Tuesday, September 5th 2017

Intel Skylake-X HCC CPU Delidded by Der8auer, also not Soldered

Overclocking poster-boy Der8auer has seemingly gotten his hands on some early samples of Intel's Skylake-X high core count (HCC)HEDT CPUs. The upcoming 12 to 18-core enthusiast-class CPUs are being launched on the same X299 platform on socket LGA 2066 that Intel has already launched 4 (Kaby Lake-X), 6, 8 and 10-core parts already, and are supposed to bring Intel towards a level playing field - and then some - with competitor AMD's Threadripper CPUs, which boast of up to 16 cores.

From this delidding process with Der8auer's own delidding tool, Delid-Die-Mate-X, seems to result a die that is much larger - as expected - than Intel's 10-core i9-7900X. At the same time, it seems that Intel is still opting, again, for not soldering its enthusiast-targeted CPUs, which would result in better temperatures and, potentially, overclocking potential. The fact that Der8auer managed to delid the i9-7920X and didn't recommend against doing it likely means that there is minimal risk of damaging your CPU while subjecting it to this process. This is something the renowned overclocker did do when he recommended that users shouldn't delid their Ryzen or Threadripper CPUs looking for better temperatures, since the fact that these were soldered would likely result in both catastrophic damage and a much diminished chance of operating temperatures improvement through the application of special purpose thermal compounds. The Facebook post from Der8auer with the delidded 7920X likely serves as an appetizer for an upcoming delid video on YouTube, as has been the overclocker's MO.

Sources: Der8auer's Facebook, via Overclock 3D
Add your own comment

171 Comments on Intel Skylake-X HCC CPU Delidded by Der8auer, also not Soldered

#1
cadaveca
My name is Dave
vega22 said:
you say that like you need a tool to do it, like it's the only way. i have done a couple with just a vice and piece of 2 by 4...i know plenty that have just used a craft knife.
SkyLake-X is a complicated CPU with a secondary PCB under the IHS that the IHS attaches to (IHS attaches to both PCBs). Using blades to remove the top is not as easy as other chips, which I have done countless times, been doing delids myself since SKT754.

I don't NEED a tool, you are right, but ensuring that I'm not wasting my time if I kill the CPU does add some security to doing it that I do need, yes, because of the aforementioned complexity. I don't want to accidentally pull the IHS, and then pull the smaller substrate with it.
Posted on Reply
#2
EarthDog
Is it really sub-optimal though? I mean, works fine at stock, and can handle some pretty beefy overclocking. Sure it may not be, 'the best' solution, so I guess by definition it isn't optimal, but, it really isn't holding much back, let's be honest here.

Certainly we would like to have seen 'optimal' TIM(solder), but, again, I can understand the market, most aren't overclocking #1, and #2, those that are overclocking 99% of them are not looking to max the chip out to the edge of stability (as dave said).

So, sure, sub optimal. But, its really not a big deal considering the big picture. It isn't something to be upset about, again considering the big picture and real world results with 'average joe' type cooling. Its like throwing in a raciing radiator in a car when nearly nobody uses that type of vehicle to race...it isn't a racecar. The capacity isn't needed. (yay for a likely failed car analogy!).
Posted on Reply
#3
9700 Pro
Th3pwn3r said:
Personally I think most of us should be able to afford a new build every year easily. That being said I just keep my machines together and just get all new stuff.
I think not. Pretty damn many are still kicking with Sandy Bridge to be honest. ;)

cadaveca said:
Actually, there IS a good reason... supplying power to 6 cores instead of 4 requires a different electrical pinout for the socket. It's not that current chipset is incompatible... it's the socket itself that is. You can't make circuits magically re-form themselves; at least, not yet.
Agree, but perhaps something like making a Coffee Lake supporting BIOS only to "good" motherboards would maybe worked also..? At least in my thoughts. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#4
cadaveca
My name is Dave
9700 Pro said:
I think not. Pretty damn many are still kicking with Sandy Bridge to be honest. ;)


Agree, but perhaps something like making a Coffee Lake supporting BIOS only to "good" motherboards would maybe worked also..? At least in my thoughts. :toast:
The info as to what is going on with unannounced platforms will come out in due time. I currently can't comment more. ;)
Posted on Reply
#5
Vayra86
vega22 said:

the upgrade cycle would be shorter if they if they're only able to reach smaller overclocks.

why do you feel the need to bring amd into a discussion about intel?

could-woulda-shoulda is what you seem to like talking about, what are you trying to achieve?

it is almost as if you think attacking something else will move the topic away from the fact intel are cheaping out by making their top of the line desktop with sub optimal heat transfer.
- Solder or not has absolutely zero to do with requiring to upgrade faster. The vast majority of people are not overclocking their CPUs at all, its not a market share Intel cares about. And at stock, all of these CPUs are still extremely competitive if not top of the line, while not throttling due to TIM. There is no reason whatsoever to prefer solder in the most common segments of the market, or even more than 90% of it.
- The AMD vs Intel discussion matters because a comparison must be made, and has been made. Ryzen is soldered, and considered 'better to buy' because of that by some.
- Intel does perhaps cheap out here. And so does every other company all over the world, somewhere with something. Its business, this is why the comparison also matters - if you have the best product at any given time, you win the race.

Honestly, is this all so hard to grasp? Is this really to be seen as an attack, or merely an observation to serve this discussion? If something is hard to swallow for you, that usually means it has a truth to it that you haven't accepted yet.
Posted on Reply
#6
Th3pwn3r
RejZoR said:
@Th3pwn3r
Well, then enjoy garbage overpriced products because no one is apparently allowed to be critical when appropriate.
Between this and reading your posts about how case manufacturers are also retarded, I feel like you should be making all of your own components and computers from scratch haha.

9700 Pro said:
I think not. Pretty damn many are still kicking with Sandy Bridge to be honest. ;)


Agree, but perhaps something like making a Coffee Lake supporting BIOS only to "good" motherboards would maybe worked also..? At least in my thoughts. :toast:
If you can't afford a $2,000-$3,000 expense on top of all your other costs of living then I suggest a career or another career. I lived paycheck to paycheck for a part of my life, worked my ass off but a better career choice made all the difference much faster.

Vayra86 said:
- Solder or not has absolutely zero to do with requiring to upgrade faster. The vast majority of people are not overclocking their CPUs at all, its not a market share Intel cares about. And at stock, all of these CPUs are still extremely competitive if not top of the line, while not throttling due to TIM. There is no reason whatsoever to prefer solder in the most common segments of the market, or even more than 90% of it.
- The AMD vs Intel discussion matters because a comparison must be made, and has been made. Ryzen is soldered, and considered 'better to buy' because of that by some.
- Intel does perhaps cheap out here. And so does every other company all over the world, somewhere with something. Its business, this is why the comparison also matters - if you have the best product at any given time, you win the race.

Honestly, is this all so hard to grasp? Is this really to be seen as an attack, or merely an observation to serve this discussion? If something is hard to swallow for you, that usually means it has a truth to it that you haven't accepted yet.
The problem is that we are not the vast majority so we cry about these things. We also tend to cry about them as if we were going to spend the $1,000+ on these objects in the first place knowing damn well we're not. :D
Posted on Reply
#7
infrared
EarthDog said:
It isn't something to be upset about, again considering the big picture and real world results with 'average joe' type cooling. Its like throwing in a raciing radiator in a car when nearly nobody uses that type of vehicle to race...it isn't a racecar. The capacity isn't needed. (yay for a likely failed car analogy!).
That's one of the better car analogies imo. I still hate the fact that delidding is basically mandatory if you want to max the chip out, but what you said makes a lot of sense tbh. I'm changing my stance to 'on the fence'. ;)
Posted on Reply
#8
Th3pwn3r
infrared said:
That's one of the better car analogies imo. I still hate the fact that delidding is basically mandatory if you want to max the chip out, but what you said makes a lot of sense tbh. I'm changing my stance to 'on the fence'. ;)
I disagree, a lot of race cars have 1/2 size radiators which are actually terrible for cooling lol. Size and weight restrictions suck.
Posted on Reply
#9
trparky
infrared said:
I still hate the fact that delidding is basically mandatory if you want to max the chip out
They're already damn near maxed out as it is at stock speeds. What? Do you think Intel clocks these chips at a specific speed just for the lulz? No, they clock them at a specific speed because they know that that's the limit at which the chip is stable and will stay within the thermal limits of the design.

Intel knows that (despite the so-called "cheap" TIM) the chip will perform to the factory specifications and be stable while doing so. If you so choose to want to push the chip farther, that's on you.
Posted on Reply
#10
9700 Pro
Th3pwn3r said:
If you can't afford a $2,000-$3,000 expense on top of all your other costs of living then I suggest a career or another career. I lived paycheck to paycheck for a part of my life, worked my ass off but a better career choice made all the difference much faster.
2000-3000 euros/dollars?! Hell no, budget gamer since 2004! :D

cadaveca said:
The info as to what is going on with unannounced platforms will come out in due time. I currently can't comment more. ;)
I guess it's the lovely thing called NDA? :toast:
Posted on Reply
#11
trparky
These new chips are already running at damn near max frequencies. These aren't the days of Ivy Bridge where your overclocking headroom was so huge that you could get a whole 1 GHz more out of the chip. The only reason why you could do that was because they were (at manufacturing time) clocked far lower than they were truly capable of being clocked at. Not all chips could clock that high, some only managed 500 MHz more. It depended upon if you won the silicon lottery on not.
Posted on Reply
#12
cadaveca
My name is Dave
9700 Pro said:
I guess it's the lovely thing called NDA? :toast:
I try to not sign those things, and don't currently with Intel. I just know when to keep my lips together. As long as I do that, then I don't have to worry about signing, too. It's those that can't keep quiet that are forced to sign to get stuff.

trparky said:
These new chips are already running at damn near max frequencies.
No, they aren't. That's AMD, unfortunately. For example stock speed for all cores on my 7900X is 3.3 GHz. I can clock it to 4.8 if I wanted to throw $$$ in WC gear if I wanted to.

trparky said:
No, they clock them at a specific speed because they know that that's the limit at which the chip is stable and will stay within the thermal limits of the design.
No, actually they clock them at a speed that ALL of the chips will work at those speeds, and with a bit of overhead, because of Turbo 2.0/3.0. There will be some that can go higher, and some that go nowhere at all.

It's also not just about stability; max TDP and overall power used play a very significant role in this too. CPUs are electrical devices, and it is electrical properties that determine what each chip ends up as.
Posted on Reply
#13
infrared
trparky said:
They're already damn near maxed out as it is at stock speeds. What? Do you think Intel clocks these chips at a specific speed just for the lulz? No, they clock them at a specific speed because they know that that's the limit at which the chip is stable and will stay within the thermal limits of the design.

Intel knows that (despite the so-called "cheap" TIM) the chip will perform to the factory specifications and be stable while doing so. If you so choose to want to push the chip farther, that's on you.
By 'max it out' I meant with high end water upwards and going beyond safe 24/7 voltages and going right to the edge of stability for no reason other than fun.. Not the tame 24/7 clocks. But even if I was talking about 24/7, I was stuck at 4.5ghz on my 6700k, de-lidding and sticking the waterblock on the bare die dropped temps dramatically and with thermals under control I could go another 300mhz on ambient cooling. No it might not be worth the effort to some, but since mine wasn't overclocking as well as I wanted, I was pretty damn happy afterwards. Even if it was a good clocker to begin with, knowing that 2-300mhz is there unavailable to me would drive me nuts. It's just how I think, I don't care if it's not particularly logical.
Posted on Reply
#14
EarthDog
trparky said:
These new chips are already running at damn near max frequencies. These aren't the days of Ivy Bridge where your overclocking headroom was so huge that you could get a whole 1 GHz more out of the chip. The only reason why you could do that was because they were (at manufacturing time) clocked far lower than they were truly capable of being clocked at. Not all chips could clock that high, some only managed 500 MHz more. It depended upon if you won the silicon lottery on not.
You have it backwards. Like these guys said, AMD is maxed out, not intel. Ryzen 7 maxes out at 400 mhz over its base clock, 7900x can get 1 ghz on high end air over its baseclock. Well over that with better cooling and silicon... even with TIM vs solder. ;)
Posted on Reply
#15
Hood
Its like throwing in a racing radiator in a car when nearly nobody uses that type of vehicle to race...it isn't a racecar. The capacity isn't needed. (yay for a likely failed car analogy!).
The analogy's okay, but a better one might be like using a $300 racing head gasket on your grocery-getter minivan - it won't ever blow out, but the $100 gasket will also work great, and you're probably not going to get in a street race on the way home from soccer practice anyway. If you do get a little crazy one day and challenge a Mustang, it still (probably) won't blow the gasket, it'll just run a bit hotter. So save the $200 and get some better tires or something...
Posted on Reply
#16
vega22
Vayra86 said:
- Solder or not has absolutely zero to do with requiring to upgrade faster. The vast majority of people are not overclocking their CPUs at all, its not a market share Intel cares about. And at stock, all of these CPUs are still extremely competitive if not top of the line, while not throttling due to TIM. There is no reason whatsoever to prefer solder in the most common segments of the market, or even more than 90% of it.
- The AMD vs Intel discussion matters because a comparison must be made, and has been made. Ryzen is soldered, and considered 'better to buy' because of that by some.
- Intel does perhaps cheap out here. And so does every other company all over the world, somewhere with something. Its business, this is why the comparison also matters - if you have the best product at any given time, you win the race.

Honestly, is this all so hard to grasp? Is this really to be seen as an attack, or merely an observation to serve this discussion? If something is hard to swallow for you, that usually means it has a truth to it that you haven't accepted yet.
you seem unable to get the point. solder has an impact on the temp which in turn has an impact on the overclocking headroom. max stable overclock impacts the performance and the performance dictates the upgrade cycle. the more performance people can squeeze from their cpu, the long it takes for them to feel the need to upgrade.

again with the amd attacks....why do you think that matters when they have not been cheaping out with the heat transfer ability of their chips? as said by more than one person they might even need to solder them to attain the speeds they are right now? we are talking about how intel used to solder their top chips and have now stopped. you are the one who is now rehashing outlandish claims in an attempt to justify the comment.

"best" is a subjective term. for most people paying for their cpu price : performance has a massive impact on how they define it, so which chips win that race? for some being able to attain the biggest % of overclock and gain the most "free performance" is the best, which the lack of solder hinders. to others just the feeling that the item they buy is as good as anybody is able to make right now is best. how does cheaping out on the tim effect that "best"?

also if intel did not care about overclocking do you think it would have dedicated platforms just for the ability to overclock?

would they sell different sku just so that people can pay for that ability?

could it be they really do care about overclocking, to the point at which they want to have more control over how much people are able to do it?

infrared said:
By 'max it out' I meant with high end water upwards and going beyond safe 24/7 voltages and going right to the edge of stability for no reason other than fun.. Not the tame 24/7 clocks. But even if I was talking about 24/7, I was stuck at 4.5ghz on my 6700k, de-lidding and sticking the waterblock on the bare die dropped temps dramatically and with thermals under control I could go another 300mhz on ambient cooling. No it might not be worth the effort to some, but since mine wasn't overclocking as well as I wanted, I was pretty damn happy afterwards. Even if it was a good clocker to begin with, knowing that 2-300mhz is there unavailable to me would drive me nuts. It's just how I think, I don't care if it's not particularly logical.
i feel much the same dude, i have seen ivy and haswell chips behave much the same and my current 67k is equally limited.

idk maybe when you buy these things to try and squeeze as much performance out of them as you can get 24/7, the little details like this matter more?
Posted on Reply
#17
cadaveca
My name is Dave
vega22 said:
idk maybe when you buy these things to try and squeeze as much performance out of them as you can get 24/7, the little details like this matter more?
That's an affect (no, not a typo) of the mentality represented by users that do so, that new users that start into this "overclocking" hobby adopt. I mean, after all, that's what overclocking really used to be, before it was turned into a selling point. And because it's an affect (again, not a typo), it might not be the actual right approach. So when it was turned into a selling point, this affect was considered, and now we have things like every single multiplier, PER CORE of a CPU, already having a pre-programmed VID.

And while you may think Intel sells "K" SKU CPUs for overclocking, again, this is an affect of the community. "K" SKUs are ALREADY OC'ed for you. The power and cooling needs are increased already, and that should have been the first sign that THAT is what Intel is supporting... they have pre-OC'd the "K" SKUs for you. That's why many of these chips come without a cooler... you need to buy better than what Intel provides with the other chips, and the power increases considerably 65W - 95W is a near 50% increase in power consumed.

Unfortunately, marketing and reviewers have portrayed this differently than what it really is, but the truth of the matter is printed right on the box. Sure, you do also get "unlocked" multipliers, but do keep in mind that those multis already have VIDs programmed. If Intel truly wanted you to OC as you'd like to define it, they'd not have to waste their time doing things like programming the multipliers above stock with VIDs.
Posted on Reply
#18
EarthDog
vega22 said:
maybe when you buy these things to try and squeeze as much performance out of them as you can get 24/7, the little details like this matter more?
Welcome to the 1%...

As we said, most dont care. Its not a big deal. I like to push things to the limit and this frankly doesnt bother me. I mean, what is 200 mhz more IF IM LUCKY (we went over it at this end of overclocking you arent gaining much..even gave my results).

Again, even with the 'not optimal tim' its still overclocking way further than the competition.

I also agree it has very lite to do with the upgrade cycle by gaining 200 mhz with better TIM. Seriously, 200 mhz isnt going to let you keep your processor for much longer...
Posted on Reply
#19
9700 Pro
cadaveca said:
The info as to what is going on with unannounced platforms will come out in due time. I currently can't comment more. ;)
EarthDog said:
You have it backwards. Like these guys said, AMD is maxed out, not intel. Ryzen 7 maxes out at 400 mhz over its base clock, 7900x can get 1 ghz on high end air over its baseclock. Well over that with better cooling and silicon... even with TIM vs solder. ;)
Well, let's wait that AMD can optimize Zen. Coffee Lake is like Skylake v3 with more cores, so hell yes Intel had optimized their process.

And yes, I still have a Kaby Lake CPU, I'm just not a fanboy.
Posted on Reply
#20
R-T-B
TheMailMan78 said:
I think the point @cadaveca is making but, y'all seem to have missed it is...
Hey, I didn't. :p
Posted on Reply
#21
biffzinker
9700 Pro said:
And yes, I still have a Kaby Lake CPU, I'm just not a fanboy.
Should of waited for Coffeelake, could of picked up your quad core as a i3, and saved some money or gotten a six core no hyperthreading i5.
Posted on Reply
#22
Hood
9700 Pro said:
And yes, I still have a Kaby Lake CPU, I'm just not a fanboy.
Okay 9700 Pro, as in RADEON 9700 PRO, you're obviously an AMD fan, you named yourself after one of their GPUs. But okay, whatever you say, no fanboys here, keep moving...
Posted on Reply
#23
FR@NK
Hood said:
RADEON 9700 PRO, you're obviously an AMD fan, you named yourself after one of their GPUs.
How dare you be so ignorant!

The 9700 pro wasn't made by AMD!

Thats like calling me a General Motors fanboi because my name on some other forum is "Turbo9000"(hands down this is the best car analogy in this thread.)
Posted on Reply
#24
biffzinker
So does that make @P4-630 a Intel fanboy then I presume since he named himself after the Pentium 4 630?
Posted on Reply
#25
INSTG8R
I have have always been into overclocking from my very first modern PC of course Sandy Bridge was the "Golden Age" but when I replaced my 2600K that ran 4.6 it's whole life(and still does as I sent it to a friend in need)with my current 4790K I just don't even feel the need to anymore. It's already at 4.4 even the best chips might get 4.7 I can't justify the effort anymore(Yeah it's still pretty "simple" to do)especially for such a small gain. Sure I wish it wasn't using TIM(tho it was said to be "better" TIM)I just don't see the need anymore. So I'm no longer in the 1%. What I have always wondered as it was Devil's Canyon they made claims of using better TIM well has every processor since been using that TIM or was it just a one time thing for DC and the rest use the bog standard stuff. I mean I hope at least they would with the HEDT if they have stopped soldering those as well.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment