• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Official OcUK Skylake-X & Kabylake-X Review thread

haszek said:
Yes, that's a quote from Silicone Lottery

Unrelated note, I have had two motherboards die on me so far (MSI Gaming pro carbon fiorst, and just now an Asus Strix) and I'm not sure what to think of that. First motherboards I've had die on me over the three years we've been doing this. Both randomly died during stress tests, simply won't post now. Not making it any easier for me to get these things tested!
Click to expand...


and? that's not related to the vrms....


back on topic, a user on overclock.net tried his OCd 7900x out on cinebench, he's just edging on a score of 2800! with a single threaded score of 220.

so that puts it at

160 ryzen (at 4ghz) vs 220 at 4.9 on skylake x =38% faster core for core

and minus the two extra cores of the 7900x (roughly 2240)

2240 vs 1750 of a 4ghz ryzen = nearly 30% faster overall than the same core count amd chip.

that's pretty ******* fast imo lol.


http://www.overclock.net/t/1632870/skylake-x-kaby-lake-x-combined-discussion/480
 
zornyan said:
and? that's not related to the vrms....


back on topic, a user on overclock.net tried his OCd 7900x out on cinebench, he's just edging on a score of 2800! with a single threaded score of 220.

so that puts it at

160 ryzen (at 4ghz) vs 220 at 4.9 on skylake x =38% faster core for core

and minus the two extra cores of the 7900x (roughly 2240)

2240 vs 1750 of a 4ghz ryzen = nearly 30% faster overall than the same core count amd chip.

that's pretty ******* fast imo lol.


http://www.overclock.net/t/1632870/skylake-x-kaby-lake-x-combined-discussion/480
Click to expand...
Yes, AMD's relatively low clock speeds hurt their maximum potential compared to Intel. Let me know when the Core i7-7820X is only 30% more expensive than an R7 1700. Also what kind of cooling did he need?
 
DragonQ said:
Yes, AMD's relatively low clock speeds hurt their maximum potential compared to Intel. Let me know when the Core i9-7900X is only 30% more expensive than an R7 1700. Also what kind of cooling did he need?
Click to expand...

Fixed??
 
Stop trolling Zombienation or whatever hes called, you know hes a die hard Intel fanboy, just leave him be to his dellusions..

Fact is, its apparent to anyone (except Zombienation i guess) that the 7900X might be fast but it comes with not only a huge price tag for the platform, but a lot of other assorted issues, Intel had to make a lot of compromises to achieve that performance and it shows.

If you have the cash, dont mind having to pretty much delid and put it under water, and need all that power then its a great chip until AMD release their Threadripper which will definitely be slower but will be much cheaper and do 90% of the job for probably 50% of the price ;)
 
haszek said:
Yes, that's a quote from Silicone Lottery

Unrelated note, I have had two motherboards die on me so far (MSI Gaming pro carbon fiorst, and just now an Asus Strix) and I'm not sure what to think of that. First motherboards I've had die on me over the three years we've been doing this. Both randomly died during stress tests, simply won't post now. Not making it any easier for me to get these things tested!
Click to expand...
zornyan said:
and? that's not related to the vrms....
Click to expand...

Did your crystal ball tell you his board failures were not VRM related or did you pull that from the same place as the rest of your opinions
 
zornyan said:
https://youtu.be/rZHteQuGmHc

some ryzen vs skylake x benchmarks.

basically when the 7820x is at 4ghz (stock) and the 1700 is oc'd to 4ghz there's a 15-25% (depending on benchmark /game) performance lead for the skylake x

in some particular benchmarks, when both are at 4ghz the skylake x had a whopping 50% performance lead, such as in ashes of the singularity, which is a game that's been specifically patched to take advantage of ryzens architecture.

x265 encoding is something that seems to show a very very large difference between the chips.

so basically clock for clock, you're getting on average 15-20% better performance from skylake x vs ryzen, obviously the skylake x can clock an additional 20-25% higher which further pushes the lead.

seriously impressive stuff.
Click to expand...

zornyan said:
and? that's not related to the vrms....


back on topic, a user on overclock.net tried his OCd 7900x out on cinebench, he's just edging on a score of 2800! with a single threaded score of 220.

so that puts it at

160 ryzen (at 4ghz) vs 220 at 4.9 on skylake x =38% faster core for core

and minus the two extra cores of the 7900x (roughly 2240)

2240 vs 1750 of a 4ghz ryzen = nearly 30% faster overall than the same core count amd chip.

that's pretty ******* fast imo lol.


http://www.overclock.net/t/1632870/skylake-x-kaby-lake-x-combined-discussion/480
Click to expand...

Some strange results you are pulling up their. Seems like skylake x performs better at 4.0 as opposed to 4.9.

Could possibly be the throttling the dea8uer was talking about.
 
Interesting that they claim VRM throttling isn't actually that important because the CPU throttles first in most circumstances. If that's the case, I imagine VRMs are only an issue for those with delidded CPUs that can actually overclock decently to begin with. The decision to not solder the CPUs really does beggar belief - did they not see this coming? You can't just overclock some Xeons to push your architecture further and further and then skimp on the cooling. Can you imagine the outcry if AMD did the same with Ryzen and they were constantly hitting 90 degrees when pushed to 4 GHz? It's just inviting problems and criticism when you're already a bit on the back foot from a resurgent competitor.

I hope they enjoy their extra $10k or whatever from using TIM.
 
Harlequin said:
Intel do not care; they make a CPU, they rate the CPU and anything above that is down to the user.
Click to expand...

Yeah but it's a bit bizarre that in the scenario you mention intel could make a CPU that can be rated higher if soldered is it not? You knew it was coming though because of that dumb stuff before release saying 'to deal with heat problems on sky/Kaby don't overclock'.

You would think that as intel you think 'right how can we make sure these wipe Ryzen out' and the solder is a no brainier. Someone already raised the answer though, poor yields and wastage not an option.
 
I think I remember an article about Intel not having truly new cpu architecture until 2019/2020 as they didn't consider AMD a threat at all and the retail team were moved to other projects , hence why we are now hearing of i3 being the entry level (points to your yield and wattage issue) and the top end HEDT being massive power hungry and hot cpu`s. Seen a review today of a streamer playing games with both Ryzxen and the 700k - the 7700 is being slapped about when streaming a lot, with anything up to 50% lower fps than Ryzen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom