Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

[IntelUser2000]

This is base clock for sure because Broadwell-EP with Turbo clocks with 3.6 Ghz on several SKUs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadwell_(microarchitecture)#Server_processors

BDW didn't clock well in all segments and the first 14nm version wasn't great either, compare it with Skylake and even more Kabylake @14nm+. Higher base clocks for Skylake-SP are no surprise.

How do you explain 54 and 36 being the same then? Its 80W difference. It's a typo. It's 2GHz for 36 and 2.2GHz for 34. Only 34 and 36 are wrong. On that same list 2.3GHz version is at 35W higher TDP.

-34 is likely at 2.2GHz for 130W. 40 is 10W higher with 2.3GHz.
-54=36, it can't be true.

You'll be very disappointed if you believe it based on a typo.

 

[Sweepr]

Kaby Lake-X pops up at SiSoftware

- ASRock X299 Professional Gaming i7 (LGA 2066)
http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_s...e8d5e5c3ab96a680f8c5f5d3b6d3eedef88bb68e&l=en

- Intel Core i7-7740K
http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_d...b28fbf99f1ccfcdaa29faf89ec89b484a2d1ecd4&l=en

Basically a LGA-2066 version of their current Core i7-7700K - 100 MHz higher base clock / 4.5 GHz all core Turbo?

 

[Rngwn]

Kaby Lake-X pops up at SiSoftware

- ASRock X299 Professional Gaming i7 (LGA 2066)
http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_s...e8d5e5c3ab96a680f8c5f5d3b6d3eedef88bb68e&l=en

- Intel Core i7-7740K
http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_d...b28fbf99f1ccfcdaa29faf89ec89b484a2d1ecd4&l=en

Basically a LGA-2066 version of their current Core i7-7700K - 100 MHz higher base clock / 4.5 GHz all core Turbo?

The 7740k doesn't even support quad channel RAM or so it seems. Oh boy... That does not looking good for Intel if this is real.

 

[crashtech]

The 7740k doesn't even support quad channel RAM or so it seems. Oh boy... That does not looking good for Intel if this is real.

It was never going to support quad channel. It's the "foot in the door" CPU for the HEDT platform, but I can't see what the attraction would be unless they price it slightly below the mainstream 7700K. There is precedent for this; the 3820 was priced below the mainstream i7s, but it had quad channel RAM.

 

[FIVR]

https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/2144813
https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/2144889

Those single thread scores are 300-700 points lower than my Broadwell-Y Macbook... which turbos to a max of 2.9Ghz for 30 seconds or so at most. Is intel regressing in single thread performance with Skylake-EP? I don't see how this thing is Turboing to 3.2 let alone 3.7Ghz if it can't score higher than a 2.9Ghz Broadwell core. Unless Intel is actually regressing in IPC somehow.

 

[Rngwn]

It was never going to support quad channel. It's the "foot in the door" CPU for the HEDT platform, but I can't see what the attraction would be unless they price it slightly below the mainstream 7700K. There is precedent for this; the 3820 was priced below the mainstream i7s, but it had quad channel RAM.

The only "appeal" it that this SKU appears to be a stop-gap for the Skylake-X to come. Although having the "newer gen" being a herald to the "older gen" does not make much sense to me either.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

The only "appeal" it that this SKU appears to be a stop-gap for the Skylake-X to come. Although having the "newer gen" being a herald to the "older gen" does not make much sense to me either.

They're the same uArch, probably manufactured on the same process anyway, so isn't it just semantics?

 

[Rngwn]

They're the same uArch, probably manufactured on the same process anyway, so isn't it just semantics?

Come to think of it, I have one question. Does the Optane support tied to CPU or tied to the Chipset? From what I know so far, either Kabylake or 200-series Chipset has support for optane. If the support is tied to the CPU, then it comes into the other question: whether or not the SKL-X has Optane support.

If the Optane support is tied to CPU and the SKL-X won't have it, then it will be quite a stupid move on intel's part. People will be forced to choose either moar cores or Optane. Granted, though, Optane might not see its popularity in the immediate future.

 

[JoeRambo]

Those single thread scores are 300-700 points lower than my Broadwell-Y Macbook... which turbos to a max of 2.9Ghz for 30 seconds or so at most. Is intel regressing in single thread performance with Skylake-EP? I don't see how this thing is Turboing to 3.2 let alone 3.7Ghz if it can't score higher than a 2.9Ghz Broadwell core. Unless Intel is actually regressing in IPC somehow.

That Skylake-EP is at fixed 2.1Ghz and for that clock those scores are rather nice. I have made 2.1Ghz core/uncore 7700k run, so advantages of Skylake-EP are easier to see:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/2181598

compare with

https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/2144813

Note that it is with 3000CL13 versus what is probably a single channel for Skylake-EP. Even with such handicaps Skylake-EPs restructured cache works rather well.

 

[Ajay]

They're the same uArch, probably manufactured on the same process anyway, so isn't it just semantics?

They are not the 'same' uarch. They are very close and they are manufactured on the same process. IIRC, Skylake-EP was developed semi-independently from Core Skylake - so it was a matter of evolution vs derivation. The next gen server CPU will take the lead in developing the new uarch.



PS. Yes I'm back. The thread didn't devolve into an Intel vs Ryzen crap fest, so I'm happy.

 

[crashtech]

They are not the 'same' uarch. They are very close and they are manufactured on the same process. IIRC, Skylake-EP was developed semi-independently from Core Skylake - so it was a matter of evolution vs derivation. The next gen server CPU will take the lead in developing the new uarch.

I thought the actual cores, other than caches, were substantially identical, would you be willing to enumerate the key differences, or provide a link that does?

 

[mikk]

I thought the actual cores, other than caches, were substantially identical, would you be willing to enumerate the key differences, or provide a link that does?

Key difference is AVX 512 support. Other than that there are no infos beside the changed cache structure.

 

[Ajay]

I thought the actual cores, other than caches, were substantially identical, would you be willing to enumerate the key differences, or provide a link that does?

Well, when you add the L2$ change and AVX-512 (as mikk just mentioned) the core will change substantially just because of those two items alone (so much so, that if this were on the client side, we'd expect a new name for it). We will just have to wait and see what else changes. I think Intel is determined to defend it's mid to high end server share above all else. I'm curious to see if there will be a Skylake Xeon D soon (to defend the entry level server levels).

 

[crashtech]

Well, when you add the L2$ change and AVX-512 (as mikk just mentioned) the core will change substantially just because of those two items alone (so much so, that if this were on the client side, we'd expect a new name for it). We will just have to wait and see what else changes. I think Intel is determined to defend it's mid to high end server share above all else. I'm curious to see if there will be a Skylake Xeon D soon (to defend the entry level server levels).

There seems to be constant disagreement over what consists of a different uarch. In my opinion, adding AVX-512 and playing with cache is not really a different uarch. Enhanced, maybe? Made better, certainly. Optimized for different workloads, obviously. But I think overstating the differences here just sets people up to be disappointed.

 

[Ajay]

I see your point. But we don't typically get big uarch changes anymore. I suppose that's the exciting bit about AMD's new CPU. Intel has been more incremental because one doesn't screw with a money making monster. Maybe we will see larger changes in the future. Nonetheless, I think we will see a pretty distinct floor plan for Skylake-EP, even if there is allot of redundancy in circuitry (well, not that we'll actually see that).

 

[nvgpu]

https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/26669/Graphics-Intel-Graphics-Driver-for-Windows-15-45-

Intel 21.20.16.4627 graphics driver for Kaby Lake & Skylake.

 

[VirtualLarry]

As usual, the Intel iGPU drivers, have an artificial lockout for Win7 users with a Kaby Lake CPU. Just one near-monopoly propping up another monopoly.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

As usual, the Intel iGPU drivers, have an artificial lockout for Win7 users with a Kaby Lake CPU. Just one near-monopoly propping up another monopoly.

Nothing an INF edit wouldn't "fix"

 

[escrow4]

As usual, the Intel iGPU drivers, have an artificial lockout for Win7 users with a Kaby Lake CPU. Just one near-monopoly propping up another monopoly.

If you want 2009 era software use a 2009 Core 2 Duo. If you want speedshift v2 and all the modern trimmings use Win 10. Is simples.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

If you want 2009 era software use a 2009 Nehalem. If you want speedshift v2 and all the modern trimmings use Win 10. Is simples.

Hyperbole fail. FTFY.
Also screw Speed Shift, Speed Step, PowerNow, CNQ, etc. on a desktop. I prefer fixed-multi + fixed Vcore OCs.

 

[escrow4]

Hyperbole fail. FTFY.
Also screw Speed Shift, Speed Step, PowerNow, CNQ, etc. on a desktop. I prefer fixed-multi + fixed Vcore OCs.

And I prefer a stable out of the box experience that won't fall over due to some random degrading Vcore setting or anything else overclocked.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

And I prefer a stable out of the box experience that won't fall over due to some random degrading Vcore setting or anything else overclocked.

Of course to each their own, but I have not had an OC fail or degrade for the past decade.
Then again, maybe I'm a little more conservative than others, and I do very exhaustively qualify any OC.

eg. recently put an old i7 920 D0 setup back together with the exact same BIOS settings from 2009.
Fired right up and passed 100 passes of IBT effortlessly.

 

[ehume]

What this means is that I cannot put Win 7 on the newest Intel CPU's. I don't know about you, but some of the Win 10 scripts are inferior to those of Win 7. In general, it may have advanced features under the hood, but as UI's go it is inferior.

Win 7 has three more years of support. I intend to use every one of them. Intel has simply guaranteed that I will not buy a new Intel CPU until after that.

 

[Nothingness]

That Skylake-EP is at fixed 2.1Ghz and for that clock those scores are rather nice. I have made 2.1Ghz core/uncore 7700k run, so advantages of Skylake-EP are easier to see:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/2181598

compare with

https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/2144813

Note that it is with 3000CL13 versus what is probably a single channel for Skylake-EP. Even with such handicaps Skylake-EPs restructured cache works rather well.

The MT bandwidth of the latter is >33GB/s. I doubt that's single channel.

 

[JoeRambo]

The MT bandwidth of the latter is >33GB/s. I doubt that's single channel.

Good point. Still 33GB/s is not that much for 6 channel wide platform running 2 processors ?