- Jun 8, 2003
- 14,387
- 480
- 126
grain of salt.....but its something.
http://wccftech.com/intel-skylake-x-kaby-lake-x-core-i7-august-2017-launch/
http://wccftech.com/intel-skylake-x-kaby-lake-x-core-i7-august-2017-launch/
Coffee Lake-S with 2-channel memory vs Skylake-X with 4 channels.
I remember one post from the Skylake thread that showed how Skylake-S benefits from more memory bandwidth: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/intel-skylake-kaby-lake-thread.2428363/page-359#post-38685652
No, Skylake X is 6, 8, and 10 core. Kaby Lake X is quad core.Is there even a reason we're distinguishing between Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X?
On any other CPU generation, we would consider them steppings.
Is there even a reason we're distinguishing between Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X?
On any other CPU generation, we would consider them steppings.
We could also use something like DDR4 3200 CL16 vs. DDR4 2600 CL13. If bandwidth is indeed more important, we should see similar scaling even with equal latency. If gains are not as expected, then latency matters as well.There haven't been that many controls to isolate bandwidth from latency, though. For example, DDR4-4266 single channel vs DDR4-2133 dual channel + identical timings. Should be same bandwidth either way, but the former would have much better latency with the same timings.
I agree thats one approach. I havnt seen data that shows skl is different from ib, from an architecture standpoint, in scaling with faster ram. And obviously we need to separate timings here.We could also use something like DDR4 3200 CL16 vs. DDR4 2600 CL13. If bandwidth is indeed more important, we should see similar scaling even with equal latency. If gains are not as expected, then latency matters as well.
Even going from 3200 CL14 to 3866 CL16 means shaving off a bit of latency.
Without an IGP?
We could also use something like DDR4 3200 CL16 vs. DDR4 2600 CL13. If bandwidth is indeed more important, we should see similar scaling even with equal latency. If gains are not as expected, then latency matters as well.
Even going from 3200 CL14 to 3866 CL16 means shaving off a bit of latency.
I was looking at the charts linked in a post above, took the value as an example from there. My point was that even very high frequencies allow for good enough timings as to shave a bit more latency.