Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

[Edrick]

Intel quotes throughput figures for double-precision. Still, it's not looking good for AVX-512 on Skylake-X. I just crunched the numbers, and 1 TFLOP/s is consistent with AVX2 running at 3.5 GHz.

3.5 GHz * (256 / 64) * 2 * 2 * 18 = 1000 GFLOP/s

Perhaps the 18-core SKU will have an extremely low AVX frequency of 1.8 GHz, but that doesn't really make things any better.

http://ark.intel.com/products/123767/Intel-Core-i7-7820X-Processor-11M-Cache-up-to-4_30-GHz

According to Intel, the X series all support AVX-512. Probably clocked down a lot however.

 

[formulav8]

Petty sure thats what CFL-S is for.

I can't remember but I thought that series was up to 6 cores only?

 

[Edrick]

The X299 motherboard pricing is going to be the nail in the coffin. With AMD, you can pay $300 for a R7 1700, add another $80 for a B350 board, and OC all the way to 4 GHz. Intel is simply lost and without a clue.

Really? So the people who are going to drop $600-$2000 for a CPU are going to have a hard time justifying an extra $100 for a motherboard? You may want to get off the AMD fanwagon for a moment and look at it objectively.

 

[Zucker2k]

Sad. Hopefully they used high-end TIM though.

I can't wait to delid mine as soon I can lay my hands on it. I'm personally glad they're not soldered.
Intel opting not to solder speaks well for the 14nm+ process - packing all those relatively high frequency cores in that tdp package. Something to think about. The 7740K has actually clocked past 7.5Ghz, beating the 7700K
http://hwbot.org/submission/3563158_der8auer_cpu_frequency_core_i7_7740k_7562.25_mhz
This should go up a fair bit once the platform ages a bit more.

 

[Edrick]

Intel opting not to solder speaks well for the 14nm+ process

Has it been confirmed that Skylake-X is using 14nm+? Sorry if I missed it, lots of information to sort through today.

 

[Zucker2k]

Has it been confirmed that Skylake-X is using 14nm+? Sorry if I missed it, lots of information to sort through today.

I believe I read so on the Anandtech piece.

 

[Shivansps]

I can't remember but I thought that series was up to 6 cores only?

Yes and it should do ok vs 1700 with higher ipc, higher clocks and whiout latency issues.

Intel mayor problems falls in the i5 and i3 now, especially if no i5 6/6 is confirmed.

 

[wildhorse2k]

I can't wait to delid mine as soon I can lay my hands on it. I'm personally glad they're not soldered.
Intel opting not to solder speaks well for the 14nm+ process - packing all those relatively high frequency cores in that tdp package. Something to think about. The 7740K has actually clocked past 7.5Ghz, beating the 7700K
http://hwbot.org/submission/3563158_der8auer_cpu_frequency_core_i7_7740k_7562.25_mhz
This should go up a fair bit once the platform ages a bit more.

It's risky in the beginning given that motherboard could have manufacturing defects and fry the CPU. I would wait 1/2-1 year before attempting to delid.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://ark.intel.com/products/123767/Intel-Core-i7-7820X-Processor-11M-Cache-up-to-4_30-GHz

According to Intel, the X series all support AVX-512. Probably clocked down a lot however.

Not the 7740X and 7640X chips, though. 7800X and up.

 

[blue11]

Really? So the people who are going to drop $600-$2000 for a CPU are going to have a hard time justifying an extra $100 for a motherboard? You may want to get off the AMD fanwagon for a moment and look at it objectively.

Absolutely nobody is going to be buying the $2000 SKU. Let's look at the 8 cores, which are the new standard for basic desktop.

Intel:
$600 CPU
$200 MB
$186 memory (4x4)
===
$986

AMD:
$330 CPU
$80 MB
$136 memory (2x8)
===
$546

AMD is delivering the same value for half the price. Sure Intel can point to some ridiculous $2000 SKU that exactly 0 people will buy and say they're better, because they have no answer where it actually matters. AMD is absolutely dominant in the mainstream right now.

 

[RichUK]

Update: Intel neglects solder on hew high end skylake-x chips. https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cp...x_and_kaby_lake-x_cpus_will_not_be_soldered/1

Poor show from Intel.

 

[Nothingness]

http://ark.intel.com/products/123767/Intel-Core-i7-7820X-Processor-11M-Cache-up-to-4_30-GHz

According to Intel, the X series all support AVX-512. Probably clocked down a lot however.

That'd be great news, but it wouldn't be the first time ARK is wrong. If confirmed I might make the jump and pick i7-7820X

 

[blue11]

That'd be great news, but it wouldn't be the first time ARK is wrong. If confirmed I might make the jump and pick i7-7820X

You can't trust ARK. Even if it's "supported," it might not be faster than AVX2, just like AVX "support" on Zen. Only benchmarks (LINPACK) can show us the real picture.

 

[T1beriu]

Absolutely nobody is going to be buying the $2000 SKU

This is where I stopped reading.

 

[krumme]

Absolutely nobody is going to be buying the $2000 SKU. Let's look at the 8 cores, which are the new standard for basic desktop.

Intel:
$600 CPU
$200 MB
$186 memory (4x4)
===
$986

AMD:
$330 CPU
$80 MB
$136 memory (2x8)
===
$546

AMD is delivering the same value for half the price. Sure Intel can point to some ridiculous $2000 SKU that exactly 0 people will buy and say they're better, because they have no answer where it actually matters. AMD is absolutely dominant in the mainstream right now.

Well i didnt think of myself as mainstream user when i bought the 1700. But hey Virtual Larry upgraded from his pentium stuff and bought a 1600 and was happy until i told him it was the new entry level.
Man he got 6 times the threads and was still stuck at entry level.
Rofl.

Core i5 users? Wtf is that? Tell them the news. They dont exist.

 

[n0x1ous]

Absolutely nobody is going to be buying the $2000 SKU. Let's look at the 8 cores, which are the new standard for basic desktop.

Intel:
$600 CPU
$200 MB
$186 memory (4x4)
===
$986

AMD:
$330 CPU
$80 MB
$136 memory (2x8)
===
$546

AMD is delivering the same value for half the price. Sure Intel can point to some ridiculous $2000 SKU that exactly 0 people will buy and say they're better, because they have no answer where it actually matters. AMD is absolutely dominant in the mainstream right now.

Pretty sure a couple members here will have it on day 1 including AdamK47

 

[LTC8K6]

Absolutely nobody is going to be buying the $2000 SKU. Let's look at the 8 cores, which are the new standard for basic desktop.

Intel:
$600 CPU
$200 MB
$186 memory (4x4)
===
$986

AMD:
$330 CPU
$80 MB
$136 memory (2x8)
===
$546

AMD is delivering the same value for half the price. Sure Intel can point to some ridiculous $2000 SKU that exactly 0 people will buy and say they're better, because they have no answer where it actually matters. AMD is absolutely dominant in the mainstream right now.

How are they same value if one runs the software faster than the other?

 

[TheF34RChannel]

Based on the chart, it looks like they're drawing the distinction between i7 and i9 on the number of PCIe lanes.

I briefly thought the same thing, after which I realized the top KBL-X part has 16 lanes and also wears the i7 moniker. It would've been less confusing to use i7/i5 for KBL-X and i9 for SKL-X. On the other hand; what does it really matter; we buy parts for their specs and performance, not the name. At least, I do and don't, respectively.

http://ark.intel.com/products/123767/Intel-Core-i7-7820X-Processor-11M-Cache-up-to-4_30-GHz

According to Intel, the X series all support AVX-512. Probably clocked down a lot however.

Not needing AVX whatsoever I am happy there'll be an offset. Could someone explain to me how the offset works in itself and in regard to your OC (I know that your OC is higher with an offset but that's all I know and I'd like to understand it better)? I assume you cannot completely disable AVX in the BIOS?

Core i5 users? Wtf is that? Tell them the news. They dont exist.

I'm one of those users -- not for long though

 

[LTC8K6]

I believe I read so on the Anandtech piece.

If it's 14nm+ then it's more like Kaby Lake than Skylake...

 

[Edrick]

Absolutely nobody is going to be buying the $2000 SKU. Let's look at the 8 cores, which are the new standard for basic desktop.

Intel:
$600 CPU
$200 MB
$186 memory (4x4)
===
$986

AMD:
$330 CPU
$80 MB
$136 memory (2x8)
===
$546

AMD is delivering the same value for half the price. Sure Intel can point to some ridiculous $2000 SKU that exactly 0 people will buy and say they're better, because they have no answer where it actually matters. AMD is absolutely dominant in the mainstream right now.

Your AMD bias is allowing you to make such claims that undermine your credibility.

Let me fix your post for you. "Not many gamers are going to be buying the $2000 SKU." That is much more accurate.

As for your price comparisons, you are not comparing apples to apples. You are taking a decent x299 MB and comparing it to a entry level AMD MB. I am certain there will be entry level x299 MBs for under $200. Compare feature set to feature set. Also, you can run Intel quad channel CPUs in a dual channel configuration (people do it all day in the server world). So RAM prices will be identical.

I am happy AMD is doing well in the mainstream markets. Competition is great, as today demonstrates. Clearly Intel adjusted it pricing and top end SKUs in response to AMD. But your constant claims bout how Intel is dead just makes you sound uneducated.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Those extra PCI lanes sure make the 10 core tempting. I wonder how far it will lag behind the 7820 in terms of overclock - I guess I'm going to be stalking Silicon Lottery the next few months.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Pretty sure a couple members here will have it on day 1 including AdamK47

I look forward to Adam's report too.

 

[wildhorse2k]

Why soldering is a bad idea..

http://overclocking.guide/the-truth-about-cpu-soldering/

It's from der8auer, not some random Intel fanboi.

 

[Edrick]

Those extra PCI lanes sure make the 10 core tempting. I wonder how far it will lag behind the 7820 in terms of overclock - I guess I'm going to be stalking Silicon Lottery the next few months.

Even if you go with the 28 lane CPU, you are still getting 24 lanes from the chipset. Thats 52 available lanes. More than enough for most people. But if you are going to be running multiple video cards, a few PCIe SSDs, and 10GBE Lan, then you will need the 44 lane CPU.

 

[blue11]

Your AMD bias is allowing you to make such claims that undermine your credibility.

Let me fix your post for you. "Not many gamers are going to be buying the $2000 SKU." That is much more accurate.

As for your price comparisons, you are not comparing apples to apples. You are taking a decent x299 MB and comparing it to a entry level AMD MB. I am certain there will be entry level x299 MBs for under $200. Compare feature set to feature set. Also, you can run Intel quad channel CPUs in a dual channel configuration (people do it all day in the server world). So RAM prices will be identical.

I am happy AMD is doing well in the mainstream markets. Competition is great, as today demonstrates. Clearly Intel adjusted it pricing and top end SKUs in response to AMD. But your constant claims bout how Intel is dead just makes you sound uneducated.

If anything, it's your claim of bias that is hurting your credibility. Sure, in some applications the SKL-X 8C might outperform the R7 1700, but it won't outperform it by 2x (price difference). I've never claimed that Intel was "dead," except in the mainstream segment where they stubbornly refuse to lower prices. The 18C SKU at $2000 is still decent value, or rather, it would be if Intel didn't gimp features like 6-channel and AVX-512 from it. LGA-3647 and Purley are still undisputed champions in performance and value. However, where it counts most, in mainstream, Intel is simply refusing to give the performance the market wants at the price it's willing to pay.