Eighth-gen Core desktop CPUs pack six cores and need new mobos

Intel formally announced a pretty big step forward in its mobile CPU lineup earlier today with the unveiling of four new eighth-generation Core mobile processors that stuff four cores and eight threads into a 15 W power envelope. The silicon manufacturer's website has a new product page with some information about the new Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs. Internet sleuths , including TR friend SH SOTN, were able to scrounge up higher-res shots of the box art for the desktop variants of those chips. The revised packaging has a new color scheme and apparently confirms rumors of increased core counts in desktop eight-gen Core processors.

The packaging shows that at least some Core i5 and Core i7 desktop CPUs will see their core counts increased from four to six. The box for the Core i5 model also seems to indicate that Hyper-Threading will be disabled on some of those chips. Core i7 desktop chips will apparently be Hyper-Threading-enabled as usual, for a total of at least twelve threads.

The packaging also confirms rumors that the new chips will require new motherboards with Intel's yet-to-be-announced 300-series chipsets. The integrated graphics processors in the new chips will be rebranded as "Intel UHD Graphics," though there are no underlying changes to the technology that we're aware of. The new chips still support two channels of DDR4 memory, sport Turbo Boost 2.0 clock speed management, and support Intel Smart Cache and Optane memory.

Outside of some rumors, we don't know precisely what kind of clock speed increases Intel will bring to the table for the desktop eighth-gen Core lineup, nor do we know how the chips will be priced or when to expect them in stores. We figure that reborn competition in the desktop CPU space from AMD's Ryzen processors might mean the 50% increase in core counts in the new CPUs won't come with a price hike attached when compared to current offerings.

Comments closed
    • WOOFLE
    • 3 years ago

    *need new mobos*
    Why does intel hate dolphins so much?

      • Growler
      • 3 years ago

      I believe [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJAlFyKHp_M<]Jonathon Coulton[/url<] said it best: And the dolphins are all phonies They seem nice enough at first But they pretend to be your friend Until they see you at your worst and then they leave you Without a word they swim away

    • Unknown-Error
    • 3 years ago

    And the spotlight Ryzen enjoyed comes to a crashing end. Bulldozer was moar cores while Ryzen is also moar cores with better IPC. A 16C/32T Threadripper can barely beat a 10C/20T 7900X. So other than the expected IPC jump from the PoS Bulldozer even with zen, AMD is still the moar cores company. But at least the cpu division is no longer the Garbage section at AMD. That distincion now goes to the GPU division or RTG (Really Terrible Graphics). Oh by way, while the Raven-Ridge cpu is decent the gpu is only half the performance of present top of the line Iris-pro. This is excluding the upcoming Iris-pro series.

      • jarder
      • 3 years ago

      You needed to edit that trolling garbage?

        • Gadoran
        • 3 years ago

        Everyone has its own opinions after all :).
        I think the AMD main problem is the process, that is unable to run Ryzen over 4Ghz with great repeatability. It is a pity if we think about this, without fanboy things but with a little of good analysis.
        Threadripper is a good SKU, still it is stunning to see a 16 cores cpu unable to beat “in average” a clearly less powerful 10 cores device. To me looks like a coitus interruptus and the main sin is in GloFo, a crap company that need to develop better processes instead to license from Samsung.
        We’ll se if the expertise of IBM scentists will be enough to compensate starting from 7nm.
        A company like AMD can not lose 10% of turbo and nealy all the o.c. capability only because at GloFo there is a bunch of idiots at work.

        Looking the 7900x vs. Threadripper, it is pretty understandable the announced Intel price list for many core SKUs. The Intel 16 core SKU will be only a little faster than Threadripper in multithread, but vastly better in less thread demanding software. This will be a mumble mumble problem for many customers, unfortunately are very few the softwares capable to stress enough all the cpus of a 16 core device. Cinebench does a good job but even Blender is uncapable to give good results and its sweet spot is for a lower number of cores and threads.

        Again it is not AMD sin, but many sw companies are right now tuned on 8/16 threads instead of 32.

    • Laykun
    • 3 years ago

    [quote<] chips will require new motherboards [/quote<] Why though? I'm not asking why in a technical sense, obviously Intel put something in their new chips that oh so just requires a new chipset, I'm asking why is it absolutely necessary to burn all your existing X170/X270 users? I'm positive this chip could have run just fine with the resources those chipsets provided and what ever optional feature that just requires this chipset we could probably gone without.

      • psuedonymous
      • 3 years ago

      [quote<]Why though? I'm not asking why in a technical sense, obviously Intel put something in their new chips that oh so just requires a new chipset, I'm asking why is it absolutely necessary to burn all your existing X170/X270 users? [/quote<] Because the socket pinout has changed to accommodate new features (e.g. HDMI 2.0, power pins for an extra two cores, etc). Two gens per socket has been standard for pretty much a decade now.

    • DPete27
    • 3 years ago

    Dang, I was hoping i5 would be 4c/8t.

    So presumably it will be:
    Pentium = 2C/4T
    i3 = 4C
    i5=6C
    i7 = 6C/12T

      • smilingcrow
      • 3 years ago

      Why would you prefer 4c/8t over 6c/6t unless you were hoping for lower pricing?
      HT is no match for 50% more cores even with a 10% clock speed deficit.

        • Beahmont
        • 3 years ago

        The 7700k’s numbers and the 7600k’s numbers vs Ryzen 1800’s numbers say otherwise.

          • smilingcrow
          • 3 years ago

          This has nothing to do with Ryzen’s SMT implementation though as it’s Intel v Intel and Intel’s HT gives you about 30% at most and in some cases nothing.

            • Beahmont
            • 3 years ago

            A 7700k with hyperthreading turned off is much more than 30% down in it’s numbers vs a Ryzen 1800 than when the same chip has hyperthreading turned on.

            • smilingcrow
            • 3 years ago

            I’ve never seen Intel’s HT claimed to typically offer much more than a 30% gain in real world applications. If you have a link to back that up I’d be very interested.
            Not sure why you’d mentioned Ryzen again!

            • curtisb
            • 3 years ago

            I believe Ryzen was mentioned as the point of reference for the performance delta between enabled and disabled. I’m not saying it’s right to use that as a metric, but I believe that’s why it was mentioned.

            • smilingcrow
            • 3 years ago

            You simply have to compare the 2 Intel chips directly so Ryzen is irrelevant!

            I found a review and apart from 7-zip which is almost 50% faster the i7 is around 30% faster using demanding software but that gain is also partly due to the higher clock speed and larger cache so HT itself is probably giving at best about 25% on average where it offers a benefit.
            By comparison 50% more cores will give nearer a 50% gain.
            Sure you can probably clock the 4c/8t chip a bit higher but at sane voltages I doubt it would clock more than 5% or so higher.
            I’d take the extra cores at a slightly lower clock speed but at a reasonable voltage any day.
            But some even delid a CPU to gain a few hundred MHz so each to their own.

            [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/10969/the-intel-core-i57600k-91w-review-the-more-amenable-mainstream-performer/4[/url<]

            • curtisb
            • 3 years ago

            Your reply is misplaced. I agree with you that Ryzen is irrelevant in the comparison. I was just offering an explanation as to why Beahmont might have felt the need to include it.

            However, I do think that the application in use dictates how much Hyper-Threading can help. It depends on how well optimized the application is, and sadly, most optimization has been done on server-side applications.

        • DPete27
        • 3 years ago

        Don’t get me wrong. I’d put strong consideration on a 6C i5. You might be right, perhaps a 6C i5 would par the i7-7700K in most benchmarks that are realistic for the vast majority of users. Time will tell.

          • smilingcrow
          • 3 years ago

          Since you mentioned a K chip a 6 core i5 should overclock to 4.5GHz at a sane voltage maybe even stock so it’s not giving up much clock speed to an i7 even if pushed to 5GHz.

        • nerdrage
        • 3 years ago

        Fewer cores usually mean higher clocks are possible in a given power envelope, which is generally better for gaming (assuming that’s what you care about).

          • Anonymous Coward
          • 3 years ago

          I’m really not sure if I’d place a bet on 4C/8T or 6C when it comes to gaming.

          That is assuming the same Intel arch and the same TDP. Also assuming a fair best effort on base and turbo clocks, cache sizes, etc. Intel of course would ensure the result went whichever way they wanted because they love to cripple things.

      • DeadOfKnight
      • 3 years ago

      I was hoping for 4c/4t at 5 GHz+ on all cores out of the box, but it seems Intel is always insisting on not bringing a chip to market targeted squarely at gamers. They try to keep up the illusion that their most expensive consumer chips are the best chips for games. Looks like the new gaming chip to get is a Core i3, overclocked.

        • trek205
        • 3 years ago

        A higher end gamer would be a damn fool to go with just a 4 core/4 thread CPU at this point as there are several games right now that will completely peg any i5. If all you want to do is look at Benchmark numbers then you might not realize but the reality is 4 cores can be a stuttery mess in a game like Mafia 3 which would run perfect otherwise with an i7. Hell even parts of Crysis 3 can’t even maintain 60fps with any i5 and that game is quite old now.

          • tsk
          • 3 years ago

          Bollocks. Just because you have seen some reviews artificially making the CPU a bottleneck by running at 1080p with a 1080Ti doesn’t mean you’ll see any meaningful difference between a 7600k and 7700k with graphics settings someone with that level of GPU would actually play at. And Mafia 3 has got to be the worst example of a game you could mention, the game engine and optimization is a piece of junk.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 3 years ago

            The “good enough” argument is pretty weak, especially since the guy said “higher end gamer”.

            • trek205
            • 3 years ago

            You are Beyond ignorant. I was not even talking about reviews making the i5 look bad. Hell I even clearly hinted that if you look at reviews then you would actually think the i5 is better than what it is based on just framerates as you don’t see the actual hitching that can occur. I turn off hyper threading and my CPU is fully pegged in several games. And I hate to break it to you but many games are poorly optimized so sometimes brute force is what gets the job done. So like I said in Mafia 3 there is no issue running all threads on an i7 but it’s a stuttering mess with hyper-threading disabled. And Watch Dogs 2 even fully pegs my i7 and we’ll have some hitches here in there if I disable hyper-threading. Ignorant people like you have no business commenting when you haven’t even tested games for yourself to see. Hell I probably spend more time just testing and benchmarking stuff that I do actually playing games nowadays. Only a moron would go with a 4 Thread CPU in a high-end gaming PC at this point.

      • Anonymous Coward
      • 3 years ago

      I like that lineup. Save hyperthreading for the expensive models. I’d prefer 6C to 4C/8T on desktop anyway.

        • VincentHanna
        • 3 years ago

        I disagree with this. Saving hyperthreading for the expensive models is like saving the sour mix for your high-end cocktails. Certainly, it’s nice to get something extra when you pay more, and almost everyone loves sour mix, but the “extra” shouldn’t be lemon juice water and sugar… It should be a top shelf-liquor.

        Hyperthreading is decades old, and simple to implement, and there is honestly no excuse for not enabling it (except maybe low-power applications, or clock-chasing.)

          • Anonymous Coward
          • 3 years ago

          Well, Intel will doubtless do something unnatural and petty in order to extract maximum profits, and given that, I’d take a 6C/6T instead of 4C/8T (or 4C/4T instead of 2C/4T) at any desktop price level. Let them use HT as their special sauce, and offer 6C for the unwashed masses.

    • bthylafh
    • 3 years ago

    <krogoth>Meh.</krogoth>

    • USAFTW
    • 3 years ago

    Really interested in a match up between current 8-core Ryzens and the i7 8700K. 6 high IPC Intel cores or 8 Haswell(ish)-level IPC Ryzen cores with lower clocks? Let the games begin!

      • ermo
      • 3 years ago

      In anything that takes advantage of AVX2, the 1800X will have a tough time, particularly if the chips are overclocked to the limit with identical cooling setups.

      AMD had better have a good Zen+ (or interrim Zen stepping) refresh ready [i<][b<]Real Soon Now™.[/b<][/i<]

        • blahsaysblah
        • 3 years ago

        Which is fine for a gamer, but the loss of iGPU and other functionality(like advanced throttling) is not something non-gamers would pay. It’s not like old days that a OC-ed CPU was no different than regular CPU. You lose out, at least on Intel side.

          • Beahmont
          • 3 years ago

          What are you talking about? The new Coffee Lake chips are 6 cores with an IGP…

          • ermo
          • 3 years ago

          OK, comparing stable overclocks that only ups the highest attainable frequency and doesn’t turn off power saving states, then.

          FWIW, I’m saying Coffee Lake might have the advantage here, not the other way around. =)

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 3 years ago

        Intel will no doubt apply pressure to AMD, and AMD won’t usually be able to respond in kind. Thats the way of things.

        However AMD has staked out a spot in the realm of perfectly good performance, and thats not going away.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 3 years ago

      Definitely depends on how it’s priced. If this is priced like the i7-7700K, then the 1800X’s multithreading advantage will be reduced and it’ll still be quite a bit more expensive.

    • SkyWarrior
    • 3 years ago

    Bring a new mac mini with one of the 15 watt 4 core 8 thread version or better 45 watt 6 core 12 thread version (Along with 32 gb of replaceable memory option) and make my day.

      • homerdog
      • 3 years ago

      What about a NUC? We sell them by the truckload. They are great.

        • blahsaysblah
        • 3 years ago

        NUCs are super over-priced poop with that single cooling solution no matter where you are on wattage(and it definitely was not overbuilt for the max wattage, it was definitely designed for the lower wattage parts).

        [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3250952<]ASRock Deskmini 110W[/url<] is head and shoulders better than any NUC.

        • SkyWarrior
        • 3 years ago

        They are great too. But i have tons of nix craft along with a need to use ms office without any dualboot or vms. Mac os is easy for that kind of stuff.

          • Kretschmer
          • 3 years ago

          What about WINE?

            • smilingcrow
            • 3 years ago

            Yes please.

      • adisor19
      • 3 years ago

      TAKE MY MONEY APPLE !! TAKE IT !

      Seriously, they better update the damn MacMini soon. It’s the running joke of the industry right now.. heck, even the damn MB Air got a lame update.

      Last time the mini did was over THREE years ago and it was a downgrade core wise..

      Adi

        • End User
        • 3 years ago

        It had better drive a 4K display with no Mission Control lag.

    • tsk
    • 3 years ago

    I’m curious what the difference between Coffe lake and kaby lake refresh is at this point. Is the difference all in the chipset? We know that the first 300 series motherboards will launch with kaby lake PCH and that a Cannon lake PCH is coming next year.

      • NTMBK
      • 3 years ago

      Coffee Lake is a new die with two extra cores, and apparently improved manufacturing process (14++, not 14+).

        • ChicagoDave
        • 3 years ago

        Has Intel released any info on what new features the 300 series consumer chipsets will offer? The following items come to mind:

        – PCIe 4.0 should start appearing soon.
        – AVX512 should be moving down the product stack as well
        – I assume Optane 2 will be a ways away since Optane 1 is so new and I don’t think it’s quite taken the world by storm like Intel would have hoped.
        – We’re also still stuck on DisplayPort 1.2 (DP 1.4 was published in March of 2016!)
        – HDMI 2.0 (currently only available with Alpine Ridge controller)

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This