[Rumour] AMD's Zen To Have Ten Pipelines Per Core

[Prysin]

For the 6600K you can do it for $320.

not quite...

since the Skylake chips doesnt come with coolers you need to add one (T4 is like a slightly nerfed Hyper212, but its nearly 10USD cheaper... it will do just fine)

You also need DDR3L or DDR4 RAM, since the majority of users who own Haswell/FX systems are using DDR3 (1.5/1.6v) which can/will damage the skylake CPU over time.

 

Realistic cost is:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-6600K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($248.95 @ Amazon)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper T4 70.0 CFM Rifle Bearing CPU Cooler  ($19.99 @ NCIX US)

Motherboard: ASRock H170M Pro4S Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($89.99 @ Newegg)

Memory: Crucial 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2133 Memory  ($46.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Total: $405.92

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-10-03 18:50 EDT-0400

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-6700K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($350.00 @ Amazon)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper T4 70.0 CFM Rifle Bearing CPU Cooler  ($19.99 @ NCIX US)

Motherboard: ASRock H170M Pro4S Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($89.99 @ Newegg)

Memory: Crucial 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2133 Memory  ($46.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Total: $506.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-10-03 18:51 EDT-0400

[Clyne]

no, Aslong as AMD can offer ANY product equal or just slightly behind Intel, then they have "won" a chance to shine.

What AMD needs is to get close to haswell.

What AMD needs is a cheaper platform then Skylake, featuring the same or more features, at a lower price point.

Because today, going from a Z97 4690k to a Z170 6600k/6700k costs around 500 USD or MORE!!!...

If AMD can give you the same features as Skylake (or a few more) for Haswell performance, but at lower then skylake prices. Then all the people who still run pre-haswell systems, or current gen AMD systems will have a GOOD upgrade.

Because if you offer a more feature rich "haswell" option, then that is naturally better. We know that ZENplus will arrive in mid/late 2018. This would without a doubt be faster then Haswell (even if just by 5-10%), but by knowing there WILL be a upgrade path, then the ZEN platform will be more then viable.

ZEN will also come into the game "late". But by then DDR4 prices should have hit current gen DDR3 levels. Thus it is even cheaper to upgrade to AMD.

Intels motherboards will remain a bit pricy because of how they moved a lot of the voltage regulating systems over to the mobo (again). So expecting Z150/Z170 boards to drop in price by any massive margin is a longshot.

DDR4 boards and boards with voltage regulation on the board itself has existed for a long time, so manufacturing costs tied with these features shouldnt be that high. The systems themselves (more traces on the mobo to cover 288 pins for DDR4 rather then 240 for DDR3) and more chips is what is driving prices up.

TL;DR

If AMD can give us Haswell performance with Skylake features at reasonable prices (lower then Skylake) they have won.

Because upgrade wise, they will make more sense then Intel will (intel will be a lot more pricy, but not offer any real FPS advantage to make up for the price disparity)

With a good upgrade to my FX 8320....I at least want M.2 on Zen with performance around Haswell/lakes in the sky at a cheaper price.....

Then it's like back in the 486 days where a 33mhz AMD costed the same as Intel's 12mhz 486. Similar/equal/better performance for the same price or lower....

[MageTank]

not quite...

since the Skylake chips doesnt come with coolers you need to add one (T4 is like a slightly nerfed Hyper212, but its nearly 10USD cheaper... it will do just fine)

You also need DDR3L or DDR4 RAM, since the majority of users who own Haswell/FX systems are using DDR3 (1.5/1.6v) which can/will damage the skylake CPU over time.

 

Realistic cost is:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-6600K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($248.95 @ Amazon)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper T4 70.0 CFM Rifle Bearing CPU Cooler  ($19.99 @ NCIX US)

Motherboard: ASRock H170M Pro4S Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($89.99 @ Newegg)

Memory: Crucial 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2133 Memory  ($46.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Total: $405.92

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-10-03 18:50 EDT-0400

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-6700K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($350.00 @ Amazon)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper T4 70.0 CFM Rifle Bearing CPU Cooler  ($19.99 @ NCIX US)

Motherboard: ASRock H170M Pro4S Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($89.99 @ Newegg)

Memory: Crucial 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2133 Memory  ($46.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Total: $506.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-10-03 18:51 EDT-0400

I hate to be that guy, but you did say "upgrading from Z97 haswell to z170 skylake". Z implies you are using an unlocked processor. Using an unlocked processor with stock cooling is very unlikely, so if you are upgrading from Z97 to z170, it is assumed you already have a cooler. Even if you don't, the stock intel cooler is rated for 95W TDP (the one with the copper base, sold with Haswell Refresh SKU's) so it would support the skylake chips, just do not expect to Prime95, LinX or OC using them.

 

I remember doing the math before. 6700k is like $30 more than the 4790k's average on-sale price, and 16GB DDR4 memory costs about $16 more than 16GB DDR3. Board prices are pretty much exactly the same, with cheap overclock boards starting at around $100, and top of the line PLX 8747 boards hitting $400 or more. 

[patrickjp93]

no, Aslong as AMD can offer ANY product equal or just slightly behind Intel, then they have "won" a chance to shine.

 

What AMD needs is to get close to haswell.

What AMD needs is a cheaper platform then Skylake, featuring the same or more features, at a lower price point.

 

Because today, going from a Z97 4690k to a Z170 6600k/6700k costs around 500 USD or MORE!!!...

If AMD can give you the same features as Skylake (or a few more) for Haswell performance, but at lower then skylake prices. Then all the people who still run pre-haswell systems, or current gen AMD systems will have a GOOD upgrade.

 

Because if you offer a more feature rich "haswell" option, then that is naturally better. We know that ZENplus will arrive in mid/late 2018. This would without a doubt be faster then Haswell (even if just by 5-10%), but by knowing there WILL be a upgrade path, then the ZEN platform will be more then viable.

 

ZEN will also come into the game "late". But by then DDR4 prices should have hit current gen DDR3 levels. Thus it is even cheaper to upgrade to AMD.

Intels motherboards will remain a bit pricy because of how they moved a lot of the voltage regulating systems over to the mobo (again). So expecting Z150/Z170 boards to drop in price by any massive margin is a longshot.

DDR4 boards and boards with voltage regulation on the board itself has existed for a long time, so manufacturing costs tied with these features shouldnt be that high. The systems themselves (more traces on the mobo to cover 288 pins for DDR4 rather then 240 for DDR3) and more chips is what is driving prices up.

 

 

TL;DR

If AMD can give us Haswell performance with Skylake features at reasonable prices (lower then Skylake) they have won.

Because upgrade wise, they will make more sense then Intel will (intel will be a lot more pricy, but not offer any real FPS advantage to make up for the price disparity)

DDR3 and DDR4 are at price parity at this point. I can get 2x8 3200 MHz for $160. Why bother with anything lower?!

[patrickjp93]

not quite...

since the Skylake chips doesnt come with coolers you need to add one (T4 is like a slightly nerfed Hyper212, but its nearly 10USD cheaper... it will do just fine)

You also need DDR3L or DDR4 RAM, since the majority of users who own Haswell/FX systems are using DDR3 (1.5/1.6v) which can/will damage the skylake CPU over time.

No need to buy an extra cooler if you kept the stock from the Z97, and you didn't specify locked vs. unlocked, so I'm just going to let it sit that there are already $80 Skylake options, and you've painted yourself into a corner. Auf Wiedersehen.

[Prysin]

DDR3 and DDR4 are at price parity at this point. I can get 2x8 3200 MHz for $160. Why bother with anything lower?!

Price parity at the top end, at the lower end not quite yet...

 

remember while you may get awesome speed, it matters none if the latency isnt decent too.

Most cheap DDR4 is 2133 CL 15... at that point, the RAM is not even as fast as 1866 CL10

[patrickjp93]

Price parity at the top end, at the lower end not quite yet...

 

remember while you may get awesome speed, it matters none if the latency isnt decent too.

Most cheap DDR4 is 2133 CL 15... at that point, the RAM is not even as fast as 1866 CL10

At the top DDR4 is miles cheaper! a 2x8 or 4x4 3200MHz DDR3 kit would set you back $500!

 

Actually it is. The DDR4 bus removes a fair bit of latency that existed in the DDR3 bus. The bandwidth is also higher. Only the latency at the DIMM is increased. The latency between the CPU and the DIMMs has been decreased with DDR4.

[rvborgh]

here's a quote for you:


http://seekingalpha.com/user/19326301/comments

"What I heard from some AMD guys is that they already start testing "their new cpu" in the lab and seeing haswell level performance."

 

no, Aslong as AMD can offer ANY product equal or just slightly behind Intel, then they have "won" a chance to shine.

 

What AMD needs is to get close to haswell.

What AMD needs is a cheaper platform then Skylake, featuring the same or more features, at a lower price point.

 

Because today, going from a Z97 4690k to a Z170 6600k/6700k costs around 500 USD or MORE!!!...

If AMD can give you the same features as Skylake (or a few more) for Haswell performance, but at lower then skylake prices. Then all the people who still run pre-haswell systems, or current gen AMD systems will have a GOOD upgrade.

 

Because if you offer a more feature rich "haswell" option, then that is naturally better. We know that ZENplus will arrive in mid/late 2018. This would without a doubt be faster then Haswell (even if just by 5-10%), but by knowing there WILL be a upgrade path, then the ZEN platform will be more then viable.

 

ZEN will also come into the game "late". But by then DDR4 prices should have hit current gen DDR3 levels. Thus it is even cheaper to upgrade to AMD.

Intels motherboards will remain a bit pricy because of how they moved a lot of the voltage regulating systems over to the mobo (again). So expecting Z150/Z170 boards to drop in price by any massive margin is a longshot.

DDR4 boards and boards with voltage regulation on the board itself has existed for a long time, so manufacturing costs tied with these features shouldnt be that high. The systems themselves (more traces on the mobo to cover 288 pins for DDR4 rather then 240 for DDR3) and more chips is what is driving prices up.

 

 

TL;DR

If AMD can give us Haswell performance with Skylake features at reasonable prices (lower then Skylake) they have won.

Because upgrade wise, they will make more sense then Intel will (intel will be a lot more pricy, but not offer any real FPS advantage to make up for the price disparity)

[Prysin]

I hate to be that guy, but you did say "upgrading from Z97 haswell to z170 skylake". Z implies you are using an unlocked processor. Using an unlocked processor with stock cooling is very unlikely, so if you are upgrading from Z97 to z170, it is assumed you already have a cooler. Even if you don't, the stock intel cooler is rated for 95W TDP (the one with the copper base, sold with Haswell Refresh SKU's) so it would support the skylake chips, just do not expect to Prime95, LinX or OC using them.

 

I remember doing the math before. 6700k is like $30 more than the 4790k's average on-sale price, and 16GB DDR4 memory costs about $16 more than 16GB DDR3. Board prices are pretty much exactly the same, with cheap overclock boards starting at around $100, and top of the line PLX 8747 boards hitting $400 or more. 

i hate to be that guy, but the intel stock cooler isnt worth a damn shit.

If you want to talk stock coolers, then the AMD cooler is decent, but not good.

 

As for the intel one... it struggled to run prime95 with locked voltage on my 4790k.... Skylake is slightly hotter then haswell DC, so i wouldnt for a moment even think about using that piece of loud ass shit with a 6700k.

 

you can argue all you want, intel stock cooler is shit. The end.

[Prysin]

At the top DDR4 is miles cheaper! a 2x8 or 4x4 3200MHz DDR3 kit would set you back $500!

 

Actually it is. The DDR4 bus removes a fair bit of latency that existed in the DDR3 bus. The bandwidth is also higher. Only the latency at the DIMM is increased. The latency between the CPU and the DIMMs has been decreased with DDR4.

Again, i cannot find any tangible evidence of the DDR4 bus removing any notable amount of latency over DDR3, atleast not the most recent DDR3 boards/products.

Bandwidth isnt higher in every case. bus width is still the same, despite more pins so it all boils down to MHz and CL values.

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Memory: G.Skill Trident X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-3000 Memory  ($319.99 @ Newegg)

Memory: G.Skill TridentZ Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-3466 Memory  ($134.99 @ Newegg)

Total: $454.98

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-10-03 20:10 EDT-0400

 

So, DDR3 is 3000MHz CL12 that gives a bandwidth of around 250GB/s

DDR4 is 3466MHz CL16, that gives a bandwidth of 216.625GB/s

 

Funny that... you pay more, for more performance!!!

 

now let us try a slightly slower DDR3 shall we?

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Memory: GeIL EVO POTENZA 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-2666 Memory  ($72.99 @ Newegg)

Total: $72.99

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-10-03 20:13 EDT-0400

 

2666MHZ, CL11 and with this we get... 242.36GB/s

 

Speed aint everything, latency must be taken into account.

we can see with this that a 2666MHz CL11 DDR3 kit (8GB) costs HALF of a some of the cheaper higher speed DDR4 kit. Yet its bandwidth is higher due to way better latencies..

[patrickjp93]

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Memory: G.Skill Trident X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-3000 Memory  ($319.99 @ Newegg)

Memory: G.Skill TridentZ Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-3466 Memory  ($134.99 @ Newegg)

Total: $454.98

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-10-03 20:10 EDT-0400

 

So, DDR3 is 3000MHz CL12 that gives a bandwidth of around 250GB/s

DDR4 is 3466MHz CL16, that gives a bandwidth of 216.625GB/s

 

Funny that... you pay more, for more performance!!!

 

now let us try a slightly slower DDR3 shall we?

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Memory: GeIL EVO POTENZA 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-2666 Memory  ($72.99 @ Newegg)

Total: $72.99

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-10-03 20:13 EDT-0400

 

2666MHZ, CL11 and with this we get... 242.36GB/s

 

Speed aint everything, latency must be taken into account.

we can see with this that a 2666MHz CL11 DDR3 kit (8GB) costs HALF of a some of the cheaper higher speed DDR4 kit. Yet its bandwidth is higher due to way better latencies..

You're completely ignoring the latency of the bus itself and focusing solely on the DIMMs, amateur. Second the effective bandwidth of 3466 is 64/8 * 3.466*10^9 = 27.7GB/s (at least get the math right). Latency does not affect bandwidth. It only affects the lead time to reaching that effective bandwidth. And this holds true for every memory architecture, and is one reason HMC is vastly superior to HBM: far lower latency. That said: DDR4's latency at the DIMMs is higher. The bus itself is about 30 nanoseconds less, eclipsing the added latency at the DIMMs. GDDR5 moves 32 bits per transaction per chip. DDR4 moves 64 bits per channel. At least get your math straight.

[Dabombinable]

i hate to be that guy, but the intel stock cooler isnt worth a damn shit.

If you want to talk stock coolers, then the AMD cooler is decent, but not good.

 

As for the intel one... it struggled to run prime95 with locked voltage on my 4790k.... Skylake is slightly hotter then haswell DC, so i wouldnt for a moment even think about using that piece of loud ass shit with a 6700k.

 

you can argue all you want, intel stock cooler is shit. The end.

The Intel stock cooler can keep a 4790K cool......if you downclock it to 3.3GHz and heavily undervolt (I could only set the voltage offset by -150mV at stock, and even when underclocked I couldn't set the offset lower).

 

Edit: Its funny seeing a CPU at 500-600mV when speedstep has it running at lower clock speeds.

[Prysin]

You're completely ignoring the latency of the bus itself and focusing solely on the DIMMs, amateur. Second the effective bandwidth of 3466 is 64/8 * 3.466*10^9 = 27.7GB/s (at least get the math right). Latency does not affect bandwidth. It only affects the lead time to reaching that effective bandwidth. And this holds true for every memory architecture, and is one reason HMC is vastly superior to HBM: far lower latency. That said: DDR4's latency at the DIMMs is higher. The bus itself is about 30 nanoseconds less, eclipsing the added latency at the DIMMs. GDDR5 moves 32 bits per transaction per chip. DDR4 moves 64 bits per channel. At least get your math straight.

 

if the latencies you are talking about is so much better in DDR4, then shouldnt the DDR4 sets be generally better by purely having higher speed then DDR3?

There are some discrepancies in your statements here.

 

If performance is better, it should manifest itself in any form of test.

 

 

If anything, Linus's video just reinforces my statement that LATENCY MATTERS!!!

I could accept that the improvements in bus latencies would match say 1866MHz CL 10 DDR3 with 2133 CL12 or 13 DDR4... but the JEDEC standard specifies that you must have AT LEAST CL15 @ 2133. Better timings can be found, but DDR4 kits with better timings are REALLY expensive.

[Prysin]

The Intel stock cooler can keep a 4790K cool......if you downclock it to 3.3GHz and heavily undervolt (I could only set the voltage offset by -150mV at stock, and even when underclocked I couldn't set the offset lower).

 

Edit: Its funny seeing a CPU at 500-600mV when speedstep has it running at lower clock speeds.

so it is great because if i just nerf my performance it will work.

Awesome reasoning.

 

NOT!

 

either your cooler can let a chip run at 100% at DEFAULT STOCK SETTINGS! OR IT IS NOT ADEQUATE AND THUS SUCKS!

 

IN THE CASE OF THE INTEL STOCK COOLER. IT JUST SUCKS!!!!

 

just deal with it and move on. It isnt the end of the world if a stock cooler is shit. It just means that you need something better.

If you buy a i7, then i hope for the love of god that you aint such a cheapskate that you dont bother with a better cooler. At such budgets a more efficient and more quiet solution is a "must". If not just by principle

[patrickjp93]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utWnjA4NzSA

if the latencies you are talking about is so much better in DDR4, then shouldnt the DDR4 sets be generally better by purely having higher speed then DDR3?

There are some discrepancies in your statements here.

If performance is better, it should manifest itself in any form of test.

If anything, Linus's video just reinforces my statement that LATENCY MATTERS!!!

I could accept that the improvements in bus latencies would match say 1866MHz CL 10 DDR3 with 2133 CL12 or 13 DDR4... but the JEDEC standard specifies that you must have AT LEAST CL15 @ 2133. Better timings can be found, but DDR4 kits with better timings are REALLY expensive.

That would depend on whether there are conflicts between optimization patterns for each memory architecture, and it seems Skylake is in general a sidestep with improvement in some areas and losses in others under both memory architectures. Latency matters, but there are other factors at play we need to take into account with tests such as comparing say 4 cores of the 5960X against the 6700K with both on dual-channel DDR4. We don't have enough evidence to be conclusive yet.

[MageTank]

i hate to be that guy, but the intel stock cooler isnt worth a damn shit.

If you want to talk stock coolers, then the AMD cooler is decent, but not good.

 

As for the intel one... it struggled to run prime95 with locked voltage on my 4790k.... Skylake is slightly hotter then haswell DC, so i wouldnt for a moment even think about using that piece of loud ass shit with a 6700k.

 

you can argue all you want, intel stock cooler is shit. The end.

You completely ignored what i said, then assumed i was trying to argue something that i was not. I never said the stock cooler is good. I said the one sold with Haswell Refresh SKU's (The one with the copper base) is rated to handle a 95w TDP. I also said that it's only usable if you do not run Prime95 or LinX (AVX2 makes Haswell one hot little monster). 

 

I hate to be that guy, but you did say "upgrading from Z97 haswell to z170 skylake". Z implies you are using an unlocked processor. Using an unlocked processor with stock cooling is very unlikely, so if you are upgrading from Z97 to z170, it is assumed you already have a cooler. Even if you don't, the stock intel cooler is rated for 95W TDP (the one with the copper base, sold with Haswell Refresh SKU's) so it would support the skylake chips, just do not expect to Prime95, LinX or OC using them.

 

I remember doing the math before. 6700k is like $30 more than the 4790k's average on-sale price, and 16GB DDR4 memory costs about $16 more than 16GB DDR3. Board prices are pretty much exactly the same, with cheap overclock boards starting at around $100, and top of the line PLX 8747 boards hitting $400 or more. 

My brother has a 4690k and uses the stock cooler to play GTA 5 and other modern AAA titles without passing 75C ingame. One can say the i7 with HT can get slightly hotter, but should never pass 80C in gaming at stock clocks assuming the air flow in your case is not utter garbage. Once again, prime95 is worst case scenario for CPU's, and you should know better to run it on a stock cooler on ANY CPU (Especially when dealing with Haswell and AVX2)

 

http://www.ocdrift.com/review-larkooler-skywater-330l-liquid-cooling-system/

 

 

 

During the benchmark testing, we used Intel’s latest processor, namely the Core i7-4790K “Devil’s Canyon” clocked at 4.0GHz and with a 4.4GHz Turbo peak. It was then overclocked to 4.6GHz with a supplied voltage of 1.232v. We used RealTemp v3.70 to record the CPU core temperatures. Benchmark wise, we run Prime95 v27.9 coded with AVX libraries for maximum heat output. Prime95 will stress all four cores and eight threads to 100% usage, which will help us to understand how hot this processor can get with each cooler in worst case scenarios. It should be noted that the ambient temperature during the testing was 33°C, in a non-air conditioned room.

 

 

Now, this is cutting it dangerously close (TJ Maxx is 100C for the 4790k if memory serves me correctly) but this is Prime95 27.9 load. This is worst case scenario. 

 

Again, i am not trying to tell you to use the stock cooler, but i refuse to let you say it won't work on Skylake, when it is technically rated to run the stock clocked Haswell chips out of the box.

 

Now, in regards to your "Skylake is hotter than Haswell" comment, every review on the internet disagrees. Skylake is either the same, or lower than Haswell in the reviews i've seen.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Haswell-vs-Skylake-S-i7-4790K-vs-i7-6700K-641/#ThermalOutput

http://www.overclockers.com/intel-skylake-i7-6700k-cpu-review/ (Scroll down a ton)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skylake-intel-core-i7-6700k-core-i5-6600k,4252-11.html (Scroll down, they said it runs cooler than the 4770k)

 

So, from this post, we learn 3 things.

 

1: My post is stupidly long.

2. Stock cooler is terrible, but it will get the job done for normal use/gaming.

3. Haswell and Skylake's slight TDP difference means diddly squat.

 

Bonus knowledge: Unlike Patrick, MageTank brings sources for his claims! Just kidding @patrickjp93. I love you, and you know that by now.

[HKZeroFive]

This should be in CPUs subforum or something, not News..

Don't know what you're on about, why would I post this in a thread full of CPU tech support questions? Pretty absurd.

[patrickjp93]

You completely ignored what i said, then assumed i was trying to argue something that i was not. I never said the stock cooler is good. I said the one sold with Haswell Refresh SKU's (The one with the copper base) is rated to handle a 95w TDP. I also said that it's only usable if you do not run Prime95 or LinX (AVX2 makes Haswell one hot little monster).

My brother has a 4690k and uses the stock cooler to play GTA 5 and other modern AAA titles without passing 75C ingame. One can say the i7 with HT can get slightly hotter, but should never pass 80C in gaming at stock clocks assuming the air flow in your case is not utter garbage. Once again, prime95 is worst case scenario for CPU's, and you should know better to run it on a stock cooler on ANY CPU (Especially when dealing with Haswell and AVX2)

http://www.ocdrift.com/review-larkooler-skywater-330l-liquid-cooling-system/

Now, this is cutting it dangerously close (TJ Maxx is 100C for the 4790k if memory serves me correctly) but this is Prime95 27.9 load. This is worst case scenario.

Again, i am not trying to tell you to use the stock cooler, but i refuse to let you say it won't work on Skylake, when it is technically rated to run the stock clocked Haswell chips out of the box.

Now, in regards to your "Skylake is hotter than Haswell" comment, every review on the internet disagrees. Skylake is either the same, or lower than Haswell in the reviews i've seen.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Haswell-vs-Skylake-S-i7-4790K-vs-i7-6700K-641/#ThermalOutput

http://www.overclockers.com/intel-skylake-i7-6700k-cpu-review/ (Scroll down a ton)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skylake-intel-core-i7-6700k-core-i5-6600k,4252-11.html (Scroll down, they said it runs cooler than the 4770k)

So, from this post, we learn 3 things.

1: My post is stupidly long.

2. Stock cooler is terrible, but it will get the job done for normal use/gaming.

3. Haswell and Skylake's slight TDP difference means diddly squat.

Bonus knowledge: Unlike Patrick, MageTank brings sources for his claims! Just kidding @patrickjp93. I love you, and you know that by now.

:eyeroll: My only necessitated point was that if you kept a stock cooler, or hell, reused any of the older ones with an lga115x mounting bracket, then there's no need to buy a new cooler.

[MageTank]

:eyeroll: My only necessitated point was that if you kept a stock cooler, or hell, reused any of the older ones with an lga115x mounting bracket, then there's no need to buy a new cooler.

i know. I agreed with that point earlier, in the post that i quoted on myself. I just love messing with you, that's all.

[LukaP]

Its looking like it though next year. lower processing nodes are making gpus more powerful than ever. 28nm is really holding back nvidia and to an extent amd

but not a quantum leap... it will be like always, 30% increase in FPS

[Humbug]

but not a quantum leap... it will be like always, 30% increase in FPS

That's what I expect too. But people have higher expectations because of what Nvidia said. 100% to 1000% faster

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/anton-shilov/nvidia-next-gen-pascal-gpus-to-offer-up-to-10-times-higher-performance-than-maxwell/

[LukaP]

That's what I expect too. But people have higher expectations because of what Nvidia said. 100% to 1000% faster

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/anton-shilov/nvidia-next-gen-pascal-gpus-to-offer-up-to-10-times-higher-performance-than-maxwell/

yes but that is probably performance per watt or something along those lines. in the end we will see the same thing as maxwell. a GP104 that will be 30% faster than GM200, while being a 160W part instead of 250W.

 

On a high level, pascal is nothing but Maxwell + DPFP CUDA on 14nm FF+, so dont expect too much

[kacper]

I'm wondering if Zen will have soldered IHS and how well will they overclock .

With Intel it's been getting shittier with every year . I hope that it's just Intel policy , not actual technological limitations.

[LukaP]

I'm wondering if Zen will have soldered IHS and how well will they overclock .

With Intel it's been getting shittier with every year . I hope that it's just Intel policy , not actual technological limitations.

I doubt they will be soldering it. Its a risk to the die, especially with transistors this small. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

I'm wondering if Zen will have soldered IHS and how well will they overclock .

With Intel it's been getting shittier with every year . I hope that it's just Intel policy , not actual technological limitations.

It is technological limitations. This has been confirmed literally tens if not hundreds of times. You can't use a solder anymore because at the small transistor size it ruins the chip.

Now there are other solutions available but Intel doesn't feel they need to use them. Like better standard type tim or ideally (from a temp standpoint not really from a technology perspective) a liquid metal tim as that has been shown to massively (like up to 10-30C reduce core temps with high powered coolers.)