Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

Page 565 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bouowmx

Senior member
Nov 13, 2016
837
16
116
Intel Multi-core enhancement means Core i9-7980XE can run 4.2 GHz on all cores, if motherboard has such setting (X299 implementations almost guaranteed to have such setting because of overclocking tilt), and setting is enabled (figuratively a flip of a switch).

Otherwise, I predict, from the Xeon Gold 6154, all-core Turbo should be 3.7 GHz, or better.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
121
126
Anyone wants to guess all core turbo boost clock for 7980XE part? My guess is 3.1Ghz for all core sustainable Turbo boost 3.0.
FUD. It'll be >= 3.4GHz. Look at the Xeons, which are less aggressively binned.

.

Gold 6150 does 3.4GHz all-core turbo on 18 cores in a 165W TDP, and this is not a consumer optimized/binned part.

So minimum will be 3.4GHz.
 

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
3,999
34
136
FUD. It'll be >= 3.4GHz. Look at the Xeons, which are less aggressively binned.

Gold 6150 does 3.4GHz all-core turbo on 18 cores in a 165W TDP, and this is not a consumer optimized/binned part.

So minimum will be 3.4GHz.
Xeon Gold 6150 has a better base clock at 2.7 Ghz than 7980XE at 2.6 Ghz. Both these chips have 165w TDP. So in terms of binning the Xeon is getting the better chips and their all core turbo is 3.4 Ghz. So claiming that 7980XE will clock >= 3.4 Ghz all core is wishful rather than based on logic.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
121
126
Xeon Gold 6150 has a better base clock at 2.7 Ghz than 7980XE at 2.6 Ghz. Both these chips have 165w TDP. So in terms of binning the Xeon is getting the better chips and their all core turbo is 3.4 Ghz. So claiming that 7980XE will clock >= 3.4 Ghz all core is wishful rather than based on logic.
Every core on the 7980XE is validated at 4.2GHz, something that is literally not true for any of the server SKUs. So, by definition, the 7980XE is better binned than the Xeon Gold.
 

inf64

Platinum Member
Mar 11, 2011
2,821
44
136
Well we'll have to wait and see. I doubt intel would use better dice for consumer part instead of using them for Xeon Gold 6150 which has 70% higher RSP.
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,493
224
126

inf64

Platinum Member
Mar 11, 2011
2,821
44
136

Timmah!

Senior member
Jul 24, 2010
731
7
91
So the 7960X apparently scores 3200 CB points - which is somewhat better than TR 1950X in Alienware computer and about on par with 1950X oced to 4GHz on all cores...

Source:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/08/07/intel-18-core-x-series/


So if we know that 10C is ~2200 on 4GHz and 16C is ~3200 on unknown all core turbo frequency, can we infer 7920x and 7940x scores and all core turbo frequencies? I assume 2500~2600 for the former and 2800-2900 for the latter, the clocks however :) Fingers crossed for the same as 7900x...

By the way, THAT ARTICLE. So apparently the reason why Intel is coming with these more core options is because BW-E/6950x was such a success and if it was not, they would have stuck to their original plan and waited much longer before jump to 18 cores... And apparently they thought there was not "as much of a demand for additional cores and more performance in this segment". Sure. Why would you want 16 cores CPU for 1800, when you can have 10 cores for the same price.... And AMD has totally nothing to do with any of this.

EDIT: LOL, so apparently 3,8 for both per that PC Gamer article.
 
Last edited:

inf64

Platinum Member
Mar 11, 2011
2,821
44
136
So the 7960X apparently scores 3200 CB points - which is somewhat better than TR 1950X in Alienware computer and about on par with 1950X oced to 4GHz on all cores...

Source:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/08/07/intel-18-core-x-series/


So if we know that 10C is ~2200 on 4GHz and 16C is ~3200 on unknown all core turbo frequency, can we infer 7920x and 7940x scores and all core turbo frequencies? I assume 2500~2600 for the former and 2800-2900 for the latter, the clocks however :) Fingers crossed for the same as 7900x...

By the way, THAT ARTICLE. So apparently the reason why Intel is coming with these more core options is because BW-E/6950x was such a success and if it was not, they would have stuck to their original plan and waited much longer before jump to 18 cores... And apparently they thought there was not "as much of a demand for additional cores and more performance in this segment". Sure. Why would you want 16 cores CPU for 1800, when you can have 10 cores for the same price.... And AMD has totally nothing to do with any of this.
1800X at all core Turbo of 3.7Ghz gets around 1600pts, so 1950X which is essentially 2xSummitridge @ 3.5Ghz all core Turbo should be scoring around 3000pts. 3.6Ghz all core Turbo for 7960 is 3% higher than all core Turbo for 16C AMD part, so basically at the same clock the difference is around ~3.5-4%. Pretty much even.

18C part should get around 3400pts in R15 MT benchmark according to 7960's score.
 
May 12, 2017
180
0
61
Thanks i didnt see the last page. Clocks look very good for 7980xe, above my expectations. Only 100mhz lower per core than 7900x. Thats crazy.
 

Zucker2k

Senior member
Feb 15, 2006
743
55
136
This addresses an earlier debate on here: "You can trace Intel's path to its new Core i9 chip back to 2013, when the company decided to refocus its energy on enthusiasts. Up until that point, Srivatsa admits, Intel was paying more attention to new form factors, like ultraportables and convertibles, rather than innovating with desktop chips. The company noticed that enthusiasts were the one key audience that was "absolutely livid" that it decided to skip fifth-generation Core chips on desktops in 2014. Their anger was showed they cared far more about Intel's actual products than most other customers. So, it was probably a good idea to show them some love."
https://www.engadget.com/2017/08/07/intel-18-core-x-series/
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
5,971
156
126
Thanks, so 3.4Ghz for all core Turbo then, not as good as Xeon Gold after all(no surprise). All core Turbo for 1950x is 3.5Ghz so pretty similar there, should be interesting seeing the performance in different MTed workloads.
?

That's a lot better than Xeon Gold, because Xeon Gold has lot lower peak Turbo. If you compare the charts it clocks higher at every frequency except at 17 and 18 cores. Due to the fact that things aren't perfect, its probably going to be faster even all core Turbo, which is the worst case scenario.
 

TahoeDust

Senior member
Nov 29, 2011
557
1
136
Wait until someone gets that 7980xe running 4GHz+ on all cores. It is going to beast Cinebench.
 

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
3,999
34
136
7980xe is an excellent piece of engineering, Intel nailed it here.
How would you know without actual reviews ? Intel has been failing hard with their choice of thermal paste over solder. Unless we see actual reviews of 7980xe at stock and OC and power/temps at stock and OC we will not know if its well engineered.
 

Zucker2k

Senior member
Feb 15, 2006
743
55
136
How would you know without actual reviews ? Intel has been failing hard with their choice of thermal paste over solder. Unless we see actual reviews of 7980xe at stock and OC and power/temps at stock and OC we will not know if its well engineered.
The one thing here is that the 7980xe will be running more efficiently than the lower clocked chips, due to binning and clocks. This should help with power consumption and thermals. The turbo boost 2.0 chart above, gives a strong clue about the performance spread within the tight bounds of tdp. Notice how clocks drop off at the 12 core mark compared to the 7960x? This is likely due to powering of additional two cores and extra cache within power budget.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
121
126
How would you know without actual reviews ? Intel has been failing hard with their choice of thermal paste over solder. Unless we see actual reviews of 7980xe at stock and OC and power/temps at stock and OC we will not know if its well engineered.
SKX architecture is a known quantity, and we now know the frequencies at each turbo level.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
5,971
156
126
How would you know without actual reviews ? Intel has been failing hard with their choice of thermal paste over solder.
This part made sense to me, until I saw that Knights Landing Xeon Phi chips have paste under IHS as well. It can't be merely for saving a few cents.

Anyone remember the article about how small dies are more fragile when using solder? And why smaller die chips went for paste?

Let's expand that a bit further. The reason you can significantly undervolt GPUs and overclock GPUs is because out of the factory, its set to a spec that would result in low as possible RMA returns. And since factories create millions of these chips, you have to set it to the lowest common denominator, that is, the crappiest chip. While having numerous bins like Intel does might mitigate that somewhat, there's a limit.

So if soldering was done on a small scale, it would make sense, because more attention could be given. But with millions sold, you can't really fine tune it.

But if that's true why would the older chips all use solder under IHS?

Maybe its related to the fact that CPUs run closer to their mechanical and electrical limits than before, made worse by the fact that Moore's Law scaling is dying. Things like Turbo mode and AVFS is designed to push the silicon close to the limits as possible.

Paste, would not only preserve long-term reliability, but reduce TTM by reducing amount of validation needed because you no longer need to run as stringent mechanical reliability tests.
 

Sweepr

Diamond Member
May 12, 2006
5,151
2
131
7980xe is an excellent piece of engineering, Intel nailed it here.
Wait until someone gets that 7980xe running 4GHz+ on all cores. It is going to beast Cinebench.
Superb all-core Turbo for the 12C/14C/16C/18C parts, despite all the pre-launch noise about 'mid 2 GHz' from certain people. Core i9-7940X in particular looks great, 3.8-4.3 GHz out of the box. Also, Core i9-7980XE equal/better than the Xeon counterpart, as expected.

Here's Threadripper 1950X vs Core i9-7920X @ Geekbench 4.
 

Sweepr

Diamond Member
May 12, 2006
5,151
2
131
ASUS bios update shows Coffee Lake-S listed on PCI-E bus



Via Reddit.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
121
126
Superb all-core Turbo for the 12C/14C/16C/18C parts, despite all the pre-launch noise about 'mid 2 GHz' from certain people. Core i9-7940X in particular looks great, 3.8-4.3 GHz out of the box. Also, Core i9-7980XE equal/better than the Xeon counterpart, as expected.

Here's Threadripper 1950X vs Core i9-7920X @ Geekbench 4.
Looks like the 7920X delivers superb ST perf compared to TR while also beating it out in MT performance.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
17,525
961
136
Looks like the 7920X delivers superb ST perf compared to TR while also beating it out in MT performance.
The memory was not even the same. We don;t have enough information on the system configs, and multiple benchmarks until probably Thursday.
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS