superstition
Platinum Member
- Feb 2, 2008
- 2,219
- 221
- 101
What's next, are you going to say this non-K 6700 is overclocked to 5 GHz+ as well?
- Average: 105.6 FPS
- Normal: 118.2 FPS
- Medium Batch: 109.2 FPS
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...-details/9ea1e763-93f4-4954-be0a-7b6dc6682699
- Heavy Batch: 92.7 FPS
Please drop the excuses and don't go personal next time.
Even if we use the results posted for the 'stock' 6700 by the other user:
- Average: 68.4 FPS
- Normal: 75.0FPS
- Medium Batch: 69.8FPS
- Heavy Batch: 61.8 FPS
We still have a non-K 4C/8T Skylake-S beating 8C/16T Summit Ridge in a benchmark that takes advantage of the extra cores.
Below Haswell i7 as well then.
but is a theorical limit computed by Aots.
Flank3r... Can you also also test an FX at 4.5, since that is a readily obtainable overclock without high-end boards or cooling (making low-end stock FX clocks rather irrelevant)? Or, are those lighter grey parts in your sig no longer owned by you?
Really? 5.3 GHz on i7 6700k? And my SB i5 2500K can reach 6 GHz. On air!It's funny that nobody here is smart enough to realise that the linked benchmark shows a 6700k which is overclocked to 5GHz or higher.
See the best result of the 6700 at 3.4GHz which is basically the exact same CPU except at a lower clock rate.
- Average: 68.4 FPS
- Normal: 75.0FPS
- Medium Batch: 69.8FPS
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...-details/e440453e-8f8d-4fca-a73f-2de853e6fd2e
- Heavy Batch: 61.8 FPS
compared to the heavily overclocked 6700k the OP posted
- Core i7-6700K 4C/8T - 4.0 GHz (2015 Skylake)
Average: 107.3 FPS
Normal batch: 125.7 FPS
Medium batch: 113.8 FPS
Heavy batch: 89.2 FPS
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...-details/6096dd00-7e11-4368-b588-97413922f5c7
Let's compare the average 68.4 FPS and 107.3 FPS. 107.3/68.4*100= 156%
So that means the overclocked 6700k is 56% faster than the stock 6700.
That's a massive difference. Far bigger than a simple overclock to 4GHz would suggest.
If we multiplicate the stock clock rate of the 6700 at 3.4GHz with 156% the result would be 3.4GHZ*156/100=5.3GHz.
and 5.3GHz can actually be easily achieved with the 6700k.
It's also interesting to note that the game's FPS don't scale with more cores very well. See the result of this 16 core Xeon so this is most likely just a comparison of the single core performance which again mostly depends on the clock speed.
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...-details/f37e31c4-299d-44d4-b5d2-40462a551e54
What if Zen ships with solder instead of bottlenecking paste? That could help with the overclocking, perhaps. We have yet another delidding topic that just popped up here even though people have tried to argue to me that delidding is an extremely fringe activity because there isn't really an incentive to do it.
The vitriol I see directed towards Sweepr here reminds me eerily of the hate that some people directed towards the skeptics back pre Bulldozer.
Really obsessed with this solder/paste thing aren't you? How much overclocking do you think skylake is sacrificing by using TIM? Most skylake chips can hit 4.6 or 4.7 relatively easily I believe. Even with the magic solder, I cant imaging getting 5.0 or above, so at most they are sacrificing a few hundred mhz. But in any case, Zen will compete with the HEDT lineup (or it had better, or it will be a complete fail), which *are* soldered.
Early ES results shouldn't be taken as the final product.
Does anyone have overclocked FX to compare with this, for curiosity? 4.6 GHz or so?
you can bet that there is basically nothing left in these chips clock wise. No different to Polaris in that aspect.
Sad... but this is AMD we're talking about.
Then again, you don't expect your star batter to hit one out of the park on his first swing all the time, do you?
I would expect things to improve in time for Zen++ aka Zen APU.
Obsessed? No. I haven't delidded any chips nor am I the one who:frozentundra123456 said:Really obsessed with this solder/paste thing aren't you?
I would expect things to improve in time for Zen++ aka Zen APU.