Intel 9th Gen vs 8th Gen ~= 100-200 MHz boost

[epsilon84]

I'm not complaining, it's just showing that in the last couple years Intel had nothing to offer aside chipping away at the overclocking headroom that was already there.

Have they really? Did first gen Skylake chips overclock to 5.0GHz+ now? Did I get two dud 6700Ks that both topped out at 4.7GHz?

6700K: 4.0GHz stock ACT, avg overclock 4.6 - 4.7GHz
7700K: 4.4GHz stock ACT, avg overclock 4.9 - 5.0GHz
8700K: 4.3GHz stock ACT, avg overclock 5.0 - 5.1GHz

So yes, you are complaining, based on an agenda that is completely unfounded. Despite a 50% increase in core count we are getting similar (if not slightly higher) overclock % on the 8700K compared to a 6700K/7700K.

Now, is it possible that overclocking headroom could be eroded with the 9000 series? Possibly, but the average overclocks may also be slightly higher with more mature silicon. We won't know until retail samples are out and enough people overclock them Nevertheless, complain away about how Intel is taking away all our overclocking headroom. Meanwhile, if thats no fun anymore, maybe the 200MHz / 5% overclocks on the 2700X would be more up your alley

Quite frankly, if anything AMD is the one that is running their silicon right at the limits right now, not Intel.

 

[moinmoin]

Quite frankly, if anything AMD is the one that is running their silicon right at the limits right now, not Intel.

AMD definitely is (even more so with all the additions Zen+/Ryzen 2xxx saw), but they also don't differentiate between cheaper locked and more expensive unlocked chips.

 

[epsilon84]

AMD definitely is (even more so with all the additions Zen+/Ryzen 2xxx saw), but they also don't differentiate between cheaper locked and more expensive unlocked chips.

Which is beside the point of overclocking headroom though. I still fail to see how Intel has been reducing overclocking headroom since the Lake series chips have been launched. Pretty much every extra + on the 14nm process has yielded slightly higher average overclocks.

Now as I said, if the 9000 series chips are indeed rebranded 8000 chips with ~100MHz higher stock clocks then we may see oc % dip slightly. Or maybe after 12 months on the 14nm++ process Intel managed to eek out an extra 100MHz for overclocking too? Either way, I just don't see how overclocking headroom has been steadily declining as you claim

 

[ZGR]

Base clock speed is a useless metric on Intel desktop CPU's. They always maintain their turbo.

Overclocking headroom is eroding, but that is not a problem. That is a good thing for most consumers, as the word overclock scares them.

 

[LTC8K6]

Base clock speed is a useless metric on Intel desktop CPU's. They always maintain their turbo.

Overclocking headroom is eroding, but that is not a problem. That is a good thing for most consumers, as the word overclock scares them.

Intel says TDP is calculated from the base clock, yet the 8700K and 8086K have a 300mhz base clock difference, but the same TDP number.
If the 8086K and the 8700K are actually the same chip, logically the 8086K should have a higher TDP number.

 

[AtenRa]

Intel says TDP is calculated from the base clock, yet the 8700K and 8086K have a 300mhz base clock difference, but the same TDP number.
If the 8086K and the 8700K are actually the same chip, logically the 8086K should have a higher TDP number.

It will increase the power consumption and will lower the time it will take for the Chip to reach the Tjmax using the same TDP rate.
Also the 8086K chips could be hand picked that can operate at +300MHz at the same voltages as 8700K.