Con Lake Con firmed [Warning: AdoredTV]

[Chuk_Chuk]

Indeed, but I like to see other people views of him. It seems I am not alone.

If you are looking for like minded people you should go here
link

 

[gavinh87]

I don't need to, it seems there are like minded people right here.

 

[Jono8]

Congratulations - but that's not what the video is about.

The tech industry publishing benchmarks and ranking things solely from systems driving components far above published specifications is the problem.

Calm down, i meant to quote this:

So ppl with 8400 and 8700 do you get your max boost all the time? I don't know, I don't have one just curious how it looks on normal mobo and average cooling.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter though. All that this proves is that poor cooling/power supply can throttle components...which everyone should know anyway.

It isnt "con lake", it works exactly as advertised. I have now had machines with both an 8400 and 8700 (non k) and they hold the full specified boost just fine.

 

[sideways14a]

Probably true though... Certainly quickened intel release schedule but they would released a hex core consumer CPU around now anyway as they would/ were rapidly running out of ways to offer an even slightly compelling upgrade of their own products never mind AMD's

Yes, AMDs success with ryzen most certainly must have pushed Intel to move to 6 cores.
This is more than obvious and cant really be argued against, intel would not be scrambling about with there 6 core push if Zen was only a small improvement over Bulldozers architecture.
The 6 core stuff from Intel is the best series of chips since the 58** series of Haswel parts in my view, a release i bet they didnt want to do.

Adored has a point, like it or not.

 

[AmateurExpert]

Indeed, but I like to see other people views of him. It seems I am not alone.

I thought the topic of the thread is the content of the video, not the person producing it?

 

[Jono8]

What MB and cooling do you use? How long did you test it for?

Z370 gaming 3k gigabyte and i've tested it for ages and have it as my main machine. Every test i have run has the cores pegged at 4.3ghz and i get exactly the same scores as an 8700k at stock (compared with a multitude of reviews of the 8700k).

 

[AmateurExpert]

Calm down, i meant to quote this:

which everyone should know anyway.

You are ignoring the people who buy retail PCs. Just because you're OK, doesn't mean that there isn't a problem for others.

 

[sideways14a]

Calm down, i meant to quote this:



Ultimately, it doesn't matter though. All that this proves is that poor cooling/power supply can throttle components...which everyone should know anyway.

It isnt "con lake", it works exactly as advertised. I have now had machines with both an 8400 and 8700 (non k) and they hold the full specified boost just fine.

I think the point is that now, with the way Intel (and no doubt AMD before someone gets a stiffy) deal with there TDP limits, a crap cooling/cheap MB setup can make a really big difference.
The differences on the graph posted in the video are very large from the left to the right, now for your average Jo, which end of it do you think you will be on when buying an off the shelf box?

Also, like many enthusiasts forums the posters tend to forget or just plain ignore that the vast majority of folk are not interested, have not knowledge and dont care about the detail with technology.
Heck the vast majority of my colleagues wont know about the points raised in the videos and these are people in the industry spending millions a year on tech, if they dont know or are ignorant then the public is worse. Its all very well saying you should know crap cooling makes a crap computer but not many outside of the enthusiast knows crap components = 25% or so off of the benchmarks they see from a flashy youtuber.

 

[Jono8]

Where does Intel say that they guarantee the top boost clocks if cooling and power supply conditions are not met though? I am pretty sure they all say "up to".

Seriously i don't understand the issue here : /, and it is the same for all vendors (the whole boost clock thing).

 

[james.miller]

Adored will kiss his own arse whenever he gets the chance. Ignoring that though, it's intriguing at the least. Intel now rate TDP at the base clock, reviews all review the CPUs with boost clocks. Pre-builds that are limited in cooling capacity and built to Intel's own specs, ie 65w TDP in this case, will then underperform against reviews. It's not very honest is it ?

 

[Armadillo]

The 8400 at least will boost to 3.8 on the meh stock cooler.

 

[Jono8]

Adored will kiss his own arse whenever he gets the chance. Ignoring that though, it's intriguing at the least. Intel now rate TDP at the base clock, reviews all review the CPUs with boost clocks. Pre-builds that are limited in cooling capacity and built to Intel's own specs, ie 65w TDP in this case, will then underperform against reviews. It's not very honest is it ?

In what way? People should research their purchase more. Just a brief read of this and everything is clear -

https://www.intel.co.uk/content/www...ology/turbo-boost/turbo-boost-technology.html

https://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/support/articles/000005641/processors.html

There is no con, everything is written in black and white.

 

[sideways14a]

Ok thats fine, but what about reviewers showing xxx performance when you are more than likely to get xxx - 20 odd % with most builds (well OEM stuff i would expect)
Its fine benching a cpu or gpu (or anything) showing best case performance but come on we really should be seeing the performance under average build setups as well.

 

[Jono8]

Ok thats fine, but what about reviewers showing xxx performance when you are more than likely to get xxx - 20 odd % with most builds (well OEM stuff i would expect)
Its fine benching a cpu or gpu (or anything) showing best case performance but come on we really should be seeing the performance under average build setups as well.

Well then people should see if they can find a review of the actual product they are buying. If they can't then perhaps that is something that needs to be looked into (more reviews of actual oem products), but that is not really Intel's fault, or anything to do with anything being a "con".

 

[Armadillo]

Ok thats fine, but what about reviewers showing xxx performance when you are more than likely to get xxx - 20 odd % with most builds (well OEM stuff i would expect)
Its fine benching a cpu or gpu (or anything) showing best case performance but come on we really should be seeing the performance under average build setups as well.

What's average though? Stock intel cooler? The 8400 holds 3.8 on a friends z370 a pro which is a lower end board and stock intel cooler.

Can't bench individual prebuilts till they are out.

 

[Caracus2k]

So are you both saying that because enthusiast/pc builders know that you should use proper cooling on CPUs to maintain boost clocks, the low base clock (compared to the max single core frequency) of the 8700 and 8400 is acceptable practise?

I'm saying that no one should buy some **** box medion PC and expect it to perform in the same league as one from a better oem just because they both headline with the same CPU...

The problems not Intel CPU's here but a rubbish oem computers...

Or course Intel are engaged in some marketing BS with lots of talk of 'up to' performance figures and hiding the potential shortcomings of all core boost speeds...

Story is the old Latin phrase.... Caveat emptor

 

[james.miller]

In what way? People should research their purchase more. Just a brief read of this and everything is clear -

https://www.intel.co.uk/content/www...ology/turbo-boost/turbo-boost-technology.html

https://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/support/articles/000005641/processors.html

There is no con, everything is written in black and white.

The cpu is rated at 65w. You have to exceed that and run out of spec by a prerry significant amount to match any of the benchmarks out there. Not really much of an issue for many self builds but that wasnt the point of the video.

 

[muon]

Basically Intel TDPs mean that OEM systems will not reach their best case all core boost.

Custom builds may do so but by breaching TDP limits (unless the 100 second rule cannot be changed).

Either way this is pretty good research.

 

[muon]

I'm not sure how any of that computerbase review proves Adored right, but that's Adored for you.
OEM cheaped out on cooling and power supply so the 8700 TBT can't really boost to the maximum all core boost, that's pretty much all there is to it. I do think Intel should have some stricter guidelines for OEMs so you don't end getting sub-par performance due to OEMs trying to cut corners.

This is not OEMs cutting corners. OEMs are adhering to the official TDP of 65W. You can improve the cooling as much as you want but if you want to run it at spec then it will throttle.

Silicon quality will also matter. Intel only promise base and single core turbo at TDP.

 

[muon]

I'm saying that no one should buy some **** box medion PC and expect it to perform in the same league as one from a better oem just because they both headline with the same CPU...

The problems not Intel CPU's here but a rubbish oem computers...

Or course Intel are engaged in some marketing BS with lots of talk of 'up to' performance figures and hiding the potential shortcomings of all core boost speeds...

Story is the old Latin phrase.... Caveat emptor

Again you haven't understood what is happening. Medion could improve cooling but they will also have to allow the chip to consume more than 65W. They can also only do this for up to 100 seconds of sustained load.