Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > CPU's and Motherboards

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old June 19, 2017, 02:01 PM
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,053
Default

I think there's a mis-print on the AIDA chart, listed i7-7740X as a i7-7740K. Also, why Intel would bother with a KL-X, makes no sense at all.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old June 19, 2017, 02:15 PM
Dark Knight's Avatar
MVP
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 463
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
There are a few things we have to remember about Threadripper before automatically assuming it will be competitive. The Zen architecture has some challenges reaching high clock speeds on the smaller Ryzen processors and there's nothing to think that issue won't carry forward into Threadripper. Therefore, I can see the TR being an awesome multi core beast but I'm not sure it will be a hit among enthusiasts who are looking for high clock rates and overclocking potential. We will see though.
Threadripper clocks will be similar to Ryzen AM4 processors. Sure the 14nm lpp process is holding back overclocking at a certain point. It doesn't mean that Threadripper clocks will be similar to Broadwell-EP. The leaks tell us that it won't be too far behind the R7 1700X/1800X clocks. I don't know where you are getting this information but it's incorrect especially for base clocks. It should be also noted X299's 7900X runaway TDP and temperatures especially when overclocked. X299 is a mess as far as a platform release goes currently because it's a panicked and rushed launch.

Last edited by Dark Knight; June 19, 2017 at 03:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old June 19, 2017, 03:01 PM
Bao Bao is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 402
Default

What I think, based on how messed up this intel launch/platform is. It looks like a plan that was baked in many months ago, on the assumption that AMD was still not in the game. This level of idiocy can't possibly be a reaction to competition. It reeks of no F's given.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old June 19, 2017, 03:05 PM
Dark Knight's Avatar
MVP
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 463
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bao View Post
What I think, based on how messed up this intel launch/platform is. It looks like a plan that was baked in many months ago, on the assumption that AMD was still not in the game. This level of idiocy can't possibly be a reaction to competition. It reeks of no F's given.
The 12 core+ parts are a reaction to Threadripper. Take note of the release date and paper launch of anything above the 7900X.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old June 19, 2017, 03:37 PM
SKYMTL's Avatar
HardwareCanuck Review Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 13,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Knight View Post
Threadripper clocks will be similar to Ryzen AM4 processors. Sure the 14nm lpp process is holding back overclocking at a certain point. It doesn't mean that Threadripper clocks will be similar to Broadwell-EP. The leaks tell us that it won't be too far behind the R7 1700X/1800X clocks. I don't know where you are getting this information but it's incorrect especially for base clocks. It should be also noted X299's 7900X runaway TDP and temperatures especially when overclocked. X299 is a mess as far as a platform release goes currently because it's a panicked and rushed launch.
Sorry, I don't understand which part of my statement is factually incorrect. I said AMD's Zen architecture doesn't have the clock speed advantage which is due to the inherent limitations of GF's 14nm FinFET node. Not to mention the die itself is about the size of a newborn's head which in itself will cause some pretty significant thermal challenges.

And show me an architecture that doesn't have runaway TDP at increased voltages. That's simply part of the game as they say.

AMD has historically gone for cores over frequencies and Threadripper shows no indication of being any different.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old June 19, 2017, 03:58 PM
Dark Knight's Avatar
MVP
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 463
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
Sorry, I don't understand which part of my statement is factually incorrect. I said AMD's Zen architecture doesn't have the clock speed advantage which is due to the inherent limitations of GF's 14nm FinFET node. Not to mention the die itself is about the size of a newborn's head which in itself will cause some pretty significant thermal challenges.

And show me an architecture that doesn't have runaway TDP at increased voltages. That's simply part of the game as they say.

AMD has historically gone for cores over frequencies and Threadripper shows no indication of being any different.
The statement which can be misinterpreted and led to believe that Threadripper clocks speeds will be worse than R5/R7 counterparts. That's how I interpreted it because you didn't clarify or expand what you meant. Sure overclocking is limited but the same could be said for Broadwell-E on a similar 14nm process. Both processes have limitations which require a massive voltage increase past a certain point.

Since you asked to be shown an architecture here is a comparison on a stress test. Take note that Intel rates the 7900X TDP at 140W and same for the 6950X.



So while idle power consumption improved we see under stress testing at stock speeds the 7900X is much more power hungrier than the 6950X. Here is also another example:


Last edited by Dark Knight; June 19, 2017 at 04:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old June 19, 2017, 04:04 PM
SKYMTL's Avatar
HardwareCanuck Review Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 13,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Knight View Post
The statement which can be misinterpreted and led to believe that Threadripper clocks speeds will be worse than R5/R7 counterparts. That's how I interpreted it because you didn't clarify or expand what you meant. Sure overclocking is limited but the same could be said for Broadwell-E on a similar 14nm process. Both processes have limitations which require a massive voltage increase past a certain point.

Since you asked to be shown an architecture here is a comparison on a stress test. Take note that Intel rates the 7900X TDP at 140W and same for the 6950X.



So while idle power consumption improved we see under stress testing at stock speeds the 7900X is much more power hungrier than the 6950X.
That's a really interesting observation. Since i finally received my i9-7900X I'll have to check that out. In the review I alluded to the fact that the platform's C-states and Turbo implementation are all over the place and I wonder if that massive power increase is another indicator of that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old June 19, 2017, 04:10 PM
Dark Knight's Avatar
MVP
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 463
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
That's a really interesting observation. Since i finally received my i9-7900X I'll have to check that out. In the review I alluded to the fact that the platform's C-states and Turbo implementation are all over the place and I wonder if that massive power increase is another indicator of that.
I've added a few more graphs but here is also another additional one:



I'm not sure if it's down to motherboard immaturity but I will say that this launch is as rushed and immature as when Ryzen happened in March. A refined 14nm process should be consuming less on load than it's Broadwell-E counterparts.

Also when you review the 7900X please make sure to compare it clock for clock with previous HEDT.

Last edited by Dark Knight; June 19, 2017 at 04:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old June 19, 2017, 04:42 PM
SKYMTL's Avatar
HardwareCanuck Review Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 13,605
Default

Comparing clock for clock is very challenging due to the way Turbo now behaves. Basically, on the Gigabyte board I am using it CAN'T be turned completely off. Even though it says OFF it still boosts. I'm still trying to figure a way around that little nugget....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old June 20, 2017, 12:33 PM
Bartacus's Avatar
MVP
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Ottawa, Canuckistan
Posts: 265

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
Comparing clock for clock is very challenging due to the way Turbo now behaves. Basically, on the Gigabyte board I am using it CAN'T be turned completely off. Even though it says OFF it still boosts. I'm still trying to figure a way around that little nugget....
Set up a manual overclock at stock speeds?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Intel Kaby Lake Core i3-7350K Review Comment Thread SKYMTL CPU's and Motherboards 10 February 7, 2017 01:49 PM
Intel Kaby Lake i7-7700K & i5-7600K Review - Comment Thread SKYMTL CPU's and Motherboards 42 January 28, 2017 10:25 AM