Yea, definitely a sloppy launch, but I think we need more information from various test sites and real users, as well as some time for bios updates before all the sky is falling talk.According to jonnyguru, if der8auer used the SuperFlower modular PSU cables he showed in the video, it might just be terrible cable design causing the 12V rail to drop too far under load.
PSU problem causing this uproar would be hilarious.
So I wonder if these would even be a gaming upgrade over a broadwell 6 core @ 4.3. That French site shows lower gaming IPC, and its kind of significant.
It looks like Intel rushed the launch of Skylake-X. Maybe this is what competition does even to a dominant company like Intel. Skylake and X299 could benefit from future BIOS revisions but the motherboard manufacturers need to fix the issues with poor VRM design. Anyway Intel should learn from this launch and not repeat the same mistakes with Coffeelake.
First, Intel didnt make the motherboard vendors use a poor VRM cooling design.
Second, at stock & mild OC speeds, the platform is stable and efficient. (low voltage and heat)
Just because you can not OC a 10C cpu to 4.8ghz without a better VRM cooling solution does not mean they "rushed" this release. In fact, the Xeon versions of Skylake-X cores have been shipping to customers for months already (according to sweepr).
See the video properly. He states the blame is to be shared . Intel pulled in the launch by roughly 3 months . This basically did not give sufficient time to motherboard manufacturers to design proper motherboards. Do not compare Xeon with Skylake-X. Server platforms have much more longer design and validation cycles. btw he said the VRMs are good but the VRM cooling is just really bad. So I think a rev 2 by the motherboard manufacturers which fixes VRM cooling issues should not be a major problem.
See the video properly. He states the blame is to be shared . Intel pulled in the launch by roughly 3 months . This basically did not give sufficient time to motherboard manufacturers to design proper motherboards. Do not compare Xeon with Skylake-X. Server platforms have much more longer design and validation cycles. btw he said the VRMs are good but the VRM cooling is just really bad. So I think a rev 2 by the motherboard manufacturers which fixes VRM cooling issues should not be a major problem.
Seems to me the boards were designed just fine and it was just a matter of the board vendors messing on the cooling.
Thanks! All the retailers are advertising 4.3 on all cores, 4.5 on up to 2 cores - I must be misunderstanding something there. Are you at least seeing Turbo Boost 3.0 work for 4.5 GHz on 2 cores?
Also what PSU are you using? I was looking at the EVGA SuperNOVA 850 or 1000 G3 however they are made by SuperFlower which scares me because der8auer was apparently having his temperature issues with a SuperFlower unit, but I am not sure if it was an EVGA or exactly what unit it was.
If you want pure peace of mind, go Seasonic. They are basically the standard by which everything else is judged at this point.
Seems to me the boards were designed just fine and it was just a matter of the board vendors messing on the cooling.
In your opinion Intel is never to blame.The argument here is about Intel rushing the launch and not providing sufficient time to motherboard partners for design and proper testing.
mlc --c2c_latency -c0 -w1 Result: Latency = 16.5 core clocks (4.6 ns)
mlc --c2c_latency -c0 -w2 Result: Latency = 16.1 core clocks (4.5 ns)
mlc --c2c_latency -H -c0 -w1 Result: Latency = 14.7 core clocks (4.1 ns)
mlc --c2c_latency -H -c0 -w2 Result: Latency = 14.9 core clocks (4.1 ns)
Not sure how these numbers compare to Skylake-S or Broadwell-E. Do you have those numbers to compare?
These numbers were run at 4.2ghz core and 2.8ghz northbridge
*Update* Found where I can change the NB clock (Now called CLR in BIOS). Re-ran the test with the NB set to 3200mhz. Big improvement.
I ran the test to see how my system compared. Ran it with my normal everyday clocks/settings.
does anyone know if the uncore can be oced higher on 6 core than 8/10 core?
Edrick's result with uncore at 3200 Mhz is nice- the goal for intel- get it up to 4000 Mhz and game performance will go significantly up I think
Not Skylake-S, but Haswell(-S?) @ 4.8/4.4... Wow, 76 clocks to L2<->L2. I guess it does have to go up-and-down the L3 at 36 cycles/ea.
Command line parameters: --c2c_latency -c0 -w1
Latency = 11.8 core clocks (2.9 ns)
Command line parameters: --c2c_latency -c0 -w2
Latency = 75.7 core clocks (18.9 ns)
Wow core-to-core is pretty slow. According to the manual running without arguments does a full suite of tests
.....
Local Socket L2->L2 HIT latency 17.1
Local Socket L2->L2 HITM latency 18.9
Are you really sure? The L3 bandwitch went up significantly but its still way below BDW-E.
I think the SKL-X core gaming perf is bottlenecked by the cache performance...
Are you really sure? The L3 bandwitch went up significantly but its still way below BDW-E.
I think the SKL-X core gaming perf is bottlenecked by the cache performance...