Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

[USER8000]

I don't see what all the excitement with the Core i3 6100 is about - all those motherboards are like £80 to £100 and the Core i3 6100 is around £95,plus the cost of any cooler.

At this point you can get a Core i5 6400 and a cheaper motherboard for around the same price or a tad more and you are not going to have to play the silicon lottery.

Chips like the Core i3 530 were quite since you could get away with overclocking on cheaper motherboards,and since Skylake does not consume much power,there should be no reason why the cheaper motherboards should not have overclocking enabled.

The non-K series Core i5 overclocking is more interesting though as you save much more going with a Core i5 6400 than with the Core i5 6600K which is £60 to £70 more.

That means you could probably get a GTX970 or R9 390 instead of a GTX960,R9 380 or R9 380X.

 

[AtenRa]

At this point you can get a Core i5 6400 and a cheaper motherboard for around the same price or a tad more and you are not going to have to play the silicon lottery.

As i have said before, i would go for a locked Core i5 6400 + H110 any time over a Z170 + Core i3. There is no substitute for real cores.

there should be no reason why the cheaper motherboards should not have overclocking enabled.

Seems that H110 and B150 Chipsets are not able to OC due to hardware restrictions. So only Z170 chipset motherboards for now.

 

[tornadog]

I am waiting on some DDR4 RAM to complete my upgrade. I got a Z170a msi krait motherboard and i5 6500.

 

[Sweepr]

Nice to know that you don't need a high-end board to push these chips. ASUS Z170-A + Core i5-6500 @ 4.5-4.6GHz.

www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/asus_skylake_non-k_overclocking_bios/1

I am waiting on some DDR4 RAM to complete my upgrade. I got a Z170a msi krait motherboard and i5 6500.

Cool, do you plan to overclock it?

 

[tornadog]

Nice to know that you don't need a high-end board to push these chips. ASUS Z170-A + Core i5-6500 @ 4.5-4.6GHz.

www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/asus_skylake_non-k_overclocking_bios/1




Cool, do you plan to overclock it?

Yes that's why I got the z170a board

 

[Arachnotronic]

Yes that's why I got the z170a board

Awesome

I'm really glad BCLK overclocking is back with Skylake. This is a feature that needs to stick around from here on out.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Seems that H110 and B150 Chipsets are not able to OC due to hardware restrictions. So only Z170 chipset motherboards for now.

This is a win for Intel because it builds goodwill with customer base + drives upsell to Z170 chipset, and it is a win for the board makers as it drives upsell to higher-end Z170-based boards.

 

[skipsneeky2]

You don't happen to have an AMEX card, do you? They have a $20 statement credit when you spend $50 or more at Jet.com

$140 would be a hair more than your planned $130 for CPU+MB+PSU, but this also would be with 8GB of DDR4.

Prices on that site are very jumpy,comparable parts and prices run me closer to actually $200 without the AMEX.The ram certainly wasn't showing up for any kit for that $41 and the cheapest motherboard was nearly $15 more expensive as well.Site having constant flash sales?

My budget has jumped a bit to about $200 but i feel that just maybe something like a cheap AMD APU quad may just get me more mileage then a simple dual core for the money.

Exploring options still.Cheapest Haswell i3+mobo and a cheap psu may get me by but it certainly looks like Skylake for me with a i3 would be out of my price range certainly.

 

[USER8000]

This is a win for Intel because it builds goodwill with customer base + drives upsell to Z170 chipset, and it is a win for the board makers as it drives upsell to higher-end Z170-based boards.

But I also see a problem when people think £110 motherboards like the Asus Z170-A are "not high-end". That is not particularly cheap for a motherboard,when its 80% of the price of the chip you are trying to overclock(the Core i5 6400 being the cheapest Skylake Core i5) or more than the price of the Core i3 6100.

Go back a couple of years,the relative pricing was better,but it seems the enthusiast segment is now a cash-cow,so much so pricing is just getting distorted.

I would rather people show some results with the lower end Z170 motherboards which are £70 to £80 - I don't see why you need £100+ motherboards to overclock CPUs which don't draw that much power(unlike a certain companies offerings), and with so much of the chipset functionality now being part of the CPU,so its not like the VRMs are being that taxed with an overclocked Skylake CPU. Seems a tad daft.

Edit to post.

If you go back a few years ago to the Core i5 750 and the Core i3 530,you could get decent enough overclocks on certain H55 motherboards which were not very expensive.

Something like this one:

https://www.asus.com/uk/Motherboards/Z170-P-D3/

Its around £80.

If people can get reasonable overclocks out of £70 to £80 motherboards with a £20 to £30 cooler then it will be a return to what we saw during the socket 1156 days.

 

[Sweepr]

But I also see a problem when people think £110 motherboards like the Z170-A are "not high-end". That is not particularly cheap for a motherboard,when its 80% of the price of the chip you are trying to overclock(the Core i5 6400) or more than the price of the Core i3 6100.

BCLK overclocking is possible with <$100 MBs from ASRock, the main point is you don't need expensive boards to push non-K Skylake like certain users predicted. Sure, it's restricted to Z170 models for now, but let's not forget that the first MB with this feature was a SuperMicro C7H170-M, so other (cheaper) H170-based MBs might support it sooner or later.

 

[USER8000]

BCLK overclocking is possible with <$100 MBs from ASRock, the main point is you don't need expensive boards to push non-K Skylake like certain users predicted. Sure, it's restricted to Z170 models for now, but let's not forget that the first MB with this feature was a SuperMicro C7H170-M, so other (cheaper) H170-based MBs might support it sooner or later.

I would rather the sites concentrated on the lower end Z170 boards like the ASRock ones. Something like a £70 to £80 motherboard,£140 Core i5 6400 and a Hyper 212 EVO would mean the whole shebang would be under £250.

Even if a higher end motherboard and better cooling did improve overclocking,I can't see it making a massive difference in actual realworld performance.

I mean there is the potential for the Core i5 6400 to be the best value Intel CPU since the Core i5 2500K.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Here's something curious.

On my G4400 on an Asus H110M-A, with a single 240GB Silicon Power MLC SATA6G SSD, no HDD, no DVD, running through HDMI output to my 24" HDTV LCD monitor.

Not crunching: 49W
Crunching on one core in BOINC (NumberFields@Home): 56-62W
Crunching on TWO cores, same project: SAME

Ok, can someone explain to me, in terms of static and dynamic power and process, how it is that I can crunch on one core, or two, and my power consumption is EQUAL at the UPS measuring it? Granted, when crunching on one core, the other core is not 100% idle and not power-gated, but is the difference between idle, and full load, on a SKL core, so low, that it's not measurable at the wall?

 

[dark zero]

This is a win for Intel because it builds goodwill with customer base + drives upsell to Z170 chipset, and it is a win for the board makers as it drives upsell to higher-end Z170-based boards.

But, that doesn't mean that the B and H tier are useless now to the point that they are not necessary due even lower demand?

 

[MrTeal]

But, that doesn't mean that the B and H tier are useless now to the point that they are not necessary due even lower demand?

Not really. The number of people who will be BCLK overclocking Pentium and i3 chips is going to be extremely small. The cheapest H110M is still $40 cheaper than the cheapest Z170, which for an extremely budget conscious consumer could be significant.

 

[Sweepr]

SuperMicro releasing an entusiast Z170 motherboard? CES 2016 invitation:

www.pcgameshardware.de/Mainboard-Hardware-154107/News/Supermicro-High-End-Crossfire-SLI-1181140

My budget has jumped a bit to about $200 but i feel that just maybe something like a cheap AMD APU quad may just get me more mileage then a simple dual core for the money.

Look at the latest reviews, generally Intel dual-cores match or beat AMD's quad-cores, especially those with HT enabled (Core i3s).

 

[ShintaiDK]

Ok, can someone explain to me, in terms of static and dynamic power and process, how it is that I can crunch on one core, or two, and my power consumption is EQUAL at the UPS measuring it? Granted, when crunching on one core, the other core is not 100% idle and not power-gated, but is the difference between idle, and full load, on a SKL core, so low, that it's not measurable at the wall?

Open HWmonitorx64 and look at the usage by the CPU. Uncore, cores etc.

 

[zir_blazer]

SuperMicro releasing an entusiast Z170 motherboard? CES 2016 invitation:

www.pcgameshardware.de/Mainboard-Hardware-154107/News/Supermicro-High-End-Crossfire-SLI-1181140

Its an improved version of the C7Z170-SQ, been expecting the C7Z170-OCE since two months ago or so since I saw a photo of it elsewhere. It uses a PLX PEX8747 (We know those from Ivy Bridge generation) to provide 16x/8x/8x instead of the typical 8x/4x/4x arrangement, but I believe they should have gone for 8x/8x/8x/8x instead. Other improvements are Dual NIC and an extra USB 3.1, but not a lot. The Block Diagram of both C7Z170-SQ and C7Z170-OCE can be found on their Manuals and is rather clear, good matches for my intended clean topology, but could be better (Why the hell no Alpine Ridge?).
Problem will be price. Supposedly since Avago purchased PLX, the PEX chips price skyrocketed, which was the reason why you don't see them anymore. The C7Z170-SQ already cost 220 U$D, the C7Z170-OCE will be no less than 300 U$D. If I were to spend that sort of money OR require 3/4-way SLI, I would be sitting on a Haswell-E instead, I can't see the selling point on an ultra premium Skylake Motherboard.

What I'm annoyed is that Supermicro is not going for the niche that they should be wonderful at: Prosumer Workstation/Server Motherboards with overclocking capabilities. Since they were the first showcasing Skylake Base Clock overclocking, I can't see why they can't pair a C232/C236 Chipset on a Motherboard that has features that you would expect on typical consumer, and allow you to use both Xeon E3 V5 AND overclock them at the same time. Core i7 6700K price gouging would be solved, since an overclockable 1230V5 would kick arse for 3/4 the cost.

 

[Sweepr]

If you're on the fence about which motherboard to buy:

Hardware.fr: ASRock Z170 Extreme4, Asus Z170-A, Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI, Gigabyte Z170X-UD3 et MSI Z170A Krait Gaming Comparison

www.hardware.fr/articles/943-1/comp...igabyte-z170x-ud3-msi-z170a-krait-gaming.html

Also:

ComputerBase: Skylake Delidded (Higher clocks and lower temperatures without risk)

www.computerbase.de/2015-12/intel-skylake-heatspreader-delid-die-mate-test


The Tech Report System Guide: December 2015 edition

In this price range, we think Intel's Core i3-6100 is a great buy. Its healthy 3.7GHz clock speed should be brisk enough for most, and its Hyper-Threading support can boost performance in multithreaded tasks. It'll also appear as a quad-core CPU to games that require one. This Core i3 is a good choice for non-gamers, too, since it has basic integrated graphics. For $130, it's hard to find anything to complain about with this chip.

Moving up to the sweet-spot gets builders into Intel's quad-core CPUs. If you don't want to play with overclocking, the Core i5-6500 looks like the Goldilocks chip in this price range. For about $205, the i5-6500 gives us 3.2GHz base and 3.6GHz Turbo clocks in a miserly 65W thermal envelope. As a warning, we aren't as enamored of the Core i5-6400. Though it sells for only $15 less than the i5-6500, the i5-6400 pays for it with a big drop in clocks. That chip only rings in with 2.7GHz base and 3.3GHz Turbo speeds.

Some builders may be tempted by AMD's FX-series CPUs, like the FX-8350. These chips pack a lot of cores at high clock speeds, often at lower prices than Intel's. We don't recommend them, though. In lightly threaded workloads, which are the most common for desktop systems, the stronger per-thread performance of Intel CPUs gives them an undeniable advantage. Intel's current processors also consume less power and throw off less heat than comparable AMD silicon. On top of that, FX-series chips are tied to aging chipsets and motherboards that often don't include modern niceties like USB 3.1, USB Type-C ports, M.2 storage connectors, DDR4 RAM support, and PCI Express 3.0 slots.

http://techreport.com/review/29453/the-tech-report-system-guide-december-2015-edition

 

[skipsneeky2]

Look at the latest reviews, generally Intel dual-cores match or beat AMD's quad-cores, especially those with HT enabled (Core i3s).

Already ordered a G1820+ $45 mobo and the platform was cheap enough for sure considering i will be able to drop in a 4gb 1333mhz ddr3 1.5v from my i5 2500 non k rig with no questionable compatibility. Including a DDR4 stick,a more expensive DDR4 motherboard with the G4500 i would have spent at least a extra $60 bare minimum over the g1820 and money well saved too cause i was able to slap in a $60 MSI gt 740 GDDR5 1gb which certainly blows any IGP out the water.

Really doubt the Skylake chips perform best in any situation with a budget DDR3 based H110 and especially if i drop in a i3 chip like the i3 6100 for example.Your wanting DDR4.

Skylake is nice but the platform certainly is a bit more expensive.we need a $45 Skylake Celeron that can at least support DDR3 1600 without breaking the bank or hampering performance in any way.As long as the IGP in the Celeron can touch what is in the G1820 while offering a IPC increase and lower wattage and a clock bump then it could be a much cheaper alternative to a $65 G4400.:thumbsup:

 

[Sweepr]

Intel possibly introducing (some) desktop Skylake chips without iGPU:

Two new desktop processors are Core i3-6098P and Core i5-6402P. Both model numbers have a suffix "P", that was used to signify the lack of integrated GPU in older generations of Core i3/i5 products. There is a good chance that it still means just that. The Core i3-6098P has 2 Hyper-threaded CPU cores, operating at 3.6 GHz. Its official price is $117, which is on a par with the Core i3-6100. The i5-6402P is a quad-core processor with 6 MB of last level cache. The CPU runs at 2.8 GHz, or 100 MHz faster than the Core i5-6400. The i5 processor is priced at $182.

www.cpu-world.com/news_2015/2015122701_Intel_launches_new_desktop_and_mobile_CPUs.html

 

[VirtualLarry]

I think that my G4400 may have a defective IGP. I haven't conclusively tested it though. Need to swap RAM and CPUs between boards to confirm.

 

[LTC8K6]

Here's something curious.

On my G4400 on an Asus H110M-A, with a single 240GB Silicon Power MLC SATA6G SSD, no HDD, no DVD, running through HDMI output to my 24" HDTV LCD monitor.

Not crunching: 49W
Crunching on one core in BOINC (NumberFields@Home): 56-62W
Crunching on TWO cores, same project: SAME

Ok, can someone explain to me, in terms of static and dynamic power and process, how it is that I can crunch on one core, or two, and my power consumption is EQUAL at the UPS measuring it? Granted, when crunching on one core, the other core is not 100% idle and not power-gated, but is the difference between idle, and full load, on a SKL core, so low, that it's not measurable at the wall?

How are different cpus with different speeds all the same tdp?

http://ark.intel.com/compare/88196,88184,88185

 

[VirtualLarry]

How are different cpus with different speeds all the same tdp?

But TDP is not measured power consumption. It's just a category or class used to size heatsinks and thermal solutions.

 

[LTC8K6]

But TDP is not measured power consumption. It's just a category or class used to size heatsinks and thermal solutions.

That's the Thermal Solution Specification.

TDP is:

Thermal Design Power (TDP) represents the average power, in watts, the processor dissipates when operating at Base Frequency with all cores active under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload. Refer to Datasheet for thermal solution requirements.

 

[LTC8K6]

Ok, can someone explain to me, in terms of static and dynamic power and process, how it is that I can crunch on one core, or two, and my power consumption is EQUAL at the UPS measuring it? Granted, when crunching on one core, the other core is not 100% idle and not power-gated, but is the difference between idle, and full load, on a SKL core, so low, that it's not measurable at the wall?

I would question the accuracy of the measurement.