• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,573
126
7700K's turbo clocks are as follows:

1 core: 4.5GHz
2 core: 4.4GHz
3 core: 4.4GHz
4 core: 4.4GHz

It runs at 4.5GHz on all cores on most Z270 boards because the mobo makers build in a feature that just runs all of the cores at 4.5GHz -- the top single core turbo speed.

They can get away with this because they know each of the cores is validated to run at 4.5GHz, so there is no stability risk.
I don't think all that matters because the 91W TDP is at the base clock. So if we are talking about / guessing the TDP of the 6C chip, it will be taken from the base clock as well.

If a 4C 14nm+ chip with a base clock of 4.2 has a TDP of 91W, then I think it's certainly possible that a 6C 14nm++ chip might have a similar base clock at a little higher TDP, say 95W.

But again, I don't expect Intel to deliver such a chip. I expect them to get close, though.

We do have KL-X at 112W TDP with the same base clock, but I'm not sure that matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
3,291
1,093
136
I looked around and most people seem to report the 7700K staying at 4.5 on all cores when gaming on a Z board. What does a 7700K do at stock/on a non-Z board?

Keep in mind that TDP is determined at the base frequency.

At stock it's running with 4.4 Ghz as I said, unless Turbo is disabled.
 

Bouowmx

Golden Member
Nov 13, 2016
1,134
548
146
I created my speculation from the Core i7-7700, which has 4 cores running 4.0 GHz Turbo, rated at 65 W. 150% the cores, same frequency, and 150% the power for the 8700, not counting any process improvements.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,573
126
I created my speculation from the Core i7-7700, which has 4 cores running 4.0 GHz Turbo, rated at 65 W. 150% the cores, same frequency, and 150% the power for the 8700, not counting any process improvements.
Except that the 65W figure is at the 3.6 base clock...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,573
126
It's continuous on desktop with decent cooling.
With a non-Z board? :D

There's also the fact that Intel provides a stock cooler for some chips, a cooler which does not reach the "decent" level. The 7700, for example. What speeds does it do with the provided cooler? :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
4,610
6,405
136
Well, it "can" run at 4.4ghz if conditions permit. Presumably this will not be continuously?
For all our intents and purposes it's continuous. As you well know base clocks take GPU power consumption into account, and most of us use these chips without heavy loads on their GPU (if any).

Even standard mobile quads @ 45W TDP can sustain full turbo speeds indefinitely as long as GPU activity is minimal. (AVX loads go a bit lower)
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,573
126
For all our intents and purposes it's continuous. As you well know base clocks take GPU power consumption into account, and most of us use these chips without heavy loads on their GPU (if any).

Even standard mobile quads @ 45W TDP can sustain full turbo speeds indefinitely as long as GPU activity is minimal. (AVX loads go a bit lower)
It might be interesting to look at the Xeon equivalent TDP numbers.
 

Bouowmx

Golden Member
Nov 13, 2016
1,134
548
146
I have a daily-use Intel Core i7-2600 with stock-like cooler (aluminum, radial fins, top-down fan): runs at 3.5 GHz at worst-case Prime95 small FFT. The lofty TDP rating helps.

I tested a Intel Core i7-7700 in ASRock H110M-STX with stock cooler in Prime95 small FFT. At stock power limit (which is equal to TDP, 65 W), frequency ran between 3.6 (base) and 4.0 (Turbo) GHz. I then set power limit to 120 W (yes, I can do that on H110) and ran the test again: frequency is stable at 4.0 GHz, and package power is ~72 W. No temperature issues.

I also ran FurMark, and GPU power is ~30 W. You can combine the two for ~100 W and temperature issues.
 
Last edited:

ndtech

Junior Member
Mar 14, 2017
8
2
51
I created my speculation from the Core i7-7700, which has 4 cores running 4.0 GHz Turbo, rated at 65 W. 150% the cores, same frequency, and 150% the power for the 8700, not counting any process improvements.
Note:
14++ is 10% faster for single core
14++ power of one core is 70-80% of 14+ power for same frequency:
80% - for mid frequency
70% - for high frequency

i7-8700 can't be 95W.
It must be 65W.
 

TheF34RChannel

Senior member
May 18, 2017
786
307
136
Note:
14++ is 10% faster for single core
14++ power of one core is 70-80% of 14+ power for same frequency:
80% - for mid frequency
70% - for high frequency

i7-8700 can't be 95W.
It must be 65W.
And it most likely is. The K is 95W.
 

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
9,826
4,177
136
Note:
14++ is 10% faster for single core
14++ power of one core is 70-80% of 14+ power for same frequency:
80% - for mid frequency
70% - for high frequency***


i7-8700 can't be 95W.
It must be 65W.

*** Where are you getting these numbers? I haven't seen details of Intel's 14nm++ electrostatics yet.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,895
1,274
136
7700K's turbo clocks are as follows:

1 core: 4.5GHz
2 core: 4.4GHz
3 core: 4.4GHz
4 core: 4.4GHz
So the 6-core could equal this and add "bins" for 5 and 6 core turbo (4.3, 4.2 Ghz) or similar and that would ensure that it's not slower than a 7700k in gaming at stock! settings.

Still even if it OCs less than a 7700k or 7740x and is slightly slower therefore in ST, it's worth the trade-off because you loose maybe 5% ST performance but gain 50% on MT.
 

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
3,291
1,093
136
Who cares about a 5% loss for 4C apps when there is a massive MT speedup due to 50% more cores. I don't expect 4.2-4.3 Ghz 6C Turbo though. Coffeelake 6/12 also features 50% more L3 cache which might result in a few percent better gaming IPC compared to Kabylake 4/8, because games tend to be more cache sensitive.
 

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,344
1,323
136
New Who cares about a 5% loss for 4C apps when there is a massive MT speedup due to 50% more cores. I don't expect 4.2-4.3 Ghz 6C Turbo though. Coffeelake 6/12 also features 50% more L3 cache which might result in a few percent better gaming IPC compared to Kabylake 4/8, because games tend to be more cache sensitive.
Yeah, i would not underestimate impact of extra 4MB of L3. Sub 10ns, over 250GB/s read (probably even more due to 6 cores design having more slices and more % utilization ) and inclusive is good for games, where game graphics thread produces stuff for driver thread running on other cores. Could be best overall CPU for desktop for years to come.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikk

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,573
126
Since the 7700K is 91W, it seems like there is room for a 6 core to have a little higher TDP and stay within the limits of 1151 boards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

Eddward

Member
Apr 10, 2012
56
19
81
I'm hoping as a worst case scenario 4.0Ghz base for all cores and 4.2Ghz for a single core. Just like Skylake 6700K.
And with an average overclocking potential up to 4.5-4.6Ghz for all cores.
I'm planning to replace 4.6Ghz 6700K so this is my goal to not have single thread downgraded :)
 

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
3,291
1,093
136
Singlethread and all core turbo difference should be higher, doesn't make sense that there is only a 200 Mhz gap on a 6C CPU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coercitiv

TheGiant

Senior member
Jun 12, 2017
748
353
106
Realistic case is IMO

base- 3.8GHz
all core turbo- 4.2GHz
single core turbo- 4.7GHz

not because the process can not handle it but because there is a 7800X which costs 390USD and if the new 6C CFL has 4.0 GHz base and 4.4GHz all core turbo it will wipe the floor with 7800X- and with the MB price difference and power consumption difference, the 7800X will become obsolete

I wonder how Intel handles the 7800X vs 6C CFL situation
 
  • Like
Reactions: raghu78

ASK THE COMMUNITY