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

ManyThreads

Member
Mar 6, 2017
99
29
51
So, I wonder what prices will be for the previous gen 6950x and 6900k....
At least in Canada, the i7 5XXX extreme processors were never reduced until they stopped being carried, at the major retailers I watch anyways. I'm guessing the same story for the 6XXX. The 8 and 10 core BW-E CPUs are $200 off, but still $1300 and $2000 for the 8 and 10 core SKUs respectively here in Canada.

Canadian price on the new Skylake X is $829 for 7820K and $1449 for the 7900K.
 

Sweepr

Diamond Member
May 12, 2006
5,151
1,127
131
Already discussed in the previous page. ;)

PCGamesHardware.de said:
Shortly before the NDA case, the mainboard manufacturers send us new BIOS versions, which improve the performance significantly. Previously, the results are far from consistent, which is reflected, among other things, in a poorer game performance of the Core i9-7900X compared to the previous Core i7-6950X.
TweakTown said:
Since many of you asked, I have upgraded my GPU from the GTX 980 to a GTX 1080 Ti. I have three motherboards on hand and one new memory kit. The motherboards were all used; one for overclocking, one for out of the box performance, and one for Intel optimized performance (correct specified with Turbo 3 and 2666MHz memory).

...Intel Optimized is according to Intel spec and not considered overclocking; it's what you will score near out of the box, the other results are from earlier BIOS versions







http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8225/intel-core-i9-7900x-series-skylake-cpu-review/index3.html
 
Last edited:

Sweepr

Diamond Member
May 12, 2006
5,151
1,127
131
Looks like Core i7-7740K is the go-to CPU for absolute best ST performance, at least until 14nm++ Coffee Lake arrives.

HotHardware said:
''With the very same Corsair AIO cooler, and a bump in voltage to 1.33V, we took our Core i7-7740X all the way up to 5.3GHz, with complete stability and no throttling.''

https://hothardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-and-core-i7-7740x-cpu-review?page=8#jmRs72MfJ1adGymT.99
HardwareCanucks said:
I’m going to keep this section a lot shorter than I normally would since with the rushed nature of this launch I haven’t had much time to play around with the lone Kaby Lake-X processor I have in hand. With that being said, if there is one thing Intel did well on this Core-X lineup it’s overclocking. The i7-7740X has a good amount of additional TDP headroom and according to our contacts at various motherboard vendors, these chips should easily hit between 5.0 and 5.5GHz with proper cooling.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/75590-intel-kaby-lake-x-i7-7740x-review-18.html
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,898
1,524
136
You still dont know that TDP is not power consumption?
You might want to share some of your technical knowledge with Ian:

"So this is surprising. Normally Intel are relatively good at their recommended TDP numbers: the ability to remove a certain amount of heat related to power consumption is something Intel either gets bang on, or has plenty of headroom. The sole Kaby Lake-X CPU that completed this test is an example: at under 60W, it is comfortably under the 112W TDP that chip has. But for the 140W Skylake-X parts, we recorded nearly 150W power consumption."
 

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,114
2,056
136
I must say I'm disappointed with this lineup. First of all, there is no IPC improvement, there are some outliers like AT review pointed out, but they go both ways. In the end you end up with +-1.5% difference vs SKL-S. Also the AVX512 "segmentation" means that 6C and 8C models get half the AVX512 capability, in other words effectively no better than BDW-E except they can run the AVX512 code. Throughput wise they will be the same. Not that AVX512 matters much anyway since we have only a handful of AVX2 supported commercial workloads now.

Now on to the ugly. Power consumption is just crazy high. 7820X is drawing 41% more power (81W!) at the platform level vs 1800X both at stock. That is crazy. Even when both OCed to the max the delta is 28% or in total watts 86W of difference. PCIe lanes totaling 28 Vs 24 on Ryzen 7 are also not that much of a difference given the price difference between the two ( much worse when you compare it to say a much cheaper 1700 model which is basically the 1800X only with lower multiplier and 100Mhz lower OC ceiling).

Not all is bad though, the chip can OC nicely and 4.6-4.7Ghz is doable with good air or WC which is great. Still for that price of the whole platform it doesn't make much sense. Stock Turbo is helping this chip differentiate itself from BDW-E and Ryzen 7 in benchmarks but at the expense of power draw/heat which is not that good. If it was priced at 450-500 max it would have made much more sense. But they would never price it that low no matter what competition has, they have to keep their margins high.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,093
1,474
136
Already discussed in the previous page. ;)
Intel rushed the release of Skylake-X given that optimized BIOS was not available for press reviews well in advance. Intel could have launched Skylake-X in July and got more positive reviews.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
Intel rushed the release of Skylake-X given that optimized BIOS was not available for press reviews well in advance. Intel could have launched Skylake-X in July and got more positive reviews.
They didn't release the big guns yet...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
I must say I'm disappointed with this lineup. First of all, there is no IPC improvement, there are some outliers like AT review pointed out, but they go both ways. In the end you end up with +-1.5% difference vs SKL-S. Also the AVX512 "segmentation" means that 6C and 8C models get half the AVX512 capability, in other words effectively no better than BDW-E except they can run the AVX512 code. Throughput wise they will be the same. Not that AVX512 matters much anyway since we have only a handful of AVX2 supported commercial workloads now.

Now on to the ugly. Power consumption is just crazy high. 7820X is drawing 41% more power (81W!) at the platform level vs 1800X both at stock. That is crazy. Even when both OCed to the max the delta is 28% or in total watts 86W of difference. PCIe lanes totaling 28 Vs 24 on Ryzen 7 are also not that much of a difference given the price difference between the two ( much worse when you compare it to say a much cheaper 1700 model which is basically the 1800X only with lower multiplier and 100Mhz lower OC ceiling).

Not all is bad though, the chip can OC nicely and 4.6-4.7Ghz is doable with good air or WC which is great. Still for that price of the whole platform it doesn't make much sense. Stock Turbo is helping this chip differentiate itself from BDW-E and Ryzen 7 in benchmarks but at the expense of power draw/heat which is not that good. If it was priced at 450-500 max it would have made much more sense. But they would never price it that low no matter what competition has, they have to keep their margins high.
Hopefully BIOS optimizations will tame the power a bit. It really doesn't bother me much as long as it's using the power effectively.
 

Sweepr

Diamond Member
May 12, 2006
5,151
1,127
131
Given the power draws of the 8C and 10C parts, what frequency do you expect to see 18C part running at ?
Before you start with the sub 3.0 GHz speculation again, let me point out 18C Xeon Gold 6150 has a 3.4 GHz all-core Turbo @ 165W TDP. A highly binned Core i9-7980XE will either match or beat this mark. 12.5% more cores with mesh-architecture + IPC advantage + nearly the same clocks at stock and likely more OCing headroom (on top of a more robust AVX implementation) will be more than enough to maintain the performance lead.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pcp7

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,114
2,056
136
Before you start with the sub 3.0 GHz speculation again, let me point out 18C Xeon Gold 6150 has a 3.4 GHz all-core Turbo @ 165W TDP. A highly binned Core i9-7980XE will either match or beat this mark.
@ 165W? We have already seen that released parts exceed 140W (total package power).
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11550/the-intel-skylakex-review-core-i9-7900x-i7-7820x-and-i7-7800x-tested/17

I cannot see how that thing will be able to compete with TR in highly MTed workloads. AMD still holds the SMT advantage (which is embarrassing since this is AMD's 1st try at it, if you do not count bulldozer's FlexFP implementation) and top 16C TR will run at the base clock/Turbo that matches/exceeds all core turbo boost of 7980XE. Since SKL-S/X has some 8-10% higher IPC on average (that is diminished via AMD's generally better SMT implementation, see CB15 for example), I cannot see 7980X winning the MTed benchmarks by a noticeable margin. Now factor in the price difference, even for the whole platforms and massive PCIe difference (adv to TR), I cannot see 7980XE getting the nod in reviews. The only saving grace will be the possible OC potential of that thing but I dare not even think what kind of a cooling would be needed for 4+Ghz all core OC on it 24x7. I doubt there is such a mainstream cooling solution in existence that would keep it below throttling temp in such a scenario.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,566
142
106
According to the OC3D guy, Intel got pissed about Hexus and BitTech breaking NDA and therefore did not send out chips to most reviewers.
So they got pissed, what 3 days back, hence decided to not send samples 5~10 days back?
Before you start with the sub 3.0 GHz speculation again, let me point out 18C Xeon Gold 6150 has a 3.4 GHz all-core Turbo @ 165W TDP. A highly binned Core i9-7980XE will either match or beat this mark.
It'll also eat into the sales of the higher priced Xeons like 6150, I doubt the i9 7980 will be highly binned as you're speculating :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

richierich1212

Platinum Member
Jul 5, 2002
2,710
343
126
This launch is hilarious. How can you guys seriously think that BIOS revisions will really help that much here? This is Intel we are talking about. They have released similar CPUs for quite some time now. Cmon guys wake the heck up. I honestly don't see that much improvement over Broadwell-E.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
2,003
126
This launch is hilarious. How can you guys seriously think that BIOS revisions will really help that much here? This is Intel we are talking about. They have released similar CPUs for quite some time now. Cmon guys wake the heck up. I honestly don't see that much improvement over Broadwell-E.
The main improvement is the better platform and the much nicer prices at a given core count/performance level. Performance/$ and features go up, so what's not to like?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sweepr

piesquared

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2006
1,651
472
136
I must say I'm disappointed with this lineup. First of all, there is no IPC improvement, there are some outliers like AT review pointed out, but they go both ways. In the end you end up with +-1.5% difference vs SKL-S. Also the AVX512 "segmentation" means that 6C and 8C models get half the AVX512 capability, in other words effectively no better than BDW-E except they can run the AVX512 code. Throughput wise they will be the same. Not that AVX512 matters much anyway since we have only a handful of AVX2 supported commercial workloads now.

Now on to the ugly. Power consumption is just crazy high. 7820X is drawing 41% more power (81W!) at the platform level vs 1800X both at stock. That is crazy. Even when both OCed to the max the delta is 28% or in total watts 86W of difference. PCIe lanes totaling 28 Vs 24 on Ryzen 7 are also not that much of a difference given the price difference between the two ( much worse when you compare it to say a much cheaper 1700 model which is basically the 1800X only with lower multiplier and 100Mhz lower OC ceiling).

Not all is bad though, the chip can OC nicely and 4.6-4.7Ghz is doable with good air or WC which is great. Still for that price of the whole platform it doesn't make much sense. Stock Turbo is helping this chip differentiate itself from BDW-E and Ryzen 7 in benchmarks but at the expense of power draw/heat which is not that good. If it was priced at 450-500 max it would have made much more sense. But they would never price it that low no matter what competition has, they have to keep their margins high.
That appears to be quite optimistic unless as a one hit wonder for a very short duration in a benchmark, but for 24/7 according to Toms:

For Prime:

We now know that the Core i9-7900X’s performance to power consumption ratio turns negative as you utilize more of its on-die resources. Of course, this has to be factored into your overclocking plans, since many coolers can't cope with the heat dissipated by a >200W processor.

Stable overclocking, defined as reliable operation under Prime95 for prolonged periods of time without hitting a temperature limit, wasn’t possible beyond 4.4 GHz. Reports of >5 GHz with all cores active should be taken with a grain of salt. We did boot into Windows at 5.1 GHz, but running actual applications resulted in either a BSOD or a motherboard emergency shutdown.
R15:

We did manage to achieve a stable 4.8 GHz overclock under the single- and multi-core Cinebench R15 benchmarks. However, our cooling solution was probably the decisive factor there. Realistically, 4.5 GHz should be achievable with an all-in-one liquid cooler.
 
  • Like
Reactions: inf64
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
2,003
126
Intel rushed the release of Skylake-X given that optimized BIOS was not available for press reviews well in advance. Intel could have launched Skylake-X in July and got more positive reviews.
There are several more waves of SKX coming, so don't worry :)
 

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,093
1,474
136
They didn't release the big guns yet...
There are several more waves of SKX coming, so don't worry :)
The rest of the Skylake-X SKUs are going to be less appealing to enthusiasts who want the best single thread performance and multithread performance. MCC die based 16C and 18C SKUs are likely to have serious difficulty with overclocking to 4 Ghz given 7900x is already drawing 150w at stock.
 

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,588
2,745
136
Well, pushing up the release date up on SKX seems to have left Intel open to some criticism. Somewhat like Ryzen/X370, I don't think SKX/X299 is going to show it's true potential for another month or two. The overclocking abilities of this CPU are impressive, given the regression that happened with BWE. It will be interesting to see how delided SKX CPUs perform on AIOs and custom H2O. Obviously, for those that like to be on the cutting edge, this will be a fun platform. I decided to bail and upgrade my GFX card instead (Deux Ex:Mankind Divided is murdering my old card). I'm a bit sorry that I'll miss some excitement, but I think I'll be looking toward something with better perf/$ at a later date.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pick2 and Phynaz

lolfail9001

Golden Member
Sep 9, 2016
1,056
353
96
Now on to the ugly. Power consumption is just crazy high. 7820X is drawing 41% more power (81W!) at the platform level vs 1800X both at stock. That is crazy. Even when both OCed to the max the delta is 28% or in total watts 86W of difference. PCIe lanes totaling 28 Vs 24 on Ryzen 7 are also not that much of a difference given the price difference between the two ( much worse when you compare it to say a much cheaper 1700 model which is basically the 1800X only with lower multiplier and 100Mhz lower OC ceiling).
Considering that while consuming 40% more power at the platform level, it does twice the job, it is reasonably efficient, ya know.
Next, PCI-e lanes totaling 28 + 4 for chipset against Ryzen 7 that totals 20 + 4, not 24. At least get your platform straight, if you are doing to spout comparisons. As for 1700, let's see how it matches against OCd 7800X, shall we?

The rest of the Skylake-X SKUs are going to be less appealing to enthusiasts who want the best single thread performance and multithread performance. MCC die based 16C and 18C SKUs are likely to have serious difficulty with overclocking to 4 Ghz given 7900x is already drawing 150w at stock.
Considering 7900x only draws 150W at 4Ghz, 7980X will draw only about 250W at 4Ghz. Tolerable, actually. The worst thing, of course is that AVX512 will make it completely unusable to stress test with P95 and LinX.
This launch is hilarious. How can you guys seriously think that BIOS revisions will really help that much here? This is Intel we are talking about. They have released similar CPUs for quite some time now. Cmon guys wake the heck up. I honestly don't see that much improvement over Broadwell-E.
We talk about BIOS revisions helping with situations when it actually loses to Sandy Bridge or something silly like that.

I don't expect BIOS to suddenly make it much faster per clock than Skylake or BDW-E, but i surely expect it not to fall behind them without any reason like it does right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcp7

exquisitechar

Senior member
Apr 18, 2017
443
502
106
Man...why did Hexus break the NDA? Were the extra clicks really worth it?

Looks like Core i7-7740K is the go-to CPU for absolute best ST performance, at least until 14nm++ Coffee Lake arrives.
Wow, those are some impressive OCs. I wonder how the 6c/12t Coffee Lake will fare in comparison, being produced on an even more advanced process and all. Well, I'll be happy even with a much smaller OC than this. The idea of a 5GHz 6 core is simply mouth watering, though. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcp7 and Sweepr

ASK THE COMMUNITY