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

  • 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 LegendaryPosts: 7,882
    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: 719
    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 LegendaryPosts: 7,882
    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: 719
    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: 719
    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: 25,347
    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.
  • JayFiveAliveJayFiveAlive Member UncommonPosts: 601
    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: 3,118
    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.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,347
    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: 969
    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.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,347
    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: 7,383
    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: 7,383
    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: 25,347
    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.
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383
    edited November 2016
    Quizzical said:
    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.
    That hasn't stopped other companies, and it certainly didn't stop overclockers. SPARC 4 is stock 240W, for example. Now, that isn't exactly a consumer desktop CPU, but then again, the Socket 1366 wasn't exactly a consumer platform either.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,347
    edited November 2016

    If you can overclock a 4.0ghz certified base CPU to 4.5ghz, then you can overclock a 4.2 certified base CPU  even higher. A 6700k at same clock speed was 15% faster than a 4790k, and early benchmarks already show the 7700k 15% faster than a 6700k again.
    While often true, that's not necessarily the case.  Ivy Bridge had higher stock clock speeds than Sandy Bridge, but Sandy Bridge could typically overclock further.
  • IncomparableIncomparable Member UncommonPosts: 1,138
    if cpu's are not getting better then they shoud still get cheaper, but also to increase performance motherboards should allow for more than 1 cpu, and programs should take better advantage of that.

    may be new material needs to be used for a better cpu

    “Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble”

  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited November 2016
    The only way Intel could add performance to HEDT is to add 2 more cores. Comparing 8 core CPUs of current and last gen gives performance advantage to last gen as it OCs better and overcomes whatever small IPC improvement new gen has.

    But for that small bump in performance you have to pay 1700$ over 1000$ 8 core....so yeah lol.
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited November 2016
    Malabooga said:
    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.
    That's not very technically logic thinking, man. Looks more like feelings talking over logic, actually. Looks like: "I hate Intel, so I'm going to try to make it look like it suck."

    If you can overclock a 4.0ghz certified base CPU to 4.5ghz, then you can overclock a 4.2 certified base CPU  even higher. A 6700k at same clock speed was 15% faster than a 4790k, and early benchmarks already show the 7700k 15% faster than a 6700k again.

    And no, you do NOT have to change your motherboard (and logically, your chipset) in order to use the new CPUs. You can use your actual 170 motherboard just fine. Spreading misinformation is even worse than trying to pass opinion as fact. I'll get my 7700k this month, and it'll fit just fine on the motherboard I'm using right now which is listed in my signature, I actually already got the bios update to support it. Want a screenshot of the Gigabyte bios upgrade page, or are you ok with my word on this ?

    As I said, stop drawing imaginary conclusions and facts based on your blind AMD love and Intel hatred.
    1. yeah sure

    2. No no and no rofl. Sandy is STILL among best OCers and its freakign gen 2 ROFL and 6700k was barely ANY faster than 4790k. Why are you lying, its not lke its not documented in thousands and thousands of test lol Skylake has barely 5% improvement over Haswell.;Not to mention that HAswell OCs better, so there isnt even clear winner rofl The ONLY redeeming quality Skylake has is "SkyOC"....or what ive been mationing all over that you CAN OC ANY Skylake CPU

    3. Not HAVING to change mobo doesnt menas theres no new platform lol Retailers have to get all new inventory which wil take even MORE space and might actually be harder to sell if older platform is actually cheaper as ONLY difference is optane support (which is pointless as that wont be out for quite a while and will be out of realm of consumers anyway)

    4. Stop spreading blatant lies. Your Intel fanboism is really sickening. Intel is rebranding chips and claiing them "new gen" with no improvement over last gen. At least before there was some 3-5% in IPC....

    Its super funny that only one who mentiones AMD in pure Intel thread is you. Kinda shows you have no leg to stand on and are just trolling.
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    edited November 2016
    @Malabooga :

    Kaby Lake is a drop in replacement. And manufacturers are already dropping it in. And - in time - other updated parts will be dropped in.

    Intel - for several years now - have been designing their CPU (and other) updates so that manufacturers do not have to "throw out" their e.g. existing motherboards every time they come out with a CPU "tweak".

    Its called "Supply Chain Management"; working with your suppliers in a way that is good for your company, good for the companies you buy from, good for the companies you sell to. And Intel communicate - and agrees - their strategy at e.g. Intel Developer Conferences. And in lots of other meetings that will take place as well. 

    And the information feeds into Inventory Management. JIT, critical buffer stocks, order management systems - I could go on but accept it or not this is how it is. With companies like SAP and Infor involved in supplying ERP programs.

    And precisely because the CPU updates are "small" it makes it much easier for retailers to sell "older stock". Also one of the reasons why Intel charge a higher price for new stock. There is a strategy throughout the supply chain. Its all part of how manufacturing works.

    It is a very big deal because big sums of money are involved - not development but in manufacturing. Which, as an aside, is why - sometimes - "development companies" struggle to make the transition to manufacturing. 

    And - in case you think this is some "rabid Intel fanboism" AMD do this type of stuff as well. Companies cannot afford to operate any other way.
Sign In or Register to comment.