Intel X299 motherboard spotted with an i7 7740K CPU

Have to say I am a bit cynical what the 7740K will provide in terms of gaming performance when compared to the 7700K.
Yeah can be argued it is a stepping stone onto the X299 platform, but then why not just put that 7740k money towards an 8-core Skylake-X/K.

Cheers
 
Have to say I am a bit cynical what the 7740K will provide in terms of gaming performance when compared to the 7700K.
Yeah can be argued it is a stepping stone onto the X299 platform, but then why not just put that 7740k money towards an 8-core Skylake-X/K.

Cheers

We've been here before. It was called the 3820 and it was a great CPU to get the platform if you didn't have $600+ to lay down on the CPU but needed the other things it could offer. It also overclocked like a boss with only 4 cores on boards designed for 6+ core chips.

This one seems a little bit artificially gimped though, with only 16 lanes on the 99 platform. Seems like an actual 7700k slapped on a 2066 interface instead of an unlocked quad core Xeon.
 
Kaby Lake X doesn't seem to provide much over normal Kaby Lake. It'll probably have a soldered IHS so that's something I guess. But with only 16 PCIe lanes and 4 cores, it just seems to me like you'd be buying the same chip that is already available except on a new socket and that now you have to pay more for a motherboard.
 
We've been here before. It was called the 3820 and it was a great CPU to get the platform if you didn't have $600+ to lay down on the CPU but needed the other things it could offer. It also overclocked like a boss with only 4 cores on boards designed for 6+ core chips.

This one seems a little bit artificially gimped though, with only 16 lanes on the 99 platform. Seems like an actual 7700k slapped on a 2066 interface instead of an unlocked quad core Xeon.
Yep it seems a bit of a fudge compared to the actual HEDT Skylakes and just minor changes to existing 4C Kaby Lake that can overclock well anyway.
Not sure how much difference one will see between 4.8GHx 7700K and say a 5GHz/5.1GHz 7740K.
If it clocks higher it will not be by that much more.
 
Yep it seems a bit of a fudge compared to the actual HEDT Skylakes and just minor changes to existing 4C Kaby Lake that can overclock well anyway.
Not sure how much difference one will see between 4.8GHx 7700K and say a 5GHz/5.1GHz 7740K.
If it clocks higher it will not be by that much more.

I'm also wondering if it does quad channel? If so, did they change the IMC or does the 7700k already have that capability but its locked down?
 
It will probably overclock better (100 or 200MHz) than the standard Kaby Lake CPU's if I had to make a prediction about it. Like most of you, I see very little reason to buy into the X299 platform unless you have a specific need for it. As for the quad channel memory controller, I'm fairly certain it isn't part of the standard Kaby Lake memory controller. Time will tell.
 
I'm also wondering if it does quad channel? If so, did they change the IMC or does the 7700k already have that capability but its locked down?

From the article:

The Kaby Lake-X CPU is said to only support dual channel memory, whereas the Skylake-X CPUs will support Quad-channel memory, making Kaby Lake-X CPUs limit the potential of future X109/LGA 2066 motherboards.
 
Great! I've been holding out on upgrading CPU/Motherboard until LGA 2066 comes out. 4C/8T CPU isn't really getting the job done for me anymore, so hopefully they have a high-clocking 6C/12T CPU that will be appealing. Going on about 5 years with this current platform.
 
I don't know who in their right mind would buy an LGA2066/X299 platform...Intel will very likely only be offering the same tired old 6/8/10 core crap again (that again has no ECC support) with the 4C around for pure gamers. If Intel is true to recent form, they'll probably lock out the X299 platform from supporting any LGA2066 Xeons as well to "protect" the Xeon brand name.

I'm looking forward to AMD's X399/16-core platform and hope it just might be duallie capable. I hope AMD kicks Intel squarely (and very hard) in their segmentation-driven complacency with a steel toed boot.:D
 
I don't know who in their right mind would buy an LGA2066/X299 platform...Intel will very likely only be offering the same tired old 6/8/10 core crap again (that again has no ECC support) with the 4C around for pure gamers. If Intel is true to recent form, they'll probably lock out the X299 platform from supporting any LGA2066 Xeons as well to "protect" the Xeon brand name.

I'm looking forward to AMD's X399/16-core platform and hope it just might be duallie capable. I hope AMD kicks Intel squarely (and very hard) in their segmentation-driven complacency with a steel toed boot.:D

I think you're making a lot of assumptions about what Intel will do.
 
I don't know who in their right mind would buy an LGA2066/X299 platform...Intel will very likely only be offering the same tired old 6/8/10 core crap again (that again has no ECC support) with the 4C around for pure gamers. If Intel is true to recent form, they'll probably lock out the X299 platform from supporting any LGA2066 Xeons as well to "protect" the Xeon brand name.

I'm looking forward to AMD's X399/16-core platform and hope it just might be duallie capable. I hope AMD kicks Intel squarely (and very hard) in their segmentation-driven complacency with a steel toed boot.:D

butbut... what if you want HEDT with 4k netflix and Optane!
 
This platform should be good for 5+ years, with max gaming 4C/8T performance to start with. Upgradeable to 10C/20T and quad-channel memory with Optane support -- what else to wish for?
But please, no cheap TIM this time, I like my 5 GHz cool and quiet and factory sealed
 
Last edited:
If it's going to be the typical $200+ more than the standard mainstream Zxxx + i7-K, then it would be damn near impossible to justify an X299 with a quad core. However, if it's priced damn nicely (as in, maybe $100 MoBo+CPU difference) and does have a soldered IHS, then that would be enough reason for me to spring for it over the vanilla Kaby Lake. But Ryzen 17xx/18xx also offers a soldered IHS with double the cores/threads...

(so glad I decided to hold off on a system overhaul at least until next year's tax return)
 
I think you're making a lot of assumptions about what Intel will do.

Given Intel's penchant for extreme and excessive segmentation and for denying many features to unlocked processors that they've engaged in on past processors (to say nothing about hard locking Xeons) many of my assumptions will likely prove to have been safe ones.
 
Given Intel's penchant for extreme and excessive segmentation and for denying many features to unlocked processors that they've engaged in on past processors (to say nothing about hard locking Xeons) many of my assumptions will likely prove to have been safe ones.

I think most of Intel's strategy over the past years has been due to the lack of competition...now that there IS some competition, they may very well change their strategy. That's why I wouldn't assume things will be exactly the same with this new platform and CPU.
 
I think most of Intel's strategy over the past years has been due to the lack of competition...now that there IS some competition, they may very well change their strategy. That's why I wouldn't assume things will be exactly the same with this new platform and CPU.

How a company behaves with no competition is largely indicative of how it would naturally choose to behave. Intel therefore desires to behave poorly and act like dicks to computer users of all stripes, and they've (for the most part) done exactly that over the last decade, which is very unfortunate because they have some really good products created by some very talented people. Intel may throw a bone in the spirit of competing by offering a larger core count chip, but will likely try even harder to behave in an unfair and underhanded manner in order to restore their monopoly over the industry. They've done it before and will very likely do it again.
 
16 lanes, dual channel on 20xx, set sail for fail. Given the shit they have pulled over the last couple years (locking E5 v4, fucking over E3 compatibility, etc) I am also in the camp that they will artificially cripple the consumer HEDT to only minimally intersect with the "real" xeon platforms. (I mean above and beyond just the socket separation of 3467 models)

I wouldn't even bet on the overclock being better either, 'official' TDP means diddly fuckall on an unlocked chip, luck of the draw is luck. Hell, a competent delid is apparently better than a stock solder anyways.
If you really think they will go to the trouble to 'bin higher for better overclocks' I have a bridge to sell you. If you still cling to that binning bullshit, then you also have to accept the related belief that HEDT i7 are the worst binning of xeons.
 
This platform should be good for 5+ years, with max gaming 4C/8T performance to start with. Upgradeable to 10C/20T and quad-channel memory with Optane support -- what else to wish for?
But please, no cheap TIM this time, I like my 5 GHz cool and quiet and factory sealed
Was it only the 6950X with the solder on Broadwell-E SKUs?
No idea myself and wondering if that is also part of the differentiation between X and K model *shrug*.
Thanks
 
Last edited:
Better Skylake now with matured manufacturing then better Kaby Lake in a year and get everyone to spend again.
 
Intel's manufac
Was it only the 6950X with the solder on Broadwell-E SKUs?
No idea myself and wondering if that is also part of the differentiation between X and K model *shrug*.
Thanks

I believe all LGA 2011v3 CPUs use a better TIM than what we got on Skylake / Kaby Lake.
 
Was it only the 6950X with the solder on Broadwell-E SKUs?
No idea myself and wondering if that is also part of the differentiation between X and K model *shrug*.
Thanks

All of the HEDT processors receive solder instead of paste.
 
I was simply answering CSI_PC's question.

I get that. I was just commenting on it. Mostly because of the whole solder / vs. TIM commentary that's so prevalent on the forums lately. Many people assume that a CPU is going to be a good overclocker or a bad one based on the TIM it uses and while soldering is better (all things being equal) it doesn't necessarily mean that a newer CPU with a cheaper TIM will necessarily be a bad overclocker. Ryzen and Kaby Lake have solder and a cheap TIM respectively. The latter out clocks the former by a huge margin without replacing the TIM. Replacing the TIM obviously makes Kaby Lake better as Kyle's shown us that.
 
I get that. I was just commenting on it. Mostly because of the whole solder / vs. TIM commentary that's so prevalent on the forums lately. Many people assume that a CPU is going to be a good overclocker or a bad one based on the TIM it uses and while soldering is better (all things being equal) it doesn't necessarily mean that a newer CPU with a cheaper TIM will necessarily be a bad overclocker. Ryzen and Kaby Lake have solder and a cheap TIM respectively. The latter out clocks the former by a huge margin without replacing the TIM. Replacing the TIM obviously makes Kaby Lake better as Kyle's shown us that.

I understand. In this case it's likely that the HEDT chips get solder since they usually have 100+ watt TDPs and may be subject to less-than-ideal operating environments and high temps (Xeons), so they need all the thermal transfer ability they can get.

You've piqued my curiosity though, does Broadwell-E really not overclock that well? I would understand the 8 and 10 core chips being less cooperative, but is this across the board?

Edit: Now that I think about it, my 5820K had a hard time breaking 4.4 GHz on water cooling no matter what voltage I threw at it.
 
I understand. In this case it's likely that the HEDT chips get solder since they usually have 100+ watt TDPs and may be subject to less-than-ideal operating environments and high temps (Xeons), so they need all the thermal transfer ability they can get.

You've piqued my curiosity though, does Broadwell-E really not overclock that well? I would understand the 8 and 10 core chips being less cooperative, but is this across the board?

Edit: Now that I think about it, my 5820K had a hard time breaking 4.4 GHz on water cooling no matter what voltage I threw at it.

I don't have any personal experience with the 6820K or 6850K CPUs. The 6900K and 6950X don't overclock as well as their Haswell-E predecessors. I've used a number of 5960X's and I could always get 4.5GHz out of them. Some required more voltage than others of course, but they could all do it. I have heard of bad ones that couldn't do more than 4.3GHz but it seems rare in my experience. The 6900K and 6950X on the other hand top out at 4.3GHz. I've never heard of any going beyond that on water. Kyle and I degraded a couple of 6950X's to the point where they won't do 4.3GHz reliably anymore. It didn't take long either. This is why I'm still on Haswell-E. Broadwell-E clocked worse and didn't offer enough IPC to give me any gain in performance for the money spent.
 
7740K does not have to be a good overclocker to reach the magic number, nor there is a point to push it beyond 5 GHz. We need a good TIM or solder just to keep it cool -- I'd hate to see the CPU reach 80°C while gaming. 5 GHz under 70°C is where it's at
 
Have to say I am a bit cynical what the 7740K will provide in terms of gaming performance when compared to the 7700K.
Yeah can be argued it is a stepping stone onto the X299 platform, but then why not just put that 7740k money towards an 8-core Skylake-X/K.

Cheers

This processor is NOT just for gaming. I get your point though. This is going to be more for the multitasker or heavy productivity user. Why on earth would anyone spend top dollar for a professional grade productivity processor just to play a few video games. Blows my mind where the financial priorities of some are these days.
 
This processor is NOT just for gaming. I get your point though. This is going to be more for the multitasker or heavy productivity user. Why on earth would anyone spend top dollar for a professional grade productivity processor just to play a few video games. Blows my mind where the financial priorities of some are these days.
Yeah, you would get the Skylake HEDT CPU instead if not Xeon which is my point and for gaming you would get the existing 7700K instead of this expensive 7740K (expensive when including platform).
Money on the 7740K is better spent somewhere else by the consumer.

Cheers
 
I'm definitely a minority, but I look forward to the option of running a Kaby Lake processor on an X299 board. The 7740K will give end-users the option for uncompromising single-threaded performance while having the bling of a flagship motherboard; there's a lot of good Z270 stuff out there but the true flagships are still on the 99-series chipsets. The clock gap might be quite large if Skylake-X is only available in 6C+ SKU's and KBL-X clocks a couple hundred megahertz better due to the lack of an iGPU and process tweaks.
I also expect the 7740K to score a couple of single-threaded records under LN2, given the better boards and the lack of an integrated GPU.
 
Count me in the "disappointed that Kaby Lake-X is just a glorified LGA1151 CPU on a platform it can't take advantage of" camp. 16-lane CPUs do not belong on HEDT. Intel might as well just have dropped Skylake-X and made all that Kaby Lake-X instead, stop being so far behind with HEDT.

The whole reason I'm looking at moving to HEDT for my next build in the coming years is the itch for more PCIe lanes. My current Z87 build doesn't offer enough of them once I start factoring in things like NVMe SSDs that take PCIe 3.0 x4 per drive, video capture/framegrabber cards that require PCIe x4, quad-controller USB 3.0 cards that require PCIe x4, so on and so forth... oh, and leave one more PCIe lane for my trusty X-Fi Titanium HD.

THAT is why 44 lanes on the CPU is such a big deal in the first place: more room for expansion cards and SSDs without starving any of them of much-needed PCIe bandwidth. If you don't need the PCIe lanes because you install nothing but a graphics card or two, that's why the LGA115x DT platform exists - stick to that and save yourself a lot of money on the motherboard.
 
Count me in the "disappointed that Kaby Lake-X is just a glorified LGA1151 CPU on a platform it can't take advantage of" camp. 16-lane CPUs do not belong on HEDT. Intel might as well just have dropped Skylake-X and made all that Kaby Lake-X instead, stop being so far behind with HEDT.

The whole reason I'm looking at moving to HEDT for my next build in the coming years is the itch for more PCIe lanes. My current Z87 build doesn't offer enough of them once I start factoring in things like NVMe SSDs that take PCIe 3.0 x4 per drive, video capture/framegrabber cards that require PCIe x4, quad-controller USB 3.0 cards that require PCIe x4, so on and so forth... oh, and leave one more PCIe lane for my trusty X-Fi Titanium HD.

THAT is why 44 lanes on the CPU is such a big deal in the first place: more room for expansion cards and SSDs without starving any of them of much-needed PCIe bandwidth. If you don't need the PCIe lanes because you install nothing but a graphics card or two, that's why the LGA115x DT platform exists - stick to that and save yourself a lot of money on the motherboard.

SKL-X isn't the same as KBL-X.

SKL-X offers quadchannel and 44 PCIe lanes from the CPU and 6 to 12 cores.
 
SKL-X isn't the same as KBL-X.

SKL-X offers quadchannel and 44 PCIe lanes from the CPU and 6 to 12 cores.
I'm well aware of that, but I'm just thinking "If they're actually skipping ahead to Kaby Lake-X with the new platform, albeit half-assedly so, why even bother with Skylake-X and just make the new HEDT parts all Kaby Lake across the board, gobs of cores and PCIe lanes alike?"

It just baffles me that Intel would hold back their higher-end product line like this in terms of underlying CPU architecture.
 
I'm well aware of that, but I'm just thinking "If they're actually skipping ahead to Kaby Lake-X with the new platform, albeit half-assedly so, why even bother with Skylake-X and just make the new HEDT parts all Kaby Lake across the board, gobs of cores and PCIe lanes alike?"

It just baffles me that Intel would hold back their higher-end product line like this in terms of underlying CPU architecture.

First of all, Kaby Lake is just SKL on 14nm+ with an updated video decoder for Gen 9.5 graphics.
Secondly, SKL-X/SP etc is very different from SKL with 1MB l2, AVX512, different uncore, L3 etc. And unlike SKL its also made on 14nm+ like KBL.
 
Back
Top