Also, those benchmarks that show the 8700K outperforming the 7800X don't tell you why it does. The tests I saw were comparing them at stock speeds. Are they out performing them because they are better and more efficient, or are they outperforming them because the 8700K is clocked way higher than the 7800? Also, those are gaming scores you are seeing. What about other production types of work. How do they fare against the 7800 in such things as encoding and such?
It's not exactly the "old" formula. It's what they have done all along. They never stopped doing it, they are just continuing to do the same as they have always done.
Well we will see them in the next 6 days as the release is Thursday ? October 5th I'm just going to look out for the comparisons and hopefully people who bought Skylake -X didn't get a screw job
Is it fair to say Intel would have done a great service to make the X299 backwards Compatible to Broadwell E owners and Haswell so we could enjoy the new platform together also these 8700k should also be compatible with the Z270 seriously they are just being greedy at this point
Kaby lake has only been out about a Year and some change i don't know why they have to make people buy all new again the stuff isn't circulating fast enough for that
I don't have such system to verify this, but as I understand it, some if not almost all PCIe-lanes can be configured in BIOS/UEFI to either use CPU or Chipset lanes. This means that you have the ability to choose what goes directly through CPU and what through the chipset.
I think it's a smart way to manage things into a configuration that works best for each and every individual system and requirements.
Sometimes they can't do that because of the architecture of the CPU. Sometimes they can. The X99 boards did that when Broadwell came out, even though they released a new Broadwell X99 board. My board was built for the Haswell CPU, but with a bios update can run Broadwell too. But, if the architecture and internal operations of the CPU are too different, they can't do it. The pin allingments won't allow it.
You could look at it as they are improving the architecture of newer CPUs. If they stay with the same socket, they have not made a great deal of improvements. To some degree, I think Intel is helping out their board partners too. I'm sure Asus, Gigabyte and MSI love it every time they come out with a new chipset.
AMD has said their chipset will not change until 2020. That pretty much says they are going to use the same architecture with some minor improvements maybe for the next several years. I guess it is just how you look at it. Maybe greedy, maybe we are getting something better, even though it costs more money.
I really can't answer that with any certainty. But, I have always understood the number of CPU lanes was set by the CPU. The board will allow you to change how many lanes per slot, most of the time. For example, my board has more X16 slots than there are lanes to the CPU. But, I can change the number of lanes going to one slot so the rest can be mapped to another slot. I have an M.2 SSD slot on my board that is physically an X16 slot but electrically set to x4. But, if I want to I can change that X4 to an X8 if I wanted to. But, that would take 4 lanes from another slot. You can do that, but you can't exceed the CPU's max PCIe lanes allowed without adding another chip configured to add PCIe lanes. At least that's the way I have understood it. That is to give you more options of how you want to run your system, which is a good thing to me although it can get complicated sometimes. The abbreviated version.
Hi,
Screwed with the x299's
I believe we are all used to being screwed but a kiss for a change before would be nice
Boxes now the fun starts :)
He won`t beat me to it, unless he`s ripping it apart right nowI'm waiting til I get my 2nd Ti
Let the battle begin
What do you mean screwed Mike ?
I`m hitting 1822 MHz with my Ti with no OC and 4.4 on the 6700K
Brian, increase the power target linked to the temp target and set the priority to temp and run it again.
