Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

[Arachnotronic]

Still waiting. For now SNB is enough. And since I sold off my GPU all I really wish I had was a stronger iGPU. I may seriously be looking at building a much smaller system once the better APU of Raven Ridge vs Coffee Lake is decided. Which do you think will perform better in games with only the iGPU?

Raven will probably perform quite a bit better in games than CFL with iGPU. CFL iGPU is the same Gen9 that's in Skylake, while Raven should have Vega-derived iGPU. While Vega doesn't seem impressive in the high end (based on Vega FE anyway), Intel iGPU is quite dated.

 

[jpiniero]

Raven Ridge's IGP is going to be a lot faster. It won't be on the level of entry level dGPUs like some people seem to think but it won't even be close.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

Out of curiosity, why do you game on an iGPU and what sort of games?

 

[TheGiant]

Actually if Gears of War 4 is removed, 7700k is actually just about 6-7% faster than the Ryzen 1600 chip. Given its 20%+ frequency when overclocked this really isn't that impressive. Depending on what you play as a gamer it might even be the same speed or slower in a lot of titles. 7% overall is not what I would call a "different league".

If you really test the most CPU intensive scenes in games, my experience is that even the stock 7700K with proper ram is 50%+ faster than sandy at the same 4,5GHz. No joking.
And even if you have 60Hz display you will see big difference.

Ryzen is a fine CPU, but that review shows it in better light than it actually is in gaming. I tried it on my CFD calculations and if there wasn't already a 14C BDW xeon I would definitely buy a TR machine (if the ECC works).

Lets wait for CFL 6C. Intel has the only one chance to make them look better now. I hope they don't mess it with CFL.

It is such a mess on the CPU market now....

 

[VirtualLarry]

Out of curiosity, why do you game on an iGPU and what sort of games?

I never quite understood that. Gaming on an iGPU. I mean, if you're like hella broke, and it's effectively the ONLY way to play games, I understand. (I tried to play WoW back in the day on NVidia 6150SE chipset graphics. Wasn't great, frame-rate was barely playable, at best.)

I did more recently play Skyrim, on my i3-6100's iGPU, the HD530. It was actually pretty decent, surprisingly. I mean, 1080P low, maybe 20FPS, with visual "anomalies". But it played.

Liked it with my RX 460 4GB card even more, even at 4K res. on that low a card.

 

[IntelUser2000]

I never quite understood that. Gaming on an iGPU. I mean, if you're like hella broke, and it's effectively the ONLY way to play games, I understand. (I tried to play WoW back in the day on NVidia 6150SE chipset graphics. Wasn't great, frame-rate was barely playable, at best.).

It isn't about just having money VirtualLarry. There are host of other reasons. Some people don't see the money being spent on GPUs as being worth it. Also, games are starting to focus on aspects that aren't as important. Graphics fidelity should be second to gameplay for example. Some of us in 30s who used to play games since high school are starting to feel everything is pretty much the same just requiring more graphics horsepower and there's plenty of fun to be had in older games.

I played World of Warcraft from original to WoTLK for quite a bit of time on Celeron D with GMA X3000 before I switched the CPU to Core 2 Duo. Since the X3000 heavily relied on CPU for geometry performance Celeron D was a downgrade from the previous, which were Pentium 4 + GMA 950. Back then I had almost a paranoid obsession to fast responding computers so I'd get fast CPUs and WD Raptor drives but just use the iGPU. Considering how long CPUs and fast drives lasted but GPUs getting obsolete super quick for me it was a big waste of money. You are talking doing heroic instances and small raids at 15-20 fps here. With the X3000 I upgraded to an X25-M so probably due to that the 15-20 fps was quite stable.

Nowadays I play SC2 mainly on the HD 630 graphics. I tried to look at some other games but aside from a console specific game, most are games glamorizing pointless violence and mostly rehash of what games were 15 years ago.

 

[swilli89]

I never quite understood that. Gaming on an iGPU. I mean, if you're like hella broke, and it's effectively the ONLY way to play games, I understand. (I tried to play WoW back in the day on NVidia 6150SE chipset graphics. Wasn't great, frame-rate was barely playable, at best.)

I did more recently play Skyrim, on my i3-6100's iGPU, the HD530. It was actually pretty decent, surprisingly. I mean, 1080P low, maybe 20FPS, with visual "anomalies". But it played.

Liked it with my RX 460 4GB card even more, even at 4K res. on that low a card.

Out of curiosity, why do you game on an iGPU and what sort of games?

I recently sold my Radeon 290X on Ebay for about $330 after fees. I bought this card for I think something like $275 in the Spring of 2015. My thinking was, I don't game much at the moment and I can probably buy it back in a few months for $100 once the crypto thing dies down, or even throw that money at an actual upgrade. Moreso, these days I play more blizzard games than anything and SC2/OW don't exactly demand a lot out of my Dell 24" 60hz. I looked for something like a Geforce 970 for cheap but even they are overpriced for the time being. So for now I am limping on an iGPU but what's amazing is it runs Heroes of the Storm at a solid 25FPS which is fine for a MobA.. all on a 2012 iGPU... Makes me think this next gen will actually be enough for me.

Sorry for the extreme off topic.

 

[moonbogg]

well we all know skl-x is not a top game performer- they should try also some of the professional workloads, where IMO 7800X oced to 4.7GHz competes with 8Core ryzen, not 6 Core

They should conclude a 6850K oced to 4.4GHz to see the difference

I don't see the mesh frequency there

And ofc its another review that shows the 7700K is in another gaming league....

But I agree its not a good picture for intel HEDT. Gaming wise, it is a pure fail.

I think the 6800k/6850k @ 4.2+ is still faster than both Ryzen and Skylake-X for gaming, but slower than a high clocked 7700K in most current cases. So where does that put the 6800k? It slots in the narrow space between Ryzen/skylake-X and 7700K. If I was doing it again I'd get a 1600. You can get a 1600+ mobo for $350. I spent $360 for just my CPU and $290 for the board, then I had to buy 4 sticks of ram which I didn't even need. For all that I got what, maybe 5-10% more practical performance? I mean practical performance at my res with my GPU, not the best case shown at 1080p.
Intel is an overall really bad buy right now. There's just no two ways about it. Their pricing is stuck in last year's paradigm with barely a haircut's worth of cost reduction, and when X299's real competition comes crashing down like a giant cartoon anvil, things will get even more hilarious.

 

[Zucker2k]

The result of Hardware Unboxed's 7800X after being overclocked to 4.7ghz @1.25v.

Thats a burnt contact.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BWysDUalr2k/

Shouldn't this invalidate the tests then?

 

[formulav8]

CFL iGPU is the same Gen9 that's in Skylake

Is there a link I can go to about that?

 

[formulav8]

Out of curiosity, why do you game on an iGPU and what sort of games?

When it comes to, at least to my basic gaming customers, it's just fine to an extent with what's needed for them with AMD's IGP's. SWTOR for example. Anyways, there are persons who want very cheap builds who want to do low end gaming. There really is a market.

 

[TheGiant]

I think the 6800k/6850k @ 4.2+ is still faster than both Ryzen and Skylake-X for gaming, but slower than a high clocked 7700K in most current cases. So where does that put the 6800k? It slots in the narrow space between Ryzen/skylake-X and 7700K. If I was doing it again I'd get a 1600. You can get a 1600+ mobo for $350. I spent $360 for just my CPU and $290 for the board, then I had to buy 4 sticks of ram which I didn't even need. For all that I got what, maybe 5-10% more practical performance? I mean practical performance at my res with my GPU, not the best case shown at 1080p.
Intel is an overall really bad buy right now. There's just no two ways about it. Their pricing is stuck in last year's paradigm with barely a haircut's worth of cost reduction, and when X299's real competition comes crashing down like a giant cartoon anvil, things will get even more hilarious.

That depends what you want. The top 10% of performance is always (not only computers) paid in big fat margin. The price of the 7700K seems perfectly legit to me.
Even price for your system is ok. You need the best 6 Core? Buy BDW-E, oc it and no ryzen can do it. Its fine.

SKL-X on the other hand is a mediocre value as multicore beast (where I still can not understand why not having a Xeon already, new or older from ebay)

• gaming- fail
• power- no good
• thermals-no good
• media and content- nice
• calculations- seems nice
• rendering- nice
• upgrade- intel?

Intel was never better value. Maybe except the C2D launch- I bough my cousin an E6300 and oced it to 3,4GHz and It lasted to...last week He was mindlessly going to buy a 7600K but I told him to buy 1600X (he is not much of and overlocker and I don't have time anymore to play with his computer). So yes I agree ryzen is much better value from every point of view- general performance, gaming performance (except progaming), upgradeability, power consumption, thermals and cooling needed.

CFL needs to be good. Very good

 

[raghu78]

That depends what you want. The top 10% of performance is always (not only computers) paid in big fat margin. The price of the 7700K seems perfectly legit to me.
Even price for your system is ok. You need the best 6 Core? Buy BDW-E, oc it and no ryzen can do it. Its fine.

SKL-X on the other hand is a mediocre value as multicore beast (where I still can not understand why not having a Xeon already, new or older from ebay)

CFL needs to be good. Very good

CFL 6C/12T will provide the best mix of gaming and content creation performance if it hits 5 Ghz OC for daily use at reasonable voltages / power.

 

[Eddward]

So 8700K
3.7Ghz Base
4.0Ghz All core Turbo
4.0Ghz 4-core Turbo
4.2Ghz 2-core Turbo
4.3Ghz 1-core Turbo

 

[Arachnotronic]

So 8700K
3.7Ghz Base
4.0Ghz All core Turbo
4.0Ghz 4-core Turbo
4.2Ghz 2-core Turbo
4.3Ghz 1-core Turbo

I don't think these frequencies are correct.

 

[Eddward]

Too low you think ?
Personally I wouldn't be surprised if this is correct. The source document looks like from Intel.

 

[Sweepr]

While the document looks legit (I know where WCCFTech got it from) it most likely refers to earlier engineer samples. The info I have is from qualification samples (closer to retail) and clocks are higher than that.

 

[Arachnotronic]

While the document looks legit (I know where WCCFTech got it from) it most likely refers to earlier engineer samples. The info I have is from qualification samples (closer to retail) and clocks are higher than that.

Qualification samples are generally the "final" parts being tested for qualification for sale. So if you have QS info, those are the final clocks.

 

[Eddward]

So can we expect another 100-200Mhz clock bump ?
That will be awesome for sure.

 

[Zucker2k]

So can we expect another 100-200Mhz clock bump ?
That will be awesome for sure.

I believe your question is already answered, hehe.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

While the document looks legit (I know where WCCFTech got it from) it most likely refers to earlier engineer samples. The info I have is from qualification samples (closer to retail) and clocks are higher than that.

Qualification samples are generally the "final" parts being tested for qualification for sale. So if you have QS info, those are the final clocks.

Finally a more sensible reply than what WCCFTech posted thank you! I'll quote you at several sites, Sweepr because there are some stubborn people at some sites I visit he he

 

[TheF34RChannel]

Also, Z390 isn't until next year, another error on their part.

 

[jpiniero]

I hadn't seen this slide, the extra AVX-512 unit and extra L2 on Skylake-SP is technically outside of the Skylake core. It kind of implies that it is bolted on:

Not really sure what to make of it, but FWIW the Intel Sea-Of-Cores patent does mention this design ("AVX extension" and "L2 extension").

 

[mikk]

Too low you think ?
Personally I wouldn't be surprised if this is correct. The source document looks like from Intel.

It is surely a correct listing but it's an ES Sample list because the CPU names are missing there and the 65W sample in this list was already leaked in one of the Sisoft entries:

Intel(R) CPU 0000 @ 3.10GHz (6C 12T 3.1GHz/4.2GHz, 2.7GHz IMC/3.9GHz, 6x 256kB L2, 12MB L3
http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_r...d4ecddefd6e5d3f587ba8aacc9ac91a187f4c9f1&l=en


Coffeelake based 6/12 12MB spotted. Still no CPUID in this, so most likely the first stepping.

And I was right it was a 65W SKU (because 81.2W reported in Sisoft is typical for Intels 65W SKUs). Plus 80W isn't for desktop afaik, these are for the Xeon entry lineup. But as usual these Intel 0000 ES samples are not necessarily final in terms of clock speeds.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I hadn't seen this slide, the extra AVX-512 unit and extra L2 on Skylake-SP is technically outside of the Skylake core. It kind of implies that it is bolted on:

Not really sure what to make of it, but FWIW the Intel Sea-Of-Cores patent does mention this design ("AVX extension" and "L2 extension").

It doesn't imply that it's bolted on -- it straight up says so