Skylake E

Curlyriff · 22 Mar 2017 at 20:29

WingZero30 said:
Corrected

Ta forgot that happening lol

8 Pack · 22 Mar 2017 at 22:35

Silent_Scone said:
Best is best, eh.

Totally correct!!

Panos · 22 Mar 2017 at 22:51

Curlyriff said:
They like their lakes. So far we are talking about:

skylake
kabylake
coffee lake
cannonlake
icelake
tigerlake

Too many "lakes". Does Intel believes that we are fish to bite their prices, if they keep them at same levels?
The Skylake/Kabylake-E/X ain't going to be some great overclocker. We should be expecting 4.5 max if not less due to heat and power issues packing all these cores in that tiny space.
Exactly the same issues B-E, H-E and Ryzen have.

So if comes to consider £1000+ 8 core Skylake clocking at 4.5, over £380 Ryzen 1700X clocking at 4.1Ghz clearly many i7 going to end up on the shelves.
Even the current pricing of the 6800K at around £380 cannot be fully justified, but only if someone wants a more stable and mature platform than the X370.

Bluntwrapped · 23 Mar 2017 at 08:17

Depending on what AMD do, there's plenty of opportunity for Intel to flesh out their line up with the odd quad core or two, over the next few years anyway

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lakes

orbitalwalsh · 23 Mar 2017 at 08:36

Panos said:
Too many "lakes". Does Intel believes that we are fish to bite their prices, if they keep them at same levels?
The Skylake/Kabylake-E/X ain't going to be some great overclocker. We should be expecting 4.5 max if not less due to heat and power issues packing all these cores in that tiny space.
Exactly the same issues B-E, H-E and Ryzen have.

So if comes to consider £1000+ 8 core Skylake clocking at 4.5, over £380 Ryzen 1700X clocking at 4.1Ghz clearly many i7 going to end up on the shelves.
Even the current pricing of the 6800K at around £380 cannot be fully justified, but only if someone wants a more stable and mature platform than the X370.

tiny space.... thats a BIG socket for 6/12 thread version hehe

I;ve learnt never to question overclocking potential till it hits the shores, some products have surprised when they shouldn't and others have been a great let down

some products between Intel & AMD will cause a price war which we all want, some products will cause a Tech Development War, again which we want. getting both features and price might just be asking for a little bit to much

Intel could release faster chips at lower costs, then better featured cores but at a cost to cover R&D. either way and what ever happens, end of this decade is looking good for Progression .

and hey, we are PC gamers, if we want Budget stuff, Wii U can be had for a great price....

HazardO · 23 Mar 2017 at 15:31

ubersonic said:
The "E" architecture isn't exactly the same just the same generation, I.E Sandy Bridge-E was the first architecture to support PCI-E 3.0.

It didn't officially support gen3, that was ivybridge. The sandybridge xeons however did.

orbitalwalsh said:
just to highlight Skylake-X isnt a Skylake with more cores

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cp...eal_intel_s_upcoming_32-core_skylake-ep_cpu/1

its an expensive beast!

Skylake EP are the Xeons aren't they? (As opposed to skylake-E), you're not going to see a 32 core beast quad socket supporting i7.. Also are we going to see a skylake X I thought the -X was a one off fast kaby quad on this platform.

orbitalwalsh · 23 Mar 2017 at 15:34

HazardO said:
It didn't officially support gen3, that was ivybridge. The sandybridge xeons however did.

Skylake EP are the Xeons aren't they? (As opposed to skylake-E), you're not going to see a 32 core beast quad socket supporting i7.. Also are we going to see a skylake X I thought the -X was a one off fast kaby quad on this platform.

ha, yeah EP is more server side but on the same socket .

should be Skylake X and Kabylake X

ubersonic · 23 Mar 2017 at 16:05

HazardO said:
It didn't officially support gen3, that was ivybridge.

SB didn't support Gen3, SB-E did, SB-E on X79 was the first desktop architecture to support it.

HazardO · 23 Mar 2017 at 16:17

ubersonic said:
SB didn't support Gen3, SB-E did, SB-E on X79 was the first desktop architecture to support it.

Not officially on SB-E on the x79.. It did work, but it wasn't officially supported by intel. Ivybridge-E is where support became official on the x79.

Silent_Scone · 23 Mar 2017 at 16:33

X299 can't come soon enough for me, X99 has served me well - but from what I've heard, some of the features coming are too good to pass up

ubersonic · 23 Mar 2017 at 16:35

HazardO said:
Not officially on SB-E on the x79.. It did work, but it wasn't officially supported by intel. Ivybridge-E is where support became official on the x79.

Nope, all SB-E CPUs and X79 boards supported PCI-E 3.0, it was the architecture that introduced it. I think the issue that's confusing you is that Nvidia did not officially support PCI-E 3.0 on SB-E (due to teething issues with the new architecture, similar in a way to what Ryzen is experiencing with RAM). However even Nvidia users were able to enable PCI-E 3.0 support in their drivers on SB-E/X79 if they chose too.

*EDIT*

See:

At the launch of Intel's LGA-2011 based Sandy Bridge E CPU we finally had a platform capable of supporting PCI Express 3.0, but we lacked GPUs to test it with. That all changed this past week as we worked on our review of the Radeon HD 7970, the world's first 28nm GPU with support for PCIe 3.0.

Simply enabling PCIe 3.0 on our EVGA X79 SLI motherboard (EVGA provided us with a BIOS that allowed us to toggle PCIe 3.0 mode on/off) resulted in a 9% increase in performance on the Radeon HD 7970. This tells us two things: 1) You can indeed get PCIe 3.0 working on SNB-E/X79, at least with a Radeon HD 7970, and 2) PCIe 3.0 will likely be useful for GPU compute applications, although not so much for gaming anytime soon.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5264/sandy-bridge-e-x79-pcie-30-it-works

HazardO · 23 Mar 2017 at 16:43

ubersonic said:
Nope, all SB-E CPUs and X79 boards supported PCI-E 3.0, it was the architecture that introduced it. I think the issue that's confusing you is that Nvidia did not officially support PCI-E 3.0 on SB-E (due to teething issues with the new architecture, similar in a way to what Ryzen is experiencing with RAM). However even Nvidia users were able to enable PCI-E 3.0 support in their drivers on SB-E/X79 if they chose too.

My recollection is subtly different, but it doesn't make much odds.

Here is intel's own block diagram as of the SB-E release..
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5091/...-bridge-e-review-keeping-the-high-end-alive/2

intel wouldn't guarantee gen 3 would work, they would guarantee gen 2 as there were no qualified gen 3 devices available at the time.

Anandtech said:
Intel increased bandwidth on the other side of the chip as well. A single SNB-E CPU features 40 PCIe lanes that are compliant with rev 3.0 of the PCI Express Base Specification (aka PCIe 3.0). With no PCIe 3.0 GPUs available (yet) to test and validate the interface, Intel lists PCIe 3.0 support in the chip's datasheet but is publicly guaranteeing PCIe 2.0 speeds. Intel does add that some PCIe devices may be able to operate at Gen 3 speeds, but we'll have to wait and see once those devices hit the market.

Either way it was very new tech at the time, and IIRC Nvidia blocked gen 3 in their drivers on this platform (although this could be circumvented).
I don't think Nvidia blocked gen 3 usage with an ivybridge-e.

Ayahuasca · 23 Mar 2017 at 17:03

Silent_Scone said:
X299 can't come soon enough for me, X99 has served me well - but from what I've heard, some of the features coming are too good to pass up

Haven't looked into X299 yet, what features are you talking of?

orbitalwalsh · 24 Mar 2017 at 19:53

https://videocardz.com/67610/intel-core-i7-7740k-and-asrock-x299-professional-gaming-i7-spotted

Klo · 25 Mar 2017 at 01:36

orbitalwalsh said:
https://videocardz.com/67610/intel-core-i7-7740k-and-asrock-x299-professional-gaming-i7-spotted

So if this is true, you get a 100mhz base clock increase for an extra 21watts, no integrated graphics on a no doubt pretty expensive new platform. Sounds awful.

Silent_Scone · 25 Mar 2017 at 18:04

Klo said:
So if this is true, you get a 100mhz base clock increase for an extra 21watts, no integrated graphics on a no doubt pretty expensive new platform. Sounds awful.

That's why you opt for the 6 - 1* core. It's giving users the option. There are other reasons the platform will make sense, from an IO and storage perspective to name but a couple.

Nickolp1974 · 25 Mar 2017 at 18:40

From what i have heard the X299 platform is going to re-write the benchmarking rule book, i know most are not interested in this but let me explain,
As we know Kaby X is the 4c8t for X299 and rumours say it will OC like a beast on exotic cooling solutions, surpassing Z270 kaby and then theres skylake upto 10c20t, so basically its a one board solution for overclockers which is fantastic. At the moment pro overclockers need at least 2 boards to be competetive, this platform could change all that, good times ahead

Combat squirrel · 26 Mar 2017 at 14:10

Not sure what to expect to be honest - skylake-e should have similar IPC to Ryzen give or take 10% - perhaps Intel will try its best to widen the gap now who knows.

The only other advantage will be quad channel memory and likely much higher overclock speeds due to intels experience.

All good of course but im disappointed its very likely to not push the IPC - I have a feeling intel will rely on its quad+clock speed advantage only rather than true innovation.

Nickolp1974 · 26 Mar 2017 at 18:13

Probably all set in stone now with regards ipc etc, i'm thinking all they can do is make the price attractive but in saying that not sure they will as it will be the most complete platform on the market.