Rumor: Eight-core Coffee Lake S CPU shows up in 3DMark database

We were quite impressed with the Core i7-8700K when we reviewed it. Who could complain about a CPU that boasts the fastest out-of-the-box single-threaded performance on the planet as well as multi-threaded performance similar to processors sporting two more cores? Apparently Intel isn't satisfied, because reports are flooding in, seemingly confirming earlier rumors about an as-yet-unnamed eight-core desktop CPU from the boys in blue. The latest such report is detailed over at Videocardz and consists of an entry in the 3DMark database for an eight-core, 16-thread Coffee Lake S processor.

Image: Videocardz

Besides the above info, there's precious little detail to analyze. 3DMark identifies the CPU's stock and turbo clocks both as 2208 MHz. The base clock listing could indicate that the sample is a low-power T-suffix CPU, or it could simply be an error on 3DMark's part. The turbo clock is surely misreported. The CPUID string for the chip is apparently "Genuine Intel(R) CPU 0000 @ 2.20 GHz," and CPU was running on an "Intel Corporation CoffeeLake S 82 UDIMM RVP" motherboard. That suggests that this test could have been performed within Intel on an engineering-sample board.

We've known about the forthcoming Coffee Lake refresh for a long time. Way back in August of last year, leaked Intel roadmaps talked about the "Coffee Lake-S & CNL PCH-H (300 Series) Platform." Not long after that, we heard the first rumblings about the Z390 chipset and its octa-core CPU accompaniment. It seems likely to us that we'll soon see a launch of Z390 along with the rest of the 300-series chipset line. The remainder of the desktop Coffee Lake chips should also arrive in short order. We'll be sure to let you know as we hear more.

Comments closed
    • Zizy
    • 2 years ago

    I guess it will keep similar ST performance of the current 8700k and therefore retain advantage over AMD stuff, and it should have about the same MT performance as well as perf/W as the upcoming Ryzens.

    Now, I doubt it will work without Z390 because Intel, but hopefully at least Z390 could be used for 8xxx CPUs too.

    • Chrispy_
    • 2 years ago

    Given the lack of detail on this, it could be:

    a Socket [s<]2011[/s<] [i<]derp - I meant 2066[/i<] processor a non-boosting Xeon an error or bogus entry in the 3DMark database a non-Coffeelake engineering sample in a new motherboard a beta motherboard BIOS. I wouldn't be surprised if intel released a consumer 8-core but at the same time, they currently don't need to, and when has Intel ever released chips that cost it more to make and simultaneously downgrade the rest of the product stack unless it absolutely [i<]needs[/i<] to.

      • Zizy
      • 2 years ago

      I believe there is a need to release it – to maintain that “premium brand”.

      AMD CPUs are great for everything, as are Intel chips. AMD has worse ST and better MT right now. Yes, Intel’s chip should be better for more tasks, but it isn’t a clear choice in every scenario. This leads to a branding problem as you can’t rely on “get Intel, it is better” anymore.

      8C desktop CPU will fix that branding issue by offering same MT performance and better ST performance – Intel will be again the best choice with AMD merely offering budget alternative.

        • Kretschmer
        • 2 years ago

        Branding is a result of marketing spend, not benchmark performance. There’s a reason why Ryzen PCs are always the cheaper goods offered by OEMs, replete with 5400RPM HDDs and the like.

    • ronch
    • 2 years ago

    I’m certain it’ll slaughter the Ryzen 1800X (or 1700X/non-X) in terms of performance but AMD will still end up being more enticing because of pricing. I wonder how Threadripper will fare against this.

      • jts888
      • 2 years ago

      AMD and Intel seem to be taking at least temporarily diverging paths. Intel is going with super-wide SIMD and cache datapath widths at higher power costs while AMD is trying to maximize scale-out integer throughput and sacrificing everything including memory latency for power savings.

      Threadripper is a weird product by virtue of having 4 NUMA nodes (except for 1900X) for a workstation part where most workloads will be parallelized single tasks instead of tons of independent tasks with limited inter-thread synchronization.

      I hope that Zen2/3 go with higher core count CCXs rather than add a 3rd or 4th 4c CCX to each die, and I suspect that only this route will force Intel to release 8c+ mainstream parts.

    • Ummagumma
    • 2 years ago

    Intel has made such a GREAT PRODUCT here that they should roll it out with a COMPLETELY NEW CPU socket setup/layout just to emphasize how GREAT it really is!

    Ya can’t have the latest and greatest CPU from Intel without the latest and greatest CPU socket design to go with it.

      • ronch
      • 2 years ago

      That’s not enough. Make it only support DDR5.

        • willmore
        • 2 years ago

        Pfffff, with the prices we have for DDR4 currently, it might as well be unobtanium.

    • w76
    • 2 years ago

    Eight core Intel chip? Thank you, AMD, for making Intel finally step up. Intel could’ve done this years ago, but of course before Ryzen they had no competitive need to do so.

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      [url=https://ark.intel.com/products/46499<]To think that Intel couldn't even build an eight core processor until 2018[/url<].

        • Goty
        • 2 years ago

        Can you give us an engineering reason why these never made it to the desktop?

          • chuckula
          • 2 years ago

          One easy reason is that they didn’t work in LGA-1366, which was already the high-end desktop socket of the time. By the time 2010 rolled around Intel was also only about a year out from Sandy Bridge and Sandy Bridge-E too.

            • xrror
            • 2 years ago

            Just throwing this in as a historical footnote (rant)… it was annoying that Sandy Bridge-E was a native 8 core/16HT part, but there was never an i7 “consumer” SKU with all 8 cores enabled (only some lower clock xeon ones).

            (EDIT AGAIN: the proc I thought was Ivy Bridge-E with 8 cores is actually Ivy Bridge-EP – my later threaded replies i’ll try and correct again)
            Bonus points – Ivy Bridge-E was scaled down to 6 core native. FU enthusiasts!
            (or… Ivy Bridge-E had zero 8 core SKUs, but that would be strange as Sandy B-E did).

            In reality I can’t say much, since it’s not like I could have afforded any 8core Intel proc anyway. But it seems like Intel kinda gave socket 2011 owners the short shaft on that one.

            • jihadjoe
            • 2 years ago

            > only some low clock xeon ones

            The 2687W would like to have a word.

            • xrror
            • 2 years ago

            sorry yea I corrected that. from “low” to “lower”

            That is a sweet proc though. I never had a 2011 rig so I don’t know how flexible they were as far as their equivalent of BCK was, since I assume that xeon is multiplier locked.

            But again, even if locked… that 3.8 turbo clock could still be some jollies if it’s possible to lock that mult for all cores. Again, I don’t know if you can even do that on 2011.

            LOL though if you could. Then you could give all those 2011-3 snobs the finger with your “old” 2011 rig hehe

            • jihadjoe
            • 2 years ago

            Most X79 boards will do +5 safely, or the 1.25x strap. I used 43 * 105 on my i7-3820 to get 4.5GHz.
            38 * 105 will give a nice 3.99GHz on the E5-2687W or E5-2690.

            Yes MCE will happily lock all cores to the turbo clock, but VRMs might need some extra cooling.

            • xrror
            • 2 years ago

            awesome, thanks for the info. At the time I skipped socket 2011 since things were kinda pricey initially to throw away the 1366 rigs.

            Now years later, as 2011 xeons are getting surplused and dumped on ebay, and the knowledge pool is growing it’s looking like a fun platform.

            EDIT AGAIN: arrrghh so the E5-1680 v2 I mention below, due to the 25MB cache is actually an Ivy Bridge-EP… not E
            I just found out about the E5-1680 v2, which apparently is the (only) Ivy Bridge-E 8core (16HT) part that’s also.. unlocked. Which that would be some fun.

            It’s probably unobtainable now (list price $1700+) but man… 25MB L3 cache, 8/16HT running 4.5 – that “retro” rig would be still a VERY formidable machine now.

            • thecoldanddarkone
            • 2 years ago

            You could stick most 1xxx and 2xxx Xeons into the x79.

            Intel Xeon E5-2690 v2 (3.0G,130W,L3:25M,10C,HT)
            Intel Xeon E5-2687W v2 (3.4G,150W,L3:20M,8C,HT)

            Intel® Core™ i7 Processors
            Intel® Socket 2011 for Xeon® E5-1600/E5-1600 v2 processors
            Intel® Socket 2011 for Xeon® E5-2600/E5-2600 v2 processors

            • xrror
            • 2 years ago

            Were the “v2″s Ivy Bridge-E ? Did any Ivy Bridge-E proc have more than 6cores (12HT).

            I’m not saying that to be a jerk, I honestly don’t know much on the 2011 platform.

            when did they make everyone jump to 2011-3? Was that the xeon “v3” procs? Haswell-E. Apparently there was a “2011-1” also? gezuz…

            Actually due to jihadjoe’s comment above about the xeon 2687W I’m going down the rabbit-hole trying to find info on an old socket lol. I love hardware, and it’s fun for me to research. Sadly it looks like much of the early 2011 era knowledge has dispersed over time.

            Sorry for the ramble, I’m having a good time looking this stuff up. To mark myself as ancient I’m still beating my socket 1366 rigs along, and my new builds have been Ryzen 1600’s so I’ve kinda been out of the loop.

            • jihadjoe
            • 2 years ago

            Ivy Bridge does come with some improvements over Sandy.

            E5-2687W v2 is 4GHz compared to 3.8GHz
            E5-2690 v2 has 10 cores compared to 8

            But IMO the sweet spot here is the Sandy Bridge E5-2690. They go for just $160 on ebay. That’s a lot of cores for a small amount of money. They’ll go right into consumer X79 boards, and with MCE + 105MHz BCLK you get 8 cores running at 3.99GHz. It’s basically a budget Ryzen rig if you already have an existing X79 board and DDR3.

            • xrror
            • 2 years ago

            I stand corrected (EDIT: or NOT) on Ivy Bridge-E not being a native 8 core.
            EDIT: So on 2nd look, since the 1680 v2 below has 25MB cache, it’s actually Ivy Bridge-EP. Not E.

            [url<]https://ark.intel.com/products/77912/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1680-v2-25M-Cache-3_00-GHz[/url<] Also allegedly "the E5-1680v2 is the only unlocked Ivy Bridge 8-core in existence." If that's true, holy sh**

            • Bauxite
            • 2 years ago

            Never sold directly, but unlocked 8 core xeon existed with Ivy-E, mine does 4.5 at stock voltage and works on any X79 board that bothers to put in xeon microcodes (buy smart, buy asrock). Not only that, it is actually built from a 10-core die as none of the L3 cache is disabled.
            Even the ark page is hidden: [url<]https://ark.intel.com/products/77912/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1680-v2-25M-Cache-3_00-GHz[/url<] Obsessive market segmentation and similar bean counter ideas have been SOP at intel for ages, their official policy is mushroom farming (feed bullshit and keep in the dark).

            • xrror
            • 2 years ago

            Yea I just found some of those Ivy Bridge parts today.
            EDIT: Apparently the ones I found were cut down Ivy Bridge-EP (native 10?), not 8 core E like I thought

            And omg yes. Intel’s worst enemy is their own marketing dept. and insane market segmentation.

            Like I get it, extract max money from a given CPU die/line but it just gets nutters sometimes with Intel.

        • cpucrust
        • 2 years ago

        Couldn’t or wouldn’t build a *consumer* CPU with more than 4 cores ?

        Nobody needs more than 4 cores.

        (Oh yeah, “Thanks AMD!”)

          • chuckula
          • 2 years ago

          [quote<]Nobody needs more than 4 cores.[/quote<] That's not true at all! With AMD you absolutely needed 8 cores to keep up with 4 cores from about 2011 to 2017. And in 2018 you still need those 8 cores to keep up with 6 cores. THANK YOU AMD!

            • cpucrust
            • 2 years ago

            Regardless, there is some cpu price/performance competition/choice from 2017 onwards.

            Oh noes! I just checked and I’ve EARNED -3 from the 24×7 resident TR commenter.

            (This will get me another -3 and make me guilty of falling to the level of the resident TR commenter – thanks AMD!)

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 years ago

            Actually I think the first part of this is true. People are just in a down vote mood today.

            • bthylafh
            • 2 years ago

            It’s probably more that he tries way too hard and it’s tiresome.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 years ago

            That which doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, or something? LOL

            • Redocbew
            • 2 years ago

            Death by down vote would be such a sad way to go.

            • KeillRandor
            • 2 years ago

            Edward Macaroni Fork

            • NovusBogus
            • 2 years ago

            LULZ FOR THE LULZ GOD. VOTES FOR THE VOTE THRONE.

        • Welch
        • 2 years ago

        Apparently just the consumers didn’t deserve these 8 core parts.

          • chuckula
          • 2 years ago

          It’s totally true. After all, since history has been retconned to pretend that Bulldozer didn’t happen, it took AMD another 7 years to finally get an 8 core desktop CPU to the consumer market.

          That is if we pretend that HEDT isn’t the consumer market even though for some reason nobody runs around saying that Threadripper isn’t a consumer part.

            • brucethemoose
            • 2 years ago

            I do. There’s basically no reason “consumers” need ThreadRipper over Ryzen atm, and plenty of people call out reviewers that recommend TR as a gaming CPU.

          • NovusBogus
          • 2 years ago

          [quote<]Apparently just the consumers didn't give a flip about these 8 core parts.[/quote<] FTFY. The typical consumer doesn't even know or care what a core is, they just want to run their spreadsheets and AAA games which until very recently worked fine on a dually. If I was Product Jesus at either of the CPU companies and was not constrained by a flawed architecture like LOLdozer I'd have done exactly what Intel did: optimize the minivan, upsell the sports car, mark up the dump truck so my large-accounts guys have headroom to make 'special' deals.

      • blastdoor
      • 2 years ago

      So very true.

      It reminds me of the days when the Athlon 64 X2 came out and suddenly Intel discovered that maybe they could sell a dual core P4.

      Of course, the big difference is that the dual core P4 was a hideous kludge, whereas today Intel will likely have the better product in nearly every respect (though not by a huge margin).

        • sweatshopking
        • 2 years ago

        Sadly, i owned a pentium d. Overclocked it past 4ghz on a stock fan though. DIDNT NEED MY HEAT EVER AGAIN. then i tricked my brother into trading his core 2 duo system for it. He thought it was a deal because both were dual core and one was clocked much higher. I would never do something that unfair again.

          • Anonymous Coward
          • 2 years ago

          I would be very entertained to own a Pentium D at this point. I do have a prescott P4 and a dual socketed northwhatever they called it Xeon. Second-hand treasures I tell you.

          • kuraegomon
          • 2 years ago

          Evil seed! 😀

        • Klimax
        • 2 years ago

        I don’t think it was about discovery. It was just bad attempt at dual core CPU.

        Unless you want to argue that AMD suddenly rediscovered art of gluing CPU cores to improve chances to have high core count CPUs too.

        • Mr Bill
        • 2 years ago

        [quote<] (though not by a huge margin)[/quote<] You forget profit margin. That will be huge.

      • DPete27
      • 2 years ago

      Jeez, I saw this same comment on Fudzilla when they posted the story this morning.

      For the better part of modern processor history, AMD has added more cores to combat Intel’s higher IPC. So yes, be happy about AMD pushing Intel to add more cores, but don’t forget to thank Intel for giving AMD something to [s<]copy[/s<] reverse engineer to improve their IPC.

        • mganai
        • 2 years ago

        This. Then again, might have happened sooner if not for Intel’s P4-era retailer shenanigans screwing AMD’s business.

          • Klimax
          • 2 years ago

          AMD still had to help a lot by brutal mismanagement and idiotic cash-only buy of ATI. Otherwise Intel’s attempt at shenanigans wouldn’t likely work that much.

        • w76
        • 2 years ago

        For the record, I think I’ve visited Fudzilla twice in my life, and the last time was probably around the time of the Bulldozer launch. So, wasn’t me. 😛

      • stefem
      • 2 years ago

      Thank you, Intel, for forcing AMD to actually release a decent CPU. AMD could have done this years ago but of course before Core 2 they had no… …no wait, looks like competition doesn’t work for everyone, sometimes problems comes from the inside 😀

    • Mentawl
    • 2 years ago

    If it’s anything like the 8700/8700K, it’ll be an absolute oven at speed. Be interesting to see if it can hit turbos as high as 4.7.

      • cpucrust
      • 2 years ago

      I look forward to the reviews of this new CPU. I’m very curious to know if they will use the same TIM as the current Coffee Lake CPU’s do.

      • jihadjoe
      • 2 years ago

      Don’t worry, 14nm++++ has got your back!

        • Srsly_Bro
        • 2 years ago

        It’s fortunate then that ++ isn’t used to increment each process gen.

        • blastdoor
        • 2 years ago

        I’m holding out for 10- – – – –

    • cpucrust
    • 2 years ago

    My cynicalness is kicking in and suspecting that Intel will *revise* the socket from Socket LGA 1151 (300 Series Coffee Lake) in order to support the new 8 core CPU, i.e. new motherboard will be required with a new Intel chipset.

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      You are nowhere NEAR cynical enough.

      I suspect that Intel will simply refuse to let any motherboard use these chips AT ALL. It’s all part of their illegal monopoly move to hurt AMD’s GPU sales by making it so that their chips can’t work with any motherboard that could support an AMD GPU.

      What’s wrong with you Intel?!!?!?

        • cpucrust
        • 2 years ago

        Very fine extension into purported sarcasm.

        For the record, I have ZERO AMD based systems – all Intel, just in case the “your an AMD CPU fanboi” meme is suggested or purported – lol.

          • chuckula
          • 2 years ago

          Funny thing is I never said any of that.

          Does your therapist claim you project a lot?

          Let’s make a friendly little bet: If last year’s 8700K beats a 6-core Zen+ from 2018 in any benchmark whatsoever, you thank Intel for raising the game and forcing AMD to respond.

          Oh, and you also thank Intel for being the first company to put integrated graphics into a 6 core part, which AMD could have apparently done YEARS ago but never did.

            • cpucrust
            • 2 years ago

            Resident 24×7 commenter projectionism list:

            Projection 1: “Does your therapist claim you project a lot?”
            Projection 2: “you thank Intel for raising the game and forcing AMD to respond.”
            Projection 3: “Oh, and you also thank Intel for being the first company to put integrated graphics into a 6 core part, which AMD could have apparently done YEARS ago but never did.”

            Classic Projection: Accusing others of what you are doing.

            I only ‘projected’ that you maybe (purportedly?) engaging in sarcasm as a purported 24×7 commenter on projectionism. Sorry for that projection.

            PS One more projection/prediction – you will get the last comment in this thread – cya

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        You’re back! Let’s re-welcome Count Chuckula to TR.

          • Klimax
          • 2 years ago

          Didn’t realize he was away in the first place…

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 years ago

            His account was still active, but it was posting comments that garnered tons of upvotes. It must have been an impostula.

            • chuckula
            • 2 years ago

            They put me back on those meds.
            But I escaped and got right again.

      • psuedonymous
      • 2 years ago

      I expect to see this supported on the 3xx/4xx chipset series. Intel have stuck two the two-gens-per-socket cadence for a decade now.

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 2 years ago

      [url<]http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/cynicism[/url<]

      • xrror
      • 2 years ago

      heh heh. “Intel’s new 8 core processor also isn’t vulnerable to Meltdown or Specter”

      Enjoy the new and exciting Pentium Silver 8 core! Because Atom derived cores are the best!

      =D

      /me ducks, gets shot in the back of the head anyway – deserved it.

    • chuckula
    • 2 years ago

    0nm process CONFIRMED!

      • Unknown-Error
      • 2 years ago

      Quantum mechanics is gonna be pissed.

        • dodozoid
        • 2 years ago

        No, this is even beyond the scope of quantum mechanics. It is sub-space manufacturing process so advanced that physics havent caught up yet.

          • Redocbew
          • 2 years ago

          As evidenced by the 0W TDP. It is nothing, and it’s doing nothing, but yet it runs 3D Mark. Somehow that almost makes sense.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 years ago

            New thermal spec: Useful TDP. The amount of thermal emissions based on the usefulness of the task.

            • Ninjitsu
            • 2 years ago

            That, or a rounding error…

          • K-L-Waster
          • 2 years ago

          Pfft. Physics is for the weak. We’re going into… metaphysics!

        • UberGerbil
        • 2 years ago

        That’s the thing about Quantum Mechanics: it is pissed… and it isn’t.

        Until you ask it.

        Then it really is. Or isn’t.

          • mganai
          • 2 years ago

          Quantum physics is tsundere.

      • ronch
      • 2 years ago

      But if all chips were built on 0nm, all dies would be the same size. How would a company have a process edge over the others? /s

      • Wirko
      • 2 years ago

      We’ll probably stop at 0.000000001 nm. Tightly packed electrons.

    • AnotherReader
    • 2 years ago

    Resumed the Core Count wars have

      • Bumper
      • 2 years ago

      Excellent. Everything is going as planned.

        • JustAnEngineer
        • 2 years ago

        [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bly1M4VFoVk[/url<]

          • RAGEPRO
          • 2 years ago

          [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X01ClxCqiXg[/url<]

    • AnotherReader
    • 2 years ago
      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      OK, I thought I was awesome for filling the top comments section with one word posts.

      But posting nothing and getting the #1 top comment is a worthy feat.

      Well played sir!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This