Fudzilla speculates that Kaby Lake-X (4C/8T) is LGA 2066, same as Skylake-X ('Skylake-E'):
www.fudzilla.com/news/processors/40949-skylake-x-10-comes-in-q2-17
If true, they could be pushing some insane stock clocks here (>95W TDP).
Core i7-6770HQ Cinebench R15 OpenGL Result (DDR4-2800)
Almost twice typical HD 530 (45W TDP Skylake-H) performance.
If true, that really sucks. Pretty much dashes any hopes of a high performance hex core on the mainstream platform, I would think.
If true, that really sucks. Pretty much dashes any hopes of a high performance hex core on the mainstream platform, I would think.
https://benchlife.info/intel-7th-gen-y-series-will-change-to-core-i7-aka-core-m7-0702016/
Turbo Boost in Kabylake clocks 300-500 Mhz higher.
NBC just posted their initial 15W Bristol Ridge analysis, and Skylake-U* stack up really well. Intel's significant CPU performance lead is still there, and HD 520 was faster in 8 out of 14 games tested**. In the 6 games it was slower, 3 included HD 520 results with single-channel vs Bristol Ridge with dual-channel. Not to mention the website most likely picked results from old reviews for the Intel systems, instead of updating them with newer drivers.
Power consumption for the 15.6'' AMD system was also higher than a comparable 15.6'' Intel system - up to 37.6W vs 32W.
www.notebookcheck.com/Bristol-Ridge-im-Test-AMDs-A10-9600P-gegen-die-Konkurrenz.168172.0.html
*Bristol Ridge's competitor is actually Kaby Lake-U, not Skylake-U
**Iris 540 is up to twice as fast.
NBC just posted their initial 15W Bristol Ridge analysis, and Skylake-U* stack up really well. Intel's significant CPU performance lead is still there, and HD 520 was faster in 8 out of 14 games tested**. In the 6 games it was slower, 3 included HD 520 results with single-channel vs Bristol Ridge with dual-channel. Not to mention the website most likely picked results from old reviews for the Intel systems, instead of updating them with newer drivers.
Power consumption for the 15.6'' AMD system was also higher than a comparable 15.6'' Intel system - up to 37.6W vs 32W.
www.notebookcheck.com/Bristol-Ridge-im-Test-AMDs-A10-9600P-gegen-die-Konkurrenz.168172.0.html
*Bristol Ridge's competitor is actually Kaby Lake-U, not Skylake-U
**Iris 540 is up to twice as fast.
Even Skylake was better (15%)
Kaby Lake will be a better overclocker. At least this is what Intel is telling its partners right now. The successor to Skylake architecture will have two overclocking enhancements the BCLK aware V/F curve and AVX negative ratio offset.
The BCLK aware V/F curve is an adaptive voltage mode that works with BCLK and its main goal is to achieve higher clock stability.
The AVX negative ratio offset allows excellent control over Intel Turbo Boost Technology while overclocking with increased stability.
Kaby Lake processors will be able to achieve higher frequencies at the same thermal envelope. For example, a 95W TDP Kaby Lake processor will be able to achieve a higher clock than the 95W Skylake. We expect that the successor to Intel Core i7-6700K will get to clock more than 4GHz, but not that much higher. The Turbo clock will be higher.
Fuad says Intel is confident Kaby Lake will be a better overclocker than Skylake:
Kaby Lake conjures up two overclocking tricks
www.fudzilla.com/news/processors/41048-kaby-lake-has-learned-two-overclocking-tricks
Core i7-6700K has a relatively modest boost clock (+200MHz). Would be nice if they can replicate what they achieved with Kaby Lake-U here, maybe a 100-200 MHz bump to base clocks and 400-500 MHz higher Turbo - something like this:
Core i7-7700K: 4.1 GHz/4.5 GHz (base/Turbo) and 5GHz 24/7 OCs on air.
Fuad says Intel is confident Kaby Lake will be a better overclocker than Skylake:
Kaby Lake conjures up two overclocking tricks
www.fudzilla.com/news/processors/41048-kaby-lake-has-learned-two-overclocking-tricks
Core i7-6700K has a relatively modest boost clock (+200MHz). Would be nice if they can replicate what they achieved with Kaby Lake-U here, maybe a 100-200 MHz bump to base clocks and 400-500 MHz higher Turbo - something like this:
Core i7-7700K: 4.1 GHz/4.5 GHz (base/Turbo) and 5GHz 24/7 OCs on air.
Overclocking is dead. Stock chips are already pushing the limits of the new technology nodes. Look at Skylake, Polaris, Pascal, nothing has any significant headroom left.
The days of buying a low end chip and clocking the heck out of it are gone for good.
Overclocking is dead. Stock chips are already pushing the limits of the new technology nodes. Look at Skylake, Polaris, Pascal, nothing has any significant headroom left.
Maybe the days of taking a top- or mid-bin chip, and overclocking it PAST the top retail bin, is over. But there's still some ground to be gained from extreme budget overclockers, such as what I did, buying some Skylake Pentiums and OCing to nearly 4.5Ghz using "SKY OC" (BCLK OC on ASRock boards).
Granted, in gaming benchmarks, that only means that I'm just touching the scores of the next-higher chip in the stack, the i3. But it cost me half the price for the CPU, so I consider that somewhat of a win.
Could you take an i5-6400 and make it run like a 6700k the same way? Granted, a ~$180 CPU isn't exactly "low-end", but it's the cheapest quad Intel will sell from their current lineup.
While it's not exactly a "low end" product, Nvidia claims their GTX 1060 can hit clockspeeds in excess of 2 GHz . . .
So about 10%. My point stands.
Maybe make it perform like an i5-6600K @ 4.5 (minus the AVX performance, because that gets nerfed due to BCLK OC), but there's no real substitute for HyperThreading.
1600 base to 2000 is more than 10%
1700 boost to 2000 is also more than 10%
Too right. 1600->2000 is a 25% increase. 1700->2000 is ~17.6%.