• 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."

Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

Page 625 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,003
1,234
136
This isn't the same thing. 4790K was basically an overclocked 4770K -- if you look at the reviews and user comments, the maximum frequency ceiling for the 4790K was really no better than the 4770K's.

The 7700K had a clear clock ceiling improvement of between 200MHz and 300MHz as mikk said, and there were also pretty large improvements in sustained frequency/peak frequency on the low power mobile parts, which we didn't really see with the Haswell Refresh.

Since Intel actually made some real changes with 14nm+ compared to 14nm that yielded measurable improvements, there's no reason to not take Intel at its word when it says it's making another significant jump in transistor performance with 14nm++.
You safely avoided explaining the examples provided by charlie because you know you cannot deny his arguments. You are here to defend Intel no matter what. Your job will get harder over the next few years.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick and Markfw

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,565
126
This seems like something of a semantics argument. Watts can represent input power, it can also represent a thermal load that needs to be dissipated. Every input power watt, is going to to turn into a thermal load that needs to be dissipated, so they are essentially interchangeable. Watts in (electricity) == Watts out (thermal load).

But since Intel calls it "Thermal" Design Power, and talks about: "...watts, the processor dissipates...", it does seem to be more about the heat dissipation side of things.
No, it's about the power dissipation. :p
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,208
626
121
TDP is a thermal measure, not power.
Every input power watt, is going to to turn into a thermal load that needs to be dissipated, so they are essentially interchangeable. Watts in (electricity) == Watts out (thermal load).
TDP of the cooling system is basically the average maximum power the processor can use (and TDP of the cooling system should be at least as high as the TDP of the CPU if you want good CPU performance). If the processor used more than the TDP of the cooling system for extended periods of time, then the cooling system couldn't handle it, then the processor would go into thermal shutdown mode. Thus the TDP of the cooling system is the upper limit of average power that the processor can used for extended periods of time.

TDP isn't the maximum power though. Power used in electricity does not necessarily mean that the power needs to all be dissipated right away (PeterScott's equation). Why? Because several watts can be used simply to raise the processor temperature rather than being dissipated immediately. Thus, a 95 W chip in a 95 W cooling system can use well above 95 W of power for short periods of time as long as the starting temperature of the CPU was low enough.

But, for extended periods of time under heavy computational loads then TDP of the cooling system, power used by the chip, and power dissipated are all essentially the same number. A cooling system that is designed to dissipate up to 95 W can only have a 95 W power draw in the CPU. This is precisely the point at which I was doing the math (otherwise the whole discussion is unnecessary since at low computational loads Intel could have jammed as many cores as they wanted into a chip and still wouldn't exceed the TDP).
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeterScott

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,565
126
The processor TDP is the maximum sustained power that should be used for the design of the processor thermal solution. TDP is a power dissipation and junction temperature operating condition limit, specified in this document, that is validated during manufacturing for the base configuration when executing a near worst case commercially available workload as specified by Intel for the SKU segment. TDP may be exceeded for short periods of time or if running a very high power workload.
That is what is in the sheet for the 7000 series chips.
 

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
812
126
You safely avoided explaining the examples provided by charlie because you know you cannot deny his arguments. You are here to defend Intel no matter what. Your job will get harder over the next few years.
More Ad hominem from the ADF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CHADBOGA

nvgpu

Senior member
Sep 12, 2014
629
201
81
Just report the trolls using the report button, they were already told not to post about AMD in this thread by forum admins, they just don't learn and they deserve their ban.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcp7

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,425
2,644
136
Some people should open their eyes and pay attention to the Turbo speeds of Coffeelake.
While I have no doubt 14nm++ is not just a marketing gimmick, I'll believe those sustained turbo clocks when I see them. Then again, I have no problem with more aggressive turbo behavior, in my book clocking as high as the workload allows within a TDP budget is a good thing, even if this makes the product seem less predictable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arachnotronic

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,174
1,877
136
While I have no doubt 14nm++ is not just a marketing gimmick, I'll believe those sustained turbo clocks when I see them. Then again, I have no problem with more aggressive turbo behavior, in my book clocking as high as the workload allows within a TDP budget is a good thing, even if this makes the product seem less predictable.
None of the turbos are guaranteed sustained, IIRC. The only thing guaranteed is the base clock. Turbo 2.0 (all core) & Turbo 3.0 (one core for client CPUs) are subject to load and temperature. If you have good ambient temps and good cooling - the all core can be sustained. I'm not aware of any 'time-out' feature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pick2
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
1,999
126
You safely avoided explaining the examples provided by charlie because you know you cannot deny his arguments. You are here to defend Intel no matter what. Your job will get harder over the next few years.
The topic under discussion wasn't whether Intel has made process enhancements before. The only thing under discussion was, "is 14nm++ a marketing gimmick or not?"

I provided evidence that 14nm+ wasn't a "marketing gimmick" (I bought several late-stage 6700Ks and compared their OC capabilities to first-run 7700Ks all else equal and there was a clear frequency improvement), which means 14nm++ is not likely to be a marketing gimmick as well since past performance is generally a good indicator of the future.

I am not here to defend Intel or any other company -- I am just interested in discussing honest-to-goodness facts and providing factual bases for my statements.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,425
2,644
136
None of the turbos are guaranteed sustained, IIRC. The only thing guaranteed is the base clock.
Base clocks aren't guaranteed either, at least not within their entire product stack. In desktop and higher than 15W TDP mobile CPUs however, turbo clocks were chosen in such a way as to stay within TDP for most workloads (except AVX) as long as GPU load was minimal, hence CPU clocks have been very predictable, especially in high TDP desktop SKUs.

Turbo 2.0 (all core) & Turbo 3.0 (one core for client CPUs) are subject to load and temperature. If you have good ambient temps and good cooling - the all core can be sustained.
Turbo 2.0 is also subject to power.

I'm not aware of any 'time-out' feature.
There is one, package power is allowed to go past TDP for a certain period of time that may not exceed a (configurable) time interval. Historically this has never been the case with 65W and 95W TDP SKUs, but my guess is we'll see this happen with CFL. As core number increases, it makes less and less sense to abide some static frequency/load curve when frequency can be dynamically adjusted to perfectly fit TDP. They've been doing this for many generations on mobile, and as Arachnotronic likes to say, consumer desktop is a mobile chip in disguise :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay and Phynaz
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
1,999
126
None of the turbos are guaranteed sustained, IIRC. The only thing guaranteed is the base clock. Turbo 2.0 (all core) & Turbo 3.0 (one core for client CPUs) are subject to load and temperature. If you have good ambient temps and good cooling - the all core can be sustained. I'm not aware of any 'time-out' feature.
I think this is correct. In mobile, the turbos matter a lot since you are dealing with pretty tough cooling conditions, but if you're using a desktop with enthusiast cooling then cranking those suckers up to the single core turbo speed across all cores is fine.
 

dahorns

Senior member
Sep 13, 2013
550
83
91
Just report the trolls using the report button, they were already told not to post about AMD in this thread by forum admins, they just don't learn and they deserve their ban.
I don't know, it appears that same mod has reintroduced AMD to the thread... This all seems very personal to people for reasons that escape me.
 

TheF34RChannel

Senior member
May 18, 2017
769
299
96
I'm still following this thread with interest and am becoming more excited about the 8700K by the day. We're seeing some nice board leaks as well, just not Asus yet grr!
 
Last edited:
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
1,999
126
With that out of the way, I'm still following this thread with interest and am becoming more excited about the 8700K by the day. We're seeing some nice board leaks as well, just not Asus yet grr!
The names of the ASUS boards have leaked, but not the pictures yet. Can't wait to see 'em.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
46,218
4,345
126
The newest Intel boards I have, are a pair of Z170 Pro4S boards, dating from Skylake's initial release. (Hey, they were only $80 on special, and they could BCLK OC locked SKL chips.) I also bought some Biostar B150 boards for $28 ea., during some impressive sale with 50% off coupon codes for select mobos at Newegg.

Maybe if there's a nice all-singing, all-dancing, blingy-blingy "gamer" Z370 board that also is cheap (ASRock Fatal1ty, I'm looking at you), I might go for one. Probably not more expensive than $135-140, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

moonbogg

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2011
9,766
1,291
126
According to this its 24 PCIe Gen 3.0, the problem is the DMI 3.0 (4x PCIe- Gen 3.0) connecting the CPU with the Chipset.

OK, this looks like its STILL just 16 PCI lanes. If that's the case, then I am....sigh....why would they skimp like that? Why? In the face of the competition with 24 lanes on mainstream (that's right, right?) why would they not give more to go along with the 6 cores?
8 lanes will cause a 1080ti to lose some performance, won't it? I have a PCI-E sound card, so that instantly would cut the GPU resources in half, right?
I was expecting to maybe lose control and do something crazy, like upgrade the rig I just upgraded...but with only 16 lanes I just won't. Straight up can't. That's crazy if true. Still a pathetic 16 lanes, Jesus Intel.
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,438
369
126
Surely someone in the industry can fire off an email to an intel rep and ask if it is 16 or 24. 16 is very anaemic.
 

Bouowmx

Senior member
Nov 13, 2016
935
338
116
There isn't any confusion. 16 PCIE lanes from CPU. 24 from Z[23]70 chipset, or PCH. CPU-PCH is linked by DMI 3.0, equivalent to PCIE 3.0 x4. All the same as before.

I've said the following about sound card: You put the sound card in a slot that uses lanes from PCH. You want to gobble 8 lanes for a sound card that only needs a few MB/s?
 
  • Like
Reactions: psolord

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS