Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

[blue11]

You were the one claiming a 4.3 OC was some hard limit:

I was not me who said that. It was straight from the companies responsible for designing the OC boards. They have every reason to hype and exaggerate the possible OC frequency, but even they admitted that only 4.3 GHz was realistic on water.

My entire point of mentioning cooler temps mean high freq with same voltage was to dispute your theory of 'thermal throttling' which is an absurd way of achieving a stable overclock. if it was even possible. Most if not all cpu oc software, or bios-es,do not let you tweak a thermal throttle - its typically a thermal shutdown limit - hit it and your computer shuts down.

There is nothing "absurd" about this. How do you think laptops and tablets work? They run at turbo until they get too hot and reach thermal throttling; nothing crashes or hits 800 MHz or whatever. It is how the old i7-4790K worked with its stock cooler, which could not actually handle 4 GHz. There is nothing "unstable" about it. If you have a system where frequency is limited by heat transfer and not electrical reasons, setting a target frequency beyond the steady state frequency is what delivers optimal performance. Not to mention that the same frequency does not produce the same heat in all workloads, so by limiting yourself to your "stable" frequency, you lose performance in every workload that is not the worst case.

 

[WingZero30]

Lol it seems like the bench results are all over the place for both ryzen and skylake-x

 

[SAAA]

Is this a joke? People have the hardware, yet they don't know what to bench with. Why aren't we seeing GB4 scores, or any other more relevant, valid benchmark? GB3 is crap and has been proven wrong many times so long ago.. For all it's worth we could be discussing Antutu scores on phones.

Why are you all getting so worked up on these? They're mostly worthless. When the guys with the hardware grow a brain or two and decide to bench something meaningful, well..

This so much dammit. All these guys running, as Csbin rightly pointed out, freaking LN at suicide volts... I was almost confident in it being something good instead it's the usual crap from benches not reporting exact clocks, too bad.
Setting 3-4GHz on all cores and starting up CPU-z, Cinebench, superPi and Geekbench 4 or so is that hard when you already leak these runs? It should be useful even for the overclocker to see if the cpus are scaling fine or losing some points when OC for some weird reason.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

This so much dammit. All these guys running, as Csbin rightly pointed out, freaking LN at suicide volts... I was almost confident in it being something good instead it's the usual crap from benches not reporting exact clocks, too bad.
Setting 3-4GHz on all cores and starting up CPU-z, Cinebench, superPi and Geekbench 4 or so is that hard when you already leak these runs? It should be useful even for the overclocker to see if the cpus are scaling fine or losing some points when OC for some weird reason.

^ This! I don't need to know what it can do on LN2; that doesn't mean anything to me as I am interested in real world performance. 8 days to go...

 

[pcslookout]

Is this a joke? People have the hardware, yet they don't know what to bench with. Why aren't we seeing GB4 scores, or any other more relevant, valid benchmark? GB3 is crap and has been proven wrong many times so long ago.. For all it's worth we could be discussing Antutu scores on phones.

Why are you all getting so worked up on these? They're mostly worthless. When the guys with the hardware grow a brain or two and decide to bench something meaningful, well..

I agree with this.

 

[jpiniero]

Is this a joke? People have the hardware, yet they don't know what to bench with. Why aren't we seeing GB4 scores, or any other more relevant, valid benchmark? GB3 is crap and has been proven wrong many times so long ago.. For all it's worth we could be discussing Antutu scores on phones.

Why are you all getting so worked up on these? They're mostly worthless. When the guys with the hardware grow a brain or two and decide to bench something meaningful, well..

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...core-i9-7980xe.2428363/page-465#post-38922429

 

[lolfail9001]

They run at turbo until they get too hot and reach thermal throttling;

1. They generally do not thermal throttle without extreme conditions.
2. Here's what happens when they do thermal throttle:

Spoiler

See that 1.4Ghz and 0.9Ghz clock on 6700HQ? Yeah, that's what i am talking about.

So, please, stop spreading FUD without evidence.

 

[blue11]

1. They generally do not thermal throttle without extreme conditions.
2. Here's what happens when they do thermal throttle: See that 1.4Ghz and 0.9Ghz clock on 6700HQ? Yeah, that's what i am talking about.

So, please, stop spreading FUD without evidence.

When thermal throttling occurs, the frequency is reduced. What is your point?


See how the frequency is modulated in 100 MHz increments when the core temperature reaches 100 C? See how the frequency is not 900 MHz?

 

[Crumpet]

LTT ripping into i9's;

 

[itsmydamnation]

LTT ripping into i9's;

Its funny that he has nothing against the actual processors but how intel has specified controlled and shaped the platform. I think he makes it obvious that he thinks its intel trying to protect Xeon workstation and server segments from people buying HEDT. But that's their problem in a way because thread ripper is a workstation product being sold to the workstation SPEC in the HEDT space.

 

[Crumpet]

Hopefully we'll get equal honest opinions on Threadripper as well.

This is my kind of techtubing, but it has to go both ways.

 

[blue11]

Its funny that he has nothing against the actual processors but how intel has specified controlled and shaped the platform. I think he makes it obvious that he thinks its intel trying to protect Xeon workstation and server segments from people buying HEDT. But that's their problem in a way because thread ripper is a workstation product being sold to the workstation SPEC in the HEDT space.

I really want to like HEDT, but the amount of gimping Intel puts on it to protect their other segments just ruins the value proposition and leaves a bad taste.

Features gimped:

• ECC memory
• Memory capacity (only 128 GB)
• 6-channel memory controller
• Fast AVX-512
• PCI-E lanes (below $1000)
• RAID-5 support
• Multi-socket scalability

What do we have to show for all that gimping? The ability to overclock to 4.x GHz for stupid e-peen (and huge electricity bills), and even that is going to need a delid (warranty voided) now. This would all be fine, if Intel would sell these parts for what they are really worth. $400 for 8 cores and $1000 for 16-cores are as much as this stuff is worth, given all the ridiculous, arbitrary restrictions. However, Intel is demanding the same price as their Xeon line for these gimpware chips, with $1000 for 44 PCI-E lanes and $2000 for 18 cores. It looks even more absurd in the face of Zen and the incoming "ThreadRipper" ($845) and "EPYC" lines.

 

[tential]

I'm waiting for you to tell me something I should be mad or annoyed about....

 

[moonbogg]

I can understand the panic and denial Intel must be going through. Imagine being able to sell 8 core chips for $1000, 6 core chips for $600 and quads for $400, and then suddenly you can't do that anymore. Intel is now forced to offer value to the customer and they are doing everything humanly possible to avoid that. Its not working out for them. I agree that $600 is too much for the 8 core chip, especially with the Ryzen price drops. Double the price of a 1700 and a more expensive motherboard, not to mention the terrible TIM debacle all make this a very sour launch IMO. All they had to do was simply offer the customer a high quality product at a fair price, but they just wouldn't have any of it. They had to take things away and gimp the product.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I can understand the panic and denial Intel must be going through. Imagine being able to sell 8 core chips for $1000, 6 core chips for $600 and quads for $400, and then suddenly you can't do that anymore. Intel is now forced to offer value to the customer and they are doing everything humanly possible to avoid that. Its not working out for them. I agree that $600 is too much for the 8 core chip, especially with the Ryzen price drops. Double the price of a 1700 and a more expensive motherboard, not to mention the terrible TIM debacle all make this a very sour launch IMO. All they had to do was simply offer the customer a high quality product at a fair price, but they just wouldn't have any of it. They had to take things away and gimp the product.

Compare the 7900X to the 1800X. Better single-thread performance (4.3GHz max turbo boost 2.0, 4.5GHz turbo boost max on two cores), faster all-core turbo, more feature rich platform, more PCI Express lanes (28 vs 16), etc. for $100-$150 more.

I really don't understand the hate.

 

[Karnak]

Compare the 7900X to the 1800X. Better single-thread performance (4.3GHz max turbo boost 2.0, 4.5GHz turbo boost max on two cores), faster all-core turbo, more feature rich platform, more PCI Express lanes (28 vs 16), etc. for $100-$150 more.

I really don't understand the hate.

Why would you even consider an overpriced 1800X? Get the 1700, overclock it and you'll get your 1800X for much less.

1700: $300
7900X 7820X: $599

B350 Motherboards: <$100
X299 Motherboards: Most likely at least >$200

Sure, higher performance and more lanes/features, but >$400 more is huge. And that's only AM4 vs. X299, if it's true and we'll see a 16C Threadripper for $849... oh boy. Then we're most likely talking about an 8C 7820X vs. a Threadripper 12C at the same price point. And 28 vs. 64 lanes...

 

[moonbogg]

Compare the 7900X to the 1800X. Better single-thread performance (4.3GHz max turbo boost 2.0, 4.5GHz turbo boost max on two cores), faster all-core turbo, more feature rich platform, more PCI Express lanes (28 vs 16), etc. for $100-$150 more.

I really don't understand the hate.

That's exactly what people shouldn't do. R7 1700 is real and it can't be imagined or hoped away by those trying to pretend $600 is acceptable for an 8 core CPU at this stage in the game, not to mention what threadripper will bring to the $600 price bracket. Its going to get worse for Intel.
I don't attack Intel for fun or because I have some strange axe to grind. I've had Intel CPU's for ever. The issue is that with new competition there should be new value offered by intel, and they almost had it until they decided to pretend R7 1700 doesn't exist, priced their chips too high (yet again) and gave us TIM instead of solder. Intel's image is suffering pretty bad right now IMO and rightly so.

 

[Shivansps]

I still want to see CFL-S 6C and SKL-X 6C vs 1700 and 1800 before saying things like that. But i fully agree that Intel has not responded to AMD yet, in fact this is the worse face of Intel that i can remember, the X299 gimps and HEDT/Xeon segmentation are shamefull, hell even my Z67 board has the raid modes that X299 arent getting.

 

[tamz_msc]

Compare the 7900X to the 1800X. Better single-thread performance (4.3GHz max turbo boost 2.0, 4.5GHz turbo boost max on two cores), faster all-core turbo, more feature rich platform, more PCI Express lanes (28 vs 16), etc. for $100-$150 more.

I really don't understand the hate.

You mean the 7820X which is 599$, right? Because the 7900X is a 999$ 10-core chip. You don't even need to consider the 1800X because with the 50$ price cut the 1700X@350$ is a much better proposition than it was at 400$ as it can do the same frequencies at similar voltages as the 1800X, except edge cases which is luck of the draw.

 

[ManyThreads]

I'm tempted to just revert back to my previous plan of the Ryzen 1700, and then upgrade to Ryzen 2 without changing sockets, which will hopefully be 4.5 GHz or so. That being said, about half of what I do is single threaded.

Anyone know when reviews are released?

 

[beginner99]

Compare the 7900X to the 1800X. Better single-thread performance (4.3GHz max turbo boost 2.0, 4.5GHz turbo boost max on two cores), faster all-core turbo, more feature rich platform, more PCI Express lanes (28 vs 16), etc. for $100-$150 more.

I really don't understand the hate.

I think you meant the 7820x (8-core).

The 1800x was just a halo part anyway to get some high margins. The 1700 is a much better deal and performs almost the same when OCed. Also it's confirmed that AMD will lower 1800x price because X399 will get an 8-core part cheaper than current 1800x. In fact they might lower price of the whole Ryzen series. So the 7820x will go up against 12-core Thread-ripper. Yes, 7820x will be faster single-threaded but have 50% less cores and hence will loose in any highly multi-threaded workload and by a lot. That should be enough already but TR also comes with more than double the PCIe lanes. I wonder if Intel sells their alpine ridge TB3 controller to be used on X399 boards...

 

[.vodka]

That's exactly what people shouldn't do. R7 1700 is real and it can't be imagined or hoped away by those trying to pretend $600 is acceptable for an 8 core CPU at this stage in the game, not to mention what threadripper will bring to the $600 price bracket. Its going to get worse for Intel.
I don't attack Intel for fun or because I have some strange axe to grind. I've had Intel CPU's for ever. The issue is that with new competition there should be new value offered by intel, and they almost had it until they decided to pretend R7 1700 doesn't exist, priced their chips too high (yet again) and gave us TIM instead of solder. Intel's image is suffering pretty bad right now IMO and rightly so.

Yup, R7 1700 (and the 6 core parts, too) have just wrecked Intel's milk the customer scheme they've been so comfortable in for the past few years. It seems Threadripper could have a similar effect if it lives up to what it is on paper.

Competition has a habit of giving us better products in the end, so it's all worth it.

I think you meant the 7820x (8-core).

The 1800x was just a halo part anyway to get some high margins. The 1700 is a much better deal and performs almost the same when OCed. Also it's confirmed that AMD will lower 1800x price because X399 will get an 8-core part cheaper than current 1800x. In fact they might lower price of the whole Ryzen series. So the 7820x will go up against 12-core Thread-ripper. Yes, 7820x will be faster single-threaded but have 50% less cores and hence will loose in any highly multi-threaded workload and by a lot. That should be enough already but TR also comes with more than double the PCIe lanes. I wonder if Intel sells their alpine ridge TB3 controller to be used on X399 boards...

Quad channel memory on top of that vs AM4 Ryzen. All in all quite the upgrade and certainly worthy of the HEDT title, we'll see how it turns out vs the competition and if it's worthwhile over a 1700-1800x. I wonder if those are going to get more price slashes to make more room for TR parts... My 2500k should last a few more months until the dust settles down. Gotta love AMD not artificially gimping their platforms just for the sake of segmentation.

BTW Linus' video sums up my thoughts quite well about the X299 platform and Kabylake-X being a pointless addition that only serves to complicate things, plus all the stuff about the >12c parts.... until I learned of the $$$$ USB stick unlocking RAID modes... I truly got upset about that. What the f*** is that crap?! My dinosaur of a P67 motherboard can do all those (0,1,5,10) and even more! Before that, my ancient P35+ICH9R motherboard could also do those!

These past 5 years of AMD being for all intents and purposes inexistent sure has had them rest on their laurels way too much. I don't think they can get even more anti consumer than that, even facing such competition.


I don't have much hope for CFL and its platform after this nonsense. Hope they haven't lost their mind on that one too.

 

[wahdangun]

BTW Linus' video sums up my thoughts quite well about the X299 platform and Kabylake-X being a pointless addition that only serves to complicate things, plus all the stuff about the >12c parts.... until I learned of the $$$$ USB stick unlocking RAID modes... I truly got upset about that. What the f*** is that crap?! My dinosaur of a P67 motherboard can do all those (0,1,5,10) and even more! Before that, my ancient P35+ICH9R motherboard could also do those!

These past 5 years of AMD being for all intents and purposes inexistent sure has had them rest on their laurels way too much. I don't think they can get even more anti consumer than that, even facing such competition.


I don't have much hope for CFL and its platform after this nonsense. Hope they haven't lost their mind on that one too.

umm where do you see raid need usb dongle ?? a link would be appreciated.

if intel really did something retard like that, oh boy what the hell happen. its so stupid i can't even believe it.

 

[coercitiv]

until I learned of the $$$$ USB stick unlocking RAID modes...

Just wait till the second key comes in to unlock the feature on SSDs other than Intel branded. /s

umm where do you see raid need usb dongle ?? a link would be appreciated.

Details are scarce right now, but here's a link for basic info.

For starters, the new RAID functionality is called Virtual Raid On CPU, or VROC. Users dropping high-speed NVMe storage into M.2 and spare PCIe slots can select arbitrary subsets of those drives to create a blazing-fast RAID 0 array.

Support for RAID 0 NVMe arrays is free, but you have to shell out $99 for a physical VROC key to plug into the header to unlock RAID 1 and RAID 10. For RAID 5, there's a more expensive key (we heard both $199 and $299 are possible).

And another link from PCPer.

• Only works with Skylake-X
• RAID-1 and RAID-5 are only possible with a dongle
• VROC is supposedly only bootable when using Intel SSDs

 

[RichUK]

A USB key to unlock RAID - Ridiculous!