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

Jan Olšan

Senior member
Jan 12, 2017
266
258
106
So, the 1.5v was just pulled out of thin air?
1.5 V was mentioned by me, but read my comment - I was just asking what crazy thing was done to make the PC consume 700 W, it was not a statement.
And I think that point stands - it is not a representative value of power consumption for Threadripper, by far, and virtually all the other sources don't show nearly that much. So basically to put it really rudely, the whole problem here is that it was cherry-picked, misleading picture/graph/result.

And complaining that somebody guessed the used voltage incorrectly because link for source was not given (if the reality was 1.42 though, not that bad a shot) is kinda missing the point/changing the topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coercitiv

TahoeDust

Senior member
Nov 29, 2011
557
404
136
1.5 V was mentioned by me, but read my comment - I was just asking what crazy thing was done to make the PC consume 700 W, it was not a statement.
And I think that point stands - it is not a representative value for Threadripper, by far, and virtually all the other sources don't show nearly that much. So basically to put it really rudely, the whole problem here is that it was cherry-picked, misleading picture/graph/result.
Yeah. I know you did not state it as fact. Other users just ran with it.

I agree. The 4.0GHz overclock power consumption results he (TTL) posted are definitely outliers.

BTW, when I posted it, it was the only review I had seen with power consumption numbers. I did not cherry pick anything. Power consumption is absolutely the least of my concern. I'm not scared of electric bills.
 
Last edited:

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
21,501
9,558
136
Yep. Because he can only get 3.8GHz out of his retail TR 1950x. He said he wanted to put the best results he had for the 1950x.
And something is wrong there also. I don't think any of us in the TR buiders thread have been limted to 3.8. 3.9 to 4.1 is the range. The 4.1 users have custom water, I have an AIO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,465
805
136
To be
Strangely there's no power consumption numbers in the retail sample review, why would you put ES numbers then for comparison? There's any number of things that could go wrong with that theory.
https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_1950x_threadripper_retail_retest/1
To be fair, the Intels are ES too. Of course, I wasn't happy to see Hardware Unboxed benching ES SKL-X chips against retail Ryzens but that review was everybody's go-to graph for power consumption /s
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
21,501
9,558
136
Yeah. I know you did not state it as fact. Other users just ran with it.

I agree. The 4.0GHz overclock results he (TTL) posted are definitely outliers.
The average for all of our users in the TR builders thread is 4.0, and you call that an outlier ?

Go read that thread if you doubt me !
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,562
145
106
To be

To be fair, the Intels are ES too. Of course, I wasn't happy to see Hardware Unboxed benching ES SKL-X chips against retail Ryzens but that review was everybody's go-to graph for power consumption /s
And tbf to Intel they match TR power consumption at stock, when OCed though it's like a totally different kettle of fish.

I'm waiting for Toms numbers & I suspect they'll be similar to 7900x, for temps, but much worse power consumption when OCed.
 

TahoeDust

Senior member
Nov 29, 2011
557
404
136
The average for all of our users in the TR builders thread is 4.0, and you call that an outlier ?

Go read that thread if you doubt me !
Mark, I was talking about his power consumption at 4.0GHz. I am well aware of how TR overclocks. I'll clarify my post.
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,465
805
136
The average for all of our users in the TR builders thread is 4.0, and you call that an outlier ?

Go read that thread if you doubt me !
That's a bit off, actually. I'd say a sizable chunk are mostly between stock and 3.8ghz. Less than a quarter are at 4Ghz, and maybe a couple at 4Ghz+.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TahoeDust

wildhorse2k

Member
May 12, 2017
180
82
71
Another positive thing about 7980XE seems to be availability. In my local shop it will be available in 2 days. The same for 7960X and 7940X. For people who care more about money and want Intel 7940X seems to be well priced.
 

psolord

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2009
1,346
432
136
Do you guys see what's happening in this thread?

One guy posts 8700k news. Another 7980X reviews. Someone else Z370 news. Then a guy says but the 1950X is better for the money. Then someone comments on the 8700K power draw.

Are we freaking serious?

Seriously guys, whoever wants to take the initiative next time for new archs, start each one in their own damn thread.

And for facks shake put the Coffeelake reviews in a separate thread.

Ps to lighten the mood of this post, a friend of mine calls them Coffinlake, lol, what a d1ck.
 

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,562
145
106
Do you guys see what's happening in this thread?

One guy posts 8700k news. Another 7980X reviews. Someone else Z370 news. Then a guy says but the 1950X is better for the money. Then someone comments on the 8700K power draw.

Are we freaking serious?

Seriously guys, whoever wants to take the initiative next time for new archs, start each one in their own damn thread.

And for facks shake put the Coffeelake reviews in a separate thread.

Ps to lighten the mood of this post, a friend of mine calls them Coffinlake, lol, what a d1ck.
Is he also a fan of covfefe, or twitter or indeed lady liberty?
 

ozzy702

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2011
1,124
508
136
Do you guys see what's happening in this thread?

One guy posts 8700k news. Another 7980X reviews. Someone else Z370 news. Then a guy says but the 1950X is better for the money. Then someone comments on the 8700K power draw.

Are we freaking serious?

Seriously guys, whoever wants to take the initiative next time for new archs, start each one in their own damn thread.

And for facks shake put the Coffeelake reviews in a separate thread.

Ps to lighten the mood of this post, a friend of mine calls them Coffinlake, lol, what a d1ck.
Agreed. New archs deserve their own threads. Looking forward to seeing how Z370 and the 8700k workout. I'm going to try to snag a set day one!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phynaz and psolord

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
I agree this thread is a mess.. Cfl needed its own thread months ago. No one even discusses uarch in this Thread anyway
I much rather see a breakdown along market segments, since I have no real interest in HEDT/Server/Workstation chips like 79xx/TR.

I am only interested in Mainstream chips like Coffee Lake/Ryzen. The Intel release of Coffee Lake info and leaked review were the big news of the day for me, but they got buried with big core count HEDT/Workstation chip arguments.
 

CHADBOGA

Platinum Member
Mar 31, 2009
2,045
704
136
I can't get over how so many people are obsessing over Intel's HEDT line(with either positive or negative comments), when it will make up such a small part of Intel's sales and so few people even on this forum will be buying a 16 core or 18 core Intel CPU in the next 12 months. o_O
 

ozzy702

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2011
1,124
508
136
I can't get over how so many people are obsessing over Intel's HEDT line(with either positive or negative comments), when it will make up such a small part of Intel's sales and so few people even on this forum will be buying a 16 core or 18 core Intel CPU in the next 12 months. o_O
Dick swinging is to be expected now that there's actually some competition in the CPU market and we're seeing major gains for the first time in years. If Intel hadn't screwed up the cache by gimping L3 and they actually gamed at least at 7700k levels I'd be all over a 6 or 8 core Skylake-X but it looks like I'm on the 8700k train.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
21,501
9,558
136
That's a bit off, actually. I'd say a sizable chunk are mostly between stock and 3.8ghz. Less than a quarter are at 4Ghz, and maybe a couple at 4Ghz+.
That is ridiculous. I created a thread, and so far only 3 verified users, but there are 2 at 4.0 and one at 4.1 (custom water) all at 1.3 or less vcore, so knock off the guesses. I have more that will answer, but it takes time. I also had some trolls that tried to anonymously vote, and I nuked their votes. These are verified user posts. 3 for 3 agree with me.

Names: ddogg has 4.1 on custom water. IEC has 4.0. and 1.26 vcore, mine 4.0 and 1.2 vcore. When I have more I will post. I was trying to keep this on topic until you derailed this trying to BS your way into 1950X OC's. Only brought up due to the stupidity of a couple of internet benchmarkers that have no clue, and not a good reputation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick and raghu78

osgorth

Junior Member
Sep 6, 2017
7
6
36
Gamers Nexus is testing the 7960X and 7980XE with focus on power and thermals, with interesting comparisons to Threadripper - both stock, overclocked & delidded. Since that's been an argument here lately, I advise you to check these charts - I find them very interesting. Stock numbers in particular are quite low.


Written article here (with more charts):
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3066-intel-i9-7980xe-7960x-thermals-power-review

TL;DR: really big power numbers when overclocking, and way too hot, with great performance. Not a surprise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coercitiv

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
21,501
9,558
136
Gamers Nexus is testing the 7960X and 7980XE with focus on power and thermals, with interesting comparisons to Threadripper - both stock, overclocked & delidded. Since that's been an argument here lately, I advise you to check these charts - I find them very interesting. Stock numbers in particular are quite low.


Written article here (with more charts):
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3066-intel-i9-7980xe-7960x-thermals-power-review

TL;DR: really big power numbers when overclocking, and way too hot, with great performance. Not a surprise.
I found this interesting from that article, in their words:

"For our standardized Blender test, we were measuring power consumption of 218W with the i9-7960X 16C/32T CPU at stock settings, or 492W when overclocked to 4.6GHz with a 1.22VID. That’s 40A down the EPS12V cables, at that point. We measured about 214W for the stock 7980XE – within usual variance of the 7960X – and also measured nearly 500W with the 4.5GHz overclock. Now, of course, how worthwhile this tradeoff is depends heavily on the actual performance improvement – we’ll get to that next.

Comparatively, the AMD Threadripper 1950X CPU consumed about 144W in the same test. We saw the 1920X plot around the same, with a 145W throughput. Overclocking the 1950X landed it at 274W, though we only ever achieved a 4.0GHz overclock in initial testing, so it wasn’t really worthwhile."

Granted the times were 14.4 for the 7960X@218 watts vs 13.3@144 watts for the 1950X, so it got beat, but at what a cost for power ? And overclocked 7980XE@500 watts !!!!

And again, the 1950X@ 4 ghz they took 1.44 vcore ? how come nobody else needs that much ?
I call BS again from personal knowledge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

Bouowmx

Golden Member
Nov 13, 2016
1,115
510
146
No reviews of just enabling Multi-core enhancement for 4.2 GHz, which I think is useful information: middle-ground between stock 3.4 GHz, and maximum overclock and power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arachnotronic

osgorth

Junior Member
Sep 6, 2017
7
6
36
Granted the times were 14.4 for the 7960X@218 watts vs 13.3@144 watts for the 1950X, so it got beat, but at what a cost for power ? And overclocked 7980XE@500 watts !!!!
Did you read their Conclusion paragraph? They agree with you, as do I.

As for voltages on TR: I'm assuming TR has the same "issue" that Ryzen has sometimes when it just refuses to hit 4GHz unless you really abuse it. Others do 4.0 and even 4.1 with comparative ease. It seems both GamersNexus and Tom Logan over at oc3d.net have had major problems with that 4GHz wall lately. Silicon lottery at play, I'm sure.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY