I have no problem at all with Intel's policies. They are a for profit business, not a romantic notion, just like AMD. Neither Intel nor AMD gives a flying screw about me, and I hold no illusions about either.
The idea of getting upset because a company doesn't do what you think they should, or liking a company because you think they do, baffles me.
All I basically care about is that the product does what is claimed at a price I can stand.
That's really the big disappointment there. Nice big contact area. Proper TIM. But really can't clock much higher than the stock, meant to last forever, clocks.Well, RyZen seems to be running as fast as it can out of the box.
That's really the big disappointment there. Nice big contact area. Proper TIM. But really can't clock much higher than the stock, meant to last forever, clocks.
Yeah but the 1700 is down binned to hit the 65w TDP. But we know that the Zeppelin die just plain caps out only slightly above the highest stock clocks.Well, it can . . . if you buy the "low end" chips like the 1700. Then you can get 1 GHz overclocks!
1800x? Not so much.
It adds an offset to your clock frequency when the CPU encounters a 256-bit instruction. In some leaked BIOS screenshot I saw for Skylake-X, there is another offset for AVX-512. The offset exists, because you will not be able to run AVX code at the same frequency as non-AVX code. AVX code has increased power delivery and cooling requirements. Without AVX offset, you would have to limit your OC frequency even in applications that do not contain AVX instructions, so you should not "disable" the offset (although the default offset is 0).I would be grateful if someone could explain the AVX offset to me, how it works, and if you can disable it; I have no use for it and like the higher clocks.
It adds an offset to your clock frequency when the CPU encounters a 256-bit instruction. In some leaked BIOS screenshot I saw for Skylake-X, there is another offset for AVX-512. The offset exists, because you will not be able to run AVX code at the same frequency as non-AVX code. AVX code has increased power delivery and cooling requirements. Without AVX offset, you would have to limit your OC frequency even in applications that do not contain AVX instructions, so you should not "disable" the offset (although the default offset is 0).
Tell the Malaysians to be more precise. /sIf the IHS to die gap is as thick as previous iterations... it won't be pretty.
Hopefully, they fixed that.
That's really the big disappointment there. Nice big contact area. Proper TIM. But really can't clock much higher than the stock, meant to last forever, clocks.
I'm not doing a delid on a $1000+ chip, not sure which one I'm going to get. Pretty sure not the 18c, likely the 10c. Anyone running these on air, or an AIO water cooler, and trying to overclock them may end up finding the temperatures are not manageable.
I would be grateful if someone could explain the AVX offset to me, how it works, and if you can disable it; I have no use for it and like the higher clocks.
Honestly with an AIO water cooler, the temps on the Broadwell-E 10 core @ 4.3GHz were barely manageable when I had it, even though it was soldered.
I'll find out because I have an AIO and won't be doing custom water even if I have to keep all cores at 4.3 it's still overall better than my i5 at 4.6.
Same here. I will be running a 7820x under a H115i. However, I will delid if we see big gains by doing so.I'll find out because I have an AIO and won't be doing custom water even if I have to keep all cores at 4.3 it's still overall better than my i5 at 4.6.
Me too - but I can't see the advantage - not using X299 features like Skylake X - disabled the Kaby Lake iGPU. I'm waiting for Coffee Lake 6 core with iGPU.Deleted.
I was thinking of Kabylake X.
i9 is just a branding scheme to combat the Ryzen pressure. The i9's will just be the high end desktop parts that are Xeon's with ECC removed and repackaged. It is nothing different than prior high-end desktops which were labeled i7 with an X at the end. They do not have integrated graphics.
i9 is just a branding scheme to combat the Ryzen pressure. The i9's will just be the high end desktop parts that are Xeon's with ECC removed and repackaged. It is nothing different than prior high-end desktops which were labeled i7 with an X at the end. They do not have integrated graphics.
Same here. I will be running a 7820x under a H115i. However, I will delid if we see big gains by doing so.
Enjoy! While I'm strongly considering SKX, I'm still very tempted by the idea of a hex core CFL on 14nm++ for its super high frequency potential.
If CFL is Z270 compatible, then that's a no brainer for me, but if the rumors that it'll require Z370 are true then...ugh.
I couldn't have said it any better myself.
Intel also has some of the finest engineers that worked on it. We can be sure they have tested both tim and solder and that the end products meet their requirements.
Intel isn't out to get me or anyone else. They are in the money making business. And they're good at it, and have the products to back that up.
I don't agree, the reason people are angry is that Intel decided to save 1 USD per chip while they could have used solder for much lower temps when overclocking. A penny wise, pound foolish decision to me. Why cheapen out on something like that when your marketing is all about "extreme" and the best there is, etc. I don't get all these apologists.
There is a good chance that at the packaging stage Intel doesn't even know if it's an "extreme" chip or not. Enthusiast SKUs only exist because it's trivial to relabel a regular SKU and overclock it.I don't agree, the reason people are angry is that Intel decided to save 1 USD per chip while they could have used solder for much lower temps when overclocking. A penny wise, pound foolish decision to me. Why cheapen out on something like that when your marketing is all about "extreme" and the best there is, etc. I don't get all these apologists.
6950X is soldered. Replacing the solder with good TIM lowered the temps by about 5 degrees. So in that case, solder was not any better than good TIM.I don't agree, the reason people are angry is that Intel decided to save 1 USD per chip while they could have used solder for much lower temps when overclocking. A penny wise, pound foolish decision to me. Why cheapen out on something like that when your marketing is all about "extreme" and the best there is, etc. I don't get all these apologists.
6950X is soldered. Replacing the solder with good TIM lowered the temps by about 5 degrees. So in that case, solder was not any better than good TIM.
https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cp...elids_intel_s_core_i7-6950x_broadwell-e_cpu/1
I think the poor TIM used by Intel recently has people believing that solder would be a lot better.