Kaby Lake-X makes the most sense as a very good overclocker: better bins, more TDP, no iGPU taking up power, etc. No need to pay for all the Skylake-X features on a motherboard that the Kaby Lake processor cannot use.If I'm reading that right, why would they do that? Only compatible with KL-X? I was thinking KL-X only made the most sense as a stepping stone purchase to hedt? :/
what's up with the X299 boards that only support KL-X?? seems more-or-less a useless platform.
It makes little sense. The only difference to the K SKUs of Kaby Lake-S is the higher factory OC of Kaby Lake-X.Kaby Lake-X makes the most sense as a very good overclocker: better bins, more TDP, no iGPU taking up power, etc.
No need to pay for a low-volume Kaby Lake-K-only X299 board if any Z270 board does the same job.No need to pay for all the Skylake-X features on a motherboard that the Kaby Lake processor cannot use.
Nice cherry picking. 4 benchmarks out of maybe 20 show slower results overclocked, and there are several that show at a 10% improvement. At least tell both sides of the story.It makes little sense. The only difference to the K SKUs of Kaby Lake-S is the higher factory OC of Kaby Lake-X.
Edit: And what is a "very good overclocker" supposed to be? One on which a 5 GHz overclock results in 10 % performance loss vs. factory clocks?
No need to pay for a low-volume Kaby Lake-K-only X299 board if any Z270 board does the same job.
The fact that there were regressions at all means that this particular overclock was a failure.
And if we leave the few regressions aside and look only at the benchmarks with improvements, then I still consider this everything but a "very good overclocker". But that it isn't, and why it isn't, is widely known; what is mindboggling is that there are still people claiming the contrary.
Edit: I concede though that it is a "very good overclocker" from a certain perspective: If we look at the delta from sweet-spot clocks to max clocks, then it overclocks very well indeed. And it comes highly overclocked out of the factory already, freeing the end-user from all of the work needed to achieve a stable overclock, for better or worse. --- However, as I mentioned, i7-7700K on Z270 is exactly the same, except for a slightly lower factory overclock.
Kaby Lake-X makes the most sense as a very good overclocker: better bins, more TDP, no iGPU taking up power, etc.
Given what Intel did with the i5 I
Sorry, disagree. KL-X was already a not very good sku. But now only having KL-X mobo's takes even the stepping stone portion from the X platform.
I think it's such a waste having only 2, literally only 2 CPU's usable on a motherboard setup. I doubt Intel will release any other KL-X cpu's for that thing. It's not my R&D or $ at least.
Feature set on the Z390 is better than the X299.
Gigabyte and MSI are readying new motherboards designed only for Kabylake-X architecture.
https://videocardz.com/71656/x299-kabylake-x-only-motherboards-are-here
IMO i7-7700K is the more relevant chip to compare KL-X with in a discussion about whether or not KL-X-only mainboards make sense.[several questions]
- KBL-R PCH = Z370 = high-end chipset, which launches first and apparently won't get replaced by a Z390 in early 2018 as Dr.MOLA indicated
Z370 seems to have an even shorter life than Z270. Fun stuff.The fact z370 is still visible there is because it would be stupid to admit that chipset has a life of couple month only. Albeit it really is puzzling they are releasing it at all.
The fact z370 is still visible there is because it would be stupid to admit that chipset has a life of couple month only. Albeit it really is puzzling they are releasing it at all.
The fact z370 is still visible there is because it would be stupid to admit that chipset has a life of couple month only. Albeit it really is puzzling they are releasing it at all.
Ack! No Z390 - makes me wonder if it was cancelled?
The fact that there were regressions at all means that this particular overclock was a failure.
And if we leave the few regressions aside and look only at the benchmarks with improvements, then I still consider this everything but a "very good overclocker". But that it isn't, and why it isn't, is widely known; what is mindboggling is that there are still people claiming the contrary.
Edit: I concede though that it is a "very good overclocker" from a certain perspective: If we look at the delta from sweet-spot clocks to max clocks, then it overclocks very well indeed. And it comes highly overclocked out of the factory already, freeing the end-user from all of the work needed to achieve a stable overclock, for better or worse. --- However, as I mentioned, i7-7700K on Z270 is exactly the same, except for a slightly lower factory overclock.
The three that had the biggest dips are our longest benchmarks: Blender at 8 minutes, Handbrake HEVC at 25 minutes, and the Chrome Compile at over an hour. In this case it seems we are hitting thermal limits for the power delivery, as explained by Igor Wallossek over at Tom's Hardware. He tested an upcoming theory that the early X299 boards are not up to the task for cooling VRMs at heavy load, and through analysis he determined that this was likely to occur in heavily overclocked scenarios. His data showed that the Skylake systems he tested, when overclocked, would hit thermal limits, come back down, and then ramp up again in a cyclical manner. He tested Skylake-X, which draws a lot more power overclocked than our KBL-X setup here, so it likely isn't affecting our setup as much, but still enough for certain benchmarks. I fully suspect we will see second-wave X299 motherboards with substantial heatsinks on the power delivery to overcome this.