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

[leadeater]

14 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

I mean the 500W power draw on CPU alone behemoth that @done12many2 has, and manage both passive and a metaphorically frosty at everything except AVX load. And still not scorching under AVX load.

My system draws 800W at full load on CPU and GPU 

[NumLock21]

Just now, Drak3 said:

SkyLake-SP

OC or multisockets?

Tough question...

[Drak3]

Just now, leadeater said:

My system draws 800W at full load on CPU and GPU 

Fine, I want to passively cool the 7980XE at its max OC on water.

 

AND 4 1080Ti's shunt modded and overclocked to their wits as well.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, NumLock21 said:

OC or multisockets?

Tough question...

OC. No question. I still need that sweet single core perf.

[MageTank]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Fine, I want to passively cool the 7980XE at its max OC on water.

 

AND 4 1080Ti's shunt modded and overclocked to their wits as well.

I've yet to see any real evidence of 1080 Ti shunt mods providing a decent enough clock boost, lol. Pascal just isn't limited by power limit or voltage. I've seen people hit 2000+ on normal 1080 Ti's without a single mod. 

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

I've yet to see any real evidence of 1080 Ti shunt mods providing a decent enough clock boost, lol. Pascal just isn't limited by power limit or voltage. I've seen people hit 2000+ on normal 1080 Ti's without a single mod. 

 

It has nothing to do with helping clock boost.  It has everything to do with keeping the clock from dropping due to power limitations.  It works and works very well.  

 

Under a very heavy load like Unigine Superposition, 1080 Ti's will power limit very low in clock speed.  This happens in a few games that really push the GPU as well. 

 

Like I said, the shunt mod will not really help anyone obtain higher clocks, but simply keep the ones you have from dropping.  You need to unlocked the voltage with something like the XOC BIOS in order to really start pushing voltage/clocks.  This will only scale in performance to a certain degree though.  Ultimately, the best way to gain performance with the 1080 Ti is to cool the shit out of it and modify it with a shunt mod (or cap mod if you are good).

[AnonymousGuy]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Inb4 someone throws enough rad space to run 'passively' with only a few pumps. I'd say I'd do it, but funds and space to put that monstrosity are working against me.

I have 25 gallons of thermal mass so I could run for a really long time passively.

 

I did the math:  25 gallons = 110,000 grams of water, 20.9 Joules to raise 1 gram of water 5 degree C.  110,000 grams * 20.9 Joules = 2.3 million Joules to raise 25 gallons 5 degrees C.  1 Watt = 1 Joule / s.  1000 W = 1000 Joule / s, so 2300 seconds = 

 

38 minutes at 1000W load to raise 25 gallons 5 degrees C.  Really it would take longer because the system would be dissipating heat to atmosphere during this process.

 

My loop is ready:

 

 

 

[DocSwag]

 

22 hours ago, WarWeeny said:

just buy a ryzen 1700 and clock it to 4GHz, better and cheaper than what intel is producing.

The marginal performance gains over the price doesn't make it worthwhile anymore

Better? Better? 

 

The 7800x comes close to 1700@4 ghz performance when OCed and trashes it in single threaded performance. The other CPUs are even more ahead.

21 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.

Why 1800x though? If it were me, I would save some money by getting a 1700 or 1700x and spending the saved on a better gpu for CUDA.

[Princess Luna]

6 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Why 1800x though? If it were me, I would save some money by getting a 1700 or 1700x and spending the saved on a better gpu for CUDA.

It is not like a Maxwell Titan X isn't good for CUDA acceleration already, the thing about this 1800x though is that a week before it released the online retailer we shop at here in Brazil (kabum.com.br) made a promotion of pre-sales and the 1800x was at the 1700 pricing if you bought it bundle with an Asus motherboard (since we did want the x370 Prime Pro all along we took the deal ^^)

 

He had a good budget from his boss to do this rig to replace an old i7 3770 based system he had, the thing is this good budget could only afford the i7 6900k alone so when we saw we could do an entire computer for the price we got over-excited and went all in for it.

 

The processor is great, as a workstation the computer is pretty complete, we got recently a spare computer because his workflow has increased a lot and managed to get a great deal on a second hand i7 3970x which is really great but the preference goes all to the 1800x

 

19 hours ago, BuckGup said:

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

Yes, do you have a problem with it? You don't see me saying how you should build your rig.

[Drak3]

10 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

I have 25 gallons of thermal mass so I could run for a really long time passively.

 

I did the math:  25 gallons = 110,000 grams of water, 20.9 Joules to raise 1 gram of water 5 degree C.  110,000 grams * 20.9 Joules = 2.3 million Joules to raise 25 gallons 5 degrees C.  1 Watt = 1 Joule / s.  1000 W = 1000 Joule / s, so 2300 seconds = 

 

38 minutes at 1000W load to raise 25 gallons 5 degrees C.  Really it would take longer because the system would be dissipating heat to atmosphere during this process.

 

My loop is ready:

 

-snip the fucking eye sore. How dare you make me look at that abortion-

 

 

There is a difference between having enough thermal mass to store the energy and run passive for a considerable amount of time, and having enough thermal dissipation to run passive damn near indefinitely. I want to fall in the second category. And I want to keep the CPU fairly freakin cool while doing it.

10 hours ago, MageTank said:

I've yet to see any real evidence of 1080 Ti shunt mods providing a decent enough clock boost, lol. Pascal just isn't limited by power limit or voltage. I've seen people hit 2000+ on normal 1080 Ti's without a single mod. 

Fine, then tell me a card that I can really crank up the heat output with a shunt mod for my ridiculous pipe dream of a loop with enough rad space to make Done12 blush.

If it takes multiple PSUs to power the monstrosity, then so be it.

[Valentyn]

12 hours ago, leadeater said:

My system draws 800W at full load on CPU and GPU 

I wonder what my old Fermi SLI, Westmere system drew back in the day. I do remember my 1000W Ultra PSU blowing though.

Took out my pump for my custom loop; which I only realised when I got  new PSU and the temps skyrocketed.

 

Then again, my Gigabyte Odyn PSU also died in my overclocked Phenom 2 and crossfire 4870X2 system. 

[pas008]

22 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

Oh Gee 12 hours out of an entire year, that totally makes any difference in your life

 

Well I suppose people have different opinions, my brother is a professional video editor and really we can not as much as we'd like justify x299 price tag when the 1800x does it all perfectly fine already.

 

An i7 7700 already is one of the best processors in the world for high framerates, I do 400fps on CS:GO locked just fine (2560x1080p) my point is that if you want a high end gaming rig you can do it saving a shit ton of money and end up with the same user experience as someone over-spending on stuff that won't matter, but like I said that is a matter of one's perception.

 

Who am I to tell any one how they should spend their money, but I'll never understand paying sometimes over a thousand dollars more for what? half a day in a year worth of time saving that you'll waste at the bathroom any ways?

 

Cheers mate!

time is money

12 hours saved is 12 hours saved

its about about the value of those 12hours

lets say those 12 hours are worth 20 a hour as a rough idea

that 240 in the year as an understatement

[knightslugger]

9 minutes ago, pas008 said:

time is money

12 hours saved is 12 hours saved

its about about the value of those 12hours

lets say those 12 hours are worth 20 a hour as a rough idea

that 240 in the year as an understatement

you know what's worth even more?

 

Uptime.

 

think about that.

[WarWeeny]

1 hour ago, DocSwag said:

 

Better? Better? 

 

The 7800x comes close to 1700@4 ghz performance when OCed and trashes it in single threaded performance. The other CPUs are even more ahead.

Why 1800x though? If it were me, I would save some money by getting a 1700 or 1700x and spending the saved on a better gpu for CUDA.

 

"thashes" - uhuh, like 20% for double the price.

Sure sounds like a great deal....oh wait.

[pas008]

8 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

you know what's worth even more?

 

Uptime.

 

think about that.

thats why I said as an understatement

[Vode]

Jesus christ.

 

X299 looks worse than AMD efficiency wise.

 

What a total reversal. In 2010 NVidia GPUs and AMD CPUs where pulling all the Watts while AMD GPUs and Intel CPUs were efficient. 

 

Now Ryzen and GTX 10 Series are the efficient ones. Total opposite pol

[samcool55]

So even if you have a pile of money and are stupid enough to get a 7900X, you can't use it properly unless you risk killing it because delidding is basically a requirement to get a good OC on it. GG Intel...

 

F you Intel, that's what you get for doing a shitty job. This can be partially solved quite easily but nope! 0 fucks given.

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, Vode said:

Now Ryzen and GTX 10 Series are the efficient ones. Total opposite pol

Ryzen isn't more efficient. It's cut back in the power hungry yet efficient instruction sets, and lacking AVX512 altogether. If Ryzen was on par with SLX implementations, you'd see extremely similar power draw.

[VagabondWraith]

19 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Ryzen isn't more efficient. It's cut back in the power hungry yet efficient instruction sets, and lacking AVX512 altogether. If Ryzen was on par with SLX implementations, you'd see extremely similar power draw.

Yeah, I wanna see a 1700 oc'd to 4.8GHz with full AVX2/512...

 

... oh, wait.

 

[knightslugger]

5 minutes ago, VagabondWraith said:

Yeah, I wanna see a 1700 oc'd to 4.8GHz with full AVX2/512...

 

... oh, wait.

hold my beer.

 

<<Ryzen killer<<

[tom_w141]

1 minute ago, knightslugger said:

<<Ryzen killer<<

Lmao

[Vode]

28 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Ryzen isn't more efficient. It's cut back in the power hungry yet efficient instruction sets, and lacking AVX512 altogether. If Ryzen was on par with SLX implementations, you'd see extremely similar power draw.

Take a look at those Cinebench perf/watt charts. And gaming is only a matter of time, were are already seeing big improvements there.

 

Intel has a hard time beating Ryzen and Threadripper will reign supreme for most content creators.

[Jito463]

32 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Ryzen isn't more efficient. It's cut back in the power hungry yet efficient instruction sets, and lacking AVX512 altogether. If Ryzen was on par with SLX implementations, you'd see extremely similar power draw.

The thing is, while AVX512 may be important for some professional tasks (not even all, just certain ones), it's not really important to the vast majority of end users.  Considering the drawbacks of the GloFo process right now, constraining their clock potentials, I can understand limiting that feature set.  At least for first gen Zens.  It's not optimal for people who need it, but it makes sense for the position AMD is in right now.

 

*EDIT*
I thought Ryzen support AVX512, just a weak implementation of it?

[The Benjamins]

Anandtech review of the just announced Xeon Skylake parts versus Epyc. And we'll Epyc is faster in most test while costing $3000+ less.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade

 

In some tests it destroys them, some really nice stuff. And it uses less power too.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Vode said:

Threadripper will reign supreme for most content creators.

No, it won't. Not unless AMD has been holding onto Ryzen dies that can do AVX better than half the capacity of an Intel core. Once you step into HEDT, AVX becomes significantly more common, especially in content creation. Ryzen only holds its own because the R7's 8 cores can almost match the 7700K's 4 cores at similar clockspeeds in AVX workloads, but still allows better multitasking. An SLX octocore at 4GHz, achievable without a delid, will be able to match or exceed a TR 16 core at 4GHz in every regard that matters to most HEDT users.

 

6 minutes ago, Vode said:

Take a look at those Cinebench perf/watt charts

Where, oh, Ryzen isn't actually much better than an equivalent Intel counterpart running at the same or similar speeds.

 

7 minutes ago, Vode said:

Intel has a hard time beating Ryzen

Only in regards to price/performance, and even then, Intel walks away with the performance crown and in the end, value is dictated by need.

 

8 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

The thing is, while AVX512 may be important for some professional tasks (not even all, just certain ones), it's not really important to the vast majority of end users.

AVX512 can be used to improve AVX/AVX2 performance, which is far more common in the prosumer/professional world. We're also hitting a wall as to how much performance can be extracted out of our chips before moving to AVX where we can. In the consumer world, from the power consumption standpoint, Ryzen makes no more sense than Broadwell.