Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

[tamz_msc]

Edit: double post.

 

[Drazick]

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.

 

[VirtualLarry]

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.

 

[wingman04]

Where did you get this road map from?

 

[beginner99]

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.

 

[multippp]

Intel® Core™ i7-8700K Processor

Cinebench R15 Score
Single: 196cb
Multi: 1230cb

Source - https://www.facebook.com/MrTechQc/videos/vb.1428875457357578/1985486751696443/?type=2&theater
http://www.hwbattle.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=news&wr_id=95389

 

[VirtualLarry]

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?

 

[Zucker2k]

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]

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]

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]

Intel® Core™ i7-8700K Processor

Cinebench R15 Score
Single: 196cb
Multi: 1230cb

Source - https://www.facebook.com/MrTechQc/videos/vb.1428875457357578/1985486751696443/?type=2&theater
http://www.hwbattle.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=news&wr_id=95389

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.

 

[LTC8K6]

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_s...e1dceccaa29faf89f1ccfcdabfdae7d7f182bf87&l=en

 

[jpiniero]

6C12T 10nm parts have also been leaking on Sisoft.
http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_s...e1dceccaa29faf89f1ccfcdabfdae7d7f182bf87&l=en

That is almost certainly Coffee Lake. It does use the Cannonlake PCH/platform however.

 

[LTC8K6]

That is almost certainly Coffee Lake. It does use the Cannonlake PCH/platform however.

I think it's 10nm mobile.

 

[jpiniero]

I think it's 10nm mobile.

Intel can't even get a dual core model out on 10 nm, let alone anything bigger.

 

[LTC8K6]

Intel can't even get a dual core model out on 10 nm, let alone anything bigger.

It does say "mobile graphics". It does have less cache than a desktop part should have.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel-cannonlake-10nm

 

[jpiniero]

It does say "mobile graphics". It does have less cache than a desktop part should have.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel-cannonlake-10nm

Yeah that's Coffee Lake mobile.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah that's Coffee Lake mobile.

I haven't seen or heard of any 6C12T CFL mobile parts though.
If they have a 6C12T mobile part at 2.6Ghz on 14nm++, that's a good sign.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I haven't seen or heard of any 6C12T CFL mobile parts though.
If they have a 6C12T mobile part at 2.6Ghz on 14nm++, that's a good sign.

There is Coffee Lake-H coming, which is 6C/12T.

 

[AtenRa]

MT score of 1200+ at only 95W TDP is very nice, remember the 6800K at 140W TDP has an MT score of 1100 and 7800X with a 140W TDP as well has a MT score of 1300+

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11550...core-i9-7900x-i7-7820x-and-i7-7800x-tested/11

 

[eddman]

Intel® Core™ i7-8700K Processor

Cinebench R15 Score
Single: 196cb
Multi: 1230cb

Source - https://www.facebook.com/MrTechQc/videos/vb.1428875457357578/1985486751696443/?type=2&theater
http://www.hwbattle.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=news&wr_id=95389

The MT performance seems way off, as if HT is disabled.

 

[AtenRa]

The MT performance seems way off, as if HT is disabled.

Why ?? this is a 95W TDP only cpu. Why everyone expecting to have faster than Core i7 7800X (140W TDP) Cinebench MT score ??

 

[Sweepr]

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.

 

[AtenRa]

Has this been posted ???

 

[Bouowmx]

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.