Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Intel Kaby Lake - no improvement over Skylake

24

Comments

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,131
    SEANMCAD said:
    what chance to you guys think that once everything is settled and fully released and into production that the performance gain will be around the same % as last generation?
    I'll bet you that the gains AMD gets by moving from Excavator to Zen will be bigger than the gains Intel gets from moving from Sky Lake to Kaby Lake.  What does Moore's Law say about that?
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited November 2016
    Vrika said:
    Malabooga said:
    mostly thanks to increased clock speed.

    and you can get that clockspeed with any Skylake CPU.

    No improvement whatsoever.

    intel-kaby-lake-core-i5-7600k-review_ipc
    That's a test for instructions per clock cycle, and I5-7600K is underclocked from its boost speed of 4.2GHz so that it would match I5-6600K.

    No side-by-side overclocking comparison has been done. We know that Kaby Lake is faster at stock speeds. We don't know how well it overclocks compared to Skylake. You're just inventing data.
    There has been few leaks of OCed Kaby Lake and im sorry to inform you that it doesnt really do better than Skylake.

    Ive already posted 5,1 GHz i5-6500 results...yeah 6500 not 6600k (so will you even be able to OC anything but Kaby Lake "k" like you can with Sky Lake, how will your i5-7500 fare against 5,1 GHz i5-6500?).

    So why dont you tell us all what OC are you expecting from Kaby Lake to actually make a difference.
  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,438
    edited November 2016
    Malabooga said:
    i5-6500 OCed to 5100 MHz (yeah no "k" needed for OC on Skylake, so why would anyone pay "premium" for Kaby Lake "k" just to be able ot OC....or any other Kaby Lake chip as you 99,99% cannot OC them like Skylake chips and they bring 0 improvements to the table...)





    That overclock was not stable, as admitted by the overclocker:

     http://www.overclock.net/t/1570313/skylake-overclocking-guide-with-statistics/7490#post_25217575


    I think I'm done talking with you. You don't even care if the computer works as long as you can advance your own agenda.
     
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited November 2016
    And Kaby Lake leaks showed 7600k at 5 GHz @1.5v. And 6500 was stable at 5 GHz

    So again: how will your Kaby Lake i5-7400/7500 fare against 5GHz i5-6400?

    Lest up the ante: how will your i5-7600k, 250$ CPU fare against 5 GHz 170$ i5-6400

    You REALLY just dont know when to stop rofl
  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,438
    edited November 2016
    Malabooga said:
    Lest up the ante: how will your i5-7600k, 250$ CPU fare against 5 GHz 170$ i5-6400
    I assume you mean this overclock? You're intentionally making your facts harder to argue against by not posting any links or sources
      http://www.overclock.net/t/1570313/skylake-overclocking-guide-with-statistics/7480#post_25217054

    It's hard to know much about how I5-7600K overclocks yet since there's only one result, but the Chinese post mentions it was air cooled to 5 GHz.
      https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.xfastest.com/thread-178876-1-1.html&edit-text=

    Whereas the cooling used on your I5-6400 was following:
    "Cooling Solution:
    1.Delided by razor method.
    2.Replace TIM with Coolaboratory Liquid Ultra.
    3.Temp drop by 15C compare to before delid..
    4.Waterblock = Koolance CPU-380i "regular" AKA. not rotated.
    5.Radiator = GTX 240 and GTS 360
    6.Pump = SC600
    7.Reservoir and Fittings = cheap chinese lol.
    8.Fan = 3xGentle Typhoon AP-15 , 3xNZXT stock fan
    9.test inside NZXT H440 case remove only front and top panel.
    10.ambient temp = 31C
    11.Arctic MX-4 on IHS"

    Which means that the I5-7600K and its cooling solution were hundreds of dollars cheaper than I5-6400 with equal performance.
     
  • 13lake13lake Member UncommonPosts: 718
    edited November 2016
    If 7600k has quality soldered IHS, that alone is gonna help it vs no-delid 6600k. What's also gonna help it is a more mature manufacturing process. However what's gonna hurt it is any raw performance improvement for the integrated gpu.

    Which means that judging by the slightly higher shown default voltage and 4w increased tdp, the actual gains are gonna be somewhere in the middle.

    So slightly less power used with slightly less voltage used for comparable overclock. Unless the integrated gpu skewers this somehow. In which case in my opinion the whole point of a more mature process is wasted completely.

    And with this we come to my previous post, The Kaby Lake-X on the extreme platform with no integrated gpu has the capability to surpass any kaby lake on the regular platform just by lacking the integrated gpu and having the capability to utilize the newfound space better.
  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,438
    Malabooga said:

    2nd you seem to avoid the question: how will i5 7400/7500 fare against OCed i5 6400 huh genius

    OR i7 7600k thats 80$ more expencive lol
    Of course I'm avoiding that question when we don't have any measurements on overclocked I5 7400, I5 7500 or I7 7600K. I'm not even certain that non-K versions can be overclocked.

    So let's wait for more data before we claim to really know how overclocked Kaby Lake compares to Skylake, ok?
     
  • 13lake13lake Member UncommonPosts: 718
    edited November 2016
    Malabooga said:
    [mod edit]
    7600k is the only cpu that has a $4 lower msrp compared to last gen counterparts, so early adopter prices notwithstanding it's going to be cheaper mr. smarty pants  who didn't even check the msrps for kaby lake.
    Post edited by Vaross on
  • 13lake13lake Member UncommonPosts: 718
    Vrika said:
    Of course I'm avoiding that question when we don't have any measurements on overclocked I5 7400, I5 7500 or I7 7600K. I'm not even certain that non-K versions can be overclocked.

    So let's wait for more data before we claim to really know how overclocked Kaby Lake compares to Skylake, ok?
    As long as Kaby Lake BCLK is disjointed/decoupled it's gonna overclock just fine, the same as skylake.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,131
    It looks like Kaby Lake is akin to Devil's Canyon, Godaveri, or Richland:  not truly no improvement at all, but really just a mild clock speed bump of the sort that didn't used to justify calling it a new architecture.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 20,014
    edited November 2016
    Quizzical said:
    Torval said:
    Moore's law is slowing down. Skylake to Kaby Lake will be 3 - 3.5 years instead of the traditional 2. Counts are still increasing but the pace at which they're increasing is slowing and what happens after 7nm is uncertain.

    10nm is likely more than a year away so I guess the attraction of the platform will be on price and features vs Skylake.
    I'm not sure what you're talking about.  Sky Lake has only been available for a little over a year.
    Yeah, I looked at the date wrong and made a math error. The slowdown is still there. Now does that make it clearer for you?
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • JayFiveAliveJayFiveAlive Member UncommonPosts: 596
    There were rumored benchmarks leaked back in July I believe? That basically showed this exact same thing. It's partly why I decided to go all in and build a new machine in early Oct. I think Cannonlake will be a slightly better improvement, but I don't think it will be anything crazy.
  • IceAgeIceAge Member EpicPosts: 2,516
    edited November 2016
    The OP can't make a difference between factory OC , user OC , new platform , etc !

    Plus, didn't Intel actually said that their new CPU's will not see a much of a big improvement with only 10% or so of more .. power?!

    Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
    Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!

  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited November 2016
    Vrika said:
    Malabooga said:

    2nd you seem to avoid the question: how will i5 7400/7500 fare against OCed i5 6400 huh genius

    OR i7 7600k thats 80$ more expencive lol
    Of course I'm avoiding that question when we don't have any measurements on overclocked I5 7400, I5 7500 or I7 7600K. I'm not even certain that non-K versions can be overclocked.

    So let's wait for more data before we claim to really know how overclocked Kaby Lake compares to Skylake, ok?
    Oh really, because Intel didnt stop the SkyOC on later iterations and wont do the same for Kaby Lake from the start, right? rofl

    And that Vaross guy is getting hilarious ahahahahahha

    apparently

    </blockquote>
    And with this you show you really have no clue what 1,5v does to FF 14nm lol<br><br>2nd you seem to avoid the question: how will i5 7400/7500 fare against OCed i5 6400 huh genius<br><br>OR i7 7600k thats 80$ more expencive lol<br><br>you REALLY dont know when to quit lol<br></div>
    </blockquote>

    this is woth a "warning" ROFL

  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited November 2016
    Quizzical said:
    It looks like Kaby Lake is akin to Devil's Canyon, Godaveri, or Richland:  not truly no improvement at all, but really just a mild clock speed bump of the sort that didn't used to justify calling it a new architecture.
    Yeah, but at least they didnt call Devils Canyon whole new "5xxx" generation, now its competely "new" generation with even new platform lol
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Malabooga said:
    Kaby Lake comes with new platform. And there are still piles of unsold Hswell as well as Skylake chips with their accompanying platforms in the market which havent come down in price.

    What you say would happen only if manufacturers completely ignore new platform and just continue making Skylake platform.
    They both use LGA1151.
  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,344
    edited November 2016
    Whatever you say... I will still take my free upgrade to i7 7700k, which base clock is as high as the turbo clock of my actual 6700k. 7700k, the new best gaming CPU of the world. And I can keep my motherboard and RAM, no changes there.

    Where is the fantastic performance of AMD "Zen" btw? We are still waiting... ;)

    Malabooga said:
     ...with even new platform lol
    Errr... no. Just, no. I'd advise to inform yourself before your next Intel bashing post ;)

    PS: I'm still also pro-AMD, my graphic card is still of that brand and it's awesome. AMD CPUs just suck.

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that nor does the ability to write.
    CPU: Intel Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER EVO 8GB DDR6 - RAM: 32GB Kingston HyperX Predator DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Samsung U32J590 32" 4K monitor - Second display: Philips 273v 27" monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset - Sound: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.


  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,131
    Where is the fantastic performance of AMD "Zen" btw? We are still waiting... ;)

    It's in about the same place as Kaby Lake:  coming, but not yet available.  AMD says Zen will be available for desktops in Q1 2017 and for servers in Q2 2017.
  • zanfirezanfire Member UncommonPosts: 951
    Are people surprised Intel has been pushing out CPUs with very little changes and performance gains for years now? That is kind of what happens when you basically have a monopoly. I'm just glad AMD is trying again so it pushes Intel to innovate and get out the best chips they can.
  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,344
    edited November 2016
    zanfire said:
    Are people surprised Intel has been pushing out CPUs with very little changes and performance gains for years now? That is kind of what happens when you basically have a monopoly. I'm just glad AMD is trying again so it pushes Intel to innovate and get out the best chips they can.
    Very little performance gain? From 4.0ghz (4.2 turbo) to 4.2 (4.5 turbo) is great, even without counting the other improvements.
    Intel still kicks AMD's butt CPU wise, without breaking a sweat.

    @Quizzical : Where I work, we will get the first Kaby Lake processors before the end of this year, most likely this month. Can't say the same for the new AMD ones...

    Don't get me wrong, I want AMD to kick Intel's butt CPU wise, this can only be good for us customers. But for now... well, the CPU king is, without any doubt, Intel. My 4 core (8 logical) 6700k is 25% faster than a 32 core AMD opteron for 3D rendering. That's pathetic.
    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that nor does the ability to write.
    CPU: Intel Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER EVO 8GB DDR6 - RAM: 32GB Kingston HyperX Predator DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Samsung U32J590 32" 4K monitor - Second display: Philips 273v 27" monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset - Sound: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.


  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,131
    zanfire said:
    Are people surprised Intel has been pushing out CPUs with very little changes and performance gains for years now? That is kind of what happens when you basically have a monopoly. I'm just glad AMD is trying again so it pushes Intel to innovate and get out the best chips they can.
    Very little performance gain? From 4.0ghz (4.2 turbo) to 4.2 (4.5 turbo) is great, even without counting the other improvements.
    Intel still kicks AMD's butt CPU wise, without breaking a sweat.

    @Quizzical : Where I work, we will get the first Kaby Lake processors before the end of this year, most likely this month. Can't say the same for the new AMD ones...

    Don't get me wrong, I want AMD to kick Intel's butt CPU wise, this can only be good for us customers. But for now... well, the CPU king is, without any doubt, Intel. My 4 core (8 logical) 6700k is 25% faster than a 32 core AMD opteron for 3D rendering. That's pathetic.
    No one is denying that Sky Lake is a lot better than Bristol Ridge on the CPU side.  And it wouldn't be surprising if Kaby Lake is better than Zen, too.  But once both are out, AMD will almost certainly be more competitive than they are today.
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,061
    It's a testament to how slow Intel has advanced their CPU in exactly how competitive AMD is today, on 32nm, with an architecture that originated back in 2011.
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    Whatever you say... I will still take my free upgrade to i7 7700k, which base clock is as high as the turbo clock of my actual 6700k. 7700k, the new best gaming CPU of the world. And I can keep my motherboard and RAM, no changes there.

    Where is the fantastic performance of AMD "Zen" btw? We are still waiting... ;)

    Malabooga said:
     ...with even new platform lol
    Errr... no. Just, no. I'd advise to inform yourself before your next Intel bashing post ;)

    PS: I'm still also pro-AMD, my graphic card is still of that brand and it's awesome. AMD CPUs just suck.

    Yeah, because OCing i7 -6xxx to 4,5 Ghz is mission impossible right? lol Thats right you can OC any Skylake CPU to 4,5 GHz. "Fastest CPU" right, no IPC improvenent and from what weve seen pretty much no OC improvement lol

    and thers no new chipset with whole new platform? mmm, yes there is, its actually YOU who should inform yourself lol.
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,061
    edited November 2016
    In all this talk about OCing performance across various generations:

    Personally, I'm ok with lower overclock performance. What it means to me, if a chip isn't a "great overclocker", is not that the engineering is somehow flawed. It means the engineering was able to get the most performance out of that yield and design of silicon.

    I bought a i7-920 back in the day, when they were new. It has a stock 2.6G clock speed. I could overclock that thing all the way to 4.2G. That chip was a good overclocker, and by all accounts, mine was no exception - pretty much every 920 could get to 3.7 with no sweat, and 4.5+ wasn't unheard of. It was first-generation Nehalem, there was some capacity for "Turbo Boost", but it was pretty crude and elementary, and the first thing any overclocker did was turn it off.

    Now, when I think about it a bit more... Intel was just way too conservative with the 920. That was the "bottom bin" of that generation, so it's not surprising that it had a low clock speed, but even the top bin, the 975 "Extreme", only had a stock clock of 3.33.

    Now, chips are much more intelligent with their boost. There is a much bigger difference in the SKUs across a generation, Nehalem had 7 Core i7 SKUs, the only difference pretty much being the stock clock speed. Skylake has only has 4 SKUs - the biggest difference being what integrated graphics package you want (3 of the 4 options), or of you want the low-voltage model (the 4th SKU).

    This means engineers are getting smarter about using what silicon they have. They are getting more from it, both in terms of higher base clocks, higher boost clocks, and more agressive/smarter boosting profiles. They are monitoring power draw, per core temperature, per core load, and making better decisions on how to operate using all that data.

    To turn around and say "They overclock like crap" is really a disservice. Yes, Sandy overclocked well, in general. But at stock clocks, it's also slower than current generations. The silicon isn't that much different, the engineers just got smarter on how to get more from what they had.

    We should be upset when a chip overclocks by a large margin. At the time I bought my Nahelam, I was stoked that it was an awesome overclocker, and I got a great deal on a chip that can perform at near double it's rated capacity. Today, I'm more thrilled when I see that a chip isn't a great overclocker - if every piece of silicon is performing consistently, and at or near it's maximum headroom anyway, that means the engineers got something right. They didn't just throw a lot of contingency or margin on there for safety's sake. They actually crunched some numbers, and got the best they could out of what they designed.

    We see the same thing with GPUs - modern GPUs don't overclock nearly as well as they used to, they are using dynamic clocks to great effect, and that's not leaving a lot of headroom for the OC community. And I'm perfectly ok with that: I'd much rather have a higher guaranteed performance, than to have to play the silicon lottery and hope I get something good, but only if I run it out of specification.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,131
    The reason Intel didn't clock Nehalem higher is that they didn't want to sell a CPU with a TDP of 250 W at stock speeds.
Sign In or Register to comment.