Intel Docs Reference Eight-Core Coffee Lake Processor

News
By
published

Redditors found a reference to Coffee Lake processors with eight cores and integrated graphics on Intel’s website. Pictured in the screenshot above, the references to “Coffee Lake S 8+2” could point to rumored eight-core mainstream desktop parts that could launch with the Z390 chipset.

We’ve posted our opinion on what we can expect from the i7-8700K’s successor, the i7-9700K, but we don’t know if this eight-core Coffee Lake will be that processor. Currently, naming and branding surrounding the Z390 and rumored eight-core mainstream desktop parts are still unclear. Given that the Z390’s name is likely confirmed, we can infer that the chipset will not be branded as part of a new generation of Intel processors.

Intel currently markets Coffee Lake on 300-series chipsets as 8th-gen products. However, being branded as 8th-gen does not necessarily imply that Z390 will not support 9th-gen products. The latter will presumably formally launch with 400-series chipsets, but they could be backwards compatible with Z390 motherboards.

All this leaves us speculating on what the first eight-core Coffee Lake processor will be called. If it is to launch with Z390, we find it unlikely that it’ll be the i7-9700K. It could slot in above the i7-8700K and be a range-topping model for Intel’s 8th-gen products. In this scenario, the processor could adopt the “i9” brand and would be both a selling point for the Z390 chipset and a stop-gap product between Intel’s 8th- and 9th-gen products. The formally labelled 9th-gen products would then probably have eight-core Coffee Lake (or Coffee Lake Refresh) parts in its lineup at launch.

Intel has undoubtedly made some significant changes to its product lines in response to AMD’s return to competitiveness in 2017. AMD’s 2nd-Gen Ryzen chips are clocked higher and are cheaper than their 1st-gen counterparts. Intel might have held back on releasing its eight-core 8th-gen processors to save them for dulling AMD’s impending release of 2nd-Gen Ryzen chips.

See more CPUs News
Leon Chan
15 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Giroro
    What do you mean that 2nd-Gen Ryzen is "cheaper"? the 2700x is priced higher than current street pricing on an 1800x - and of course that means its more expensive than msrp for the 1700x it is apparently succeeding.
    Reply
  • artk2219
    20891041 said:
    What do you mean that 2nd-Gen Ryzen is "cheaper"? the 2700x is priced higher than current street pricing on an 1800x - and of course that means its more expensive than msrp for the 1700x it is apparently succeeding.

    Cheaper in that the original MSRP for the top end 1800x was $500, so its cheaper in that its lower than the original msrp of the top end first gen Ryzen parts. But it's still more than the current 1800x, that being said, I'm sure the pricing will get adjusted within 6 months or so depending on demand and competition. There is some slight gouging, but nothing as egregious as the pricing on the FX 9590 when it was first released, $800 dollars for that hot stinker.
    Reply
  • braitBR
    Even Intel fans need to be thankful that AMD exists. Without competition we would have quad cores forever and ever.
    Reply
  • 10tacle
    20891464 said:
    Even Intel fans need to be thankful that AMD exists. Without competition we would have quad cores forever and ever.

    As a strict Intel buyer, I cannot agree more. AMD pushed Intel to finally get six cores on their i5 Coffee Lake CPUs by the way to compete with Ryzen 5's offerings. Same with AMD's GPUs and Nvidia. Unfortunately, AMD does not have a high end competitor to Nvidia's GTX 1080 Ti. They put all their R&D budgeting into Ryzen which IMO is a smart move. They are very competitive in the lower and middle segment GPU market (mining price skewing not withstanding).
    Reply
  • i-am-i-u-r-u
    braitBR - You are giving Intel too much credit. Without AMD we would be stuck with a Core 2 Duo Extreme with the a hyped code name, "Pentium Platinum".
    Reply
  • monsta
    Maybe a 8800K or 8900K as a model number?
    Reply
  • Krazie_Ivan
    if the golden sample review 8700k's ran a hot 90c under load with 240mm AIO & 5Ghz all-core OC, i'm a bit worried what another 2 cores will bring w/o a die shrink. even so, i'm glad to see these advances over the last 12mo, compared to years of stagnation!

    (note; Tom's seems to have been one of the few launch-day reviewers to get an avg bin chip... running hotter, lower OC, at more volts than other publishers. brought good balance to the press coverage.)
    Reply
  • jimmysmitty
    20891587 said:
    20891464 said:
    Even Intel fans need to be thankful that AMD exists. Without competition we would have quad cores forever and ever.

    As a strict Intel buyer, I cannot agree more. AMD pushed Intel to finally get six cores on their i5 Coffee Lake CPUs by the way to compete with Ryzen 5's offerings. Same with AMD's GPUs and Nvidia. Unfortunately, AMD does not have a high end competitor to Nvidia's GTX 1080 Ti. They put all their R&D budgeting into Ryzen which IMO is a smart move. They are very competitive in the lower and middle segment GPU market (mining price skewing not withstanding).

    There was 6 months between the launch of the Ryzen 5 and the 8600K. Do you think Intel could throw it together that fast? Even though it takes months upon months of testing and bug fixing? That I doubt. The time it would take Intel to cut the silicon, test for frequency and thermal barriers, program and test the chipset then mass produce for release to the market is longer than 6 months.

    There is even a roadmap from February of 2018 with reference to Coffee Lake in Q1/2 of 2018 and 6 cores. All we saw was that Intel pushed the launch date up to Q4 of 2017 however it was pushed forward after they failed to keep the Tick-Tock up.

    I just don't think AMD is what pushed Intel to 6 core i5s. I think i5/i7 6 cores were coming in Coffee Lake no matter what. All Ryzen did was push forward the release schedule. Or maybe not. It is impossible to say since we have nothing more to go on.

    20891588 said:
    braitBR - You are giving Intel too much credit. Without AMD we would be stuck with a Core 2 Duo Extreme with the a hyped code name, "Pentium Platinum".

    You really think so? Because Intel was doing Tick-Tock pretty consistently until about Haswell without stiff competition from AMD.

    20891756 said:
    if the golden sample review 8700k's ran a hot 90c under load with 240mm AIO & 5Ghz all-core OC, i'm a bit worried what another 2 cores will bring w/o a die shrink. even so, i'm glad to see these advances over the last 12mo, compared to years of stagnation!

    (note; Tom's seems to have been one of the few launch-day reviewers to get an avg bin chip... running hotter, lower OC, at more volts than other publishers. brought good balance to the press coverage.)

    Actually another two cores might benefit it overall. It will have a larger surface area to dissipate heat from the core to the IHS then to the heatsink.
    Reply
  • AlistairAB
    ""There was 6 months between the launch of the Ryzen 5 and the 8600K. Do you think Intel could throw it together that fast? ""

    Don't be silly, Intel knew Ryzen was coming for years. Even AMD announced it, we just weren't sure of its single core performance. Also Intel did tick-tock with no real improvements for 5 years. Anyone who owns a 2700k and a 6700k will tell you that. Adding more cores for the same price was a major price/perf jump.

    I agree though that there will not be any problems with an Intel 8 core. 5.0ghz 8700k may run too hot, but 4.8ghz or especially 4.6ghz is incredibly cool with my chip. Same with Ryzen: I get irritated when people say Ryzen is hot. No it is very cool and efficient for 8 cores, at stock settings. Only if you push the last 200mhz, just like Intel, that it gets too hot.
    Reply
  • kinggremlin
    20891922 said:
    ""There was 6 months between the launch of the Ryzen 5 and the 8600K. Do you think Intel could throw it together that fast? ""

    Don't be silly, Intel knew Ryzen was coming for years. Even AMD announced it, we just weren't sure of its single core performance. Also Intel did tick-tock with no real improvements for 5 years. Anyone who owns a 2700k and a 6700k will tell you that. Adding more cores for the same price was a major price/perf jump.

    An Intel CPU design engineer leaked that he was working on an 8 core Cannonlake CPU back in the middle of 2015. Intel's roadmaps from 2013 had Cannonlake mobile CPU's scheduled for release at the end of 2016 with desktop CPU's in 2017. Intel had obviously been planning mainstream CPU's with more than 4 cores years in advance of AMD's Ryzen announcement. Intel botching their own roadmap is what prompted Coffee Lake and the current disjointed different CPU's architectures under the same generational name. It's pure stupidity by "AMD fans" to believe that AMD has anything to do with the release of higher than 4 core CPU's by Intel.

    Remember, AMD released an 8 core desktop CPU in 2012, and Intel didn't even attempt to respond. Intel has their roadmap planned out years in advance. They don't drum up products that weren't on their roadmap in response to the release of products by competitors. Intel can adjust prices, they can try to accelerate/rush releases, but they can't just add cores to a CPU in a few months. It simply doesn't work that way.
    Reply