5.0 GHz with AVX offset, 4.7GHz without - 7700K
4.7GHz with no support for AVX offset in BIOS - 6700K
Transistor performance improvement does not directly translate into frequency gains, especially when overclocking where high voltages are involved.
5.0 GHz with AVX offset, 4.7GHz without - 7700KJust look at the 7700K vs 6700K. Stock clocks, max OC frequency.
The 6700K can't reach 5 GHz, regardless of AVX. If you look into OC threads, many 7700K samples can run prime95 at 4.9 GHz and non-AVX at 5.1 GHz. I don't expect Coffee Lake to OC much higher than Kaby Lake though, as the claimed performance gain was only 12%. Since power is cubic in frequency (assuming linear voltage to frequency ratio), the expected frequency gain would only be 4%, and the quoted performance gains are almost definitely for the sub 3 GHz range.5.0 GHz with AVX offset, 4.7GHz without - 7700K
4.7GHz with no support for AVX offset in BIOS - 6700K
Transistor performance improvement does not directly translate into frequency gains, especially when overclocking where high voltages are involved.
Where did I say that the 6700K reaches 5.0GHz?The 6700K can't reach 5 GHz, regardless of AVX. If you look into OC threads, roughly half of 7700K samples can run prime95 at 4.9 GHz and non-AVX at 5.1 GHz.
If that is the best then so be it.
You implied that the only thing preventing Skylake from reaching the same clocks as Kaby Lake is the AVX offset, which is not correct. Many overclockers don't even bother testing AVX workloads, yet they also couldn't reach 5 GHz.Where did I say that the 6700K reaches 5.0GHz?
especially if CF is released with somewhat reasonable pricing.
Very well. If it is you can probably thank AMD. And hopefully it is.
If they price it $500 you can be sure ill be thank AMD.
My point is that process improvement does not translate directly into frequency gains.You implied that the only thing preventing Skylake from reaching the same clocks as Kaby Lake is the AVX offset, which is not correct. Many overclockers don't even bother testing AVX workloads, yet they also couldn't reach 5 GHz.
My point is that process improvement does not translate directly into frequency gains.
5GHz vs 4.7GHz is half the percentage improvement of the transistor characteristics that Intel claims.
Are you sure Intel claimed 20% less power at 4.5Ghz+ for 14nm+ vs 14nm? Judging by your previous posts you already know very well the quoted power improvement figures are usually for lower frequencies.Going from 4.7 GHz to 5 GHz should require 20% more power (power cubic in frequency), which seems about what was claimed about 14 nm+.
Overclocking the 6700K and the 7700K up until the same frequency yields similar power draw results. The biggest gains are seen in mobile chips where operating voltages are very low.Is it really so? Going from 4.7 GHz to 5 GHz should require 20% more power (power cubic in frequency), which seems about what was claimed about 14 nm+.
Overclocking the 6700K and the 7700K up until the same frequency yields similar power draw results. The biggest gains are seen in mobile chips where operating voltages are very low.
The AnandTech review states otherwise. Kaby Lake silicon seems to have that ability to run at a slightly higher voltage for that mythical 5GHz. Other than that Skylake and Kaby Lake are very similar.Similar? Sure, but Kabylake is better OCer and using less power. Not Nehalem C0->D0 sized, but still nice across board.
Kaby Lake has the ability to run at lower voltages than Skylake, including when overclocking. That translates into both lower power usage in the sub 4Ghz territory and higher oc potential, but does not necessarily imply lower overclocked power usage as well. See the measurements from Tom's Hardware bellow.Kaby Lake silicon seems to have that ability to run at a slightly higher voltage for that mythical 5GHz.
Depends on where you look. For example at AnandTech 7700K:Kaby Lake has the ability to run at lower voltages than Skylake, including when overclocking. That translates into both lower power usage in the sub 4Ghz territory and higher oc potential, but does not necessarily imply lower overclocked power usage as well. See the measurements from Tom's Hardware bellow.
6700K:
Yeah that is exactly what the average 6700K can do. according to OC.net."Out of the four samples, one engineering sample had 4.7 GHz at 1.4V two engineering samples achieved 4.6 GHz at ~1.4V and the one retail sample had 4.5 GHz at 1.275 volts before declocking when it was running at 4.6 GHz / 1.4 volts."
Unless I see CFL-S 6C/12T popping up in SiSoft databases with 12MB L3, it doesn't exist.You can talk bs all day just like that "9MB L3" claim, but there are people here including me that had their hands on both Skylake and Kabylake. In fact from pure clock gains from my experience it was bigger advance than those "5%" IPC increase jokes like Broadwell or Ivy.
Yeah that is exactly what the average 6700K can do. according to OC.net.
Unless I see CFL-S 6C/12T popping up in SiSoft databases with 12MB L3, it doesn't exist.
Who cares about clock speeds when there are zero generational improvements from Skylake to Kaby Lake and when you have to go through hoops to attain said clock speeds?
What is this, the GHz wars all over again?
Lets see.If clock speeds fundamentally go up, performance goes up.
Who cares if the performance is achieved with higher IPC or higher frequencies?
DigiTimes said:Intel is also expected to unveil its top-end Basin Falls platform consisting of Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X processors and X299 chipsets, targeting gaming, virtual reality (VR) and overclock markets, at Computex 2017 with official releases at the end of June. The launch of Intel’s 14nm Coffee Lake platform has also been shifted forward to late August from January 2018 to counter AMD’s rapid advances.
6C/12T Coffee Lake-S to arrive in late August:
www.digitimes.com/news/a20170517PD202.html
14nm++ should make it do noticeably better in the power area than 14nm SL and a little better than 14nm+ KL.Lets see.
Power consumption goes up.
Temperatures go up.
Probability that delid is a must goes up.
Incidence of "overheating" issues goes up.
Must use better cooling so price goes up.
Is this 2004 or an admission that IPC improvements have stalled, and hence do whatever it takes to get that performance crown?
I'm beginning to wonder, too. Why haven't we seen a leak of some sort?Where does it say 6C-12T? Is that even confirmed?
Who cares? The kind of CPU enthusiast that inhabits these forums, that's who. All day there are discussions about the minutiae of how performance is achieved. I like most of your posts, but pretending it doesn't matter flies like a lead balloon here.If clock speeds fundamentally go up, performance goes up.
Who cares if the performance is achieved with higher IPC or higher frequencies?