The Skylake-X Mess Explored: Thermal Paste And Runaway Power

[Valentyn]

5 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Pretty much everyone knows that:

• Skylake-X runs hot, because they are not soldered
• Low-mid end motherboards have crap coolers so the VRM runs hot.

I was hovering over the buy now button today. Where is Threadripper already! 

 

Ended up ordering 32GB of 4266Mhz DDR4 in the meantime to play with in my system since it was on sale at just under €500 for it all as well.

 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, Valentyn said:

I was hovering over the buy now button today. Where is Threadripper already! 

Do you use AVX? Because if you do Threadripper is just not worth the wait.

1 minute ago, Valentyn said:

Ended up ordering 32GB of 4266Mhz DDR4 in the meantime to play with in my system since it was on sale at just under €500 for it all as well.

I doubt that the 5820K will be able to handle 4266MHz, but it's worth a shot

[The Benjamins]

4 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

I was hovering over the buy now button today. Where is Threadripper already! 

 

Ended up ordering 32GB of 4266Mhz DDR4 in the meantime to play with in my system since it was on sale at just under €500 for it all as well.

 

the expected launch of Threadripper is July 27 - Aug 10, based on the information about the threadripper alianware PC

[Valentyn]

7 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Do you use AVX? Because if you do Threadripper is just not worth the wait.

I doubt that the 5820K will be able to handle 4266MHz, but it's worth a shot

 

Only AVX is from Handbrake and Zen does really well compared to Intel there at least.
Yeah getting the 4266Mhz since Skylake X will run'em at 4000-4133 without too much hassle apparently; and seen Ryzen users getting them to 3466-3600 at CL14 on current AGESA update.

Considering the price they cost the same as "normal" 3600Mhz; so figured "why not". Unless they die or are faulty I can use them until DDR5 is out in some other systems if I move/upgrade.

 

4 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

the expected launch of Threadripper is July 27 - Aug 10, based on the information about the threadripper alianware PC

Yeah looks to line up with when RX Vega is due as well. I'm not in much of a rush; just want to scratch that tech upgrade itch.

[WarWeeny]

1 hour ago, knightslugger said:

I mean clocking a 1700 to 4ghz. it ain't exactly a walk in the park.

 

it is pretty much a given on each processor, the overclocking on the ryzen CPU's are pretty simple.

[PCGuy_5960]

3 minutes ago, WarWeeny said:

it is pretty much a given on each processor, the overclocking on the ryzen CPU's are pretty simple.

4GHz is not a given unless you have an 1800X or 1600X:

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/ryzen_7_1800x/

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/ryzen_7_1700x/

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/ryzen_7_1700/

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/ryzen_5_1600x/

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/ryzen_5_1600/

[WarWeeny]

1 hour ago, Morgan MLGman said:

You cannot compare a Ryzen R7 1700 with an i9-7900X, you could have more than three 1700s for the price of one 7900X

 

No where in the article states that it is about the 7900x though.

I was referring to the 7820x (or w/e the name is, the 8-core one), since it is also an 8-core processor, just like the 1700 and 1800 series of AMD.

 

But even so, when compared to an i9, the price still doesn't justify the performance it is giving seeing it is a really expensive piece of hardware compared to ryzen CPU's

[WarWeeny]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

4GHz is not a given unless you have an 1800X or 1600X:

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/ryzen_7_1800x/

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/ryzen_7_1700x/

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/ryzen_7_1700/

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/ryzen_5_1600x/

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/ryzen_5_1600/

 

If you buy a decent board and decent cooling you can get 4GHz easy, i have rarely seen people that did not get 3.9GHz or 4.0GHz.

If there are people not getting past 3.8GHz, then they are in the minority. 

 

And even so, 3.8GHz and 4.0GHz will not affect (or hardly anyway) anything real world wise or even gaming for that matter that would justify the costs of what intel is asking for their processors.

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

a single i7 6900k

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

Since he is no overclocking hobbyist

Given Broadwell's OC capability, those don't go together to begin with.

 

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

a professional video editor that % of extra performance Intel promises is completely pointless facing AMD's so much superior value per performance.

In that world, AVX enabled software is leagues ahead of software that lacks AVX, in which case, the 1700 @4GHz is a slightly behind the 7700K @ stock. So jumping to a more X99 powerful chip, or X299 with AVX512, would easily be worth the cost if he's making money and is under any time constraint.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, WarWeeny said:

And even so, 3.8GHz and 4.0GHz will not affect (or hardly anyway) anything real world wise or even gaming for that matter that would justify the costs of what intel is asking for their processors.

X299 CPUs can EASILY overclock to 4.8GHz, @done12many2's 7900X can overclock to 4.9GHz with less than 1.26V and Intel has better IPC, so performance is quite a bit better (25-30% if you compare CPUs that have the same number of cores)

 

But of course, if you want to pay 2x more for 30% better performance is entirely up to you.

[knightslugger]

17 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

X299 CPUs can EASILY overclock to 4.8GHz, @done12many2's 7900X can overclock to 4.9GHz with less than 1.26V and Intel has better IPC, so performance is quite a bit better (25-30% if you compare CPUs that have the same number of cores)

 

But of course, if you want to pay 2x more for 30% better performance is entirely up to you.

the question is, would he run that under load 24/7?

[Valentyn]

15 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

X299 CPUs can EASILY overclock to 4.8GHz, @done12many2's 7900X can overclock to 4.9GHz with less than 1.26V and Intel has better IPC, so performance is quite a bit better (25-30% if you compare CPUs that have the same number of cores)

 

But of course, if you want to pay 2x more for 30% better performance is entirely up to you.

Yeah, main issue is temps if you OC. So people going into that need to not skimp on cooling at all.

Although looking at the stock temps for the 7820X and 7900X they're pretty decent unless you're doing heavy AVX loads where a little 240mm AIO might be pushing it.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, knightslugger said:

the question is, would he run that under load 24/7?

Ask him?

 

@done12many2

[MoonSpot]

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

Who am I to tell any one how they should spend their money...

According to my research, you are "Princess Cadence".

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

....but people see it as if it's some sort of Core2Duo just because it's locked lol!

You do understand why that is though, right?  If not, hang onto your locked processor a bit longer and eventually you may.  When you have a system thats just under specs required for a generation of software(ex: 2.25Ghz of dx11 most games for a couple years) and can't do anything to squeeze a small spattering of MHz out, or even try, but instead have to buy a new system...It's an aggravating experience that one doesn't want to re-familiarize themselves with ever again.

The thought is a little extra $ now and maybe squeeze an extra year or two out, or how new cookie cutter systems every 2 years.

[knightslugger]

1 minute ago, MoonSpot said:

According to my research, you are "Princess Cadence".

You do understand why that is though, right?  If not, hang onto your locked processor a bit longer and eventually you may.  When you have a system thats just under specs required for a generation of software(ex: 2.25Ghz of dx11 most games for a couple years) and can't do anything to squeeze a small spattering of MHz out, or even try, but instead have to buy a new system...It's an aggravating experience that one doesn't want to re-familiarize themselves with ever again.

The thought is a little extra $ now and maybe squeeze an extra year or two out, or how new cookie cutter systems every 2 years.

i donno, our company goes through workstations once every 2 years or so. doesn't seem to agonizing for them...

[done12many2]

11 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

the question is, would he run that under load 24/7?

 

I will be as soon as I get it delidded.  

 

The temps are right at the edge of comfort for me so I've decided to run 4.7 GHz with 3 cores at 4.8 boosting via Turbo Boost 3.0.  TB 3.0 on Intel chips works amazing.  As we all know, Windows loves to hop cores throughout tasks, but TB 3.0 and Windows now work great together in keeping all single-threaded tasks assigned to the higher clocked cores.  

 

Anyways, I have no doubt that it will run 4.9 or higher daily once delidded.  I'm waiting on der8auer's DDM-X.  He let me know that they were just under 4 weeks out since they are currently in production.

 

The multi-core performance of this chip is phenomenal, but the neatest thing about the chip is the single-threaded performance.  STRONG CORES.  Learn how to use TB 3.0 properly, which no reviewer seems to understand, and you'll end up with a chip that is as good or better than a 7700k in single-threaded performance and better than any consumer CPU on the market for multi-threaded use.  Does that cost a lot of money?  You're damn right, but if you want to have your cake and eat it too, you have to pay.  Nothing new there. 

 

 

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, done12many2 said:

Does that cost a lot of money?  You're damn right

 

[MoonSpot]

1 minute ago, knightslugger said:

i donno, our company goes through workstations once every 2 years or so. doesn't seem to agonizing for them...

General consumers don't get to write off a PC like companies get to.  Additionally people don't get anywhere near the same sort of benefit from leasing.

Money talks, once you throw your money out the window its your voice that gets quieter.

[knightslugger]

1 minute ago, done12many2 said:

 

I will be as soon as I get it delidded.  

 

The temps are right at the edge of comfort for me so I've decided to run 4.7 GHz with 3 cores at 4.8 boosting via Turbo Boost 3.0.  TB 3.0 on Intel chips works amazing.  As we all know, Windows love to hop cores throughout tasks, but TB 3.0 and Windows now work great together in keeping all single-threaded tasks assigned to the higher clocked cores.  

 

Anyways, I have no doubt that it will run 4.9 or higher daily once delidded.  I'm waiting on der8auer's DDM-X.  He let me know that they were just under 4 weeks out since they are currently in production.

 

The multi-core performance of this chip is phenomenal, but the neatest thing about the chip is the single-threaded performance.  Learn how to use TB 3.0 properly, which no reviewer seems to understand, and you'll end up with a chip that is as good or better than a 7700k in single-threaded performance and better than any consumer CPU on the market for multi-threaded use.  Does that cost a lot of money?  You're damn right, but if you want to have your cake and eat it too, you have to pay.  Nothing new there. 

 

 

[snip]

[snip]

but would a production company with a focus that would eyeball such a chip actually do what you've done to many workstations?

 

that's the rub.

[done12many2]

Just now, knightslugger said:

but would a production company with a focus that would eyeball such a chip actually do what you've done to many workstations?

 

that's the rub.

 

I would like to think that a production company would be choosing Xeon parts over enthusiast Intel Extreme parts.  

[BuckGup]

2 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

Well my brother's still really happy for his entire Ryzen 7 1800x rig that costed what a single i7 6900k CPU would've cost. Since he is no overclocking hobbyist, just a professional video editor that % of extra performance Intel promises is completely pointless facing AMD's so much superior value per performance.

He is a professional video editor using an 1800X.... right

[knightslugger]

Just now, done12many2 said:

 

I would like to think that a production company would be choosing Xeon parts over enthusiast Intel Extreme parts.  

my point exactly. They wouldn't touch HPEDs with a $20,000 pole, making this entire conversation about businesses saving time and money completely irrelevant.

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, knightslugger said:

my point exactly. They wouldn't touch HPEDs with a $20,000 pole, making this entire conversation about businesses saving time and money completely irrelevant.

 

Yeah, I'm not participating in any debate about that either.

 

I see these LTT typical clickbait thread titles and like to stop by and remind people that top performing shit usually uses more power and costs more money.  

[cj09beira]

50 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

X299 CPUs can EASILY overclock to 4.8GHz, @done12many2's 7900X can overclock to 4.9GHz with less than 1.26V and Intel has better IPC, so performance is quite a bit better (25-30% if you compare CPUs that have the same number of cores)

 

But of course, if you want to pay 2x more for 30% better performance is entirely up to you.

wasn't OC3D that said his could only do 4.6 because of temps ?, i am pretty sure his only did 4.6.

 

now people talk about avx, the chip at 4.6 was pulling 400W when running avx  crazy power consumption 

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

wasn't OC3D that said his could only do 4.6 because of temps ?, i am pretty sure his only did 4.6.

Well, they completely lost the silicon lottery