Jump to content

Intel Core i7 7740K

NumLock21
1 minute ago, Citadelen said:

Yeah I see my error, I responded to his point about roadmaps but accidentally contradicted my original point. I'm not surprised honestly, it's almost one am here and I'm battling a nasty cold. In all honesty I still can't work out what you're trying to say in the beginning of your post, I'm sorry it's too taxing for me. xD

 

Oh and don't worry I haven't the faintest idea what @Cracklingice is trying to say either. :/

Ah yes, a 1-3% IPC gain, Intel is REALLY, going to shake up the market this time.

 

3 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I am sorry, but I did not understand this post at all, and I've read it 3 times now. I do not mean to be rude, but can you re-structure this for me so that I can understand it? Specifically this part:

 

HEDT has been a year behind consumer hardware and with the higher core counts they don't always reach the same clock speeds.  This has made consumer hardware the faster choice for anything that did not scale past 4 core with HT efficiently.  By putting the newest cores on the HEDT platform with the consumer core counts one cycle before they scale them up to the high core counts allows HEDT to both serve the high core count and the high single thread market at the same time. 

There's something cool here - you just can't see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Citadelen said:

Yeah I see my error, I responded to his point about roadmaps but accidentally contradicted my original point. I'm not surprised honestly, it's almost one am here and I'm battling a nasty cold. In all honesty I still can't work out what you're trying to say in the beginning of your post, I'm sorry it's too taxing for me. xD

 

Oh and don't worry I haven't the faintest idea what @Cracklingice is trying to say either. :/

Ah yes, a 1-3% IPC gain, Intel is REALLY, going to shake up the market this time.

The beginning of my post was me setting up a joke about "Past MageTank" which is me, quoting myself, from a time where I am less-dumb. Ongoing joke I use to make points with things I've previously stated, without having to repeat myself. Basically, someone else brought up the 7740k as if it were a direct response to Ryzen, before Ryzen released, and I pointed out that the 7740k's specs was known since September of 2016, long before we even had concrete information about the specs of Ryzen. If it were a response, Intel would not have let that info slip, and certainly would have waited to see what Ryzen could do, beforehand. We all know chips can't be made in a day, and that this takes months/years of planning and execution for a product to come of it. We also knew a fast quad core was coming to the enthusiast platform before the 7740k, back when that 5.1ghz OEM Xeon was announced. This is likely a cutdown/altered design of that.

 

My point is, not everything has to be a direct response to AMD. Now, if they released that i5 with Hyperthreading that was rumored, then MAYBE I'd be willing to consider that a response, but having a quad-core i7 on the HEDT platform won't really shock me. They already have quad core Xeons on X99, but people seem to have forgotten that completely. 

My (incomplete) memory overclocking guide: 

 

Does memory speed impact gaming performance? Click here to find out!

On 1/2/2017 at 9:32 PM, MageTank said:

Sometimes, we all need a little inspiration.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Cracklingice said:

 

HEDT has been a year behind consumer hardware and with the higher core counts they don't always reach the same clock speeds.  This has made consumer hardware the faster choice for anything that did not scale past 4 core with HT efficiently.  By putting the newest cores on the HEDT platform with the consumer core counts one cycle before they scale them up to the high core counts allows HEDT to both serve the high core count and the high single thread market at the same time. 

Thank you, that was very clear and cohesive. Sometimes, I catch "the dumb" and cannot read properly. As for this case of "Catching Up", it would make no sense to release Skylake HEDT, then delay Kaby HEDT because they are the exact same thing. Same IPC, same overall design. Kabylake is to Skylake, as Devil's Canyon is to Haswell. Architecturally speaking, they are nearly identical. If they released Skylake HEDT without Kaby HEDT, Skylake HEDT would still technically be "caught up" to the current consumer platform. This is simply the cost of Intel's stagnant gains. After all, 10nm is proving to be difficult, and silicon doesn't have much left in store for us. 

My (incomplete) memory overclocking guide: 

 

Does memory speed impact gaming performance? Click here to find out!

On 1/2/2017 at 9:32 PM, MageTank said:

Sometimes, we all need a little inspiration.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, MonkeyBrainz said:

And then there's the rumors surrounding the Skylake E5/E7 L2 and L3 cache design changes. If a quad core with double the L2 cache of current KBL came out, you'd see a pretty hefty boost. It's the primary reason AMD's 8-core chips do so well in Cinebench despite having worse actual IPC (measured by Agner Fog's instruction latency scripts). When more of your program and data fits in L2, you get fewer cache misses. Every L1 cache miss is 15 cycles of wasted time. Every L2 miss is 45 cycles. If you have to go all the way back to main memory, you're talking a couple hundred.

I am just hoping the rumors of AVX3(512) are true. Man... imagine the lifting power of those bad boys.

My (incomplete) memory overclocking guide: 

 

Does memory speed impact gaming performance? Click here to find out!

On 1/2/2017 at 9:32 PM, MageTank said:

Sometimes, we all need a little inspiration.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MageTank said:

-snip-

Huh, okay, I only assumed it had been a direct response because I had personally only just heard about it recently.

 

8 minutes ago, MonkeyBrainz said:

-snip-

If you believe there's so much more progress to be made on the CPU front then YOU, not me, are delusional. Also what does you mean "all that money", granted Intel spends a lot of money in R&D, but they also compete in many, many different markets.

        Pixelbook Go i5 Pixel 4 XL 

  

                                     

 

 

                                                                           

                                                                              

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MonkeyBrainz said:

-snip-

Do you have any citations for the breakdown of Intels R&D spending, I'd be quite interested to see it. Seeing as I don't know much about the architectures themselves I'm going to assume that Intel would release these new technologies if they had them so as to propell there own growth among their own users, at the moment you have no reason to upgrade if you own Ivy Bridge and above. I'd be interested to see @MageTank's view on what you're saying, as I feel able to trust his knowledge, or even *gasp* the late and infamous Patrick over you, who seems relatively new here.

        Pixelbook Go i5 Pixel 4 XL 

  

                                     

 

 

                                                                           

                                                                              

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't there also rumor that Intel wants to focus on enterprise hardware?  Perhaps the move of the i5 and i7 to the enthusiast platform is the start of a potential move that sees a discontinuation of celeron, pentium, i3 and consumer desktop chipsets entirely.  Then they can focus on enterprise Xeon first and work their way down into consumer hardware by leaving PCs solely on a compatible platform with the enterprise cores.  Perhaps the entire consumer line would be cut downs that didn't meet the requirements set forth to be a Xeon?  It would certainly make production and R&D a lot cheaper.  It would also somewhat bait AMD into focusing on the cheaper segment so intel could work the high end stuff harder.

There's something cool here - you just can't see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Citadelen said:

Do you have any citations for the breakdown of Intels R&D spending, I'd be quite interested to see it. Seeing as I don't know much about the architectures themselves I'm going to assume that Intel would release these new technologies if they had them so as to propell there own growth among their own users, at the moment you have no reason to upgrade if you own Ivy Bridge and above. I'd be interested to see @MageTank's view on what you're saying, as I feel able to trust his knowledge, or even *gasp* the late and infamous Patrick over you, who seems relatively new here.

You know, this new guy reminds me of him. It's probably why I already like him.

 

Either way, my view on what anyone says is pretty worthless. I am a nobody that knows just as much as anyone else. I am not in "the industry", and most of what I know is self taught through trial and error. I can however, say that the instruction sets we have available to us, are vastly underused. It baffles me as to why, but then when you look at the average consumer, you start to understand. People see their CPU's getting hot, and immediately blame the programs that they are running, without understanding what heat means in that context. Yes, heat can mean your cooling solution is bad. However, heat can also mean that more parts of your CPU is being used, meaning less is being wasted. This, in a sense, means there is a relation to heat and efficiency. By using some of the more "efficient" instruction sets, you will get more out of your processors, at the cost of them running hotter. I believe this is part of the reason why we don't see instruction sets like AVX get wide adoption, as people will likely freak out that their pseudo-stable overclocks no longer work under intense loads of efficient math.

 

Then again, I still know absolutely nothing about software, so take what I say with a grain of salt. 

My (incomplete) memory overclocking guide: 

 

Does memory speed impact gaming performance? Click here to find out!

On 1/2/2017 at 9:32 PM, MageTank said:

Sometimes, we all need a little inspiration.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

-snip-

I do value your input quite a bit you know, you know more than most and aren't obnoxious about it. I swear to god, if they're a new Patrick I'll have anuryism, I could barely stand him. xD

5 minutes ago, MonkeyBrainz said:

-snip-

Nope, sorry, can't find any mention of an R&D break down, I'm sorry but you're going to have to find it for me. 

As per IPC gains, are you referring to instructions? If you are then I understand where you're coming from, but that's a different game all together, devs simply do not seem to use them, there's only so much an instruction can do if it's not being used.

        Pixelbook Go i5 Pixel 4 XL 

  

                                     

 

 

                                                                           

                                                                              

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

One reason Intel might be putting a 4c8t on the HEDT is the actual work-flow needs.  As the insane amount of benchmarks dropping because of Ryzen has shown, pretty clearly, that barely anything that isn't an Encode/Decode/Compile program gets very little benefit from getting beyond 4c8t chips.  If that's the Software environment that Intel is dealing with, adding a HEDT 4c8t chip makes a lot of sense to bring all of the Workstation needs onto a single platform.

 

From a large-scale Corporate buying scheme, it makes a lot of sense for someone like Dell to want a slate of Workstation Computers and offering that type of chip.  So if one thinks of the situation that 4c8t is better suited as the Low-version of the High-end rather than the High-version of the Consumer-version, it makes a lot of sense from Intel's perspective. It might also streamline part of their product stack for the OEMs they provide the chips to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Citadelen said:

I do value your input quite a bit you know, you know more than most and aren't obnoxious about it. I swear to god, if they're a new Patrick I'll have anuryism, I could barely stand him. xD

-irrelevant snip-

If they're a new Patrick then I'll have to refill my popcorn subscription. Personally I liked seeing (but not being involved in) slapfights about Intel > AMD with wrong predictions and missing data. It was a slaughter and I salute you guys for putting up with him for our/my entertainment o7

Ensure a job for life: https://github.com/Droogans/unmaintainable-code

Actual comment I found in legacy code: // WARNING! SQL injection here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MonkeyBrainz said:

-snip-

Yeah, you didn't need to type that, Patrick explained it before, many, many times.

5 hours ago, MonkeyBrainz said:

You're gonna have a really bad time then. I've read the guy's stuff. Spot on. A bit heated, but nonetheless correct.

I appreciated the information Patrick brought to the conversation, but the issues arose when he was wrong, he was so obnoxious and toxic towards anywon who tried to contradict him, hence the ban.

        Pixelbook Go i5 Pixel 4 XL 

  

                                     

 

 

                                                                           

                                                                              

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, MageTank said:

I can however, say that the instruction sets we have available to us, are vastly underused. It baffles me as to why, but then when you look at the average consumer, you start to understand. People see their CPU's getting hot, and immediately blame the programs that they are running, without understanding what heat means in that context. Yes, heat can mean your cooling solution is bad. However, heat can also mean that more parts of your CPU is being used, meaning less is being wasted. This, in a sense, means there is a relation to heat and efficiency. By using some of the more "efficient" instruction sets, you will get more out of your processors, at the cost of them running hotter. I believe this is part of the reason why we don't see instruction sets like AVX get wide adoption, as people will likely freak out that their pseudo-stable overclocks no longer work under intense loads of efficient math.

This is entirely correct. It's also the reason that Intel E5 and E7 series Xeon chips have such low clock rates and high TDPs. They are under the expectation that they will be largely used in data centers and servers that will utilize them entirely. Most of us do not run software that will utilize them entirely. Yet in cases like large databases where they are doing nothing but crunching numbers they run them full tilt 24/7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×