Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Apr 4, 2016.
You're lucky, mine needs a lot more juice than 1.24, I need 1.42v for a prime95 stable OC.
Business as usual then, if true. Intel is unable to actually make similar products better,and instead add a couple of cores and increase the price to an even more ridiculous point. Had the development and competition been healthy the 10 core processor would replace the old 8 core CPU at a similar price point. 1500$ is extremely much right now with the strong dollar and weak other currencies. Frustrating how all tech is priced in dollars, really.
wow that's actually a very good chip :banana:
my 4.5 still linger at around 1.28-1.29, currently running at 1.3 which wasn't totally stable at 4.6
I'm definitely going to get one of these...
.... when I win the lottery
and yours is the 6 core variant at 1.3, i'm a little skeptical though about the 8 core @ 1.24V. I'd have to see it for my self.
Yah 4.6 @ 1.24V on the 5960X is BS, even a super binned chip won't yield those results.
I'm quite lucky and I can get 1.2v to run at 4.5, for some reason needs 1.225v if I up cache to 4GHz, even if I don't change uncore voltage, it just isn't stable with core 4.5 at 1.2vcore
Intel Core i7-6800K
I would like to know when this is coming out and if it to replace the 5820k? if it less then the 6700k I might get that instead, I do hope it able to sqeeze out an extra 100 STP
Now this I think is a good idea! 10/core/20 Threads emmmmm, think of all the diffrent (porn) videos I can watch at the same time with this chip.I am getting one, there is nothing else to talk about lol.:wanker:
The killing move would be some HBM on board. That would increase the processor speed tremendously (especially in gaming, see the 128MB Broadwell that was getting 4790k speeds), and with a similar IPC to Haswell/Ivy and a good price, then maybe FINALLY the market would normalize.
These products now are sold like this because Intel can sell them like this. I'm impressed they didn't try to gouge out another socket.
AMD claims 40% ipc, if we assume it's accurate that puts it 20% slower than haswell going by single thread benchmarks
That 40% actually puts it on par with Haswell. It's supposed to be 40% IPC over Excavator, which is the 4th iteration of Bulldozer. I can't wait until we have something more concrete. 20% slower than Haswell might be enough, depending on cache/onboard memory, multithreading performance and overclockability.
Yeah if they can sell an eight core with SMT at 80% ipc as haswell for 400$ they're golden, 4ghz I would hope
That 40% actually puts it on par with Haswell. It's supposed to be 40% IPC over Excavator, which is the 4th iteration of Bulldozer. My inner geek still wants to see some HBM on that thing. If it has it, I'm sure it will destroy even Skylake if the non-HBM IPC numbers are like this.
They are less afraid than Intel to have a 150W desktop CPU, so it might actually get higher than 4GHz (remember it's 14nm).
I'm assuming the fx9590 is excavator? By my calculations 40% extra ipc put it below haswell, did you account for clock differences?
Nope it isn't, do you have single thread benches for an excavator part?
Thats a nice diagram!
Not sure if he posted screens of his overclocks, but I remember him getting a 5960X after he was so disappointed with his 5930K that couldn't even reach 4.5 iirc.
Nice one there!
Monster CPUs I'm sure. Computex should be interesting...
Also some interesting calculations on ZEN speed (not mine) for you guys interested:
Here I am wondering if Intel ever plans to release/create anything making a replacement of an old 2600K/3570K a worthwhile endeavor.
The wait continues
It depends on your use and setup but I as well as others got significant improvements going from a SandyBridge to Haswell/Skylake.
I'll wait for actual user's numbers, recall AMD claiming bulldozer was x amount better than phenom back in the day.