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

Drazick

Member
May 27, 2009
53
69
91
There is a difference when a FAB announcing it tweaked its process to a product making this small tweaking the headline (Its main feature).

The improvements in the 14+ / 14++ are nothing we have never seen before (In their scale) from other Fabs or Intel itself in previous generations.
The only difference is the high end CPU's of Intel has never stayed so long on the same process (Usually Intel hasn't bothered to update their layout to latest tweaked process of the same generation).

You can still keep writing in the forum it is the greatest advancement in the FAB history but it won't make it any more true.
We all wished Intel could have moved forward to 10nm, Intel and the customers alike.
 
Last edited:

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
51,044
6,380
126
Yeah, it does seem like Intel's process advancement is somewhat "stuck", and they are left tout the minor continuous process improvements, as if they are a major thing, when in fact, that's really all they have to show, lately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,791
1,184
136
The real question here is has the improvements in the 14++ / 14+ are something beyond anything happened in previous processes?

I'd bet not.
So you bet but you don't know? Basically you are just spreading your opinions based on gut-feelings?

The improvements in the 14+ / 14++ are nothing we have never seen before (In their scale) from other Fabs or Intel itself in previous generations.
Then please be so kind and show us a past intel node/process that got better over time by decreasing density/ increasing the die size.
Nope. Intel has never decreased density on a past process to improve performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phynaz

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
51,044
6,380
126
Not bad. I just scored 1213 with my Ryzen 5 1600 @ 3800Mhz, DDR4-2667. And I was running other crap in the background.

Edit: Now 1265, after setting DDR4-2800 instead, and closing background programs. Need a screenshot?



 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,398
738
136
Is that plain old rhetoric extolling the virtues of Intel's engineers or genuine curiosity?

If it's the latter, then the underlying principle is very simple. To fit more cores in the same TDP the cores must operate at a lower voltage. However, too low a voltage and the transistors might not work at all. So the only way to make them work at a lower voltage is to change their geometry, which means changing the parameters of the process.
Well, thank God some actual work was done then. I despise snake oil.
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,398
738
136
Not bad. I just scored 1213 with my Ryzen 5 1600 @ 3800Mhz, DDR4-2667. And I was running other crap in the background.

Edit: Now 1265, after setting DDR4-2800 instead, and closing background programs. Need a screenshot?



Save your energy, even a 5820k gets 1282 in that link :(
 

PhonakV30

Senior member
Oct 26, 2009
979
350
136
Not bad. I just scored 1213 with my Ryzen 5 1600 @ 3800Mhz, DDR4-2667. And I was running other crap in the background.

Edit: Now 1265, after setting DDR4-2800 instead, and closing background programs. Need a screenshot?


What's ST's score for Ryzen ? IF we assume that :
Ryzen 1600 => ST = 165 , MT = 1265 ==> 1265/165 = 7.666666666666667
Intel 8700K => ST=193 , MT= 1230 ==> 1230/193 = 6.373056994818653
 

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
3,136
946
136
  • Like
Reactions: hnizdo

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,573
126
There is a difference when a FAB announcing it tweaked its process to a product making this small tweaking the headline (Its main feature).

The improvements in the 14+ / 14++ are nothing we have never seen before (In their scale) from other Fabs or Intel itself in previous generations.
The only difference is the high end CPU's of Intel has never stayed so long on the same process (Usually Intel hasn't bothered to update their layout to latest tweaked process of the same generation).

You can still keep writing in the forum it is the greatest advancement in the FAB history but it won't make it any more true.
We all wished Intel could have moved forward to 10nm, Intel and the customers alike.
Intel had 10nm mobile chips in January at CES, so don't be surprised.
6C12T 10nm parts have also been leaking on Sisoft.
http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_system.php?q=cea598ab9fac9aa396b0d7eac7f6d0a29fae88e1dceccaa29faf89f1ccfcdabfdae7d7f182bf87&l=en
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phynaz

Sweepr

Diamond Member
May 12, 2006
5,148
1,129
131
6C Turbo isn't working great there because it's only 27% faster than 7700k. Even the 1C Turbo wasn't running with 4.7 Ghz, looks more like 4.5 Ghz. This is clearly not a representative system.
Everyone paying attention to the previous leaks will notice this score is bogus. Earlier leak showed 1.410 pts @ CB R15 MT. Retail systems using fast RAM could do even better.
 

Bouowmx

Golden Member
Nov 13, 2016
1,107
499
146
Yes, it was expected that Intel Core i7-8700K is to be faster than 7800X: 4.3 vs 4.0 GHz.

For 8700K to only get 130% score of 7700K, when for example, 4930K gets 145% of 4820K, suggests there is another factor in play.

The system is a HP Omen. I suspect motherboard is enforcing 95-W power limit.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY