Looks like Intel's 8700k 6 core Coffee Lake might be quite a beast.

[Vya Domus]

Skylake-X was clearly meant to run at lower clocks as it was also designed for servers , OC them and power efficiency goes out the window. Coffee Lake isn't , therefore they should be able get some more clock speed out of them compared to 6-core Skylake-X.

 

[EarthDog]

Interesting theory...

 

[RejZoR]

Well, considering most ancient 5820K's clock far beyond 4GHz, it would be very underwhelming to see brand new CPU's with same core count clock so poorly. GPU or not, Haswell-E's have other stuff taking their space on the die so it's about the same...

 

[EarthDog]

Well, considering most ancient 5820K's clock far beyond 4GHz, it would be very underwhelming to see brand new CPU's with same core count clock so poorly. GPU or not, Haswell-E's have other stuff taking their space on the die so it's about the same...

Do you feel that way about Zen compared to Vishera??? You probably should.

The 7820k hits 4.6 ghz avg on water... 5820k averages a bit below that.

5820k - http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_5820k/
7820k - http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_7820x/

@RejZoR - Curious to see your response to this............

 

[Vya Domus]

Well, considering most ancient 5820K's clock far beyond 4GHz, it would be very underwhelming to see brand new CPU's with same core count clock so poorly. GPU or not, Haswell-E's have other stuff taking their space on the die so it's about the same...

People don't realize ICs have hit a wall in term of clock speed. It has become very difficult to squeeze more out of the the same die area like it or not.

Remember Intel speaking in the early 2000s about how they are going to hit 8Ghz in a couple of years down the road ? Yeah...

 

[RejZoR]

Yeah, that was for Netburst which was already melting down at 3.2GHz. And they had plans for like 5GHz or so back then. Then Core happened and arrived, starting with sub 2GHz clocks lol. I wonder why...

 

[Vya Domus]

Then Core happened and arrived, starting with sub 2GHz clocks lol. I wonder why...

Because there is always a trade off , more execution units/instructions/control/cache in exchange for clock speed. You probably wont see much past 5Ghz in the coming years from both Intel and AMD.

 

[cdawall]

That's overclocking. Turbo is a stock feature. Forcing the processor to always use Turbo frequencies is going to significantly increase the voltage/heat/power consumption.

Does your board not allow you to tweak the turbo settings? I am at 4.5 1 core /4.4 2 core /4.2 3 core /4.2 4 core for turbo on my 6700k with a hard to limit set for 65w. According to thr killawatt power consumption is the same and it is rare that more than one core drops below 4.2/4.1 in just about anything.

Do you feel that way about Zen compared to Vishera??? You probably should.

The 7820k hits 4.6 ghz avg on water... 5820k averages a bit below that.

5820k - http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_5820k/
7820k - http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_7820x/

@RejZoR - Curious to see your response to this............

He wont respond it goes against his incorrect as usual misgivings.

 

[RejZoR]

Whole 43MHz difference on average! Man, now you really got me! On 2 generations older CPU made on twice as large fab node. Boy oh boy, call the fanboy police, stat... Yeah, one would expect better from so much newer and better everything. Not to mention 5820K was bottom of the barrel CPU from the X99 platform...

 

[cdawall]

Whole 43MHz difference on average! Man, now you really got me! On 2 generations older CPU made on twice as large fab node. Boy oh boy, call the fanboy police, stat... Yeah, one would expect better from so much newer and better everything. Not to mention 5820K was bottom of the barrel CPU from the X99 platform...

Bottom of the barrel motherboards are already averaging nearly 100mhz faster clocks on a month old platform. X99 is relatively tried and true and quite a few upper tier boards are used in those numbers.

 

[EarthDog]

Whole 43MHz difference on average! Man, now you really got me! On 2 generations older CPU made on twice as large fab node. Boy oh boy, call the fanboy police, stat... Yeah, one would expect better from so much newer and better everything. Not to mention 5820K was bottom of the barrel CPU from the X99 platform...

The point was there is little difference in overclocking between them...you seemed to allude the 5820K overclocks farther, when in reality it is about the same, as you now point out above, and what I pointed out earlier. I'm trying to shed some if you believe the 7820X clocks poorly, then so does the 5820K as they clock about the same with the 7820X having a slight lead. Did I misunderstand what you meant to say originally?

Nobody is talking fanboy/drama anything here Rejz, save your vitriol for where its needed.

Not to mention 5820K was bottom of the barrel CPU from the X99 platform...

You mentioned specifically the same # of cores earlier...now its where the CPU is in the product stack?

But if you want to go down a different road...we can compare the 7640K/7740K and how they overclock since its the bottom of the barrel X299... the only subs I see are 5 Ghz on 7640K and 4.7Ghz+ on 7740K... no a lot of data to really get an idea.

Does your board not allow you to tweak the turbo settings? I am at 4.5 1 core /4.4 2 core /4.2 3 core /4.2 4 core for turbo on my 6700k with a hard to limit set for 65w. According to thr killawatt power consumption is the same and it is rare that more than one core drops below 4.2/4.1 in just about anything.

Sure they do.. just saying many boards, optimized defaults just set max turbo for all cores by default.

 

[jaggerwild]

The usual Intel bashers show up to spew there FUD. Funny thing is he had a 5820 on a top of the line board? Why bother.....a four core on a X99 board is like a volkswagon in the 24 hours of Lemans. Waste of time.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Does your board not allow you to tweak the turbo settings? I am at 4.5 1 core /4.4 2 core /4.2 3 core /4.2 4 core for turbo on my 6700k with a hard to limit set for 65w. According to thr killawatt power consumption is the same and it is rare that more than one core drops below 4.2/4.1 in just about anything.

6700K is a 91w processor.

 

[cdawall]

6700K is a 91w processor.

Correct. I downTDP'd it for use in a silent htpc case

 

[Vya Domus]

The usual Intel bashers show up to spew there FUD.

If this discussion looks like FUD to you I wonder what the Vega stuff is...

 

[Frag_Maniac]

If this discussion looks like FUD to you I wonder what the Vega stuff is...

Yeah I feel Vega is the one that's getting far too much ado. It's one thing if you release a 1080 equivalent GPU near launch of Nvidia's card, but when it comes out nearly a year and a half later, with the speculated price being around $600, it's kinda Meh.

 

[Hood]

Long live socket 1366...........

7 years and counting

This is why people need to have a little faith - Intel knows what they're doing. They can only do what's possible at the present state of the art, and all the wishful thinking and derogatory posts won't change the laws of physics...

 

[GreiverBlade]

R5 1600 ticking all cores turbo at 4.0 is not decisive.

In terms of pricing, on the other hand, it will be a better option to move from my 6600K instead of a 8600K/8700K or even R7 1700/1800X.

6C/6T is nice, but if it's at the same price or higher than 6C/12T then it's not so nice.

Nonetheless I still have the time before I will feel a real need to upgrade and Ryzen will probably have a lot of corrective patch and BIOS or 2.0 will be ready

 

[Frag_Maniac]

R5 1600 ticking all cores turbo at 4.0 is not possible.

Fixed it for ya.

 

[biffzinker]

Remember Intel speaking in the early 2000s about how they are going to hit 8Ghz in a couple of years down the road ? Yeah...

Sounds familiar, although I thought it was Pentium 4 = 10 GHz?

Apparently, there will be no version of the Pentium 4 processor that runs at 4GHz. Intel has decided to switch its emphasis onto other areas of the processor's specifications, such as additional cache, dual cores, faster FSB and so forth. Originally, we were meant to see Pentium 4s that went as high as 10GHz. - https://www.techspot.com/news/16103-intel-drops-plans-for-4ghz-pentium-4.html

Intel also predicted the system bus was going to scale up at 4 GHz?

 

[Vya Domus]

Sounds familiar, although I thought it was Pentium 4 = 10 GHz?

8 , 10 I don't remember exactly , it was some ridiculous number.

Fixed it for ya.

Pretty sure they can hit 4ghz.

 

[trog100]

Yeah, that was for Netburst which was already melting down at 3.2GHz. And they had plans for like 5GHz or so back then. Then Core happened and arrived, starting with sub 2GHz clocks lol. I wonder why...

i will answer that for you.. they came set at high enough clocks to soundly beat amd.. that is all they had to do.. this way they had tons of performance in reserve.. enough to last nearly ten years.. he he..

they are now hitting the performance/heat wall.. current intel chips come clocked near max out of the box.. there isnt much more left.. unlike my core 2 chip which came clocked at 3 ghz which i was benching it at 4.5 ghz..

basically the only time intel or amd clock chips at what they are capable of out of the box is when they have to.. or when real competition exists.. most of the time it dosnt.. one team cruises the other team struggles to keep up.. intel has been cruising for years going right back to when the core years began..

trog

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Pretty sure they can hit 4ghz.

He was speaking in terms of turbo, the R5 1600 only turbos at 3.6, and not on all cores.

Anyways, we'll see how much of this is mere rumor vs truth when they launch, but seeing as how a chart was dredged up, and given what clock speeds Intel has already given to some chips, it's very plausible.

 

[toilet pepper]

How will they differentiate this with the current x299 6 core? Will the buyers of kabylake-x get shafted for being an early adopter or will they gimp coffee lake? This release is interesting because of that.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

How will they differentiate this with the current x299 6 core? Will the buyers of kabylake-x get shafted for being an early adopter or will they gimp coffee lake? This release is interesting because of that.

For one, it's an S version chip, not X. The only thing some people have been able to dig up so far is that it will probably only work on the new Z370 chipset, but that is a mainstream not enthusiast platform. According to what has been found of Z370 is it only brings in USB 3.1, and Gigabit WiFi. While that may not sound exciting, it may also with less bells and whistles be less inclined to restrictions we're seeing on X299.

Anyways, we'll just have to wait and see what the actual details will be.