Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

[LTC8K6]

Haswell and Broadwell had 25% overclocks though, didn't they? That's pretty far from 10%.

Skylake seems to be the outlier, with about 15%?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/6

 

[DrMrLordX]

Broadwell-C (i7-5775c) is good for at least 4.2 GHz (sometimes more) which is +27.3% over base clocks and +13.5% over turbo. Turbo hardly counts since you can't normally keep all four cores at that speed over a long period of time anyway.

Broadwell-E (i7-6950X) is good for slightly more clockspeed I think (4.3-4-4 GHz in a lot of reviews?) and it has a base clockspeed of 3.0 GHz . . . turbo of 3.5. That's +43.3% and +22.9% respectively.

 

[dark zero]

Overclocking is dead. Stock chips are already pushing the limits of the new technology nodes. Look at Skylake, Polaris, Pascal, nothing has any significant headroom left.

The days of buying a low end chip and clocking the heck out of it are gone for good.

Nope. The current material are the one who are dead.

Also FinFet is a failure. They didn't deliver the expected results.GP102, Vega and Kabylake are the last shots for them

 

[Edrick]

Also FinFet is a failure. They didn't deliver the expected results.GP102, Vega and Kabylake are the last shots for them

Where did you hear that?

 

[dark zero]

Where did you hear that?

See the OC potencial from FinFet against older process

 

[IntelUser2000]

As much as I find dark zero less than tolerable, he is right in a sense.

FinFET isn't a financial failure. It's wildly successful in mobile devices. It allows a real computer in your pocket. The difference between big bulky towers that chugs electricity versus handheld device that's more flexible in lots of ways is smaller than ever.

The fact that all manufacturers struggle suggests that the problem is industry-wide. Also, its true in all segments, CPU/GPU, even memory. We are groomed to expecting "one-shot solution" to all problems, but in the real world, it mostly requires hard work and diligent research.

Time to face reality. New materials may allow some niche applications to benefit, enabling new computing types. But it won't be the magic bullet everyone is expecting.

In Olympics, the #1 competitor is a tiny fraction above a #2 competitor. It's something to get used to, even in tech.

 

[Sweepr]

Extensive Skylake Celeron review. Many thanks to Hardware.info, low-end CPU tests are rare these days.

Intel Celeron G3920 processor review: Skylake for a trifle

For a while now Intel also sells Skylake processors in its lowest positioned line for desktops, namely the Celeron series. How much of all the improvements made in the top models is actually seen back here in the low-end segment? We tested a Celeron G3920, a processor you can get for 55 pounds.

The Celeron G3920, together with its little brother the G3900, represents Intel in the traditional low-end segment. You can expect a dual-core processor running at 2.9 GHz, without any Turbo Boost or HyperThreading for that kind of money. The G3900 is exactly the same as the G3920, except that it runs 100 MHz slower, as you can see in the table on the following page.

The TDP of the processor is 51 watts, while the cache memory has a size of 2 MB. The integrated GPU is a HD 510, also known as the GT1. It features 12 shaders, half the amount we see in the HD 530, which is present in faster desktop CPUs. The maximum clock frequency of the GPU is 950 MHz.

https://uk.hardware.info/reviews/6709/intel-celeron-g3920-processor-review-skylake-for-a-trifle

Only 16.9W gap between average idle and CB R15 system power consumption (vs 26.2W for Pentium G3258). They end up recommending the Pentium G4400 (+400 MHz) because of the small price difference. It's actually cheaper than the Celeron G3920 in some places.

 

[majord]

NBC just posted their initial 15W Bristol Ridge analysis, and Skylake-U* stack up really well. Intel's significant CPU performance lead is still there, and HD 520 was faster in 8 out of 14 games tested**. In the 6 games it was slower, 3 included HD 520 results with single-channel vs Bristol Ridge with dual-channel. Not to mention the website most likely picked results from old reviews for the Intel systems, instead of updating them with newer drivers.

Power consumption for the 15.6'' AMD system was also higher than a comparable 15.6'' Intel system - up to 37.6W vs 32W.

www.notebookcheck.com/Bristol-Ridge-im-Test-AMDs-A10-9600P-gegen-die-Konkurrenz.168172.0.html

*Bristol Ridge's competitor is actually Kaby Lake-U, not Skylake-U
**Iris 540 is up to twice as fast.

To be fair I think it should be mentioned this is the bottom of the barrel A10 SKU, with only 384SP, and lower clock speeds .

but lets not split hairs, there's not a lot between Intel HD and any 15w AMD APU at the moment

The iris 540 score is from a NUC that pump 29W at the CPU + GPU level, wonder what such a PC is doing in a laptop comparison...

http://www.notebookcheck.com/Test-Intel-NUC-6i5SYH-Mini-PC.164923.0.html

Only one of them is - The lower performing one is from a laptop, and it still holds an impressive lead - one I don't think BR's top SKU could match.. check the BR thread. It's probably a better place to debate

 

[VirtualLarry]

They end up recommending the Pentium G4400 (+400 MHz) because of the small price difference. It's actually cheaper than the Celeron G3920 in some places.

That's what I don't understand. Celeron chips, at higher-than-Pentium pricing? Doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[dark zero]

Extensive Skylake Celeron review. Many thanks to Hardware.info, low-end CPU tests are rare these days.

Intel Celeron G3920 processor review: Skylake for a trifle



https://uk.hardware.info/reviews/6709/intel-celeron-g3920-processor-review-skylake-for-a-trifle

Only 16.9W gap between average idle and CB R15 system power consumption (vs 26.2W for Pentium G3258). They end up recommending the Pentium G4400 (+400 MHz) because of the small price difference. It's actually cheaper than the Celeron G3920 in some places.

Poor Celeron , it has a very nice potential on there.... Intel is treating Celeron like a trash in many ways... This chip paired with a RX 460 could be the perfect budget duo for many low end users.

 

[Edrick]

See the OC potencial from FinFet against older process

Pascal exceeding 2Ghz, Maxwell didn't come close. Not sure I agree with your point.

 

[wpdrone]

Hi guys I am going to build a new rig and I am confused about i5 6400's clock speed. Say in a sustained gaming session of 2 hours, will an i5 6400 run at its quad core turbo boost clock rate of 3.1 ghz or its base clock rate of 2.7 ghz?

Also how much performance difference can I expect between an i3 6100 and an i5 6400 in gaming at 1080p with a gtx960/970? I have seen some very conflicting benchmarks on the internet. Is it worth getting an i5 6400 over i3 6100 as I am going over my budget with the i3 itself?

 

[frozentundra123456]

Not sure what the all core turbo is, but max turbo is 3.4 or something, so 3.1 sounds about right for all core turbo.

But you would be better served to get the 6500. It is only 15.00 more (newegg price anyway) and has a *base* clockspeed of 3.2. Honestly, the 6400 seems like a regression. Maybe a way to get rid of chips that didnt clock well on the new 14nm process???

 

[wpdrone]

Here the price difference between the 6500 and the 6400 is about 25 dollars and since i am kind of going over budget i would like to save wherever i can. So if the difference in quad core clock rates between the 6500 and the 6400 is only 0.2ghz as their quad core turbo boost clock rates suggest, the 6400 makes more sense for me.

I would like to see a person with an i5 6400/6500 confirm if their quad threaded games run at the base clock rates or at turbo boost clock rates.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Here the price difference between the 6500 and the 6400 is about 25 dollars and since i am kind of going over budget i would like to save wherever i can. So if the difference in quad core clock rates between the 6500 and the 6400 is only 0.2ghz as their quad core turbo boost clock rates suggest, the 6400 makes more sense for me.

I would like to see a person with an i5 6400/6500 confirm if their quad threaded games run at the base clock rates or at turbo boost clock rates.

If I understand this correctly wiki list the 4 core turbo for 6400 is 3.1 and 4 core turbo for 6500 is 3.3. So not that much difference unless the cpu only runs at the base clock for some reason (like it is running hot). Still though, I understand being on a budget, but even at 25.00 it seems worth it to me. I mean you have to live with the system for several years.

Another option, I suppose, is to go with the cheaper i3 for now, and upgrade to an i5 a couple of years down the road if you wish.

What gpu will you have and what games are you planning to play?

 

[wpdrone]

I am planning to get a gtx 960 or 970/1050/rx480 and will be playing various current and upcoming first person and third person shooters.

 

[24601]

Locked i5 is no-man's land right now. Go i3 and upgrade later.

 

[Burpo]

Here the price difference between the 6500 and the 6400 is about 25 dollars and since i am kind of going over budget i would like to save wherever i can. So if the difference in quad core clock rates between the 6500 and the 6400 is only 0.2ghz as their quad core turbo boost clock rates suggest, the 6400 makes more sense for me.

I would like to see a person with an i5 6400/6500 confirm if their quad threaded games run at the base clock rates or at turbo boost clock rates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrwB1lK52XI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T57bpKbVNE

 

[jj109]

Pascal exceeding 2Ghz, Maxwell didn't come close. Not sure I agree with your point.

While he posts nonsense all the time, he's sort of right on this.

Neither Polaris 10 or GP104 scale that well into higher voltages, and we see some of the same on Intel finfets as well.

Complex geometry of the finfet devices inhibit thermal transfer and the thin dies decrease the rate at which heat spreads over the die. Past a certain temperature, the transistor drive strength will decrease with increasing voltage due to heat build up. The lower intra-die thermal conductivity may also mask these hot spots from the thermal sensor(s).

This effectively lowers the voltage limit at which we can get frequency scaling using conventional cooling methods. Sub-zero cooling can overcome the limits, but those can't be run 24/7 by most people.

 

[Sweepr]

First info about Kabylake-U NUCs:

FanlessTech: Baby Canyon NUC Unveiled - Kaby Lake-U 'Core i5/i7'

DDR4-2133, 15W and 28W TDP options, HD Graphics (GT2) / Iris Graphics (GT3e) options, full HDMI 2.0 / DP 1.2 via USB-C, launching early 2017. Thanks FanlessTech.

www.fanlesstech.com/2016/07/exclusive-kaby-lake-apollo-lake-nuc.html

 

[mikk]

The most interesting is this: full HDMI 2.0


This basically means there is native HDMI 2.0 support integrated in Kabylake. Although I guess it requires the second KBL version with integrated HDCP 2.2.

So Kabylake eliminates the weakest parts of Skylake, adding HDMI 2.0 and HEVC 10 bit/VP9 in hardware. Really nice.

 

[Rngwn]

First info about Kabylake-U NUCs:

FanlessTech: Baby Canyon NUC Unveiled - Kaby Lake-U 'Core i5/i7'

DDR4-2133, 15W and 28W TDP options, HD Graphics (GT2) / Iris Graphics (GT3e) options, full HDMI 2.0 / DP 1.2 via USB-C, launching early 2017. Thanks FanlessTech.

www.fanlesstech.com/2016/07/exclusive-kaby-lake-apollo-lake-nuc.html

So once again, Intel decided to move the Iris option to just i7 28w. And looks like there will be no 15w GT3e KBL parts. SHAME ON YOU, Intel.

 

[RussianSensation]

Locked i5 is no-man's land right now. Go i3 and upgrade later.

I3 is garbage. It's better to go i5 with a 480/1060, then upgrade to 6700K/7700K in 3-4 years when they go used. Buying an i3 is $$ wasted right away. An i5 will allow another GPU upgrade to let him wait for the i7 to drop in price. Also, Asrock Z170 boards still support overclocking via BCLK. I5 6400 will hit 4.4-4.5Ghz on the Asrock Extreme 4.

 

[quant_123]

*delete me please*

 

[dark zero]

I3 is garbage. It's better to go i5 with a 480/1060, then upgrade to 6700K/7700K in 3-4 years when they go used. Buying an i3 is $$ wasted right away. An i5 will allow another GPU upgrade to let him wait for the i7 to drop in price. Also, Asrock Z170 boards still support overclocking via BCLK. I5 6400 will hit 4.4-4.5Ghz on the Asrock Extreme 4.

Only old OCable SKylake i3 are useful (new ones can't be OCed so well), but now is only or Pentium or Core i5K.