Intel's Skylake Hits 5.81GHz On LN2 At IDF

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It's kinda cool to see Intel using LN2 to push a Core i7-6700K to 5.81GHz at IDF. Sure, it's not a record setting OC but it does demonstrate the company's commitment to overclocking. You can see our Core i7-6700K overclocking results, minus the LN2, right here.
 
The magician could have at least got a better looking assistant. :p
 
I am pretty stoked about SkyLake, it seems to be the first good overclocker from Intel since Sandy Bridge.
 
In other news...

Sandy Bridge 2700K's regularly reached within 800Mhz of that clock on water and a 240mm radiator 3 years ago...
 
In other other news, 32nm and 14nm processors have very different electrical and heat characteristics, particularly power density and maximum safe voltage

:p
 
pxc said:
In other other news, 32nm and 14nm processors have very different electrical and heat characteristics, particularly power density and maximum safe voltage

:p
Click to expand...

Ha, yes. A 2016 Kia and a 2012 Ferrari have very different structural and engineering characteristics, particularly power delivery and maximum safe lateral Gs.

I appreciate the fact that Intel is throwing Overclockers a bone, but when Sandy Bridge came out, the biggest, baddest SB-E silicon had 8 cores, and Overclockers had unlocked access to 75% of those cores on the highest end models, 50% of the cores on the 'high end consumer' SB non-E models. I know the SB-E silicon and the standard SB silicon were different, but it still means that the standard SB Silicon had half the cores of the big-brother SB-E. Now Intel has 18 core Haswell-E silicon, and Overclockers only have access to <45% of those cores on the highest-end Haswell-E chips, and <20% of those cores on the consumer Haswell and Skylake chips. Now we are supposed feel excited the newest chips can OC to 5.8Ghz on LN2, when OC'ers managed 5.XGhz on water (Hell, even badass-air) on 3 year old chips, not to mention the 8+Ghz SB chips reached on LN2. I personally see regression, no progress.

I know I know, I'm a fat buzkill, but damn it, we need to push forward.
 
KazeoHin said:
I appreciate the fact that Intel is throwing Overclockers a bone
Click to expand...

My feeling is that Intel is not intentionally throwing overclockers a bone. If they can hit 5.8GHz that's great and of course they're going to market it, but the CPU architects are probably fretting about how much lost area and power went into over-engineering the chip.
 
I'd love to see some tests done with the supposed "reverse-hyperthreading" ability of Skylake. If it is true, it is kind of hilarious that a chip can finally use all cores efficiently for one thread at the very time that D3D12 is supposed to "fix" the issue with games being stuck on monolithic thread engines and/or poor multi-threading.
 
I'd be more impressed if they would show of daily driver rype high OC's.

The whole disable everything down to one core, run voltages through it, and pour liquid nitrogen on it just to get a high number to appear on a screen doesn't impress me much.
 
There is no such thing as reverse hyperthreading. Not in skylake, not in any cpu, and probably not ever.
 
Nice. I'm looking forward to seeing average results with delidding and decent voltage. Around 5ghz or so.
 
Considering they used poor TIM and no eDRAM, until didn't do us any favors.

5GHz on air is...long overdo. So I'm not calling it impressive. Sorry.
 
Give me an Intel chip that runs at 5 GHz stock with 8 core/16 threads as a consumer model (and the ability to overclock to 6+) and I'll be impressed. Hell, take out the onboard video, and it'll make it even better.

Right now, it just seems like they aren't pushing the envelope. Performance is a side project. Energy efficiency seems to be the main priority (which is fine, but nothing to write home about).
 
Remember when intel poo-poo'ed OC'ing and used scare tactics like electromigration as a reason not to do it. Oh and the warranty void too if they could prove it. Lulz, all fail, now they are on the bandwagon.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Give me an Intel chip that runs at 5 GHz stock with 8 core/16 threads as a consumer model (and the ability to overclock to 6+) and I'll be impressed. Hell, take out the onboard video, and it'll make it even better.

Right now, it just seems like they aren't pushing the envelope. Performance is a side project. Energy efficiency seems to be the main priority (which is fine, but nothing to write home about).
Click to expand...

Their quarterly reports and revenue no longer counts on pushing any envelopes. If there were money and future in it, they'd oblige. Everything continues its slow regression to mobile-shit
 
And the point in this is.....what now? You can't really use the computer like that for day-to-day stuff and it's not like the people doing it are pushing the technology envelope in a way that creates benefits for the average person because they're just taking something that a Intel did all the R&D on and making it colder so it can run faster for a brief period, doing pretty much nothing useful in that span of time. I'm far, far more impressed with stuff like passively cooled laptops that use a Broadwell CPU because they offer a moving-part free computing experience that serves well for years of usage under practical computing conditions.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Give me an Intel chip that runs at 5 GHz stock with 8 core/16 threads as a consumer model (and the ability to overclock to 6+) and I'll be impressed. Hell, take out the onboard video, and it'll make it even better.

Right now, it just seems like they aren't pushing the envelope. Performance is a side project. Energy efficiency seems to be the main priority (which is fine, but nothing to write home about).
Click to expand...

It's pointless to design an architecture around achieving high clockspeed today, we've long past that point now. They've done it with P4, and ultimately that approach proved to be ineffective. Perf/watt improvement is the better approach , especially when you are designing an architecture that could scale across different segment, from high performance to low power segment.

On consumer level, it's not like there's a need for such performance anyway. Lets be honest here, most people OC their CPU just for the fun of it, at least on Intel's CPU. Any of the newer Intel CPU are fast enough for almost all applications out there, while professional applications such as media content creation, or enterprise segment, are able to utilize multiple parallel cores and there are CPU out there for such applications.
 
This is an awesome run to see intel do but I mostly agree with Hornet. Those mega OC's are for bragging rights and sponsors not for daily use. I run my I5-3570 at 4.0 and have since I installed it. That is the kind of useful OC you can get these days - set and forget. It is tedious trying to whittle down to the exact MHz the system is stable at and frankly I would rather play a game with my limited free time at my 4.0 OC than try to get more. I am sure others feel differently but OCing just isn't the same as the Celery 300A days for me.
 
KazeoHin said:
In other news...

Sandy Bridge 2700K's regularly reached within 800Mhz of that clock on water and a 240mm radiator 3 years ago...
Click to expand...

Yeah, needing LN2 to hit that doesn't seem particularly impressive. At least it was with all cores active and not one of those one or two core suicide runs that AMD is so fond ot.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041805005 said:
I'd be more impressed if they would show of daily driver rype high OC's.

The whole disable everything down to one core, run voltages through it, and pour liquid nitrogen on it just to get a high number to appear on a screen doesn't impress me much.
Click to expand...

^^^
Show me max 24/7 oc in a 70 degree lab and i will sit-up and pay attention, for now no real reason to buy skylake
 
d50man said:
Show me max 24/7 oc in a 70 degree lab and i will sit-up and pay attention, for now no real reason to buy skylake
Click to expand...

Processor speed hasn't been a reason to upgrade your CPU since probably Sandy Bridge. It's been more the new features of the associated chipsets (PCI-E generation, idle power improvements, USB 3.0/3.1. SATA Express, M.2, etc.) that have offered any real reason to upgrade.
 
Hornet said:
On consumer level, it's not like there's a need for such performance anyway. Lets be honest here, most people OC their CPU just for the fun of it, at least on Intel's CPU. Any of the newer Intel CPU are fast enough for almost all applications out there, while professional applications such as media content creation, or enterprise segment, are able to utilize multiple parallel cores and there are CPU out there for such applications.
Click to expand...

Yup. Gaming can be the exception, though.

Like you said, though: Some of us do it for fun. I have little to no need to upgrade my old 2600K. It overclocks well and performs well. Intel is not getting my money, and a lot of others, because there is no need. Any newer Intel CPU can easily handle what is thrown at it.

If Intel were to release a 5 GHz stock part that could hit 6, I'd be in line to get it. Would I really NEED it? No. It'd be for shits and giggles. I'd notice it in games (well, maybe not notice it, but I'd see my benchmarks increase! :D). I want to upgrade, I just don't need to. And with the stuff that Intel is putting out there, it'd be hard to justify any purchase. There is less desire to upgrade, even if I don't need to. I'd want to. I'd like to do it now, but I can't. If that 5 GHz part were released, I'd really want to. That'd have my interest and my attention. :D
 
Parja said:
Processor speed hasn't been a reason to upgrade your CPU since probably Sandy Bridge. It's been more the new features of the associated chipsets (PCI-E generation, idle power improvements, USB 3.0/3.1. SATA Express, M.2, etc.) that have offered any real reason to upgrade.
Click to expand...

Those aren't as big and shiny, though. :D I was looking at those things when looking at an upgrade, but I couldn't really utilize or benefit from them quite yet...
 
I really do like this. However, 5.8Ghz with LN2 is not really all that impressive when the chips start at around 4Ghz. Still good though.
 
Parja said:
Yeah, needing LN2 to hit that doesn't seem particularly impressive. At least it was with all cores active and not one of those one or two core suicide runs that AMD is so fond ot.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you think you are referring to. The AMD overclock records for 2 cores and 8 cores are within a single percentage point of each other.:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top