Intels Skylake-X and Coffee Lake CPUs Discussion

[Life-Binder]

I realize that an 8-10+ core chip at such high freq will always require beefy cooling

what I dont realize is why thats an issue or why would anyone expect otherwise right now


on Intels 10+ & 10++nm it may get easier to cool

[mojo6912]

Nice.

I'm more interested in what the average overclocker can achieve with $100-150 in cooling. Not really interested in what someone who spends $500-1500 on cooling can do. Well, slightly interested I guess.

[Life-Binder]

probably 4.8 or at least 4.7 on 7820X with a $100-150 good AIO

[mojo6912]

With a delid too? Yeah, probably. Just a little bit of throttling.

[Life-Binder]

7820X without delid and no throttling



7900X - delid above 4.6

[mojo6912]

mmm hmm... Last week it was ALL the skylake x chips can do 4.8. Then it was ALL the non 7900x ones can do 4.8. Now we are at 7820x can "probably" do "at least" 4.7.

I'll just wait for next week then maybe we can agree on numbers because yours seem to keep going lower and lower.

[Life-Binder]

yeah yeah keep lying

With a delid too? Yeah, probably. Just a little bit of throttling.

its clear nothing will ever get through to you

just buy a Zen, there you wont have to worry about 4.7 or 4.8

[mojo6912]

yeah yeah keep lying

Lying? What you wrote is literally recorded in this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry I can't be bothered to go back and quote all of your posts just because you can't remember what you said. Start on page 30 of this thread and read all of your posts since then and watch the story change and evolve to conveniently fit your argument.

I don't appreciate being called a liar either. Go back, read them, try to maintain your memory for 5 minutes while you apologize for name calling like a child. I'll be waiting.

[Kagthul]

Lying? What you wrote is literally recorded in this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry I can't be bothered to go back and quote all of your posts just because you can't remember what you said. Start on page 30 of this thread and read all of your posts since then and watch the story change and evolve to conveniently fit your argument.

I don't appreciate being called a liar either. Go back, read them, try to maintain your memory for 5 minutes while you apologize for name calling like a child. I'll be waiting.

As someone watching this from the outside, i really think you're off-base here. If you think you're in the right, you might want to re-think.

Keep waiting on that apology you want, 'cause if it were me, it would not be forthcoming.

[mojo6912]

As someone watching this from the outside, i really think you're off-base here. If you think you're in the right, you might want to re-think.

Keep waiting on that apology you want, 'cause if it were me, it would not be forthcoming.

Please, let me know what part I lied about it and I will take the time to prove that I am not lying. You basically just called me a liar too. I will await your accusation, disprove it, then await your apology too.

- - - Updated - - -

He really said the things that I quoted him on, then called me a liar. You can read his posts too. It's very simple.

- - - Updated - - -

You know what... why wait.
I said: "mmm hmm... Last week it was ALL the skylake x chips can do 4.8. Then it was ALL the non 7900x ones can do 4.8. Now we are at 7820x can "probably" do "at least" 4.7. "

Then he said:

yeah yeah keep lying

Here are his words:

@Thunderball did you miss that 7800X, 7820X and 7900X can all clock to 4.8+ Ghz (non-binned chips) ?

then

a regular delidded chip + an AIO/D15 = gets you ~4.8 on a 7900X (or ~4.6 w/o delid)

for 7820X/7800X you dont even need delid for 4.8

So now it's delid 7900x, not all of them, and all 7820x/7800x. All. Then...

you either cant read at all or dont know the difference between 7820X and 7900X

then

probably 4.8 or at least 4.7 on 7820X with a $100-150 good AIO

Oh. Now we're down to 4.7. And finally...

7820X without delid and no throttling
7900X - delid above 4.6

But of course... I am a liar. I didn't copy/paste these quotes, I made them up.

- - - Updated - - -

Watching from the outside is hard I know. You might want to watch a little more closely before you come inside.

[Life-Binder]

https://www.techspot.com/review/1445...800x-vs-7700k/

You could argue that the 7700K's superior IPC performance and higher frequency makes up for what it lacks in cores and this is why the 7800X wasn't able to show the kind of advantage you might have expected, but it goes beyond that.

That doesn't really explain why the 7800X was just flat out slow by comparison for quite a few of the games tested. The likely reason for this is down to Intel restructuring the cache hierarchy. Compared to the 7700K, the 7800X has quadrupled the L2 cache per core while the shared L3 has been reduced by just over 30% per core. It's believed these changes combined with the way this new cache works makes Skylake-X more suited for server-related tasks and less efficient when it comes to things such as gaming, and that's certainly what we're seeing here.

welp, I guess thats that .. the cache thing "ruined" SKL-X for gaming, even if the clocks are amazing


they certainly need to go back to how 6700K/7700K were for the 8700K, just add 2 more cores, dont ruin it by changing anything else the clocks will stay high

Prior to any overclocking the 7800X consumed just 6% more power than the 7700K and these figures are based on the average consumption recorded in six games, so the 7800X certainly isn't being fully utilized here. With both CPUs overclocked the 7800X consumes 13% more power, again not a huge difference.

at least the power consumption is great for six high clocked cores, so 8700K should have no issues there

[Gray_Matter]

I know that some overclockers were singing the praises of Skylake-X but this article from Toms Hardware seems to sing a different tune:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...sues,5117.html

Take it with a pinch of salt because it is Toms Hardware but I am a bit surprised by the vastly different takes.

Conclusion

So, what’s the bottom line? Intel is pushing the envelope once again with a factory-overclocked Xeon processor doing double-duty as a high-end desktop masterpiece. We're getting the sense, though, that the revered Core architecture can't be pushed much further. Everything works well enough this time around, at least. And if Intel hadn't chickened out and put thermal paste between its die and heat spreader, there might have been a happier ending for everyone involved in this story.

As it stands, even a custom water-cooling loop has to throw in the towel at 250W, long before most motherboard voltage converters hit their limits. Under normal operating conditions, the CPU, and not the motherboard, always throttles first.

Nevertheless, motherboard manufacturers aren’t blameless when it comes to the issues we encountered at launch and continue battling today. Using more thermodynamic expertise and less flashy plastic pieces would have paved the way for brawnier motherboards at the same price points. This would have ended the speculation before it even started. Anything designed to be just good enough always leaves you with a bad aftertaste, particularly since you never know when you might need a little extra headroom.

On the whole it looks like they really struggled.

[mojo6912]

at least the power consumption is great for six high clocked cores, so 8700K should have no issues there

The excerpt you quoted there is saying that it is only 6% more because it's not being fully utilized. He is saying it should be using more power.

And I don't know if I would call using double the power than that of AMD's 6 core "great".

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11550/...7800x-tested/8

[Life-Binder]

those are typical gaming loads and I was talking about gaming

either way a good air cooler/AIO will never struggle with a 6 core, thats what they are for



and for your comparison with AMD here:

1) Ryzen has lower clocks
2) that particular workload https://i.imgur.com/EKeKfW7.png utilizes the very power hungry AVX512 of SKL-X, which Ryzen lacks .. so you get the extra power draw, but also a lot of extra performance in AVX

additional powerdraw for more performance is a fair trade

its only an issue if there is more powerdraw for the same or less performance (cough Vega cough)




SKL-X is quite power efficent if you want/need it to be:
https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/...ake_x_review/3

Straight out of the box (mainly thanks to the X299-A motherboard) our CPU just sat at 4GHz. As you can see below it was only using 1.069v too which we further reduced to 0.9v and it still remained stable. Turning XMP on to our 3200MHz memory it did get a bit flakey but with everything in tow we did have the system running again at 1v. Yes 1 volt for 8 Cores and 16threads with 3200MHz memory 100% stable.

[Gray_Matter]

SKL-X is quite power efficent if you want/need it to be:
https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/...ake_x_review/3

And when overclocking?

https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/...ke_x_review/17

[mojo6912]

SKL-X is quite power efficent if you want/need it to be:
https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/...ake_x_review/3

Still 281W vs 172W for the R5 1600x in that review you linked.

About double the power of a 7700k. All I'm saying is, I wouldn't call it "great".

[Life-Binder]

And when overclocking?

yes, overclocking consumes power

overclocking high core chips to 4.6-5.0 consumes even more, shocker !


dunno about you, but Id rather have a hungrier chip that can clock that high, than a less hungry chip that cannot

imagine if 8600K/8700K (and its successors) came out and was super ultra eco-friendly efficient, but wasnt clocking above 4.0 (and IPC also didnt change much to make up for the low speed)

that would be horrible as far as Im concerned, Id never buy that for my system (unless there was no faster/better performing (in OC) alternative)




and I bet if you were inclined to do so and measured that 7820X @ 4.0 all-core @ 1V - it would be under 300W and beating the 1800X in efficiency when both are at 4.0 Ghz

each of the CPUs has their own optimal speed spots in the freq/power curve

[Remilia]

Um... efficiency is done by work/power not whatever the fuck you just said.

[mojo6912]

aaaaand it's gone. LOL

[Life-Binder]

Still 281W vs 172W for the R5 1600x in that review you linked.

the 281W is for the 7820X, its 8 cores

1600X is 6 cores

plus higher clocks vs lower clocks


why dont you try comparing apples to apples maybe

About double the power of a 7700k

281 vs 156 is less then 2x

but double the cores