Coffeelake and Donutlake

[wingman99]

That Wikipedia article seems to imply 3.1 Gen 1 is actually a new protocol above 3.0, rather than explicitly stating that it's nothing but a misleading marketing term for USB 3.0. So, if a "USB 3.1" device doesn't explicitly say "Gen 2", you can't actually trust that it supports 10 Gbps. With USB 1.0 and 1.1, you at least knew 1.0 was 1.5 Mbps and 1.1 was 12 Mbps. Now 3.1 could mean either the slower or faster versions... Marketing professionals everywhere need some sharp implements applied to their posteriors.

Yes the USB 3.1 Gen 1 is the same as USB 3.0 5 Gbit/s

USB 3.1 Gen 1, USB 3.1 Gen 1 has the same 5 Gbit/s SuperSpeed maximum data signaling rate as USB 3.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_3.0

I'm looking at the Gigabyte Z370 HD3 and it has 8 x USB 3.1 Gen 1 ports.

 

[EarthDog]

Blah, whatever, who cares. USB 3.1, 3.6, 10.0, no one gives a crap. No one is going to spend hundreds of dollars just because they get more USB 3.whatever ports. You could buy a PCI-e card and get all the USB 3.1 ports you want and you can do that on an old Core2Duo machine if you wanted. The real answer here is that the Z370 provides absolutely nothing of value and the only reason Intel released it is to force you to buy the crap. Kind of like when someone makes a proprietary part for a device and sells it at 5x higher than what it should be sold at. It's all about the $$$$, not about actual technological improvements.

You act like that practice is new...

 

[DaveB]

Avoid Microcenter for these CPUs. Some rip-off sleeze bag in marketing set the price for the i5 8400 at $250, way over Intel's $182.00 - $187.00 recommended customer price. Amazon and Newegg have priced them right so buy from them!

 

[||Console||]

The 8400 looks like a great CPU for non overclockers wanting a gaming cpu

 

[Tír na nÓg]

^Agreed!

 

[DaveB]

More specifically for a mini ITX gaming rig.

 

[EarthDog]

Avoid Microcenter for these CPUs. Some rip-off sleeze bag in marketing set the price for the i5 8400 at $250, way over Intel's $182.00 - $187.00 recommended customer price. Amazon and Newegg have priced them right so buy from them!

They price match bud.

 

[Tír na nÓg]

^Here is THE man!

It sucks there is no such thing in Europe... (Well yeah, except for soap and pasta's!)

 

[SPL Tech]

Microcenter needs to start selling online. What is their deal? They would quadruple their market audience overnight. Easy money if I've ever seen it.

 

[Alaric]

The 8400 looks like a great CPU for non overclockers wanting a gaming cpu

For who?...Wait...What??? I'm confused...

 

[Tír na nÓg]

Well, it seems the 8400 [email protected] on all cores, which gives a higher IPC than Ryzen@4GHz, with 6 full cores. That can be a good alternative for gaming! And no need of expensive Mobo for this one... you can get a CPU+Mobo combo in the $300 range. DIlemma, dilemma...

 

[Woomack]

Now question if you really need locked 6 cores as for most games 4 cores are more than enough. Enthusiasts/gamers wish to OC if they need it or not. If 6 cores can be used then it seems like a good option. If not then 4 cores can be even better option if we look at the total cost of the platform. Most games need faster graphics card and not really CPU. Those users who want to run games in 4k or on multi monitor setups probably will buy higher series CPU anyway.

With some luck I will be able to play some with 16 core atom cpu soon. I'm not really interested in coffee lake as it's the same boring stuff as last 5 intel gens. Higher clock, maybe 2 cores more and nothing else. If I wasn't testing/reviewing etc then I could live with 5 year old cpu for games as I wouldn't really see the difference.

 

[Tír na nÓg]

Now question if you really need locked 6 cores as for most games 4 cores are more than enough. Enthusiasts/gamers wish to OC if they need it or not. If 6 cores can be used then it seems like a good option. If not then 4 cores can be even better option if we look at the total cost of the platform. Most games need faster graphics card and not really CPU. Those users who want to run games in 4k or on multi monitor setups probably will buy higher series CPU anyway.

With some luck I will be able to play some with 16 core atom cpu soon. I'm not really interested in coffee lake as it's the same boring stuff as last 5 intel gens. Higher clock, maybe 2 cores more and nothing else. If I wasn't testing/reviewing etc then I could live with 5 year old cpu for games as I wouldn't really see the difference.

I agree somehow with you when it is only about gaming (see my Mission, lol!): only plus in the last few years is pcie 3.0, NVMe and USB 3c/3.1.

On another hand, with superfast internet and social networks prevalence, more and more people encode and stream while gaming. Multi tasking is a common thing now, while it was still very marginal a few years ago. And in that, extra cores are a necessity, even if most games (the most reduces every month though...) take only advantage of 4 cores/threads.

 

[Woomack]

I just can't get it ... really all are streaming everything nowadays ? ... somehow I see it like really small % is streaming etc but all are talking about it like everyone needed 6 cores+. I just see that a lot of people are brainwashed because of marketing which is just fighting for better sales.
I'm happy to see that laptops are getting cheaper 4 core CPUs and finally Intel is improving that. In gaming desktops, 4 cores are minimum, 6 cores are just right if someone has money but in most games won't be really used or won't scale good. But if we are talking about cheap gaming computers then I'm not sure if anyone has to pay more for additional 2 cores which won't be really used.

 

[DaveB]

They price match bud.

Microcenter has no national policy to price match, so if you got your local store to do it, good for you. Right now there's nothing to price match against anyway, as both Newegg and Amazon are out of stock.

If you find a documented Microcenter price match policy, please post it here.

 

[Tír na nÓg]

I just can't get it ... really all are streaming everything nowadays ? ... somehow I see it like really small % is streaming etc but all are talking about it like everyone needed 6 cores+. I just see that a lot of people are brainwashed because of marketing which is just fighting for better sales.
I'm happy to see that laptops are getting cheaper 4 core CPUs and finally Intel is improving that. In gaming desktops, 4 cores are minimum, 6 cores are just right if someone has money but in most games won't be really used or won't scale good. But if we are talking about cheap gaming computers then I'm not sure if anyone has to pay more for additional 2 cores which won't be really used.

Check youtube: tons of gaming video! And look at new bilds advice threads: most people include streaming/encoding in the reqs. It grows exponentially it seems.

 

[Woomack]

Now you say most for a market which is ~5% of computer sales I play some games and I see that maybe 90% gamers have slower PC than my 3 year old laptop so it's just hard to believe that so many require 6 cores for streaming. I know there are a lot of youtube videos but it's that market is pushing additional ways of PC usage. It doesn't mean that people really need that. It's just how to make people to buy more. Those who need stronger hardware for their needs will buy it anyway, no matter if it's Ryzen, CL or Skylake-X. Those who make money on streaming will pay a lot for a top build but most gamers won't buy anything above 4-6 cores and GTX1060.

I'm not saying it's not needed but there is a little difference between need and want. Most gamers want that because they think it's required and later their CPU is loaded in 50% max but they have that internal feeling that money was well spent.

With lower prices it's of course better to buy cheap 6 core than last gen 4 core in the same price. It's not required but price tag makes it a better option. I just think that those who build cheaper gaming PC can live with 4 cores.

Eh, maybe it's because I'm selling computers and work in IT for a long time. I just see this market from a bit other side.

 

[Tír na nÓg]

Now you say most for a market which is ~5% of computer sales I play some games and I see that maybe 90% gamers have slower PC than my 3 year old laptop so it's just hard to believe that so many require 6 cores for streaming. I know there are a lot of youtube videos but it's that market is pushing additional ways of PC usage. It doesn't mean that people really need that. It's just how to make people to buy more. Those who need stronger hardware for their needs will buy it anyway, no matter if it's Ryzen, CL or Skylake-X. Those who make money on streaming will pay a lot for a top build but most gamers won't buy anything above 4-6 cores and GTX1060.

I'm not saying it's not needed but there is a little difference between need and want. Most gamers want that because they think it's required and later their CPU is loaded in 50% max but they have that internal feeling that money was well spent.

Eh, maybe it's because I'm selling computers and work in IT for a long time. I just see this market from a bit other side.

Did not say "most", said "more and more" and "exponential growth"

 

[Woomack]

I will go to Intel conference next year to laugh a bit at their marketing and limited point of view I'm curious what AMD will make after they see CL sales. Ryzen already looks old.
About streaming, I just don't know how can it be so much fun to watch others play games instead of play these games. New generation is making me sad.
I just got Nintendo SNES Mini and I'm selling 7700K+Z270
There is a chance I will get CL but as I mentioned somewhere it will be only if someone send me motherboard for review ... one ITX Z370 mobo is reserved for me, will see if I get it.

 

[Tugela]

Blah, whatever, who cares. USB 3.1, 3.6, 10.0, no one gives a crap. No one is going to spend hundreds of dollars just because they get more USB 3.whatever ports. You could buy a PCI-e card and get all the USB 3.1 ports you want and you can do that on an old Core2Duo machine if you wanted. The real answer here is that the Z370 provides absolutely nothing of value and the only reason Intel released it is to force you to buy the crap. Kind of like when someone makes a proprietary part for a device and sells it at 5x higher than what it should be sold at. It's all about the $$$$, not about actual technological improvements.

My understanding was that the new 6 core chips had added requirements that the older Z270 boards could not handle, so a new chip set was required. The real chip set was not ready in time however, due to the rushed nature of the release to counter AMD, so they modified the existing Z270 chip set to allow for the 6 cores. Which meant that Z370 chips do nothing new, other than facilitate the 6 core processors. Obviously in that scenario you would need a new board, but most people would get that anyway if they were upgrading from an older processor (there is no real compelling need to upgrade from the last processor for the vast majority of users if they had such a system already).

There is absolutely no way that Intel would be willing to let major market share slip away to AMD by delaying release until the next gen chip set was ready just to cater to the very small number of consumers who want to upgrade their CPU to the latest version every year. Their motivation was to get into the market with their 6 core CPUs NOW, it was not to screw you over.

- - - Updated - - -

The rumor is that there will be new chip sets (the real ones, not the modified Z270s) arriving next year anyway, so you folk who have to have the latest and greatest are going to be bitching about being "forced" to replace your boards yet again in a few months time anyway