Z270 chipset diagram and 7700K+7600K leaked benchmarks

[NumLock21]

 

 

Intel Z270 chipset diagram.

 

Test benches

Z87

• Motherboard – ASUS Maximus VII Ranger
• RAM – 16GB Crucial Ballistix Sport XT (2 x 8GB) DDR3 1866MHz (10-10-10-30)
• CPU Cooler – Thermaltake Water 3.0 with Gelid GC-Extreme
• Graphics Card – Gigabyte G1 Gaming GTX 980Ti
• Power Supply – BeQuiet Dark Power Pro 850 Watt
• Main Storage Drive – Toshiba OCZ VX500 500GB
• Chassis – Lian Li T80 Test Bench
• Displays – U2868PQU 4K
• Operating System – Windows 10 Pro 64 Bit

Z170

• Motherboard – ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
• RAM – Crucial Ballistix Elite 16GB (2x8GB) 2666MHz (16-17-17)
• CPU Cooler – Thermaltake Water 3.0 with Gelid GC-Extreme
• Graphics Card – Gigabyte G1 Gaming GTX 980Ti
• Power Supply – BeQuiet Dark Power Pro 850 Watt
• Main Storage Drive – Toshiba OCZ VX500 500GB
• Chassis – Lian Li T80 Test Bench
• Displays – U2868PQU 4K
• Operating System – Windows 10 Pro 64 Bit

Z270

• Motherboard – Combination used to determine widespread performance
• RAM – Crucial Ballistix Elite 16GB (2x8GB) 2666MHz (16-17-17)
• CPU Cooler – Thermaltake Water 3.0 with Gelid GC-Extreme
• Graphics Card – Gigabyte G1 Gaming GTX 980Ti
• Power Supply – BeQuiet Dark Power Pro 850 Watt
• Main Storage Drive – Toshiba OCZ VX500 500GB
• Chassis – Lian Li T80 Test Bench
• Displays – U2868PQU 4K
• Operating System – Windows 10 Pro 64 Bit

X99

• Motherboard – ASUS ROG STRIX X99 GAMING
• RAM – 32GB Crucial Ballistix Sport (4x8GB) 2400MHz (16-16-16-39)
• CPU Cooler – Thermaltake Water 3.0 with Gelid GC-Extreme
• Graphics Card – Gigabyte G1 Gaming GTX 980Ti
• Power Supply – BeQuiet Dark Power Pro 850 Watt
• Main Storage Drive – Toshiba OCZ VX500 500GB
• Chassis – Lian Li T80 Test Bench
• Displays – U2868PQU 4K
• Operating System – Windows 10 Pro 64 Bit

 

Benchmarks

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

http://www.eteknix.com/intel-z270-chipset-block-diagram-leaked/

http://www.eteknix.com/intel-core-i7-7700k-kaby-lake-processor-review/

 

 

[BlackJackLTT]

Nice job!

[Guest]

I am mad they didn't benchmark Crysis 3

[stealth80]

They can keep those temperatures that's for certain! Guess i'm sticking with my 4790k for yet another cycle unless RYZEN actually works

[MorganO]

3 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

They can keep those temperatures that's for certain! Guess i'm sticking with my 4790k for yet another cycle unless RYZEN actually works

which temps the stock or OC temps?

[Space Reptile]

nice run of benches , yet again confirming that kabys gains are little to non really 

 

im still surprised why they bothered to make this the 7xxx instead of the 6xxx v2 

[Master Disaster]

Why did they bother testing against different over clocks every time?

[johnt]

4 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

They can keep those temperatures that's for certain! Guess i'm sticking with my 4790k for yet another cycle unless RYZEN actually works

Intel will obliterate Ryzen if it actually works with the 8000-series next year. That's the nature of competition. I don't see Intel lying down and taking a nap while AMD gains market share.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, JohnT said:

Intel will obliterate Ryzen if it actually works with the 8000-series next year. That's the nature of competition. I don't see Intel lying down and taking a nap while AMD gains market share.

They already did. Where exactly can they go from here? 

 

They've already said their future products will concentrate on efficiency over performance.

[johnt]

Just now, Master Disaster said:

Why did they bother testing against different over clocks every time?

 

These numbers tell us nothing.

They test the best of the best from each year. It also tells us just how high you can expect to push each iteration. For example, the 6700k can be OCed to about 4.8 GHz, but the 7700k can be pushed to 5.1 GHz judging from the charts. A 10% OC for the 6700k, so that means the 7700k should be about 4.2-4.4 GHz base with 4.6-4.8 GHz boost. Tack on 10% for OC and you get about 5.1 GHz.

 

It tells us stuff... just gotta read between the lines.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, JohnT said:

They test the best of the best from each year. It also tells us just how high you can expect to push each iteration. For example, the 6700k can be OCed to about 4.8 GHz, but the 7700k can be pushed to 5.1 GHz judging from the charts. A 10% OC for the 6700k, so that means the 7700k should be about 4.2-4.4 GHz base with 4.6-4.8 GHz boost. Tack on 10% for OC and you get about 5.1 GHz.

 

It tells us stuff... just gotta read between the lines.

But as a 6700K owner I can't look at these numbers and do an apples to apples comparison between 6700K & 7700K as in one test they have both overclocked, in another they have only one overclocked to a different speed than the first test and in another test they have only the other overclocked and again its a different speed.

 

Most 6700Ks struggle to go beyond 4.7 so why test at 4.8?

 

I edited out the "they tell us nothing" because that isn't true but the tests weren't consistent enough to be useful from a consumers perspective. It is still interesting data non the less.

 

Still I guess they're engineering samples anyway so even a consistent test cannot be taken as accurate. The real benchmarks will come closer to launch.

[johnt]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

They've already said their future products will concentrate on efficiency over performance.

There better be a huge margin between AMD and Intel for Intel to just not be concerned with performance. It's difficult to say without some numbers from Ryzen. Although if history is to be believed, the Ryzen is nothing special. From AMD's own short reveal, it's a lower priced high-end CPU from 2014. This is likely the case as AMD has shown no significant improvement over its competitors in the last decade.

 

I want to be wrong. Competition is good for us. But it's been a while since AMD has actually been competitive in anything other than pricing.

[Master Disaster]

15 minutes ago, JohnT said:

There better be a huge margin between AMD and Intel for Intel to just not be concerned with performance. It's difficult to say without some numbers from Ryzen. Although if history is to be believed, the Ryzen is nothing special. From AMD's own short reveal, it's a lower priced high-end CPU from 2014. This is likely the case as AMD has shown no significant improvement over its competitors in the last decade.

 

I want to be wrong. Competition is good for us. But it's been a while since AMD has actually been competitive in anything other than pricing.

I think Intel realised Moore's Law is dead and chasing IPC improvement is a process of diminishing returns so they didn't stop caring per se, they just realised that modern CPUs are already close to max threshold and it would be better to work on efficiency over performance.

 

As long as they remain slightly ahead and also offer good efficiency there's not really much AMD can do with silicon to surpass them. They've established themselves as the market leaders already.

 

That's something AMD haven't had the chance to work out yet (or maybe they have hence why their targeting Intel's second from top tier SKU instead of going for the ultimate performance platform)

 

Just to add, yes I hope I'm wrong too and Ryzen kicks ass and puts AMD on a more equal footing. That's great for consumers and might just force Intel into something new. Remember we already know they plan on releasing 6 and 8 core laptop SKUs next year. Maybe Coffee lake might finally see Intel release something more than a quad core into the non enthusiast desktop market.

[Sauron]

It's 3% faster! HYPE!!!!111!

[typographie]

20 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

But as a 6700K owner I can't look at these numbers and do an apples to apples comparison between 6700K & 7700K as in one test they have both overclocked, in another they have only one overclocked to a different speed than the first test and in another test they have only the other overclocked and again its a different speed.

I may be missing something, but I think I see a stock 6700K, a stock 7700K, a 6700K at 4.8 GHz, and a 7700K at 5.1 GHz in every chart posted above. Why can't you compare the data at stock?

 

9 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

I think Intel realised Moore's Law is dead and chasing IPC improvement is a process of diminishing returns so they didn't stop caring per se, they just realised that modern CPUs are already close to max threshold and it would be better to work on efficiency over performance.

I think it has a lot more to do with mobile and low-power computing being an area for bigger growth potential and profits in 2016 than continuing to push out faster and faster desktop chips for consumers who barely needed the performance Intel offered two generations ago.

 

Plus, Ryzen looks like it's aiming more for parity with Intel's current products, but at a cheaper price. I don't think Intel is going to be at a drastic performance deficit, but they may look like a really, really bad value. This doesn't look like an IPC race, at least not from AMD's performance demonstrations.

[JoaoPRSousa]

5.1 GIGAHERTZ

HOT DAMN

[Master Disaster]

26 minutes ago, typographie said:

I'm not sure what you're looking at, but I see a stock 6700K, a stock 7600K, a 6700K at 4.8 GHz, and a 7700K at 5.1 GHz in every chart posted above. Why can't you compare the data at stock?

 

I think it has a lot more to do with mobile and low-power computing being an area for bigger growth potential and profits in 2016 than continuing to push out faster and faster desktop chips for consumers who barely needed the performance Intel offered two generations ago.

 

Plus, Ryzen looks like it's aiming more for parity with Intel's current products, but at a cheaper price. I don't think Intel is going to be at a drastic performance deficit, but they may look like a really, really bad deal. This doesn't look like an IPC race, at least not from AMD's performance demonstrations.

I'll recheck the graphs later, when I read them I wasn't wearing my glasses so its entirely possible I read the numbers incorrectly.

 

My problem with that scenario is ARM. Intel can't be stupid enough to think X86 is going to be the king of the laptop and low power markets for too much longer. Apple are adding ARM support to macOS, Microsoft already has an ARM edition of Windows 10 with an X86 emulator so in 10 years time I strongly believe ARM will be in our portable devices and X86 will be in our power devices (I'd include gaming laptops in power devices).

[typographie]

16 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

My problem with that scenario is ARM. Intel can't be stupid enough to think X86 is going to be the king of the laptop and low power markets for too much longer. Apple are adding ARM support to macOS, Microsoft already has an ARM edition of Windows 10 with an X86 emulator so in 10 Yeats time I strongly believe ARM will be in our portable devices and X86 will be in our power devices (I'd include gaming laptops in power devices).

You can believe that, but don't forget Intel's first Skylake product reveal (and I believe the earliest Skylake launch) was the 4.5 Watt Core M series intended for mainstream laptops. Which is to say, the laptops that move stock prices.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, typographie said:

You can believe that, but don't forget Intel's first Skylake product reveal (and I believe the earliest Skylake launch) was the 4.5 Watt Core M series intended for mainstream laptops. Which is to say, the laptops that move stock prices.

Oh I'm sure Intel will try and compete against ARM SoCs but IMO they never will be able to. ARM CPUs are far cheaper than any X86 offering from anybody (not just Intel) and why they don't offer the same performance as X86 they're getting closer and have already reached the point where all I3s and some low end I5 laptop SKUs could be replaced with an ARM alternative and the customers wouldn't notice the difference. The OEMs could increase profit by paying less for the CPU and keeping retail unit cost the same and we all know how much companies love bigger profits.

 

I'm only guessing mind, I'm no CPU expert and no one can see the future.

[stealth80]

1 hour ago, KOMTechAndGaming said:

which temps the stock or OC temps?

doesn't really matter, theyre both pretty high (but i'm 2 years on custom loop now ) but those o/c temps are insane. I've already read that those temps drop 25 - 30C by delidding and replacing the TIM. Surely intel are shooting themselves in the foot here. Why didn't they just replace the TIM themselves and have the default clocks higher as standard - especially with Ryzen "rumours"

 

1 hour ago, JohnT said:

Intel will obliterate Ryzen if it actually works with the 8000-series next year. That's the nature of competition. I don't see Intel lying down and taking a nap while AMD gains market share.

 

That's exactly my point, the last few cycles have being lazy as shit from Intel, I don't see any real reason for anyone using 3770k + to upgrade yet. The GPU market has advanced a lot in that time -

 

To put that into context, that's an NV 680 vs a potential 1080ti (top of the line to top of the line - price aside)

[NumLock21]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

 

 

Still I guess they're engineering samples anyway so even a consistent test cannot be taken as accurate. The real benchmarks will come closer to launch.

Those are retail chips, not engineering samples.

[Dackzy]

yeah yeah the usual stuff. Nothing impressive, nothing that should make a guy with a 6700k want to upgrade.

[NumLock21]

9 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

yeah yeah the usual stuff. Nothing impressive, nothing that should make a guy with a 6700k want to upgrade.

Why would a 6700k owner upgrade? Only a idiot with no brains and lots of money will upgrade from 6700k to 7700k.

[MageTank]

Really wish these leaked benchmarks included video or photographic evidence. Or at the very least, a screenshot showing a clock and stress test running in the background. We have several other leaks showing 5ghz only being bootable on the 7700k, now we have a guy claiming 5.1 was easy, but only shows a CPU-Z screenshot. The tests are also only pictures of graphs, and no screenshots or videos to see the evidence for ourselves. 

 

I honestly can't wait for the real deal to come out, so we can move on from these rumors and leaks. 

[TidaLWaveZ]

That 5820k, still goin strong baby!