It's been known for ages that you can get many Intel chips, including Xeon chips, to run all the cores at the single core turbo multiplier. Heck, I've been mentioning it for years.Not exactly Skylake / Kaby Lake related, but still interesting:
[Various] Overclocker discovers Xeon E5 V3 Errata, Engineers exploit to unlock Turbo
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?293290
LTC8K6 said:It's been known for ages that you can get many Intel chips, including Xeon chips, to run all the cores at the single core turbo multiplier. Heck, I've been mentioning it for years.
I honestly don't see the point in the 7700 chip. If you need the 8 threads or the 8 MB L3 cache, then the 7700k is ~10% faster than the 7700 for not much more money. If you don't need the 8 threads, then the 7600 is ~2% slower clock speed and 40% cheaper. The 7700 (non-k) just doesn't have many winning situations. That is, unless you need lower power and lots of L3 cache, but how often is that what customers need?Curious if anyone knows a review that actually directly compares the 7700 k vs non k or 6700k and non k purely at stock speeds? Along with power consumption numbers?
Was it not your opinion that the i7 wins over the i5 in games especially due to the extra L3 cache?The 7700 (non-k) just doesn't have many winning situations. That is, unless you need lower power and lots of L3 cache, but how often is that what customers need?
It is.Was it not your opinion that the i7 wins over the i5 in games especially due to the extra L3 cache?
Then how is it that 7600 is, in your view, only 2% slower than 7700? The poster you replied to is clearly looking to use it in games or some other memory intensive apps.It is.
I just posted clock speed differences which are 2%, since I didn't know the use case. I will edit it to say if you need 8 threads or 8 MB L3 cache then the 7700k is just so much better. I still stick with the point that the 7700k is just so much better for almost no price increase which makes the 7700 nearly useless for the vast majority of people.Then how is it that 7600 is, in your view, only 2% slower than 7700? The poster you replied to is clearly looking to use it in games or some other memory intensive apps.
It's ok, 4.4Ghz OCed 6900K that costs 1K dollars is 25% faster than stock 1800 that costs 1/2 of that, even counting games that obviously have issues with thread scheduling on Ryzen . OC Ryzen 10% from all core turbo of 3.7Ghz and difference drops to ~13%. Bodes well for X399 platform , hopefully they can reach the same Turbo clocks on those SKUs as they can with 1800X.Great. More Ryzen posts in this thread
A $400 6C/12T Skylake-X >4.5 GHz overclock (probably doable) will leave any Broadwell-E behind in games inf64. And that will be a direct competitor to Ryzen's fastest SKUs, whether you like it or not. Point in case, Intel HEDT still has a significant advantage in certain titles even with older Haswell/Broadwell cores (more overclocking headroom on top), next generation will extend the lead.
inf64 said:I would like to see SKL-X 12T parts that cost 400$.
Even if it has 20% higher fps max OC vs max OC
It will be REALLY hard to justify the cost for such a system,especially knowing that B350 boards that cost peanuts can push 8C R7 1700 to stable 3.8-3.9Ghz. Fun times ahead
Intel Xeon Platinum 8160 @ 3.70 GHz
2 processors, 48 cores, 96 threads
Intel Pentium II/III @ 3.20 GHz
2 processors, 56 cores, 112 threads
So some websites are assuming this CPU is based on Skylake-SP:
http://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/2119144
Cache sizes and family/model name don't match though. Could it be a custom Haswell SKU?