• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Intel Core i7-6950X , Intel Core i7-6900K and Intel Core i7-5960X

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I expect the Skylake-X turbo clock to be at least 4 Ghz for the 10 core and more than 4 Ghz for the 6 and 8. It'd obviously have to downclock when using AVX-512 but the throughput should still be higher.

Whether that'd be better in games versus a theoretical 4.5/4.9 4C8T Kaby Lake-X is certainly up for question.
 
4GHz turbo on the 10 core - that would be impressive. I will be surprised if SKL-X clocks that high for 10 cores. Then again, if what I've read is true - that SKL-X/EP will be manufactured on 14nm plus - I suppose its possible.
 
Ajay said:
4GHz turbo on the 10 core - that would be impressive. I will be surprised if SKL-X clocks that high for 10 cores. Then again, if what I've read is true - that SKL-X/EP will be manufactured on 14nm plus - I suppose its possible.
Click to expand...

Basically my thinking is that Skylake-X is a different die altogether than Skylake-EP and will be tuned differently. Skylake-X is only quad channel memory; no chip interconnect, etc. It's strictly geared toward workstation and enthusiast where Turbo Boost is more useful and needed.
 
jpiniero said:
Basically my thinking is that Skylake-X is a different die altogether than Skylake-EP and will be tuned differently. Skylake-X is only quad channel memory; no chip interconnect, etc. It's strictly geared toward workstation and enthusiast where Turbo Boost is more useful and needed.
Click to expand...

That would make allot of sense, assuming Intel sells enough SKL-X CPUs.
 
Ajay said:
That would make allot of sense, assuming Intel sells enough SKL-X CPUs.
Click to expand...

Nope. Intel has often had a "cut down" platform with fewer memory channels and fewer pins. LGA 2011 was accompanied by an LGA 1356 in the Romley gen, but these platforms weren't very widely advertised to the consumer market.

With Skylake-Xeon, LGA-2066 becomes the "cut down" platform relative to the top-end LGA-3467, and it is what will be sold into the workstation/consumer market. The dies, just as they are on the LGA 1356 chips, are the same.
 
wingman04 said:
Who at OC.net has the equipment to test frame times?
Click to expand...
I suppose, the more correct wording would be to say :"minimum framerates".

Anyways, i can't exactly find that post now, all i remember were LGA2011-3 chips and SLId Titans and slight minimum framerate improvement from going to 40 lanes on same clocks.
 
Arachnotronic said:
Pushed to Q3/Q4, sadly.

basin-falls.jpg
Click to expand...

But still no pcie 4.0.
 
Ajay said:
Through aggressive pricing and marketing. But, that got a slap on the wrist already for aggressive marketing and, as I said, Intel doesn't want to erode its profits either.
Click to expand...
And so far there is no sign that Intel needs to do anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top