• 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."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

Page 398 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
Well, we have seen time and time again that plenty of people will pay for 5% more performance, and many more will pay for 10% more performance.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,667
1,078
136
Intel pushing up Coffeelake from Q1 2018 to August 2017? Doesn't that seem like Intel has products in the pipeline but has just been sitting on them this whole time?
Yeah. While I like this news and now for sure will wait for this release before I build this leaves a bad aftertaste. You can't just magically release something several month earlier on such short notice. It can only mean one thing. The designs are already finished and validated and only thing left is some minor optimizations and bug fixes + actually start mass production. They for sure would have been sitting on this if it weren't for AMD and Ryzen.
 

itsmydamnation

Platinum Member
Feb 6, 2011
2,153
1,674
136
So, who remembers the Skylake-SP specs leak I posted about a month ago? Let's rewind:



Back then some users questioned the veracity of some details, particularly the higher than expected base clocks. Fast forward...

Intel Xeon Gold & Xeon Platinum (Skylake-SP) Listed Online

CPU/Xeon 8180 2.50GHz FC-LGA14 TRAY
CPU/Xeon 8176 2.10GHz FC-LGA14 TRAY

CPU/Xeon 8170 2.10GHz FC-LGA14 TRAY
Intel CPU/Xeon 8168 2.70GHz FC-LGA14 TRAY
Intel CPU/Xeon 8164 2.00GHz FC-LGA14 TRAY
CPU/Xeon 8160 2.10GHz FC-LGA14 TRAY
Intel CPU/Xeon 6152 2.10GHz FC-LGA14 TRAY
Intel CPU/Xeon 6150 2.70GHz FC-LGA14 TRAY
Intel CPU/Xeon 6148 2.40GHz FC-LGA14 TRAY

CPU/Xeon 6142 2.60GHz FC-LGA14 TRAY
CPU/Xeon 6140 2.30GHz FC-LGA14 TRAY
Intel CPU/Xeon 6138 2.00GHz FC-LGA14 TRAY
CPU/Xeon 6136 3.00GHz FC-LGA14 TRAY
CPU/Xeon 6134 3.20GHz FC-LGA14 TRAY
Intel CPU/Xeon 6130 2.10GHz FC-LGA14 TRAY
Intel CPU/Xeon 6126 2.60GHz FC-LGA14 TRAY

Looking at other Xeon CPUs available there, the numbers above are indeed base clocks. Considering they perfectly match the previous leak, I expect the same for the other details (core count, cache and TDP). Xeon Gold 6134/6136 with 18C/36T, 3.0-3.2 GHz (base) and 105-130W TDP is real. Makes me confident about the clock speeds they will be able to reach with the new Skylake-X 12C/24T beast at 130W+ TDP.
As fair as i know what we dont know is what the 256bit and 512bit base clocks look like. I think those listed clock speeds and TDP look perfectly reasonable for int/128bit SIMD, then a few 100 off for 256bit workloads and a few 100 more off for 512. Given that the 6136 looks to be the best binned part of the lot and equally binned Zen 16 core would be around a 100 watts TDP in the 3 to 3.3 ghz range.

Regardless who you go with in the next few years will be a great time to buy processors.
 

w3rd

Senior member
Mar 1, 2017
255
62
56
6, or 8 core CPU are not HEDT anymore and they will essentially be mainstream in just a few short years.

Specially when "the public" knows there are 32core & 64core server chips out there. And decide that they want 24 of them for a gaming platform.


So that is what we will see in just a few short years (4~).
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
I know this is just Intel blowing it's own horn, but still it seems to bode well for Coffee Lake.

14nm++ is claimed to offer 25% greater performance at a given power level than the unoptimized 14nm process first used to produce Broadwell and Skylake chips, or as much as 52% less power consumption for the same level of performance. In fact, Intel's projections show that the transistor performance of 14nm++ will actually exceed that of its first generation of 10-nm products.
http://techreport.com/review/31660/intel-defends-its-process-technology-leadership-at-14nm-and-10nm
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
4,041
4,659
136
I know this is just Intel blowing it's own horn, but still it seems to bode well for Coffee Lake.
They're blowing hard alright. If 14nm++ is indeed using 50% less power for same frequency, I can only expect 1.9Ghz base clock for 4.5W TDP mobile chips and also 4Ghz base clock for 45W TDP quads. But the truth is somewhere in the "middle", isn't it? :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

Sweepr

Diamond Member
May 12, 2006
5,151
1,127
131
BenchLife just confirmed the Skylake-X / Kaby Lake-X news from DigiTimes.

BenchLife: Intel Core™ X-Series Processor Family (Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X) launching June 26



- New brand for HEDT: Intel Core™ X-Series Processor Family
- May 30: Announcement at Intel's Computex Keynote by Senior Vice President of Client Computing Group (CCG) Navin Shenoy
- Reviews: 12 days later (June 11/12?)
- June 26: Official retail launch date

https://benchlife.info/intel-x299-will-announce-by-navin-in-computex-2017-keynote-04212017

Curiously unlike DigiTimes they don't mention a different launch date for 12C Skylake-X. According to the image above it will be introduced together with the cheaper options.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick and Ajay

imported_ats

Senior member
Mar 21, 2008
422
63
86
6, or 8 core CPU are not HEDT anymore and they will essentially be mainstream in just a few short years.

Specially when "the public" knows there are 32core & 64core server chips out there. And decide that they want 24 of them for a gaming platform.


So that is what we will see in just a few short years (4~).
Sure go buy a 24c cpu for gaming, I'll buy a 4-6c and get 40-100% better performance...
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,457
641
126
I think I am going to challenge you on that^. These reviewers can't even remotely back up that claim, that the 7700 is the best gaming CPU. I run three different i7 gaming rigs & understand, that for any and every benchmark you will see with a 7700k in it, is with ONLY that benchmark running...!

Unfortunately, that^ is not how Gamers, game..!

So these benchmarks are completely invalid, because they exist in a sterile vacuum. Intel is business, and it's technology is having a hard time reaching the Gamer. I see my 4790k struggling with Battlefield, so much so, that I can't multi-task.


Also, I still am confused as to what Coffee Lake is going to bring? Or what chipset, etc.
I've never been one to be fuddled by Intel's road map & direction, but what a mess all this skylake-x thing is. Intel seems all rash, moving their portfolio around reacting to Ryzen. It is hard to tell rumor from fact. Released dates are getting moved, etc.


Also, sitting here I am having a hard time wrapping my head around Intel's new platform. For me, the 7700 does little over an OC 4790 in games. I am looking for bigger gains if building a new gaming rig. And when I do upgrade/replace that rig, it will be with 8core, or higher.

Is that coffee Lake..?
Sure go buy a 24c cpu for gaming, I'll buy a 4-6c and get 40-100% better performance...
Yea, I also high doubt the mainstream consumer, enterprise, educational Market will go hex core in that time frame either.
 

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,587
2,742
136
BenchLife just confirmed the Skylake-X / Kaby Lake-X news from DigiTimes.

BenchLife: Intel Core™ X-Series Processor Family (Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X) launching June 26

- New brand for HEDT: Intel Core™ X-Series Processor Family
- May 30: Announcement at Intel's Computex Keynote by Senior Vice President of Client Computing Group (CCG) Navin Shenoy
- Reviews: 12 days later (June 11/12?)
- June 26: Official retail launch date

https://benchlife.info/intel-x299-will-announce-by-navin-in-computex-2017-keynote-04212017

Curiously unlike DigiTimes they don't mention a different launch date for 12C Skylake-X. According to the image above it will be introduced together with the cheaper options.
It's a sign for God! June 27th is my BDay, so I will have a couple hundred extra $$s to spend :grinning:. Now it's really worth waiting!! Thanks Sweepr!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sweepr

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
They're blowing hard alright. If 14nm++ is indeed using 50% less power for same frequency, I can only expect 1.9Ghz base clock for 4.5W TDP mobile chips and also 4Ghz base clock for 45W TDP quads. But the truth is somewhere in the "middle", isn't it? :)
Well, maybe that's the reason they went with another round of 14nm chips. :)

Even if it was 25% less power for the same frequency, it would be great.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
4,041
4,659
136
Even if it was 25% less power for the same frequency, it would be great.
I was positively impressed with 14nm+, if they manage a similar jump it seems good enough for me. It's just that those big marketing numbers don't really translate into final silicon power envelope, at least not in the way average Joe would expect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

Sweepr

Diamond Member
May 12, 2006
5,151
1,127
131
It's a sign for God! June 27th is my BDay, so I will have a couple hundred extra $$s to spend :grinning:. Now it's really worth waiting!! Thanks Sweepr!
Indeed it's very close now, and you're lucky. Sounds like the perfect excuse to buy yourself a birthday present. :D

Next weeks should be busy, full of leaks. I want reviewers to do some CPU limited gaming tests comparing this beast to i7-7700K and Broadwell-E. I have high hopes for the new cache structure in place. 6C Skylake-X could become the default CPU choice for (sanely priced) enthusiast gaming builds in 2017.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick and Ajay

Sweepr

Diamond Member
May 12, 2006
5,151
1,127
131
For 14nm++ this is what Intel claims:



From quick unscientific look I get ~30% less power than 14nm+ at 1.0V. Possibly a larger difference at 1.2V because 14nm+ would cross 1.2x active power in the chart while 14nm++ is at ~0.83-0.85x active power.

So considering a regular Core i7-7700 does 3.6-4.2 GHz with 4C/8T at 65W using 14nm+, it's not unreasonable to expect base clocks closer to 4.0 GHz for their top bin 6C/12T Coffee Lake-S part at 95W (14nm++).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay and Drazick

w3rd

Senior member
Mar 1, 2017
255
62
56
Sure go buy a 24c cpu for gaming, I'll buy a 4-6c and get 40-100% better performance...
Only a fool builds a new rig, to play old games....!

The multiplayer games I play, already use SMT. And most software houses are building newer engines to make use of 64bit Windows 10 (DX12/Vulkan). Again, I am not building for those current games (my rig plays them), I am building a new gaming rig for the games that are in development & being released over the next 4 years.


Go ahead and buy a 4c in middle of 2017 for gaming. The rest of us will be laughing at you...
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
Only a fool builds a new rig, to play old games....!

The multiplayer games I play, already use SMT. And most software houses are building newer engines to make use of 64bit Windows 10 (DX12/Vulkan). Again, I am not building for those current games (my rig plays them), I am building a new gaming rig for the games that are in development & being released over the next 4 years.


Go ahead and buy a 4c in middle of 2017 for gaming. The rest of us will be laughing at you...
Kaby Lake-X will laugh at you! :D

NOTE: I don't really believe that, I just thought the line was funny.
 

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,707
2,430
106
For 14nm++ this is what Intel claims:



From quick unscientific look I get ~30% less power than 14nm+ at 1.0V. Possibly a larger difference at 1.2V because 14nm+ would cross 1.2x active power in the chart while 14nm++ is at ~0.83-0.85x active power.

So considering a regular Core i7-7700 does 3.6-4.2 GHz with 4C/8T at 65W using 14nm+, it's not unreasonable to expect base clocks closer to 4.0 GHz for their top bin 6C/12T Coffee Lake-S part at 95W (14nm++).
That's laptop territory - a Core i3 7100U does ~1GHz@ 0.635V. Using these numbers for estimation of voltages at the 4GHz range is completely wrong.

EDIT: Also, that is a blatant misinterpretation of the graph. Normalized performance refers to frequency. Intel is clearly stating for what it is: 26% more frequency for the same active power or 52% less power for the same frequency, when measured at 0.7V.

So eager to extrapolate it to desktop TDP levels eh?
 
Last edited:

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,093
1,474
136
I am trying to summarize what cores,cache structure , AVX instruction set, socket, memory channels and manufacturing process do each of the following use.

CPU Core Cache structure AVX Socket Chipset Memory channels Cores Manufacturing process
Skylake-X , Skylake server , 1 MB L2 , AVX-512 , LGA 2066 , X299 , 4 , 6/8/10/12 , 14+
Kabylake-X , Skylake server , 1MB L2 , AVX-512 , LGA 2066 , X299 , 2 , 4 , 14+
Coffeelake , Coffeelake client , 256 kb L2 , AVX-256 , LGA 1151 , Z370 , 2 , 4/6 , 14++

Correct me if I am wrong in any of the details. The way I see it Kabylake-X is totally redundant. It will lose to Coffeelake 6/4 as they use a more advanced 14++ process allowing to hit significantly higher frequencies. Kabylake-X does not even have four channel memory support which is a key advantage of X299. If someone want a high end gaming PC in 2017 they should just go for Coffeelake 6C. It will kill everything in the market. It will clock higher than Skylake-X due to 14++ and today's games still prefer IPC and clocks over thread count. Coffeelake 6C/12T will be the first CPU with 6 cores to hit 5 Ghz easily on air. I think Skylake-X 6C/12T might not 5 Ghz consistently as it has a much more power hungry die due to 4 memory channels and AVX-512.
 
  • Like
Reactions: w3rd

moonbogg

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2011
9,892
1,541
126
Yeah I would find it really hard to jump on Skylake-X knowing that a 6/12 coffee lake will drop about a month or so later and likely be faster. I keep wondering about the best choice for gaming regarding core count. Truth is, by the time even a single game no longer runs really well on a quad core, all of these 6/8 core chips will be ancient. For me, having 6 or 8 cores is a mental thing and has no real benefit. At least I admit it. Its an obsession. So what should it be then? 8 core Skylake or a slightly faster 6 core coffee lake? Not sure I should ruin the good deal I got with this $360 6800k though. That's a pretty low price and as soon as I sell and buy something else, there goes that good deal right out the window for a likely 10% performance increase.
By the by, a 10% increase at a 50fps heavily CPU limited scenario would equal a whopping 55fps. Man, not sure if worth.
 

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,587
2,742
136
Geez, that 14% at 1.0v according to my maths (& paint.net)!!!
It's probably a solid 15% at 1.2V. Damn! CFL is going to fly.
Congrats to those who wait for the hexacore CFL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sweepr

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,587
2,742
136
Yeah I would find it really hard to jump on Skylake-X knowing that a 6/12 coffee lake will drop about a 2 months or so later and likely be faster. I keep wondering about the best choice for gaming regarding core count. Truth is, by the time even a single game no longer runs really well on a quad core, all of these 6/8 core chips will be ancient. For me, having 6 or 8 cores is a mental thing and has no real benefit. At least I admit it. Its an obsession. So what should it be then? 8 core Skylake or a slightly faster 6 core coffee lake? Not sure I should ruin the good deal I got with this $360 6800k though. That's a pretty low price and as soon as I sell and buy something else, there goes that good deal right out the window for a likely 10% performance increase.
By the by, a 10% increase at a 50fps heavily CPU limited scenario would equal a whopping 55fps. Man, not sure if worth.
FIFY & If you don't really need 6-8 cores, then wait for a six core coffee lake - why waste the money on SKX? ST performance will be higher on CFL.
 
Last edited:

ozzy702

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2011
1,045
438
136
Not sure I should ruin the good deal I got with this $360 6800k though. That's a pretty low price and as soon as I sell and buy something else, there goes that good deal right out the window for a likely 10% performance increase. By the by, a 10% increase at a 50fps heavily CPU limited scenario would equal a whopping 55fps. Man, not sure if worth.
Depending on the game it could be more than a 10% increase from your 6800k though. Clock speed alone it's going to be 13% faster, have better memory support, and higher IPC. In a best case scenario I wouldn't be surprised to see more in the 20-25% range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sweepr

ASK THE COMMUNITY