Rumor: Details spill on the second wave of Coffee Lake desktop CPUs

Intel's October launch of its eighth-generation Core mainstream desktop parts was sparser than normal: just six models included in the original rollout. The four-core, four-thread Core i3-8100 and i3-8350K, the six-core, six-thread Core i5-8400 and i5-8600K, and the six-core, 12-thread Core i7-8700 and i7-8700K have remained the only eighth-generation Intel Core options for desktop builders over the last three months. The release of only a single, high-end chipset for the new range of processors was even more unusual.

We recently talked about benchmark database entries for Core i5-8500 chips, and the rumor mongers over at Videocardz say they have gotten their hands on information about eight more chips for Intel's LGA 1151 socket from "an Australian etailer." Pull the pink crystal out of your Himalayan salt lamp and get ready for Friday CPU rumor time.

Model Cores/threads Base clock Boost clock Price (AUD) Price (USD*)
Celeron G4900 2/2 3.1 GHz N/A $64 $51
Celeron G4920 2/2 3.2 GHz N/A $80 $64
Pentium G5400 2/4 3.7 GHz N/A $97 $72
Pentium G5500 2/4 3.8 GHz N/A $127 $102
Pentium G5600 2/4 3.9 GHz N/A $142 $114
Core i3-8100 4/4 3.6 GHz N/A $182 $145
Core i3-8300 4/4 3.7 GHz N/A $211 $169
Core i3-8350K 4/4 4.0 GHz N/A $254 $203
Core i5-8400 6/6 2.8 GHz 4.0 GHz $270 $216
Core i5-8500 6/6 3.0 GHz N/A $290 $232
Core i5-8600 6/6 3.1 GHz N/A $329 $263
Core i5-8600K 6/6 3.6 GHz 4.3 GHz $395 $316
Core i7-8700 6/12 3.2 GHz 4.6 GHz $466 $373
Core i7-8700K 6/12 3.7 GHz 4.7 GHz $560 $448

* Converted from rumored AUD pricing

Two is the magic number when it comes to the entry-level Celeron G4900 and G4920, a pair of two-core, two-thread chips with 2 MB of cache. Buyers looking for the little bit of oomph that Hyper-Threading provides in certain tasks can move up to the Pentium Gold G5400, G5500, or G5600. All three models are two-core, four-thread processors with double the cache of their SMT-less Celeron siblings. If the rumors are correct, these five chips will be the first Coffee Lake-S offerings to wear Celeron or Pentium badging. All Celeron and Pentium Gold Coffee Lake CPUs get Intel's UHD Graphics 620 IGP. The boost clocks for these chips remain unknown.

The existing Core i3-8100 and overclockable Core i3-8350K will reportedly be joined by the Core i3-8300. The ranks of the two-member Core i5 lineup will purportedly double in size with the addition of the locked Core i5-8500 and i5-8600 variants. The new Core i3 models will likely have 8 MB of cache and the new i5s will probably come with 9 MB. No new Core i7 chips appear to be on the horizon. All Coffee Lake processors with Core badging get the UHD Graphics 630 IGP.

The converted Australian pricing in the table above is provided to save gerbils some Googling, and don't necessarily reflect the price tags the chips will wear when they come to our red, white, and blue shores. Videocardz' unnamed American sources predict a price somewhere around $166 for the Core i3-8300 and $228 for the Core i5-8500. The discrepancies between converted Australian asking prices and actual US price tags seem to grow as one climbs the product stack; Intel suggests a price of $359 to $370 for the Core i7-8700K compared to the $448 figure above. Short supply and high demand for the range-topping chip have combined to keep real-world transaction prices somewhat higher.

More interestingly, the rumor mill says the new chips will land on Valentine's Day, February 14. We can't help but speculate that Intel's mainstream alternatives to its pricey, overclocker-friendly Z370 motherboard chipset could come along with or soon after the eight new CPU models. The addition of new processor speed grades and less-costly motherboard chipsets could make Intel's latest offerings more attractive alternatives to budget-conscious builders. Unfortunately, more affordable CPUs won't change the current stratospheric prices for graphics cards and system memory.

Comments closed
    • Thresher
    • 2 years ago

    Has there been any information about when the H series laptop chips are going to come out? I wouldn’t mind a 6 core laptop.

    • defaultluser
    • 2 years ago

    The reason Intel doesn’t feel the need to compete by adding HT to the Celeron is simple:

    Even a year after release,, AMD’s Zen is still $100 and up. Intel easily smokes AMD’s dual-cores Piledrivers with those Celerons, And smokes their quad cores with those Pentiums.

    You have to step up to $100 and above to find any competition this generation.

    At least the i3 has been fixed from the Kaby Lake generation, so now the price premium makes sense!

      • Chz
      • 2 years ago

      All the KL laptops are on sale now, and I’ve been trying to convince everyone to get the Pentium powered ones due to i3 offering very little extra for the cost. (You get 1MB of extra cache, some more iGPU cores, maybe 200MHz)

      Sadly, Intel’s slapdash marketing must have had some effect over the years because no-one wanted to touch the things! Got a nice Pentium Gold powered Yoga for my missus at least.

        • Ninjitsu
        • 2 years ago

        It’s confusing because it’s now become really hard to tell which of the mobile pentiums are Atoms and which are Core.

          • Chrispy_
          • 2 years ago

          This annoys me too.

          Goldmont+ (Atom-based) is supposed to be decent at ~60% faster than Silvermont/Airmont but my experience with those is that they’re not even in the same league as a modern Core [i<]core[/i<]. I have a Z8350 and even if it ran at double the clockspeed it would be slow. For tablets and ultraportables where fanless form-factor and all-day battery is the #1 requirement, these slower chips are an acceptable compromise. They'll run a small number of browser windows just fine, and they'll run typical office suites just fine - but that really is their limit. Minecraft and really old games like Half-Life 2 (which wasn't particularly demanding even in 2004) don't run especially well and Something like Skyrim will maybe hit 15fps at 800x600 before it hits thermal throttling :\ On the other hand, I've used a [url=http://ark.intel.com/products/97140/<]1.5GHz Pentium 4410Y[/url<] and it's massively powerful in comparison. Web pages load in fractions of a second instead of 3-5 seconds. Windows is just snappier because the processor is idle more often and waiting for your input - rather than churning through background services still. Gaming is an order of magnitude better. Rather than failing at 2004 games, the integrated HD615 graphics will run GTA5 at 720p30, Skyrim at 720p60, Minecraft at 1080p60 etc. It's the difference between yes and no; Pentium (Core architecture) [b<]*can*[/b<] play games. Pentium (Atom architecture) cannot, unless you qualify 2d flash games in a browser window - and even then, performance may not be acceptable....

          • Chz
          • 2 years ago

          I don’t normally like to give Intel’s marketing credit for anything past “colossal failure”, but this time around they’ve chosen to label the Core Pentiums as “Gold”, vs. having no moniker at all. I think that’s a reasonable distinction. I wouldn’t have started from there, but they have a hole to dig out of first.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 2 years ago

    I mean, I know the core hasn’t changed since 2015 so we can compare it all we want, but it’s too bad there aren’t any 4C8T CPUs in this family.

    • quaz0r
    • 2 years ago

    who in their right mind would actually want to spend hard-earned money on a “new” processor until they get around to redesigning them properly wrt meltdown/spectre? and who in their right mind can write puff pieces like this right now without at least giving mention to the issue?

      • ET3D
      • 2 years ago

      Pretty much everyone. I mean, would anyone in their right mind stick to an old processor that’s hit much harder by the compatibility patch? New CPU’s suddenly offer a much better performance delta.

        • EndlessWaves
        • 2 years ago

        If CPUs that are old enough to need replacing get patched at all.

      • tipoo
      • 2 years ago

      People who see that the small hit for the patch for most consumer workloads are far outweighed by us finally getting more cores, and that we’re taped out for at least another 2-3 years of silicon so you’ll be waiting a long time to avoid any hit.

        • DancinJack
        • 2 years ago

        I think we’re closer to another 1 – 2 years, but yeah I agree with the rest.

          • tipoo
          • 2 years ago

          We’ll see, seems like a pretty core fundamental architecture thing to change, I’m assuming at least one step out from Ice Lake still won’t have a fix.

            • Beahmont
            • 2 years ago

            Eh. Worse, I’m betting by the time any µarches designed by Intel to have a hardware ‘fix’ for meltdown/spectre enter the market that some ‘enterprising’ hacker will have found a way around AMD’s partial hardware protection from Meltdown and Meltdown2 will be here making both Intel and AMD’s hardware vulnerable again.

            AMD’s hardware ‘immunity’ to Meltdown is not really that robust. Give it another 6 months to a year and someone will figure out a way around it too.

            • DancinJack
            • 2 years ago

            Let’s remember they found out 7-9 months ago, too. I think we’ll be lucky for Ice Lake to have fixes, and whatever is after that should definitely have them.

      • just brew it!
      • 2 years ago

      Meltdown is more of a concern for service providers (not desktop users). The most dangerous form of Spectre can be blocked via patches to the web browser’s JavaScript engine; the other forms are only exploitable if the system has already been compromised.

      And as others have already noted, newer processors are able to mitigate the performance hit of some of the patches, even if the CPU hardware itself is not inherently immune.

    • jarder
    • 2 years ago

    Aww man, 2018 and 2-thread CPUs are still a thing, sad. Mental note, don’t let anybody buy a Coffee Lake Celeron, the line really starts with the $72 Pentium G5400, that 0.5Ghz and 2 extra threads are well worth the extra 8$ over the G4920.

      • ET3D
      • 2 years ago

      You’ve got to give something to the mining crowd. Not everyone needs more than two cores.

      And really, regardless of mining, several people in my family make do quite well with 2 core CPU’s. Normal use doesn’t really require more than that.

      • Chrispy_
      • 2 years ago

      Intel are charging too much for these parts, but they’re not a disaster.

      I’d admit that two threads isn’t enough for serious multitasking or DX11 gaming and the fact that dual cores exist at all for a desktop (where there aren’t worries about battery life or cooling) is kind of sad.

      But on the flipside, this is a $51 part. It’s going to deliver better everyday application performance than any of the AM3 stuff based on an architecture that barely competes with decade-old Intel products, and the cheapest Ryzen is $100. I would *absolutely* recommend spending the extra $21 for a 2C/4T Pentium but a lot of people aren’t going to choose this processor, it’s going to be in a pre-built machine and then you realise that as crappy as it is, it’s a better option than the 2C/2T Braswell Celerons, and there are even desktops still on sale with an AMD A6 APU that has embarrassing core count (1 module) and embarrassing IPC.

      Yes, these Celerons suck. They’re the unwanted runt dies that failed to become a working Pentium or mobile i3/i5 chip – but they still represent a better option than the rest of the litter clogging up the entry-level PC market.

      • just brew it!
      • 2 years ago

      Anyone who is spending $64 (or less) for a CPU doesn’t care about core count. Pair it with an SSD and it’ll be adequate for cheap, light duty systems.

        • Andrew Lauritzen
        • 2 years ago

        Yeah while $8 for the difference seems crazy to us tech folks, remember that’s still a 12.5% price increase, equivalent to $25-40 or so at the usual CPU price ranges that we buy.

        As noted, people buying these CPUs are either very price sensitive (in which case it can still be relevant) or generally do not care about performance beyond the basics of running Windows and a web browser.

      • The Egg
      • 2 years ago

      I’d compare it to the $51 model, in which case you’re talking about a 40% increase in price. Actually, all of the bottom-clocked models are all the best value at the lower end, often with only a difference of 100mhz.

      If the accuracy of everything here is to be believed of course.

      • K-L-Waster
      • 2 years ago

      Depends on your use case. For a browsing & email system or a roll-your-own NAS, 2 cores would be sufficient.

        • Goty
        • 2 years ago

        I was about to say the same thing. We had a G4560 system that was used as a NAS/media streamer/minecraft server for a bit that worked just fine for its intended use. Not that we really had a choice at that time, but $8 difference in price for two more threads probably would have been more than I wanted to pay considering we were trying to build the cheapest thing possible. That machine is happily pulling email/gummy drop duty for my inlaws now and it’s still leagues better than the machine it replaced.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 2 years ago

      It’s all about the Pentiums.

    • MOSFET
    • 2 years ago

    I hate to say it, but that model lineup in the table makes perfect sense. Celeron 2/2, Pentium 2/4, i3 4/4, i5 6/6, i7 6/12. Obviously I wish there was more SMT in the lineup, but cores are still cores.

      • ET3D
      • 2 years ago

      Good point. It’s the first time in years when naming actually indicates something fundamental across all product lines. (Of course, that’s if we discount the Celeron and Pentium chips based on Apollo Lake etc., and I assume that mobile will continue to be a mess.)

        • Welch
        • 2 years ago

        Was going to say…. until mobile where you need to be concerned with just an “i3” then there is the “i3-xxxxU” and previously the “i5-xxxxHQ” !!!!

        Seriously, make new series for mobile.. you know, since they decided to go with odd numbers, make mobile chips even numbers… Core i2, i4, i6 for the laptop world.

      • jihadjoe
      • 2 years ago

      Two more coars plox so hyperthreading can be enabled across the board. Then i3 can be 4/8, i5 6/12, and i7 8/16.

    • Freon
    • 2 years ago

    They need B and H series boards to compete with the pricing from AMD’s chipset. It’s still tougher than it needs to be to recommend the 8100, 8350k and 8400 when the boards are $30-50 more, spoiling the value. If they had better value on the board side it would be very easy to recommend their parts in the middle ground desktop lines.

    • Shobai
    • 2 years ago

    The discrepancies in pricing likely comes down to the so-called ‘Aussie tax’ – it’s usually cheaper for us to have Amazon ship a part and pay for fast shipping than to buy it locally.

      • Welch
      • 2 years ago

      I was under the impression that you down under guys couldn’t order from Amazon? At least that is what my friend from AUS was telling me as we upgraded him to a 4790k years ago. He is about 1 hour outside of Sydney, not the boonies.

        • Shobai
        • 2 years ago

        It’s a mixed bag – it used to be (several years back) that we were mainly only able to order from 3rd party vendors, but these days it’s often the other way around: Amazon themselves will ship, but most 3rd party won’t.

        You see a lot of technology that just never arrives here. Some of that is due to population density: we’re ~80% of the US’s size, with 7% of your population.

        Interestingly enough, Amazon recently opened locally: their pricing is not competitive with the local online retailers, at last look.

          • jihadjoe
          • 2 years ago

          Doesn’t Amazon now take a tax deposit for international orders? If the price difference really is because of taxes ordering from Amazon USA might end up costing the same unless customs couldn’t be bothered to inspect your package.

    • Voldenuit
    • 2 years ago

    Will these have the updated Meltdown/Spectre microcode shipped with the CPUs or in the motherboard BIOS?

      • TheRazorsEdge
      • 2 years ago

      That is extremely unlikely. It takes months to validate and tape out a design.

    • DPete27
    • 2 years ago

    Assuming this pushes Cannon Lake to late ’18 at best?

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      This is desktop, there won’t be a Cannon Lake.
      Ice lake is late 2018 or early 2019.

        • anotherengineer
        • 2 years ago

        What you talkin bout willis

        all the lakes are ice here already!!

          • Welch
          • 2 years ago

          Wouldn’t it be ironic if Ice Lake ended up being a really hot chip :P. I’m waiting for the puns already.

          Maybe they will finally get the hint and use solder instead of a TIM.

            • DancinJack
            • 2 years ago

            It almost assuredly will be unless they clock it a bit lower than current models. They said 10nm isn’t going to be up to snuff for a while. Add to that more leakage and you can expect some more heat.

        • DPete27
        • 2 years ago

        Oh. I hadn’t heard that Cannon Lake was mobile only.

          • Beahmont
          • 2 years ago

          Yeah. Intel had issues with power curve and clock speeds on the high end on their basic 10nm parts. They hit their low end targets, but the desktop parts just didn’t clock right at reasonable power usage. Or so I’ve been told was the issue for more than a year now.

          Intel officially announced that desktop parts were going to be on 10nm+ some time ago though. 10nm+ is Ice Lake µarch. That said, Intel still claims to have Ice Lake parts shipping by late 2018 or early 2019.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This