Coffee Lake Desktop Processors

The final part of the launch is focused around filling out the processor line-up for the desktop. Intel launched six Coffee Lake-based desktop processors back in October, so we have had almost a five month wait for the rest of the line to see the light of day. In this batch of processors we see the regular and low powered processors that normally sit in Intel’s strategy, as well as a number of Pentium and Celeron parts.

AnandTech Cores TDP Freq L3 vPro DRAM
Core i7-8700K $359 6 / 12 95 W 3.7 / 4.7 12 MB No 2666 24 EUs 1200
Core i7-8700 $303 6 / 12 65 W 3.2 / 4.6 12 MB Yes 2666 24 EUs 1200
Core i7-8700T* $303 6 / 12 35 W 2.4 / 4.0 12 MB Yes 2666 24 EUs 1200

For the Core i7 family, the new entrant is the Core i7-8700T. This will be the only six-core processor, with hyperthreading, to fall into the 35W bracket. It features the full L3 cache support, dual channel memory up to DDR4-2666, and is eligible for vPro support. It is worth noting that the 35W TDP value is only valid when the CPU is at its base frequency, which in this case is 2.4 GHz. At the peak turbo of 4.0 GHz, or for all-cores somewhere in the middle (again, Intel won’t specify), the power will obviously be higher.

AnandTech Cores TDP Freq L3 vPro DRAM
Core i5-8600K $257 6 / 6 95 W 3.6 / 4.3 9 MB No 2666 24 EUs 1150
Core i5-8600* $213 6 / 6 65 W 3.1 / 4.3 9 MB Yes 2666 24 EUs 1150
Core i5-8600T* $213 6 / 6 35 W 2.3 / 3.7 9 MB Yes 2666 24 EUs 1150
Core i5-8500* $192 6 / 6 65 W 3.0 / 4.1 9 MB Yes 2666 24 EUs 1100
Core i5-8500T* $192 6 / 6 35 W 2.1 / 3.5 9 MB Yes 2666 24 EUs 1100
Core i5-8400 $182 6 / 6 65 W 2.8 / 4.0 9 MB No 2666 24 EUs 1050
Core i5-8400T* $192 6 / 6 35 W 1.7 / 3.3 9 MB No 2666 24 EUs 1050

In the Core i5, most of the parts are new. As with the Core i5 desktop parts that are already launched, these have six-cores but do not have multithreading. They have a reduced L3 cache per core compared to the Core i7, and it is worth noting that the base frequency for the processors does not actually get that high – only 3.1 GHz for the Core i5-8600. All of the parts support dual channel DDR4-2666, and all but one processor supports vPro.

AnandTech Cores TDP Freq L3 vPro DRAM
Core i3-8350K $168 4 / 4 91 W 4.0 8 MB No 2400 23 EUs 1150
Core i3-8300* $138 4 / 4 65 W 3.7 8 MB No 2400 23 EUs 1150
Core i3-8300T* $138 4 / 4 35 W 3.2 8 MB No 2400 23 EUs 1100
Core i3-8100 $117 4 / 4 65 W 3.6 6 MB No 2400 23 EUs 1100
Core i3-8100T* $117 4 / 4 35 W 3.1 6 MB No 2400 23 EUs  1100

There are only three new members of the Core i3 section, all of which are quad-core processors. The two Core i3-8300/T parts have the peak 2MB L3 per core, while the Core i3-8100T only has 1.5 MB L3 per core. These parts are all reduced in memory frequency as well, supporting dual-channel DDR4-2400. Intel has no vPro parts in the Core i3 line, but all the Core i3 SKUs will support Optane.

AnandTech Cores TDP Freq L3 DRAM
Pentium Gold G5600 $86 2 / 4 54 W 3.9 4 MB 2400 UHD 630 350 / 1100
Pentium Gold G5500 $75 2 / 4 54 W 3.8 4 MB 2400 UHD 630 350 / 1100
Pentium Gold G5500T $75 2 / 4 35 W 3.2 4 MB 2400 UHD 630 350 / 1100
Pentium Gold G5400 $64 2 / 4 54 W 3.7 4 MB 2400 UHD 630 350 / 1050
Pentium Gold G5400T $64 2 / 4 35 W 3.1 4 MB 2400 UHD 630 350 / 1050

The Pentium Gold processors fit in where the older Core i3 processors once stood: dual core with hyperthreading. Intel rates the ‘full speed’ models at 54W, while the lower-power T-models are at 35W. One of the bigger disadvantages of these parts is the lack of Optane support, plus also the DDR4-2400 memory support, however they do fill up the lower cost market. Intel differentiates the Pentium Gold as having the latest Core microarchitecture compared to Pentium Silver which uses the Atom core design.

AnandTech Cores TDP Freq L3 DRAM
Celeron G4920 $52 2 / 2 54 W 3.2 2 MB 2400 UHD 610 350 / 1050
Celeron G4900 $42 2 / 2 54 W 3.1 2 MB 2400 UHD 610 350 / 1050
Celeron G4900T $42 2 / 2 35 W 2.9 2 MB 2400 UHD 610 350 / 1000

No real fancy words for Celeron here: these are Intel’s dual core designs for the cheapest Intel-based PCs. Just pair one up with a H310 motherboard, a single stick of memory, and a cheap HDD, and there’s a PC. What is different is that Intel has dropped the 'G' in the SKU name in the document they gave us (such as G4920). We have seen other documents from Intel that have the G, so we need see why there is a discrepancy.

Update: ARK confirms that all the Celerons have 'G' in the name.

* New Parts

** Blank spots in tables will be filled in as we get information

Per-Core Turbo Ratios

Due to some sleuthing, and despite Intel's insistence these are proprietary information, we have all the official per-core turbo ratios for this processors.

The most interesting element to these values are the 35W low-powered T processors. In each case, the all core turbo is much, much higher than the base frequency. For example, the Core i5-8400T has a base frequency of 1.70 GHz, but the all-core turbo is set at 3.0 GHz - almost double. Given the fact that TDP is defined at the base frequency, it is quite clear that the all-core turbo mode suggested to motherboard manufacturers is going to blow that 35W limit on the i5-8400T.

High-Performance Mobile: Coffee Lake with Iris Plus at 28W New Optane Branding: Core i9+, Core i7+, Core i5+
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • BillBear - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link

    Actually, we've already seen ARM chips surpass Intel in the server space where Intel is strongest.
  • FunBunny2 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link

    "2020 from Intel x86 CPUs to some sort of higher performance ARM processor "

    well, they could stamp 12 or 24 or 48 ARM cores on a chip, and call it a CPU. but that would mean they've abandoned single thread performance. it only makes sense if they've some secret multi-threaded sauce, built into macOS (or whatever they end up calling it), that runtime converts from single to multi. that's some Catch 22.
  • PeachNCream - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link

    It sounds like the current intent is to consolidate under iOS across all of their computing devices. I do wonder how you'd reach a x86-comparable performance level with ARM cores. You're right they'd almost have to go crazy into multi-threaded stuff, but there are still some workloads that just don't benefit much. Like I said above though, I'm not really praising the move or particularly excited about it. It's just something that'd be interesting to watch happen.
  • HStewart - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link

    A non Intel based Mac will never replace high end mac - that may try it say MacBook Air line - but it likely be very unsuccessful.
  • SaturnusDK - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link

    You underestimate the baa! of the iSheep. They'll buy whatever crap Apple launches.
  • serendip - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link

    I was a Macbook and Powerbook user around the time of the PowerPC/x86 transition. Apple handled it well by having the Rosetta translation library; the Intel Core Duo chips back then had enough grunt to handle translated code at a decent speed too. It took a few years before big programs like Photoshop had native Mac Intel ports.

    An ARM Macbook with 20 hour battery life and Intel-equivalent performance would be a big seller provided code translation works well and popular apps have native ARM versions. Most Macbooks are used for Web and app development so it won't be hard to recompile code for ARM. I'd say Apple could do this better than the half-baked efforts by Windows OEMs to make Qualcomm PCs.
  • BurntMyBacon - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link

    Are we talking low end Apollo Lake or high end Coffee Lake equivalent performance. The former isn't going to have compelling performance in anything beyond (perhaps) Web Apps. The later is a pipe dream. I don't much care for Intel as a company, but do you seriously believe they are so incompetent at designing processors that a company with only 8 year experience designing processors (Apple) is going to double battery life (Macbook) with the same performance while using translation? Catching up to Intel, while not easy, is doable. After all, many of the things Intel did to get to their current performance are now known quantities. Very suddenly passing Intel up doesn't seem plausible as that would require Apple to have design expertise Intel doesn't have. Very suddenly passing them up by such a wide margin ... well I hope it happens as it would spur on competition. However, hope is not in fact a strategy, so I'm not counting on it. More realistically, they could take the AMD approach of offering more cores and trading off single threaded performance for mult-ithreaded performance. That may make it compelling for some use cases.
  • serendip - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link

    20 hours based on the Qualcomm PCs which a few vendors have demoed. An Apple ARM chip could achieve similar battery life with similar x86 translation performance. If Qualcomm can do it, I would bet that Apple can too, especially as they control both hardware and software on their devices.
  • fteoath64 - Thursday, April 5, 2018 - link

    Not only this. Apple can add special "sauce" in TensorCore chips into the mix and moe specialised co-processors within the Arm CCN that Intel cannot really match. There is much to innovate in that space where Intel just went into "brute force" speed and power-savings just to market their chips over the last few generations. Apple's GPU expertise is also coming to speed so there is much hope there....
  • HStewart - Saturday, April 7, 2018 - link

    Using AMD for CPU is non-sense - it obvious that Intel has lead on AMD especially in the Mobile CPU and Apple has pretty much abandon the desktop area. Only with iMac Pro with monitor based iMac's are basically now mobile cpu because of size and power.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now