This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

Intel hasn't said anything official about Coffee Lake yet — the eighth generation launch yesterday only alluded to desktop products coming in the fall. Newly leaked data suggests what toll targets Intel will aim for, and how the new chips will fit into existing lineups — and while the positioning is adequately solid, AMD is likely to still put upwardly a significant fight.

VideoCardz caught this leak, along with pricing for the chips in Canadian dollars. If we combine previous leaks with this new information, we end up with the comparisons we'll discuss below:

IntelCoffeeLake

Information and image past VideoCardz. All prices in a higher place are in Canadian dollars, USD is given below.

The Core i7-8700K is rumored to exist a 6-cadre / 12-thread CPU with a iii.8GHz base clock and a 4.7GHz maximum Turbo (4.3GHz all-core boost) for ~$380. The Core i7 8700 will sell for $320 with a 3.2GHz base clock, 4.6GHz maximum Turbo, and the same four.3GHz all-core boost.

The i5-8600K will exist a six-core, half dozen-thread CPU with a 4.3GHz max Turbo, 4.1GHz all-cadre Turbo, and 3.6GHz base clock for $266, while the i5-8400 is a six-cadre, half-dozen-thread flake at $185 with a 2.8GHz base, 4GHz maximum boost, and 3.8GHz all-cadre boost. All of these fries will besides include an integrated GPU, while Ryzen doesn't, though given that nearly desktop enthusiasts utilise detached GPUs it'due south not clear how much this volition sway buying decisions.

How Does This Stack Up Against AMD?

These new chips volition definitely compete more effectively against AMD's Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 families than the current crop of seventh-generation CPUs do, simply which chip comes out on top will depend on your workloads and scenarios. The closest AMD competitor to the Core i7-8700K is the Ryzen vii 1700X, with a $400 toll tag, 16 threads vs. 12, and a heave clock of 3.8GHz. If we presume the Core i7-8700K is running at maximum all-core boost, that means AMD will accept a 33% advantage in threads while Intel has a 13% advantage in clock. Toss in the fact that Intel'southward single-threaded functioning is frequently amend than AMD's, and you have a situation that could tilt either way depending on the workload and how well-threaded information technology is.

The new Core i5 8600K volition have a tougher time of things. At $266, it's priced against the Ryzen 1600X, at $249. The Ryzen 1600X clocks upwardly to 4GHz (compared to iv.1GHz for the i5-8600K), and the i5-8600K packs just half the threads (if the rumors are accurate, of course). We're non going to telephone call the race in favor of one horse or the other only however, simply the 1600X looks very well positioned here. On the other mitt, Intel's i5-8400 could be a tough fight, with AMD'southward quad-core + SMT Ryzen 5 1500X facing off confronting a six-core, six-thread chip from Santa Clara. AMD tends to get more out of SMT than Intel does, but two extra threads isn't a substitute for 2 more cores, even if your SMT scaling is pretty good.

If these prices are authentic, it suggests Intel will fight molar and nail to avoid cutting prices to friction match AMD, but will, withal, soon offering considerably more than computing ability for the same price. That'due south a bit of a double-edged sword. On the 1 hand, consumers still win from the increased functioning. On the other, it illustrates that Intel could've been pushing higher cadre counts for quite some time at present, with no increase in CPU pricing.

To a certain extent, this is a chicken-and-egg problem. The more cores y'all pack into a CPU, the less likely information technology is that your average customer will need them. On the other hand, the fact that nobody owns college cadre-count CPUs (Bulldozer-based hardware doesn't count and Ryzen has only been on the market place for 5 months) is often an excuse for not edifice well-threaded software. Intel may wish that programmers would target higher core counts and make greater use of multi-threading, but it didn't care enough to start pushing higher core counts into desktops and laptops — at to the lowest degree, it didn't care until AMD forced it to exercise then.