At a closed-session partner in China, Intel revealed a number of preliminary details about its upcoming 8th generation Core processors for desktops. As expected, Intel is telling its business customers that is increasing core count of its CPUs for mainstream PCs in a bid to drive performance, catalyze upgrades and better compete against its rival.

Intel has previously unveiled that they're working on what will be their 8th Generation Core processors. What has been rumored for a while (and what Intel yet has to publicly confirm) is increased core counts for the 8th Gen desktop parts. This week Chiphell, a China-based website, published a picture taken from a partner briefing event, which briefly describes the advantages of Intel’s 8th gen Core CPUs vs the company’s 7th gen Core chips.

According to two separate external sources with knowledge of the matter, the slide is up-to-date and genuine.

Intel is stating that the increased number of cores and enlarged caches will be the key improvements of the 8th Gen desktop parts, compared to their direct predecessors. In particular, the event speaker explained that the next-gen Core i7-8000 series CPUs will gain two additional cores to give six cores with Hyper-Threading. At the top end, it was stated that these will be at 95W and 65W TDPs for unlocked and regular SKUs respectively. The Core i5 series will also get two additional cores, but no Hyper-Threading. As for the Core i3 parts, these parts will lose Hyper-Threading, but instead move into the traditional i5 space, giving four cores only. Intel stated that they will also continue to offer unlocked CPUs within its i7, i5 and i3 families, and such processors will feature higher frequencies and a 95 W TDP (compared to the 65 W thermal envelope for their regular parts).

Update 9/15: Adding previously unknown frequencies.

Basic Specifications of Intel Core i5/i7 Desktop CPUs
7th Generation 8th Generation
  Cores Freq.
L3 TDP   Cores Freq.
i7-7700K 4/8 4.2GHz 8 MB 91W i7-8700K 6/12 3.8GHz 12MB 95W
i7-7700 3.6GHz 65W i7-8700 3.2GHz (?) 65W
i5-7600K 4/4 3.8GHz 6 MB 91W i5-8600K 6/6 3.6GHz (?) 9 MB 95W
i5-7400 3.0GHz 65W i5-8400 2.8GHz 65W
i3-7350K 2/4 4.2GHz 4 MB 60W i3-8350K 4/4 4.0GHz 6MB 95W
i5-7100 3.9GHz 51W i3-8100 3.6GHz 65W

As it stands, three things remain unclear about the 8th generation Core processors for desktops. The first one is the integrated graphics configuration of the company’s upcoming parts, as it may be important if Intel increases their GPU core counts to keep performance growing. The second one is the CPU core configuration of the future Pentium SKUs. In the case of Kaby Lake-based Pentiums, Intel enabled Hyper-Threading technology to match the Core i3 parts, blurring the line between the i3-7000 and the Pentium G4600-series parts. Third is if there are any adjustments to the pricing structure.

What will be interesting is the fact that Intel has lost the 4C/8T level of hardware. By moving the Core i5 to a six-core, any 4C/8T component has the potential to surpass a 6C/6T in certain tests. 

Intel did not supply us with this information. Intel traditionally does not comment on information it reveals to partners behind closed doors. More importantly, the information should be considered as preliminary as the company has been known to change product specifications close to launch, even on final engineering samples to retail. Even though the 8th generation Core processors would already need to be in production in order to meet Intel's 2017 goals, last minute changes are always on the table. Similarly, Intel has a lot of latitude in deciding when to actually launch their parts, particularly lower-volume desktop parts.

Related Reading:

Source: ChipHell

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Tsu_brO - Friday, August 18, 2017 - link

    yes :/ I wanted i3 = 3/6; i5 = 6/6; i7 = 6/12, and for laptops m3 = 2/4; m5 = 4/4; m7 = 4/8 (extinguishing 'iCore' for laptops and keeping only as 'mCore')
  • jardows2 - Friday, August 18, 2017 - link

    If this all pans out, and the products are released at the same price point as the 7xxx generation, that i3 8100 could be very compelling.

    I've been holding off on a needed office computer upgrade, waiting for Zen APU, but if i3 8100 is a true quad core at the ~$120 price range, that may be my ticket!
  • KaarlisK - Friday, August 18, 2017 - link

    Yup, really hoping price points do not change.
    That would mean my next build being $65 cheaper than expected, which would be the largest price drop on a while.
  • MonkeyPaw - Friday, August 18, 2017 - link

    Might still want to wait since you'll need a new motherboard. The AMD setup may still be cheaper once you get to the platform level. That, and AMD is the only reason this change happened.
  • HomeworldFound - Friday, August 18, 2017 - link

    Then the established platform stability will still be a winner if you can justify the potential extra cost to yourself, and if you actually expect a stable platform as opposed to an enthusiast / overclocking build.
  • MonkeyPaw - Friday, August 18, 2017 - link

    Kinda hard to make a conclusion as to which will be more stable, since we don't have either product in hand. The AMD chips will drop into AM4 boards already in the market, while the new Intel chips will require a new board.
  • IGTrading - Friday, August 18, 2017 - link

    Does AMD have the option to launch CPUs which have a 10% faster frequency ?

    This would be their only answer in such a situation ..
  • A5 - Friday, August 18, 2017 - link

    This is good news for everyone. Glad to have some real competition again.
  • guidryp - Friday, August 18, 2017 - link

    "any 4C/8T component has the potential to surpass a 6C/6T in certain tests"

    That seems dubious to me. The Hyper-threading bonus is maybe 30% gain overall max, often much less. 2 real cores should be + 50% consistently on those same tasks.

    No contest IMO, 2 real cores will always be better on 4 Hyper-threading ones will add.
  • MrSpadge - Friday, August 18, 2017 - link

    > The Hyper-threading bonus is maybe 30% gain overall max

    No, it's 20 - 30% average gain, depending on the test suite. And since we know there are workloads which slightly regress with HT, there have to be tests with far larger gains. 4 HT-cores giving +25% each would already tie 2 physical ones giving +50% each.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now