Overclocking Intel’s Core i7-7700K: Kaby Lake Hits The Desktop!

[SCANNERMAN777]

Then why the sudden influx by Intel? It can't be from the success of BF4 and its multi-thread superiority. Used to be a few 2011 and a few Xeon. Now the list of E5 Xeons is huge, 2011+ is getting a higher following than ever and ppl are begging for Hexa laptops. Kinda makes me think more and more that kaby-lake is a hold-off release and Cannon-Lake is going to end up a game changer to answer Zen+. Just reading the article and seeing those 'beta' results wasn't exactly inspiring.

I agree. Not that I'm into hard core lap top gaming or anything but that does appear to be the direction Intel is taking. The trend also seems to be that Intel enjoys beta testing their new releases in laptops before they enter the domain of the enthusiasts. Frankly, I don't think they'll have to try very hard to surpass what AMD is hyping up these days but that is my opinion. I'd love to see AMD prove me wrong but we've all seen it before. Here's a bit of a heads up for the KABY LAKE people. http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/30/12698400/intel-kaby-lake-7th-gen-core-cpu

 

[Karadjgne]

The only thing stopping laptops with a full 4 core i7 (not the wannabe dual core labeled i7) with high end mobile gpus like a 1070/1080 from really exploding is the battery. Kinda hard to justify a $2500 plus laptop to game on when it's dead after 20 mins, requiring it to basically stay plugged in on the desk. Hmm not really a laptop then, more of a possibly portable desktop with limited functionality. Being inherently limited by heat concerns, I'm doubting that Kaby's heat envelope is going to be a big hit there, so for top end laptops, Skylake still looks like the superior cpu, even missing that 200MHz.

As for the programming mentioned earlier Invalid, I'm not so sure it's as difficult as some make it out to be. Look at BF4. That game alone was huge on core usage, to the point where even with its slow poke IPC the fx 8350 was honestly only beaten by the Intel i7's (for some odd reason only actually used 7 threads) and even the fx6300 could almost hold its own vrs i5's. If that game can be written and optimized to such a degree, I find it hard to understand why games like Ash and AC Syndicate have such abysmal returns. Unless those engines are stuck in the past on single thread performance using few cores.

 

[InvalidError]

The only thing stopping laptops with a full 4 core i7 (not the wannabe dual core labeled i7) with high end mobile gpus like a 1070/1080 from really exploding is the battery. Kinda hard to justify a $2500 plus laptop to game on when it's dead after 20 mins, requiring it to basically stay plugged in on the desk.

It isn't that hard: you have the processing power when you can remain plugged in and the portability when you aren't flooring the CPU and GPU. If you are going to be gaming for over an hour, you will almost certainly do so while sitting on a chair, likely with a power outlet not that far away. You may even be plugged into a wired LAN connection to avoid WiFi lag.

 

[Karadjgne]

It's funny, I bust my boss all the time playing games on his laptop on the job site. Almost always during lunch break, and every time I do, when I ask for schematics later, I get 'Sorry, batterys dead'. It's hilarious.

 

[Matthew_1987]

Does anyone know what the maximum amount of supported RAM for the i7-7700k? Is it 64GB or 128GB?

 

[Crashman]

Does anyone know what the maximum amount of supported RAM for the i7-7700k? Is it 64GB or 128GB?

It only supports four standard DIMMs, and the limit for non-registered DDR4 DIMMs is 16GB. So the 64GB limit is imposed by DDR4 technology, not by the CPU.

 

[littleleo]

The RAM max is imposed by the Chipset not the CPU. The Skylake H110 has a max of 32GB and the Z170 has a MAX of 64GB.

 

[InvalidError]

The RAM max is imposed by the Chipset not the CPU.

The chipset hasn't been involved in memory support since the first Core i-series. If you look at chipset specs since Intel integrated the memory controller in their CPUs, chipsets support no memory whatsoever.

 

[RedJaron]

The RAM max is imposed by the Chipset not the CPU.

The chipset hasn't been involved in memory support since the first Core i-series. If you look at chipset specs since Intel integrated the memory controller in their CPUs, chipsets support no memory whatsoever.

Leo is technically halfway correct. Intel does list 64 GB as the max supported RAM by the Skylake i3, i5, and i7 ( Ark link here ), so the part that the CPU doesn't limit RAM is at least false as far as Intel is officially concerned.

The chipset does however pay a part in limiting the RAM total. LGA1151 chipsets are limited in how many DIMMs per memory channel it can support. H110 can only use one DIMM per channel, the rest can use two ( Intel's comparison chart here ). So, as Thomas states, since the largest unregistered DDR4 module you can get right now is 16 GB, the chipsets are imposing a limitation on how much RAM you can use since you only have two or four DIMM slots on LGA1151. In one light, Leo is correct because if you put an i5 on an H110 board, you're limited to 32 GB RAM due to the chipset, even though the CPU can use 64 GB.

However, it's debatable as to whether a Skylake CPU could actually use more than 64 GB RAM, or if Intel simply listed that as its max because you can't fit more than that on an LGA1151 board. Until someone develops a 32 GB DDR4 DIMM, or MacGyvers an eight-DIMM board, I don't think we'll have the answer to that question unless someone knows all the nitty-gritty details of the Skylake memory controller ( which I do not ).

 

[Crashman]

The RAM max is imposed by the Chipset not the CPU.

The chipset hasn't been involved in memory support since the first Core i-series. If you look at chipset specs since Intel integrated the memory controller in their CPUs, chipsets support no memory whatsoever.

Leo is technically halfway correct. Intel does list 64 GB as the max supported RAM by the Skylake i3, i5, and i7 ( Ark link here ), so the part that the CPU doesn't limit RAM is at least false as far as Intel is officially concerned.

The chipset does however pay a part in limiting the RAM total. LGA1151 chipsets are limited in how many DIMMs per memory channel it can support. H110 can only use one DIMM per channel, the rest can use two ( Intel's comparison chart here ). So, as Thomas states, since the largest unregistered DDR4 module you can get right now is 16 GB, the chipsets are imposing a limitation on how much RAM you can use since you only have two or four DIMM slots on LGA1151. In one light, Leo is correct because if you put an i5 on an H110 board, you're limited to 32 GB RAM due to the chipset, even though the CPU can use 64 GB.

However, it's debatable as to whether a Skylake CPU could actually use more than 64 GB RAM, or if Intel simply listed that as its max because you can't fit more than that on an LGA1151 board. Until someone develops a 32 GB DDR4 DIMM, or MacGyvers an eight-DIMM board, I don't think we'll have the answer to that question unless someone knows all the nitty-gritty details of the Skylake memory controller ( which I do not ).

Hahah, it's more complicated than even that. 16GB is the limit for un-registered DDR4, period, so "right now" is forever concerning desktop DDR4. And the chipset limitation is artificial, but you already said as much, and the memory controller can interface up to two DIMMs per channel. And, there are only enough pins in the socket for two channels...so...unless you're running a hacked chipset like the H110 that instructs the CPU NOT to address those extra DIMMs...

 

[Crashman]

However, it's debatable as to whether a Skylake CPU could actually use more than 64 GB RAM, or if Intel simply listed that as its max because you can't fit more than that on an LGA1151 board. Until someone develops a 32 GB DDR4 DIMM, or MacGyvers an eight-DIMM board, I don't think we'll have the answer to that question unless someone knows all the nitty-gritty details of the Skylake memory controller ( which I do not ).

BTW, when can we look forward to another RedJaron review?

 

[Karadjgne]

Well, in the past, there was ddr3 single, dual, tri and quad channel memory on 1155, 1156, 1150 boards, so I'm guessing limitations are less to do with cpu limits and more to do with Intel decisive limitations in conjunction with current trends in memory manufacture. Since Intel's decisions seem to be almost solely related to the profit margin, and almost complete lack of quad channel ram and comparable mobo's, doubt Intel would put in the effort to make the mc quad channel friendly. So you get stuck with a dual channel mc at best, meaning 4 sticks at the current availability of 16Gb max. That's not including the 2011 stuff. Of course HBM could possibly change all that, but not tomorrow.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Well, in the past, there was ddr3 single, dual, tri and quad channel memory on 1155, 1156, 1150 boards, so I'm guessing limitations are less to do with cpu limits and more to do with Intel decisive limitations in conjunction with current trends in memory manufacture. Since Intel's decisions seem to be almost solely related to the profit margin, and almost complete lack of quad channel ram and comparable mobo's, doubt Intel would put in the effort to make the mc quad channel friendly. So you get stuck with a dual channel mc at best, meaning 4 sticks at the current availability of 16Gb max. That's not including the 2011 stuff. Of course HBM could possibly change all that, but not tomorrow.

Huh? There are no LGA 1155or 1150 CPUs/mobos that support tri- or quad-channel memory. Not sure about 1156.

But, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're probably right that there's nothing strictly stopping Intel from making chips with memory controllers that support more RAM/channels. I don't know I'd say it's strictly related to profit margin though. There also really isn't much demand or need for it. Very few people have any use for more than 64 GB (or even 16 GB) or quad channel memory. And those who do have LGA 2011, and would probably benefit from the higher core count available on that platform anyway.

 

[Crashman]

Well, in the past, there was ddr3 single, dual, tri and quad channel memory on 1155, 1156, 1150 boards, so I'm guessing limitations are less to do with cpu limits and more to do with Intel decisive limitations in conjunction with current trends in memory manufacture. Since Intel's decisions seem to be almost solely related to the profit margin, and almost complete lack of quad channel ram and comparable mobo's, doubt Intel would put in the effort to make the mc quad channel friendly. So you get stuck with a dual channel mc at best, meaning 4 sticks at the current availability of 16Gb max. That's not including the 2011 stuff. Of course HBM could possibly change all that, but not tomorrow.

OMG more conspiracy theories. Intel isn't the sole member of JEDEC, they set the standard for DDR4 based on what the memory manufacturers think they can produce, with input from companies like Intel on what changes they'd like to see to assure broader compatibility.

Really, desktop DDR4 is limited to 16GB per module because that was the limit of the technology from its development.

These modules don't work in three per channel, I don't remember any DIMMs that did. So the real limit of the CPU memory controller is that its two channels, and the real limit of the motherboard is that it only has enough socket pins to work with two channels. If you look at program performance, you don't NEED more than two channels for ANY of the tasks for which these CPUs were designed, and adding more channels means adding more cost to everything from the CPU to the motherboard. And then you lose compatibility between the Core i3, which the market demands MUST be cheap, and the Core i5, which half the market wants to be cheap and the other half wants to be fast. Or you break it off at the core i5, and make the Skylake Core i7 incompatible with Core i5 platforms.

It's market logic, technology limits and other customers who are conspiring against you. I can fold you that hat now

 

[littleleo]

The RAM max is imposed by the Chipset not the CPU.

The chipset hasn't been involved in memory support since the first Core i-series. If you look at chipset specs since Intel integrated the memory controller in their CPUs, chipsets support no memory whatsoever.

Leo is technically halfway correct. Intel does list 64 GB as the max supported RAM by the Skylake i3, i5, and i7 ( Ark link here ), so the part that the CPU doesn't limit RAM is at least false as far as Intel is officially concerned.

The chipset does however pay a part in limiting the RAM total. LGA1151 chipsets are limited in how many DIMMs per memory channel it can support. H110 can only use one DIMM per channel, the rest can use two ( Intel's comparison chart here ). So, as Thomas states, since the largest unregistered DDR4 module you can get right now is 16 GB, the chipsets are imposing a limitation on how much RAM you can use since you only have two or four DIMM slots on LGA1151. In one light, Leo is correct because if you put an i5 on an H110 board, you're limited to 32 GB RAM due to the chipset, even though the CPU can use 64 GB.

However, it's debatable as to whether a Skylake CPU could actually use more than 64 GB RAM, or if Intel simply listed that as its max because you can't fit more than that on an LGA1151 board. Until someone develops a 32 GB DDR4 DIMM, or MacGyvers an eight-DIMM board, I don't think we'll have the answer to that question unless someone knows all the nitty-gritty details of the Skylake memory controller ( which I do not ).

Hahah, it's more complicated than even that. 16GB is the limit for un-registered DDR4, period, so "right now" is forever concerning desktop DDR4. And the chipset limitation is artificial, but you already said as much, and the memory controller can interface up to two DIMMs per channel. And, there are only enough pins in the socket for two channels...so...unless you're running a hacked chipset like the H110 that instructs the CPU NOT to address those extra DIMMs...

So for those of you like me who's eyes start to cross after reading lines and lines of very technical stuff. The translation for all the paragraphs and paragraphs above is, the quickest way you can tell the MAX RAM is by the chipset it has. For Skylake the entry level H110 and B150 are limited to 32GB Max, and for the H170, Q170 and Z170 have a Max of 64GB. Are there exceptions to this? Probably, but this is a good rule of thumb to quickly determine the RAM support for most motherboard models without perusing the manual.

 

[RedJaron]

So for those of you like me who's eyes start to cross after reading lines and lines of very technical stuff. The translation for all the paragraphs and paragraphs above is, the quickest way you can tell the MAX RAM is by the chipset it has. For Skylake the entry level H110 and B150 are limited to 32GB Max, and for the H170, Q170 and Z170 have a Max of 64GB. Are there exceptions to this? Probably, but this is a good rule of thumb to quickly determine the RAM support for most motherboard models without perusing the manual.

Is it really so hard for you to admit you made a mistake or were wrong? Because you're wrong again. The B150 chipset can support two DIMMs per channel, so it can go up to 64 GB.

 

[littleleo]

So for those of you like me who's eyes start to cross after reading lines and lines of very technical stuff. The translation for all the paragraphs and paragraphs above is, the quickest way you can tell the MAX RAM is by the chipset it has. For Skylake the entry level H110 and B150 are limited to 32GB Max, and for the H170, Q170 and Z170 have a Max of 64GB. Are there exceptions to this? Probably, but this is a good rule of thumb to quickly determine the RAM support for most motherboard models without perusing the manual.

Is it really so hard for you to admit you made a mistake or were wrong? Because you're wrong again. The B150 chipset can support two DIMMs per channel, so it can go up to 64 GB.

Red I have no problem admitting I'm wrong and I'm wrong a lot. Besides yourself I have a dedicated fan base that is always very happy to tell me when I'm wrong. It doesn't bother me in the least I embrace it. It always puts a smile on my face, since I don't take myself that seriously. If you are not making mistakes in life you are not really living. I've got to admit I'm very flattered so much attention is paid to me that I'm fact checked at every post and I'm not even a republican, lol.

So B150s can go to 64GB but most most don't. I base what I say on my real life experiencse with the products that I sell everyday. Not based on a white paper written by a tech that you and others so nicely listed for us. I sell lots of motherboards using that chipset from ASUS, GIGABYTE, MSI and others and the majority max at 32GB. Sure they may have the ability to go to 64GB as you have pointed out, but for whatever reason the majority mfrs prefer to keep most of the B150 at 32GB. That is their decision as I pointed out for a quick rule of thumb the B150 max out at 32GB, and there are probably exceptions to this. I just haven't seen any yet but I wouldn't be surprised if there was. Especially since you have so clearly explained why they can. So I'm wrong the B150 can go to 64GB but I'm right since most don't. I hope that smooths over any hurt feelings. If it doesn't let me know and I'll send you a post stating 50 times I'm wrong ;^D

 

[TJ Hooker]

So B150s can go to 64GB but most most don't. I base what I say on my real life experiencse with the products that I sell everyday. Not based on a white paper written by a tech that you and others so nicely listed for us. I sell lots of motherboards using that chipset from ASUS, GIGABYTE, MSI and others and the majority max at 32GB. Sure they may have the ability to go to 64GB as you have pointed out, but for whatever reason the majority mfrs prefer to keep most of the B150 at 32GB. That is their decision as I pointed out for a quick rule of thumb the B150 max out at 32GB, and there are probably exceptions to this. I just haven't seen any yet but I wouldn't be surprised if there was. Especially since you have so clearly explained why they can. So I'm wrong the B150 can go to 64GB but I'm right since most don't.

No, you're incorrect, the majority of b150 mobos have 4 RAM slots, and can therefore support 64 GB of memory.
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/motherboard/#c=112&qq=1&sort=d4&page=1

 

[littleleo]

So B150s can go to 64GB but most most don't. I base what I say on my real life experiencse with the products that I sell everyday. Not based on a white paper written by a tech that you and others so nicely listed for us. I sell lots of motherboards using that chipset from ASUS, GIGABYTE, MSI and others and the majority max at 32GB. Sure they may have the ability to go to 64GB as you have pointed out, but for whatever reason the majority mfrs prefer to keep most of the B150 at 32GB. That is their decision as I pointed out for a quick rule of thumb the B150 max out at 32GB, and there are probably exceptions to this. I just haven't seen any yet but I wouldn't be surprised if there was. Especially since you have so clearly explained why they can. So I'm wrong the B150 can go to 64GB but I'm right since most don't.

No, you're incorrect, the majority of b150 mobos have 4 RAM slots, and can therefore support 64 GB of memory.
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/motherboard/#c=112&qq=1&sort=d4&page=1

Your right there are a lot on Partpicker showing 64GB I was checking that list against my inventory and I noticed all the ones we stock are all only 2 DIMM except for the DDR3 versions and I'd not touch those. SO I"m wrong there are many B150s that will support 64GB, if they have 4 DIMMs.

Somewhere Red is smiling

 

[Crashman]

Your right there are a lot on Partpicker showing 64GB I was checking that list against my inventory and I noticed all the ones we stock are all only 2 DIMM except for the DDR3 versions and I'd not touch those. SO I"m wrong there are many B150s that will support 64GB, if they have 4 DIMMs.

Somewhere Red is smiling

Like I said, it's market logic, technology limits and other customers who are conspiring against you. The market logic is that nobody wants to pay for a bigger socket and more-expensive motherboard when using the cheaper CPUs within the LGA 1150 series. The technology limits are 16GB/DIMM and 2DIMMs/Channel. The customers are the ones who defined the market logic. Intel isn't actually limiting anything (beyond not supporting rDIMMs) on the B150, H170 or Z170, the three things I said are the three things that happened. The only chipset that adds any memory limit is the H110.

 

[InvalidError]

The technology limits are 16GB/DIMM and 2DIMMs/Channel. The only chipset that adds any memory limit is the H110.

Since the chipset is not technically connected to any actual memory addressing logic, any "chipset limit" would be purely artificial, just like the bulk of the rest of Intel's artificial market segmentation.

 

[Crashman]

The technology limits are 16GB/DIMM and 2DIMMs/Channel. The only chipset that adds any memory limit is the H110.

Since the chipset is not technically connected to any actual memory addressing logic, any "chipset limit" would be purely artificial, just like the bulk of the rest of Intel's artificial market segmentation.

Correct.

 

[Onus]

Now that I'm back, I'll be splitting my twofer into two articles. I don't think it will take too long, since I will maintain an incremental approach.

 

[Olle P]

The chipset hasn't been involved in memory support since the first Core i-series. If you look at chipset specs since Intel integrated the memory controller in their CPUs, chipsets support no memory whatsoever.

Sow how does that fit in answering my question here?

 

[Crashman]

The chipset hasn't been involved in memory support since the first Core i-series. If you look at chipset specs since Intel integrated the memory controller in their CPUs, chipsets support no memory whatsoever.

Sow how does that fit in answering my question here?

Intel has very tight restrictions regarding approved parts, that are meant to protect itself from liability. Anything you do outside of that restriction is technically considered overclocking. For example, I have a four-DIMM set of DDR4-3866, I put it in the motherboard and set XMP, and the motherboard doesn't boot. The motherboard manufacturer did everything they could to make sure it worked, and so did the memory manufacturer. The CPU might work with it, or it might not.

Obviously this doesn't apply to DDR4-2666 in most cases, yet like I said, Intel is very strict with its approvals for a reason.