Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
Why would people still be building high end systems using the Haswell versus  
Skylake?  Is it a price or performance issue or both?  I am gathering  
information while trying to figure out how I want to build my first system  
which will be way overkill for how I use a computer but I think it would be  
fun to have a fairly powerful computer.  Things were a lot simpler back in  

Brought to you from Anchorage, Alaska  

Re: CPUs

Bill Bradshaw wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Skylake has a bend-able substrate. Don't use a heavy
cooler on it.


All processors have errata. On average, around 100 items
are recorded in each errata sheet. One of the errata made
headlines, because a third-party user group detected the
errata rather than Intel. If the errata are part of the
instruction set, they can be patched with a BIOS or
OS level microcode patch. For other types of errata, like
the TLB issue on an AMD 9500, they may require more code
(code to disable the TLB or modify the size setting or
whatever, added as a perhaps 20KB BIOS patch).

I'm sure Haswell has such errata as well, but they're detected
by Intel, documented, and patched with microcode.

In any case, you've got that. And you've also got
the Z170 USB3-only "feature". Where the USB ports
won't work unless the OS has an XHCI driver from
T=0. Just recently (a few days ago), some sort of
package was released by Intel, for slipstreaming
perhaps, so you could fix up your DVD. Alternately,
the motherboard makers include some mechanism to
emulate USB2 protocols, so all your boot options
continue to work.


So, there are some differences. Perhaps things,
that over time, are no longer issues, or
don't affect an "average" build. For example,
my newest (and last) desktop has a 2 pound cooler
inside the computer case. Which takes up almost
all the internal space inside the computer. To
fasten the DIMM levers, I have to use a wooden stick
as an extender, as I can no longer stretch a hand in
there. That setup would not be a good candidate for
a Skylake, as I would bend the substrate all to hell.
I even added mechanical support to my build, so
the cooler isn't pulling on the motherboard quite
as much.

A possible *theory* of my own making, is that Skylake
CPU die, is smaller than the previous number of square
millimeters. This causes a thermal issue similar to
some Athlon silicon dies, which for their time, were
a bit on the small side as well. This causes a need for
a better spreading angle on any heat spreaders. So they
may have decided to make the Skylake lid thicker, then
wanted to keep the same Z-stack so the same coolers
could be used with the new socket, but forgetting that
now the thinner substrate wasn't as mechanically robust.
And right where the lid stops, and the load is
carried by the substrate, that's where the mechanical
issue appears. If they'd adjusted the Z-stack, allowed
the entire processor to be taller, caused all the cooler
makers to spin a new version of third-party cooler, this
wouldn't have happened. They could have kept the usual
substrate thickness, used whatever kind of lid they wanted,
and accepted slightly fewer initial entrants in the cooler


Re: CPUs

Thanks, this gives me some things to think about.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Site Timeline