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

eddman

Senior member
Dec 28, 2010
239
87
101
we've also already seen that Ryzen uses less power.
... and we've seen the opposite a lot. Compare 1500X to 7500, 7600 and even 7600K:


I still have no idea why people think Ryzens inherently always consume less than Lake CPUs. Even 7900X consumes less than 1920X in the majority of reviews.

P.S. SMT's power hit is rather small; a couple of watts, and is balanced out by i5s higher turbo clocks.
 
Last edited:

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
18,170
7,074
136
Why ?? this is a 95W TDP only cpu. Why everyone expecting to have faster than Core i7 7800X (140W TDP) Cinebench MT score ??
I'm with you here, though it would be far more instructive to see actual power draw figures during the run to get an idea of work per unit of energy consumed.
 

Roger Wilco

Golden Member
Mar 20, 2017
1,252
793
136
So I just went yolo and purchased a 7700k for $300. Lakes of coffee be damned; I need an upgrade now. I think it should provide a small boost over my FX 4130.

I'll upgrade again when Lava Lake releases with a mainstream 64 core.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arachnotronic

The Stilt

Golden Member
Dec 5, 2015
1,709
3,057
106
The video looks legit although not so sure about the way it was obtained.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiRg0D-fNe4&feature=youtu.be

Shame it's a 1.74 version of CPU-Z and of course we don't know how controlled the bench was.
In the video you can clearly see what's going on.
CPU-Z is displaying a frequency obtained from a fixed counter (TSC or HPET), 3.7GHz.
Meanwhile the Windows task manager shows significantly higher (4.37 - 4.55GHz) frequencies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,965
2,717
136
196 ST corresponds to Kabylake with 4.5 Ghz. You are saying 4.5 Ghz ST is accurate for 8700k, I say it is flawed because ST Turbo runs with 4.7 Ghz on this SKU. This is clearly not a representative system. You are wrong with your posted MT score by the way.
Okay here we go:



The 7700K isn't turboing as high it seems, so I'll take the 7740X. 195*(4.7/4.5) = 204.



986*(4.3/4.5)*(6/4) = 1413

So yeah a score in the ballpark of ~200/1400 is entirely reasonable. These leaked scores are accurate enough as far as leaks go.

Math isn't your strong point. It's okay.

BTW the MT score is not mine, it's from our resident leaker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wyrm

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
52,246
7,061
126
If that thing cranks to 5Ghz+ it is going to be a monster of a mainstream chip.
More than likely. It will have a slight frequency advantage over Ryzen, but I question whether it will have a power-efficiency advantage. I think Ryzen is better in that dept. We'll see who the real fanboys are, as they decry "oh, who cares about power consumption, as long as it's faster"... when not so long ago, the rhetoric was, "You should get Intel, it's more power-efficient than FX."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick and Ranulf
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,011
126
More than likely. It will have a slight frequency advantage over Ryzen, but I question whether it will have a power-efficiency advantage. I think Ryzen is better in that dept. We'll see who the real fanboys are, as they decry "oh, who cares about power consumption, as long as it's faster"... when not so long ago, the rhetoric was, "You should get Intel, it's more power-efficient than FX."
FX was power hungry and slow compared to the competition. 8700K is unlikely to be.

p.s. A 25%+ frequency advantage isn't "slight".
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
641
126
... and we've seen the opposite a lot. Compare 1500X to 7500, 7600 and even 7600K:


I still have no idea why people think Ryzens inherently always consume less than Lake CPUs. Even 7900X consumes less than 1920X in the majority of reviews.

P.S. SMT's power hit is rather small; a couple of watts, and is balanced out by i5s higher turbo clocks.
Partly because Ryzen basically is limited to 4ghz. If both chips were tested at the same frequency, I think the power consumption would be very close in a lot of cases. A lot of the data spread about Skylake's excessive power consumption comes from highly overclocked chips, which you basically dont have to worry about with Ryzen.
 

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,563
145
106
FX was power hungry and slow compared to the competition. 8700K is unlikely to be.

p.s. A 25%+ frequency advantage isn't "slight".
And the counter to that was it was cheaper, also unlocked, but of course everyone has mountains of money over here & apparently VFM is an old wives tale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VirtualLarry

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,200
2,039
126
The video looks legit although not so sure about the way it was obtained.*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiRg0D-fNe4&feature=youtu.be

Shame it's a 1.74 version of CPU-Z and of course we don't know how controlled the bench was.

Edit : *Whether the video itself was obtained legitimately, not the results.
Dude has balls to just install a monitor and run benchmarks, lol. Was that an HP employee just standing there watching him leak the new chip all over the net? LOL. Also, chip is weak without OC.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,895
1,274
136
And when comparing the 8700K to 7700K also remember you have anothe 2 Cores or 50% more threads. So do you believe that 14nm++ will be able to have almost the same all core turbo as the 7700K with 50% more cores at a slightly higher TDP of 95W vs 91W ??
TDP ain't power use. I bet that the 8700k will guzzle a lot more than the 7700k which also explains why it needs a new socket and motherboard.

We take the 7800X as a reference because it has the same number of Cores/Threads as the 8700K.
This has already been explained why comparing TDP of 8700k and 7800x makes no sense:

7800X has a different cache structure, quad channel vs dual channel, has AVX-512 support, and designed for use in a totally different platform.
Exactly. Plus 7800x is the worst binned chip, not the best binned like the 8700k will be.

More than likely. It will have a slight frequency advantage over Ryzen, but I question whether it will have a power-efficiency advantage. I think Ryzen is better in that dept. We'll see who the real fanboys are, as they decry "oh, who cares about power consumption, as long as it's faster"... when not so long ago, the rhetoric was, "You should get Intel, it's more power-efficient than FX."
Fair enough point but easy to counter. FX used more power while performing a lot worse. Ryzens efficiency comes with a frequency penalty with a hard limit at 4 ghz. So yes, if it adds reasonable enough performance higher power is is not a huge issue. If you run your 8700k at 4.8 ghz vs an 1700 at 3.8 ghz, the 8700k has 26% higher frequency and due to higher IPC you are already close to 30% higher ST performance. In my book the higher power use is worth the higher ST performance. Games are still mostly limited by a main thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcp7 and Zucker2k

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,965
2,717
136
From Intel:
Thermal Design Power (TDP) represents the average power, in watts, the processor dissipates when operating at Base Frequency with all cores active under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload.
95W for 6 cores at 3.7GHz is plausible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
5,000
358
126
but that's with the IGP as a factor I think, even my sandy bridge only ever touches the base clock if the IGP is active.
 

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,563
145
106
It wasn't just the people on Anandtech with "mountains of money", the FX series was a disaster in the marketplace for AMD.
And who are you to say what anyone else should buy? If someone were to choose an FX 83xx & el cheapo motherboard for $200~250 (after all rebates & discounts) vs an i5 4xxx & H97 for $50~100 more, would you provide that difference from your pocket so that the poor guy could afford an Intel inside? If not stop interjecting each & every argument with your bias it's not as if you're not transparent enough, you just stop short of someone like Shintai.
 

CHADBOGA

Platinum Member
Mar 31, 2009
2,049
707
136
And who are you to say what anyone else should buy?
I haven't said what anyone else should buy, I merely commented on what people en mass actually did.

And you were the person crying about people not caring enough about VFM, so it looks like you are the one who says what other people should buy.

Thus stop projecting.

If someone were to choose an FX 83xx & el cheapo motherboard for $200~250 (after all rebates & discounts) vs an i5 4xxx & H97 for $50~100 more, would you provide that difference from your pocket so that the poor guy could afford an Intel inside? If not stop interjecting each & every argument with your bias it's not as if you're not transparent enough, you just stop short of someone like Shintai.
You really have confused yourself here and you make no sense whatsoever.
 

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,563
145
106
I haven't said what anyone else should buy, I merely commented on what people en mass actually did.

And you were the person crying about people not caring enough about VFM, so it looks like you are the one who says what other people should buy.

Thus stop projecting.



You really have confused yourself here and you make no sense whatsoever.
You know what I was trying to say, your roundabout manner of speaking that "FX series was a disaster shows that your argument's wrong" doesn't get you any brownie points.

The arguments back then were twofold ~
1) In case of APU, the AMD models had lower price & better IGP going in their favor.
2) For FX it was lower price & OC ability.

I'm sure you witnessed those debates & I'm sure you remember which side I was on, need I remind you what others said in that regard or you for that matter, as opposed to the arguments now rearing up against Zen? Oh & stop deflecting.
 

CHADBOGA

Platinum Member
Mar 31, 2009
2,049
707
136
You know what I was trying to say, your roundabout manner of speaking that "FX series was a disaster shows that your argument's wrong" doesn't get you any brownie points.

The arguments back then were twofold ~
1) In case of APU, the AMD models had lower price & better IGP going in their favor.
2) For FX it was lower price & OC ability.
The market showed that in the case of 1), better IGP only takes you so far when you have weaker CPU in an APU and for 2), the price wasn't low enough and the OC ability couldn't make up the difference.

I'm not sure what point you think you are making?

I'm sure you witnessed those debates & I'm sure you remember which side I was on, need I remind you what others said in that regard or you for that matter, as opposed to the arguments now rearing up against Zen? Oh & stop deflecting.
What do I have to deflect?

What criticisms have you seen me make of Zen?
 

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,563
145
106
The market showed that in the case of 1), better IGP only takes you so far when you have weaker CPU in an APU and for 2), the price wasn't low enough and the OC ability couldn't make up the difference.

I'm not sure what point you think you are making?



What do I have to deflect?

What criticisms have you seen me make of Zen?
That's debatable, we've seen GPU's advance at a much faster pace than CPU's have, over the last decade or so. History also shows us that you can do with a mildly anemic CPU but your GPU (or IGP) can make a whole lot of difference. Try running any web browser with vs without GPU acceleration, try running full HD or 4K video on youtube using a CPU. People who buy APU generally cannot afford a separate GPU or simply don't have the time or space for one, IGP matters for them, quite a lot.

Partially agree with that, since it depends largely on how good a deal you can get on that FX like ~ https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/amd-fx-8320e-cpu-49-99-at-microcenter-b-m-amir-rebate-is-an-amd-rebate-may-be-good-elsewhere.2518442

However some of the difference could easily go towards an SSD or anything else that you couldn't afford with a more expensive CPU.

I didn't say you, in particular, for Zen but the arguments about higher temps (for KBL & CFL) or lower efficiency (vs R7 1700) have suddenly disappeared. The new argument is IF chit chat, or lower mem speeds & singular focus on ST performance plus games! Remember games, if your IPC is higher by 20% then gaming on Intel must also be faster by 20% :rolleyes:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY