanted to do a price war they could easily replace the current quad-core Kaby-Lake SKUs with six-core SKUs and sell the lesser quad-core Coffee Lake SKUs as dirt-cheap chips ($199 and under).

    In any event, it looks like poor Kaby-Lake-X i7-7740 and i5-7640 are going to become another P4 Celeron (Too crippled for the platform and undercut by “lesser” and newer SKUs).

      • Airmantharp
      • 2 years ago

      Lol @ ‘i7-7740 becoming another crippled Celeron’

      That CPU is the current single-thread IPC champ, and if your workload fits or is otherwise limited to 4C8T, it’s the fastest CPU you can buy.

      The P4 Celeron was only useful for base tasks, and is hardly comparable.

        • Krogoth
        • 2 years ago

        You are better off getting a i7-7700K and any run of the mill Z270 board. The upcoming Coffee Lake SKUs are going to undercut it.

          • Airmantharp
          • 2 years ago

          You’re better off not getting anything today, if you can help it. That goes for every day of the week, but is especially true right now because Intel looks to be answering that middle ground question between Ryzen and the current 4C8T consumer-socket i7’s.

      • Gadoran
      • 2 years ago

      What a pile of crap.
      Intel does the necessary price to OEMs , far lower than the price listed in the official price list; try to think about an AMD price of a SKU, well Intel is doing a lower price (at least on equally competitive SKUs).
      This is an old story and likely you are not old enough to remember the past years. Intel can do a lot of discount on legacy processes, AMD nope because is fabless and the selling price has to remunerate the foundry (around 40% of the selling price of the piece of silicon) and the not so stellar yields of GloFo.

      About Kaby-Lake-X i7-7740 you are funny. It is the best on actual games. And don’t tell that “in future” games will are done in another manner….in future (many years)…..in future there are new cpus and new features around.

        • Krogoth
        • 2 years ago

        The first part is a complete non-sequitur.

        i7-7740K is a joke because it is tied to a more expensive platform which cannot take full advantage of. It only makes sense as stopgap filler for those who want to invest into the Socket 2066 platform for a future drop-in Skylake-X upgrade when prices should more reasonable.

        It is marginally better at gaming then the current i7-7700K which can easily match it with a very modest overclock. The upcoming high-end Coffee Lake quad-core SKU mostly likely have the same clockspeed.

    • w76
    • 2 years ago

    Thank you, AMD/Scott!

    I and many others said Intel was leaving performance on the table for lack of competition, Intel fanboys said “they have to compete with themselves!,” and now Intel is proving we were right. AMD releases Ryzen (which Intel had plenty of warning on to start preparations for this) and as soon as they could easily respond, here we go with an increase of core count. The first in many years. They didn’t even try to hide it along side a process shrink.

    If it’s well implemented though, it could hurt AMD. If Intel was aggressive on price, they could put AMD in the grave, but Intel isn’t that silly as to compete their way in to monopoly status. So my prediction: the 6 core parts will be relatively expensive to give AMD breathing room, and with their typical product segmentation of features that’ll also give AMD an edge.

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      If we can thank AMD for every Intel product for the next 10 years, then can we at least get a big thank you to Intel for developing Haswell and producing the compiler infrastructure that tends to get the best performance out of AMD’s version of Haswell known as RyZen?

      [url<]http://phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Haswell-vs-Znver1-GCC-5[/url<]

        • mcarson09
        • 2 years ago

        Intel’s Haswell-E beats thread ripper in multi-core benchs and the date stamp listed on those cpus (Xeon) is 2012. When Ryzen starts to affect Intel in the server market just maybe I’ll give them a thank you. The desktop market is having to fight with cell phones and laptops right now. AMD has not been competitive is the desktop market since the AM3 socket came out.

      • mcarson09
      • 2 years ago

      I’ll wait for Ryzen 2. I’ll let you guinea pigs iron out the hardware (CPU) and bios bugs.

        • ronch
        • 2 years ago

        Same here. Iron out the bugs, optimize the core, add features, improve efficiency. No rush for me to upgrade so I’m actually enjoying the wait.

    • Chrispy_
    • 2 years ago

    The only information that matters is still unknown:
    [b<]Pricing.[/b<] Intel already have chips with 6+ cores available and they're too expensive to bother with for most people. Being able to slot a 6-core chip into a S1151 board isn't going to help if the CPU's still cost too much. Also, the key demographic for these parts are the overclocking gamers who may decide that the lower speeds of these 6-core parts make them inferior for games that demand GHz over core count. If people really want more cores, I hear AMD have a very competitive 8C/16T option starting at just $329 (hey, that's less than a 7700K quad-core...)

      • Thresher
      • 2 years ago

      My guess is that they will start at $399. I don’t see them reducing their prices on existing parts by much, if any. This just widens the market.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        Between this purported chip and Kaby Lake X quad-cores, there’s going to be so much overlap that people will die in the flooding.

        • Beahmont
        • 2 years ago

        So you think the Coffee Lake 6 cores are going to MSRP for $10 more than the 6 core Skylake-X at $389 even though the Skylake-X has more PCIe 3 lanes and a quad core memory controller? Why in the world would you think that?

          • synthtel2
          • 2 years ago

          The i7-3820 and i7-4820K both listed for less than the top 115x parts (same core count). $400 seems pretty high for an 115x 6C12T starting price, but about right for the SKU most people like us will be buying. It’s still cheaper for a consumer to go 115x because of the platform cost.

          In this case, Coffee Lake probably also has a substantial advantage in power efficiency to recommend it.

      • brucek2
      • 2 years ago

      You mentioned the second piece of information that matters too, for some users even more: overall performance.

      Yes Intel has overpriced home cpu’s with > 4 cores, but I would’ve bought them anyway had I felt they were better for my use cases. But too often what matters much more is how fast 1 or 2 cores are. My rough sense is that’s still true in 2017 for many home use scenarios.

      Of course there’s a chicken and egg issue here. If every computer had 8+ cores, probably a lot more regular software would be looking to take advantage of them.

      • NeoForever
      • 2 years ago

      [quote<]The only information that matters is still unknown: Pricing.[/quote<] Why worry about pricing when we have Pryzen.

        • ronch
        • 2 years ago

        Yeah. Why pay more for Intel and get the same performance? Or get less performance for the same price? Reliability? Efficiency? Durability? AMD has efficiency nailed and early teething issues with Ryzen continuously get ironed out as we type. And I see no reason why Intel CPUs would be more durable unless you heavily overclock Ryzen.

          • Klimax
          • 2 years ago

          Incorrect. There is still quite performance gap between Intel and AMD. These chips? Will just underline it again. At 3,7GHz with 6 cores they are going to showcase once again how big gulf between them is.

          Reminder: The only reason why AMD actually got some hits in, was Intel’s conservative clocking. That’s all. (Haswell 5960x can demonstrate it at any time)

      • mcarson09
      • 2 years ago

      Ebay has good prices on 10+ core Xeons with quad channel memory support. You casuals are still sitting on dual channel memory LOL.

      • Gadoran
      • 2 years ago

      Be certain that Intel is doing a very good price to OEMs :). Forget the price list, it was an old topic in many forums years ago. Try to divide these prices with a divident like 2 or 3 depending on SKU.

    • ronch
    • 2 years ago

    There’s no way these things will retail below $350 unless Intel drops prices across the board. The top 3.7GHz part will surely cost an arm and a leg too. With those prices one can’t ignore the 1600X at $250.

      • K-L-Waster
      • 2 years ago

      You’re not necessarily wrong, but I’d hold off on judging pricing until we actually see it.

        • ronch
        • 2 years ago

        I just don’t think Intel will slot these things price-wise against Ryzen 5 6-cores and move their 4C/8T i7 SKUs down. Non-0 chance, but unlikely.

          • Airmantharp
          • 2 years ago

          4C8T looks to be going away, if that makes any sense: Intel seems to be going to 6C6T for i5’s and 6C12T for i7’s. Maybe i3’s will come in 4C8T variants?

            • ronch
            • 2 years ago

            So they’re now forced to give us more cores and threads for every product tier, thanks to Ryzen.

            • Airmantharp
            • 2 years ago

            That they’ve been planning to do for years, as clockspeeds and IPC have more or less hit a wall?

            More cores was literally AMD’s only play, and praise the Gods, they played it, but Intel was planning on giving their customers a reason to upgrade either way. It’s not like AMD actually has the capacity to fill the gap if Intel doesn’t.

    • Flying Fox
    • 2 years ago

    People keep talking about the 6-core Coffee is going to impress and all that, but I can’t help but wonder whether the dual channel memory will be a bottleneck there? It may be use case specific though.

      • DPete27
      • 2 years ago

      Ryzen is dual channel and it’s memory controller isn’t as good as Intel. Does that answer your question?

        • Flying Fox
        • 2 years ago

        Ryzen performance increases when higher memory speeds are achieved, so for Ryzen and most of the benchmarked scenarios, bandwidth does help (although speeds and how many channels are different in a sense). Granted we are talking Intel, so I try not to let the 2 mingled with each other. Why does every time something Intel is discussed people have to drag AMD into the discussion? :hmm:

          • DPete27
          • 2 years ago

          1) I brought AMD into the discussion because they have 8C/16T CPUs with 2 memory channels. Why speculate?

          2) Hopefully someone can fill in here because I can’t remember the exact details and don’t have time to look them up. IIRC, Ryzen intra-chip communications are linked to RAM speed with more dependency than Intel architecture.

        • chuckula
        • 2 years ago

        If all the rumors about the 7nm die-shrink of RyZen are true then there will be 12-core parts that purportedly fit into the AM4 Socket and will have the exact same 2 channels of DDR4 memory.

        So if AM4 is enough for 8 cores today and 12 cores in the future, I think these 6 core parts will be OK.

          • Flying Fox
          • 2 years ago

          Then why are people all up in arms with the Kaby Lake-X on the memory channel? [i<][b<]Other than[/i<][/b<] the fact that it is just untapped performance from what the platform can theoretically provide.

            • chuckula
            • 2 years ago

            Don’t worry, if the Kaby-X chips had never been released then there would just be a different set of complaints about how Intel never provides an entry-level chip to their high-end platform and doesn’t care about single-threaded performance in HEDT.

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            Actually, nobody would give a flying hoot expect for those would want to get onto Socket 2066 platform without spending an arm and leg. IMO, i7-7800 and i7-7820 are quite reasonable for their price points and AMD has no direct answer to them yet.

            • jts888
            • 2 years ago

            What on Earth do you imagine a proper “direct answer” to i7-7800 to be? A 2ch/24L 1600X in a TR4 package marked up to $350?

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            There’s none. That’s exactly the point. AMD has nothing in the $499-599 range to go up against i7-7800 and i7-7820 chips. They are faster then Ryzen X1800 and have more PCIe lanes then it. They can even match 12-core Threadripper in most workloads if you are brave enough to put an aggressively overclock. The only advantage that Threadripper has is having 66 PCIe lanes but that starts at $799.

            AMD doesn’t want to cannibalize their X1800 sales and 12-core Threadripper sales by introducing a binned 8-coreThreadripper chip (Half of the CCX are disabled on both dies).

            • jts888
            • 2 years ago

            TR won’t start at $800, it’s just that only the 1920x has been announced for 12c SKUs. I’m on the fence about expecting a ~$550 8c, but a ~$650 lower clocked 12c is more or less guaranteed. AMD can’t be as granular as Intel on core count (can only do 100%, 75%, 50% of 8c or 16c), so they have to use clock binnings to create price points.

            • Zizy
            • 2 years ago

            25% is an option too – look at entry Epyc chip. Obviously not desirable for AMD, but it is not impossible 🙂

            600-ish lower clocks 12C is imo quite likely after a while when TR cools down. It doesn’t really compete with 8C Ryzen stuff, as everyone there is getting 300-ish chips anyway.

            I wouldn’t expect TR with 4 or 8C though, as it doesn’t make all that much sense. It would hit the same 4GHz wall the 16C will, so ST performance would be the same. When board costs 300 and the main reason to buy the platform is to put multiple GPUs and/or tons of RAM, I don’t think many people would really care for 8C stuff.
            I would be more interested if AMD makes a high clocked 8C Epyc – same ST performance and even way more RAM and PCIe than TR.

            • Zizy
            • 2 years ago

            There are no 1800X sales, people are getting 1700 and 1700X more often than 1800X, at least based on Mindfactory. Numbers at the time of writing this post are:
            (top of the chart is 1600 with 5660 sold)
            3900 1700, 3060 1700X, 1710 1800X.
            So, the 1800X is just 1/5 of 8C Ryzen sales. 1/10 of all Ryzen sales. The only chips less popular are the 4C ones. There is nothing to cannibalize here.
            You can’t rely on these numbers 100%, as this is a single store, but it paints the same overall picture I got impression of based on what people are saying they are buying – 1600(X) dominates for home PCs. 4C isn’t considered at all (6C is too close in price), while 1700(X) is sometimes used in cheapo workstations and probably has most sales before 6C was released. 1800X is fanboy edition.

            8C TR could cannibalize the 12C TR. But the bigger problem is that people will compare it to 6C and 8C Intel chips, where it will lose, and devalue the whole TR platform. Also, when you are spending 300 on board, 400 on RAM and 1k on 2 GPUs (otherwise why bother with 8C TR, 8C Ryzen makes more sense), 800 vs 600 doesn’t change all that much in the end. A better chip to compete with 8C would be still 12C 1900X at lower clocks, and obviously overclockable to the same top speed.

            • Zizy
            • 2 years ago

            There is no “other than”. This is exactly the reason. It just doesn’t make any sense to release it on that platform. The same CPUs could be released for the Z270 boards and it would make way more sense. Now you are paying ~100 extra for the board you can’t even use properly – that PCIe and memory lanes are just wasted. And upgrade path is shaky at best, cause nobody would want to buy these used Kaby-X chips when you decide to replace the CPU. i7 has some purpose now for the max gaming performance, money is not an issue crowd. When a faster chip comes along and you want to move off, nobody will want it.

            The 6C part makes sense for some memory bound workloads and when you want to put more GPUs on it, despite crippled lanes – it is a way better entry to the platform that will be much easier to sell in a few years. And is quite close to the Kaby-X i7 in price anyway, so entry point costs about the same.

      • homerdog
      • 2 years ago

      Even the HEDT stuff doesn’t seem to gain all that much from >2 channels except in some non gaming applications. I think a 6 core Coffee Lake should be fine, although obviously some things would benefit from more memory bandwidth.

        • mcarson09
        • 2 years ago

        HEDT is not just for web browsing like those dual channel low core count gaming boxes. When you factor in multiple VMs and DBs that using 128GB+ of ram all while you play a game in the background is when you see Quad channel memory shine.

      • Airmantharp
      • 2 years ago

      Remember that the HEDT/server parts with quad-channel controllers don’t typically run the memory as fast as the dual-channel desktop versions, especially when overclocking comes into play for the consumer-branded HEDT parts versus consumer socketed parts.

      What quad-channel memory controllers do accomplish is the ability to add boatloads of RAM in amounts exceeding 1TB, something that’s largely irrelevant for consumer desktops where 64GB of DDR4-3200+ is easy peasy and overkill for nearly any consumer-oriented workload.

    • meerkt
    • 2 years ago

    A 65W part with almost the same base clock as a 95W, but faster turbo?

      • DPete27
      • 2 years ago

      What’s the matter, you don’t think Intel can crank 6 cores to 3.9GHz @ 65W? No faith!

        • magila
        • 2 years ago

        Remember, turbo clock rates are not a guarantee. The CPU may throttle due to TDP limits long before it hits the max turbo clock. Intel has already shipped CPUs with hopelessly optimistic turbo clocks. I have an XPS 13 with an i7-7560U which boasts a max dual core turbo clock of 3.7 GHz on a 15W TDP, but for most workloads you’ll be lucky to hit 3GHz with both cores fully loaded.

          • DPete27
          • 2 years ago

          Applying laptop CPU trends to desktop parts is not a fair comparison.

            • magila
            • 2 years ago

            Why would Intel be willing to ship laptop CPUs with unrealistic turbo clocks but not desktop CPUs?

            • DPete27
            • 2 years ago

            In laptops, the ability (or inability) to sustain max turbo clocks is left to the laptop manufacturer since they’re the ones that design the cooling solutions. Some laptops have much better cooling solutions than others. None of that is Intel’s fault.

            [i<]Typically[/i<] the stock heatsinks that come with desktop CPUs will not induce throttling at stock clocks and voltages (ie no OCing). Basically, if a desktop CPU is throttling, there's definitely something very wrong.

            • magila
            • 2 years ago

            This has nothing to do with cooling. The i7-7560U I mentioned throttles its clock rate once power consumption hits 15W regardless of what its temperature is. In fact the XPS 13 is able to keep the CPU in the low 80C range when running at 15W, so cooling is not the limiting factor (thermal throttling doesn’t kick in until 100C).

            Existing desktop CPUs rarely hit their TDP limits at stock clocks except when running AVX2 workloads. Overclockers usually disable TDP limits entirely, which is isn’t really the best thing to do, but whatever. With the move to 6 cores it would not be surprising if we started to see TDP throttling become more common, similar to what has happened with laptop CPUs.

            • synthtel2
            • 2 years ago

            …. And not only is that a thing that can happen, but it’s arguably advantageous for the same reason having turbo in the first place is. Nobody wants their heavy workloads blowing the power budget, but why not crank clocks way up on light workloads? It just makes the real performance levels a bit tough to figure out when that strategy is used heavily.

            • DPete27
            • 2 years ago

            Are you aware that the max boost clock rate advertised is for a single core/thread active? Just checking.

            Also, the number of i7-7560U’s in the wild are pretty limited. If you’re spending that much, most would opt for the HQ model’s true 4C/8T.

            • magila
            • 2 years ago

            The i7-7560U was just an example because that’s what I have access to. You’ll see the same thing with other low TDP CPUs.

            There are different turbo clock rates depending on how many cores are active. The 3.7GHz rate I referenced is when two cores are active. Wikipedia has a nice table showing all the turbo clock rates for Kaby Lake CPUs:

            [url<]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaby_Lake[/url<]

      • jihadjoe
      • 2 years ago

      Binning?

      • MOSFET
      • 2 years ago

      I have a feeling that slow 95W chip is hitting a certain price point, like a Core i5-7400 or 7500. Most will probably hit clock speeds similar to the high-clock 95W chip, and purportedly they are unlocked. The 65W part looks really fast on paper, and probably will be, but that’s not a large heat envelope for overclocking or sustained multi-core turbo.

    • DPete27
    • 2 years ago

    Pentium 2C/4T
    i3 4C/4T
    i5 4C/8T
    i7 6C/12T

      • Topinio
      • 2 years ago

      Like it’ll be that simple?

        • Kurotetsu
        • 2 years ago

        This.

        My predictions:

        The Pentiums, assuming Intel continues enabling H-T on them, and Core i3s will both be 2C/4T, but differentiated by cache size, turbo boost (Pentiums will continue to not have it), and maybe the integrated GPU.

        i5 will continue to be quad cores with no H-T

        i7 will be a mismash of 4 and 6-core chips with H-T, since it looks like Intel wants to reserve the i9 branding for its ultra expensive enthusiast platforms.

          • captaintrav
          • 2 years ago

          Do any i3s have Turbo Boost yet?

        • Wirko
        • 2 years ago

        For the sake of simplicity, let’s forget that U- and Y-series mobile processors exist too.

      • Longsdivision
      • 2 years ago

      Someone already screwed up how the pattern at i7

      i7 6C/6T
      i9 6C/12T
      i11 8C/8T
      i13 8C/16T

      • Chrispy_
      • 2 years ago

      Chips that have cores without hyperthreading for market segmentation reasons make me a sad panda.

      I’d rather see this:

      i1 = non Core, low-power architecture, like Goldmont/Apollo Lake/CoreM etc –
      i3 = 2C/4T
      i5 = 4C/8T
      i7 = 6C/12T
      i9 = 8C+ on LGA 2066

      • mcarson09
      • 2 years ago

      The i7 6950X is 10 core 20 thread.

      [url<]http://ark.intel.com/products/94456/Intel-Core-i7-6950X-Processor-Extreme-Edition-25M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz[/url<]

    • chuckula
    • 2 years ago

    [quote<]It even uses Intel's favorite font, Clear Sans. [/quote<] The CSI-level analysis of these leaks is most impressive.

      • TravelMug
      • 2 years ago

      Enhance!

        • Sargent Duck
        • 2 years ago

        Freeze,Rotate,Zoom,Focus,Enhance!

        [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EwZQddc3kY[/url<]

          • mikewinddale
          • 2 years ago

          From NTSF:SD:SUV: [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbCWYm7B_B4[/url<]

          • cynan
          • 2 years ago

          Silly hollywood… Everyone knows you can’t actually focus an image after the fact… But replace the word “focus” with “sharpen”, and suddenly that whole scene becomes the epitome of eerily presient and tight surveillance science fiction dialogue. Kudos to the writers!

        • Captain Ned
        • 2 years ago

        Enhance?? Bugger those other vids, this is THE enhance scene.

        [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHepKd38pr0[/url<]

      • tay
      • 2 years ago

      Well?

      [url<]https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/not-for-the-first-time-microsofts-fonts-have-caught-out-forgers/[/url<]

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This