The improved and larger L2 cache should see Skylake-X become Intel's IPC champion, so I suspect it will also knock the i7700K off it's perch as Intel's best gaming CPU.That's not what techspot tells us. 7700K is on top most of the time.
The improved and larger L2 cache should see Skylake-X become Intel's IPC champion, so I suspect it will also knock the i7700K off it's perch as Intel's best gaming CPU.
Well, it was only a 200mhz base increase and 100mhz single core turbo increase, from HW to KL.Plus SKLX will be on thee same 14nm+ node as Kabylake. IT will be interesting to see how the 8 core clocks - it will smoke the i7 6900k.
The same guy who mentioned that Ryzen broke 8 core Cinebench WR (before the launch day) also mentioned that Skylake-X 8 core broke 6950X record.But it remains to be seen if those large L2 cache CPU's can clock as high.
4.4 for 6900k is anything but typical.It borders "golden" territory in that regard. Typical for 6900k was like 4.2, like on Broadwell. If that means we are getting 4.6 typical on SKL-X, that would be a serious bump. Memory probably won't get any higher than BDW on anything but few small boards though.I think a typical o'clock was 4.4 for a 6900K, so maybe you would get 4.6 with SL-X plus the ipc increase from HW/BW to SL/KL.
I looked at a few reviews of the 6900K. I saw 4.3,4.4, and a 4.5.The same guy who mentioned that Ryzen broke 8 core Cinebench WR (before the launch day) also mentioned that Skylake-X 8 core broke 6950X record.
So, looks like cache won't be an issue with clocks, cooling will.
4.4 for 6900k is anything but typical.It borders "golden" territory in that regard. Typical for 6900k was like 4.2, like on Broadwell. If that means we are getting 4.6 typical on SKL-X, that would be a serious bump. Memory probably won't get any higher than BDW on anything but few small boards though.
Overclocked i7-6900K Performance
Overclocking of the i7-6900K is of course possible, and the dividends from doing so are similar to most of Intel's other unlocked CPUs. In this case, I was able to run this particular i7-6900K at 4.5GHz using 1.350V, which is a slightly higher clock than either the 6850K or 6800K could achieve. The 5960X meanwhile hit the same 4.5GHz, but at a lower 1.275V, which has been par for the course with Broadwell-E—all of my sample chips have required more voltage than Haswell-E when overclocking, though that may change over time.
People don't seem to care much about that when reporting overclocks and benchmarks, though.Ahh. We see some 4.3 zen also. But man its nuclear reactors.
An 6900 at 4.4 if you even get here is what a 240w cpu?
Look at thg power test at 4.3. As i recall its was something like 218w (edit it was 214w)
It puts extreme demands on cooler and mb.
Even the 4C KL chips apparently start to do this as the 7740K is apparently 112W TDP for ~100Mhz more clock.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apparentlyYou can't know if it clocks 100 Mhz higher and you also cannot compare Intels HEDT TDP with their mainstream TDP.
Core i7 7740K (QMM9 ES): Its basic frequency is at 4.30 GHz (100 MHz more than the 7700K) and its Turbo frequency at 4.50 GHz (identical to the 7700K). Hyper-Threading is enabled and has 8 MB of L3 cache. There is, however, a small subtlety. The Core i7 7700K is specified at 4.4 GHz in Turbo mode with all active cores and 4.5 GHz with a single active core. The Core i7 7740K is designed to operate at 4.5 GHz in Turbo mode, regardless of the number of active cores. This makes it, in practice, a CPU at 4.50 GHz.
https://translate.google.com/transl...-et-i5-7640k-kaby-lake-x-lga2066/&prev=search
The two are just entry level 2066 chips, I think. To get people on the HEDT road.Pointless processor in my opinion.
The differences in performance between the Intel Core i7-6700K processor clocked at a frequency of 4.7 GHz and AMD Ryzen 7 1800X curling to the frequency of 4.075 GHz depends on the game, but overall, wins Intel.
The biggest advantage of the Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.7 GHz achieves Hitman in DX12 mode: with a resolution of 1920 × 1080 pixels it reaches 60% (72.4 fps vs. 45.2 fps). However, the higher the resolution, the advantage of Intel melts: a 3840 × 2160 pixels is only 27%. The same title run in DX11 regardless of the resolution runs faster on a computer with an Intel processor by about 30 percent.
At 1080p, Intel’s Broadwell-E maintains an average frame rate that’s 8-9% higher than Ryzen 7 1800X’s. At 1440p, that difference shrinks to 4-7%. By 4K, the two CPUs are essentially tied. That’s more important than it might seem.
The entire point of testing the GTX 1080 Ti with these two CPUs was to throw the world’s fastest GPU at Ryzen 7 and see if the CPU could keep the GPU fed. One of our concerns, after seeing Ryzen’s weak 1080p showing in our CPU review, was that the chip might not be able to keep up with a substantially faster GPU than the 1070 we used in that article. Now, we know it can. Even on a game-by-game basis, Ryzen and Broadwell often gain a similar amount of performance when moving from the 1070 to the 1080 Ti. This is particularly true when moving from 1440p to 4K.
Gamers in pursuit of every last frame of performance at every resolution may want to opt for Intel, but those interested in Ryzen’s performance-per-dollar ratio don’t have anything to worry about on the gaming side of the equation. Those of you who used to prefer AMD CPUs and Nvidia GPUs have something to look forward to — as do Nvidia GPU fans in general.
inf64 said:As can be seen, moving on to 67% faster GPU ( 1080ti vs 1070) brings no change in relative performance between 6900K and 1800X. 1800x or even better 1700 is a best SKU from eprf./$ POV currently on the market. The situation in 2-3 years will mimic 2500K vs 8350 and how the performance evolved. The problem for intel is that Ryzen is not Bulldozer and is nearly identical IPC wise uarchitecture. It will be a carnage