Intel Kaby Lake issues start to pop up

Comments

• SpottyGekko Member EpicPosts: 6,916

  November 2016

  Malabooga said:

  http://www.tweaktown.com/news/55191/7700k-overclocked-5ghz-chip-hits-100c/index.html
  
  http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-7700k-vs-core-7-6700k-cpu-benchmarks/
  
  it runs hotter than Skylake with virtually no improvements, (over)heating issues even at stock....76c vs 60c on 6700k, and small oc to 4,8 GHz it reaches 100c rofl
  
  

  Hey, think of the advantages here !
  
  Manufacturers can now integrate coffee makers in their tower cases at very low additional cost...
• Leon1e Member UncommonPosts: 791

  November 2016 edited November 2016

  Yeah it's the "tock" cycle, meaning just overclocking and packing more transistors. I'm surprised to see that there is no notable performance boost though :O The increased max tdp was to be expected as always. Although seeing it push into the 190 watts range was cringey. AMD CPUs run around this mark I thought Intel were more power efficient. 
  
  Pretty weird the performance gains is only marginal even though kaby lake is running a higher clock. If AMD deploys a better or at least equal performant chip with its upcoming Zen architecture that would be great. 
  
  I'm running an i5-2500k myself and it's really reaching end of life, even though I've overclocked it to 4.5GHz. I'm considering a full upgrade meaning I want all the new stuff including DDR4 yet AMD still has no DDR4-ready CPU. Guess I'll have to wait a little longer I don't want to rush off buying Sky/Kaby lake and find out next year that Zen is better or equal but cheaper.
  
  I just hope Mass Effect: Andromeda works in Spring 2017.
• Malabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977

  November 2016 edited November 2016

  i7 7700k uses ~power at stock GHz than OCed i7 6700k at 4,6 GHz lol
  
  "We’re also told that process improvements will enhance efficiency, but there is no free lunch. Intel didn’t change the core micro architecture between Skylake and Kaby Lake, and our motherboard didn’t even read a voltage reduction for the Core i7-7700K, compared to the Core i7-6700K. Our motherboard set the Core i7-7700K to 1.30V at its 4.50 GHz max turbo, whereupon it behaved exactly the way we’d expect our Core i7-6700K to act when overclocked to 4.50 GHz at 1.30V."
  
  but problems dont stop there
  
  
  
  i7 7700k runs much HOTTER @ stock 4,5 GHz than 4,6 GHz OCed i7 6700k LOL (76c vs 60c) and thats under identical conditions. They even had to lower room temperature to OC that 7700k and used 100$ cooler (Noctua)
  
  look at efficiency drop over Skylake, and 2,4% performance increase with 4,4% clock increase
  
  
  
  This is actually disaster lol
  
  and yeah, this is first official review.
  

  Post edited by Malabooga on November 2016
• Ridelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383

  November 2016 edited November 2016

  Aren't the only Kaby Lake CPUs out right now mobile versions at 4.5W and 15W?
  
  http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-kaby-lake-core-i7-7700k-overclocking-performance-review,4836.html
  

  based on a leaked sample of the new chip we received and tested weeks ahead of its official launch

  That may or may not play out. Engineering samples don't always perform the same as retail chips.

  And honestly, anyone expecting CPU improvements should be disappointed. We didn't see any significant jump in IPC from Haswell to Devil's Canyon; the only marketing points there were a slightly higher clock speed and a new heat spreader TIM. Skylake to Kaby Lake is a similar move - just small tweaks to what was otherwise existing, and new IGP, but nothing really to improve IPC.

  6700k is a 4.0/4.2 stock chip, the 7700k is expected to be a 4.2/4.5 stock chip - that was pretty much the extent of the improvement we saw with 4770k (3.7/3.9) to the 4790k (4.0/4.2). 

  With regard to overclocking: Every single generation Core since the 2nd (Sandy Bridge) has overclocked worse than the one before it.

  Why would anyone expect anything more than that?