Intel Kaby Lake-X Review: Core i7-7740X & Core i5-7640X

[PCFREAK]

My thinking on KL-X was that the reason for their inclusion on X299 was to be the best overclocking chips, the more robust HEDT platform allowing more headroom/higher TDP. Other reviewers have explored this and reported a high of 5.2 GHz (stable), so it's only good for 100-200 MHz over the mainstream parts - not really worth it for the extra $100 the board will cost. Technically I guess these ARE the highest clocking CPUs in the world, on air/water. No mention of overclocking was made in this article, and it could've at least provided one "pro" at the end, instead of "Kaby Lake-X offers no apparent advantages over Kaby Lake and actually performs worse in every category." That's not a "pro", and makes this CPU seem worse than it actually is. Yellow journalism, anyone? Not that I would buy one of these anyway, I just prefer to hear the whole story, not the click bait - "Intel's Facepalm moment" - seriously, Mr Walton?

Did you even bother to check, what you are able to spend on a 1151 MoBo ?

 

[Dimitrios]

Lol what a shame, Intel got bloated and lazy.

 

[HardReset]

You are able to spend quite a bit for a high-end 1151 MoBo too.

There are on high end LGA1151 mobos tbh, as PCI Express lanes are very heavily limited. There are expensive motherboards for morons like https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/GA-Z270X-Gaming-9-rev-10

Tons of stuff connected to chipset but chipset-processor link is only PCI Express x4 so good luck.

 

[CaptainTom]

confusing? yes
unfixable... hard to tell. adjusting prices to better compete with AMD can help it a lot in the long run. they still have better performance core for core.

That's actually not true. What I am about to say will seem counterintuitive, but bear with me:

AMD'S single-threaded IPC is indeed probably 5-15% behind Intel. But that is only when using a SINGLE core. Once you get into multi-threaded apps AMD'S IPC starts catching up, and that is because AMD's architecture allows for multiple cores to communicate with each other better. So in otherwords: The more cores you add, the better AMD's Per - core IPC is relative to Intel. Thus AMD's 16-core will almost definitely destroy even Intel's 18- core i9. Not just at the same clocks, but also likely when Intel's is clocked higher! Although I do not expect the 18- core i9 to get above 4.2GHz (If that).

 

[HardReset]

Also it's good to remember AMD gets more boost from SMT than Intel.

 

[Puiu]

That's actually not true. What I am about to say will seem counterintuitive, but bear with me:

AMD'S single-threaded IPC is indeed probably 5-15% behind Intel. But that is only when using a SINGLE core. Once you get into multi-threaded apps AMD'S IPC starts catching up, and that is because AMD's architecture allows for multiple cores to communicate with each other better. So in otherwords: The more cores you add, the better AMD's Per - core IPC is relative to Intel. Thus AMD's 16-core will almost definitely destroy even Intel's 18- core i9. Not just at the same clocks, but also likely when Intel's is clocked higher! Although I do not expect the 18- core i9 to get above 4.2GHz (If that).

we'll have to wait for benchmarks before we start making such assumptions about the architectures.

 

[CaptainTom]

we'll have to wait for benchmarks before we start making such assumptions about the architectures.

They are already out buddy. The 1500X gains on the 7700K in multi-threaded apps. The only explanation for that is that AMD's cpus excel at multi-threaded IPC.

 

[HardReset]

They are already out buddy. The 1500X gains on the 7700K in multi-threaded apps. The only explanation for that is that AMD's cpus excel at multi-threaded IPC.

AMD's SMT is more effective than Intel's HT, that's the explanation.

 

[CaptainTom]

AMD's SMT is more effective than Intel's HT, that's the explanation.

Hence the high per core IPC in MT apps.

I do remember reading though that AMD's coherent fabric allowed far better communication than Intel's ring bus.