Skylake-X (Core i9) - Lineup, Specifications and Reviews!

n=1 said:
https://www.kitguru.net/components/...xkaby-lake-x-chips-still-use-low-quality-tim/



What the fuck Intel. TIM has no place in the HEDT space. Looks like you're gonna have to delid and go custom water to get the most out of these chips.
Click to expand...

I think that is some serious over-reacting by Kitguru.
The 6950X at 1.2V would hit 4GHz all cores...
After that it was like hitting a bit of a wall and you need water cooling, to expect any difference and to be able to do 1.3V this time on air is being a bit unreasonable on their part IMO.
Ideally this time one should be able to hit 4.5GHz all cores at 1.2V on air.
Cheers
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
Okay, I see these predictions in the CFO's commentary, on Page 7 with regards to 2017 as a whole:

"Revenue to increase low double digit percentage y/y,"
"To improve non-GAAP gross margin and achieve non-GAAP net income"

So the CFO is saying that revenue is expected to increase, and that margins are expected to increase, along with a return to profitability. Although I don't know why he's saying "non-GAAP." That just seems odd that he wouldn't use GAAP in this commentary.
Click to expand...

And something like Scorpio will add 300M$ or so for 2 quarters in extra revenue. So where does that leave the rest, Ryzen, Naples, Vega? Margins in Q2 down 1%. And profitability, no.
 
Shintai said:
That's just normal evolution due to the datacenter. Most interesting thing since Nehalem? Absolutely not.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself, man. Yesterday, there were no 8 core, highly-clocked Skylakes laying around. Nor were there cheap Ryzen alternatives (at least before March, anyway). To get north of 4 cores, you either had to sacrifice a boatload of single core performance with low-clocked Xeons, or you had to pay out the wazoo. Today (well, more correctly, in a month or two) there are great, relatively inexpensive alternatives. Now I call that damned interesting, and a damn sight better than anything I've seen on the market since Nehalem and SB.

And quite honestly, if that doesn't wet your whistle, I don't know why you're even here.
 
Shintai said:
And something like Scorpio will add 300M$ or so for 2 quarters in extra revenue. So where does that leave the rest, Ryzen, Naples, Vega? Margins in Q2 down 1%. And profitability, no.
Click to expand...

How much of that is expected to hit for 2017? Are you sure it's $300M for THIS year? And also, supposing there is an increase because of Scorpio, that doesn't mean there isn't a corresponding decrease somewhere else. I mean, looking at AMD's financials, they aren't doing so hot. If they manage to make profitability this year, it will be by a pubic hair. But it's not really broken down by segment, either. Hard to say which part of that is server sales.
 
tangoseal said:
How do you define home pc? You act like grandpa is going to be building this to watch videos of his grandparents.

Seriously I amongst tens of thousands of others are running dedicated ECC filled servers in our homes. One of mine is for business in my HOME. Who have you heavenly authoriry to define that home users wouldnt want a certain feature over another in an expensive cpu.

Your just using your own emotion to push your POV.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Intel makes chips just for servers and that use ECC memory, they are the Xeon line. If that is a feature that is important to you, I'd suggest a Xeon.

My emotion? These are just novelties, nothing in my life depends on having an 18c chip, with or without ECC memory. If I buy one it's because I want to play around with the new halo chip from Intel. I didn't need my 5960X when I bought it, but it was at the top of the benchmark heap a couple of years ago so I bought one. I rather like it now that I've used it for a while, which is why I was so pumped for Ryzen owners to finally get to experience a "real" 8c chip - like I had been for a couple of years. But I passed on BW-E and Ryzen. BW-E didn't offer enough of an upgrade over the 8c HW-E I am using, and Ryzen isn't quite where it needs to be for me to take the plunge.

But yeah, my 5960X computer is just a home PC. Surf the web, game, encode vids, run AutoCAD (it's what I do at work, I get spoiled and couldn't stand not having it at home), Lightroom, all the regular home PC stuff. And if I get an 18c i9, it'll do the same things. People confuse "need" and "want" when trying to establish the justifications of the purchases of others. I don't "need" an i9 of any core count, but I kinda want one of them monsters to play with. And that's all the justification you'll get from me.

Edit: As for "fair and balanced", you should hit up Kyle and see if he won't put in an AMD forum.
 
Dullard said:
Not at all. Intel makes chips just for servers and that use ECC memory, they are the Xeon line. If that is a feature that is important to you, I'd suggest a Xeon.

My emotion? These are just novelties, nothing in my life depends on having an 18c chip, with or without ECC memory. If I buy one it's because I want to play around with the new halo chip from Intel. I didn't need my 5960X when I bought it, but it was at the top of the benchmark heap a couple of years ago so I bought one. I rather like it now that I've used it for a while, which is why I was so pumped for Ryzen owners to finally get to experience a "real" 8c chip - like I had been for a couple of years. But I passed on BW-E and Ryzen. BW-E didn't offer enough of an upgrade over the 8c HW-E I am using, and Ryzen isn't quite where it needs to be for me to take the plunge.

But yeah, my 5960X computer is just a home PC. Surf the web, game, encode vids, run AutoCAD (it's what I do at work, I get spoiled and couldn't stand not having it at home), Lightroom, all the regular home PC stuff. And if I get an 18c i9, it'll do the same things. People confuse "need" and "want" when trying to establish the justifications of the purchases of others. I don't "need" an i9 of any core count, but I kinda want one of them monsters to play with. And that's all the justification you'll get from me.

Edit: As for "fair and balanced", you should hit up Kyle and see if he won't put in an AMD forum.
Click to expand...

Fine, you don't need or want ECC. You can't take advantage of it. But just because you can't doesn't mean all users can't...there are many potential purchasers of these chips who can. Having the feature on the CPU, but not being used isn't going to interfere with your usage of it. Just ignore it and let those people who'd want to use it, use it. ECC should come on the i9 with the end user deciding IF he or she wants to use it.
 
CSI_PC said:
I think that is some serious over-reacting by Kitguru.
The 6950X at 1.2V would hit 4GHz all cores...
After that it was like hitting a bit of a wall and you need water cooling, to expect any difference and to be able to do 1.3V this time on air is being a bit unreasonable on their part IMO.
Ideally this time one should be able to hit 4.5GHz all cores at 1.2V on air.
Cheers
Click to expand...

Plenty of 6700K overclock just fine on air at 1.3V.

Plus you're missing my point entirely, which was TIM does not belong on HEDT chips period. I can't think of any good reason besides cost cutting why solder wasn't used.
 
lutjens said:
Fine, you don't need or want ECC. You can't take advantage of it. But just because you can't doesn't mean all users can't...there are many potential purchasers of these chips who can. Having the feature on the CPU, but not being used isn't going to interfere with your usage of it. Just ignore it and let those people who'd want to use it, use it. ECC should come on the i9 with the end user deciding IF he or she wants to use it.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who told Intel to not make ECC memory an option on i9 (I haven't seen if it is or isn't, to be honest). If these chips don't support it, Intel makes others that do.
 
n=1 said:
Plenty of 6700K overclock just fine on air at 1.3V.

Plus you're missing my point entirely, which was TIM does not belong on HEDT chips period. I can't think of any good reason besides cost cutting why solder wasn't used.
Click to expand...
And I wonder what fan loads they are at for 1.3V.
But anyway 6700K is not a HEDT CPU nor running 8+ cores.
And TIM has nothing to do regarding 1.3V, as I mentioned previous HEDT Broadwell-E for air was around all cores 4GHz at 1.2V, then you hit the wall and need water - that is using solder.
Haswell-E on water had issues at just above 1.3V - specifically the 5930 and 5960 meaning 8C and I am not sure that was even locked at all core.
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2014/09/25/core_i75960x_5930k_5820k_overclocking_performance/3
And plenty of other reviews with water cooling on these Haswell-E 8C CPUs had same experience.

So like I mention, Kitguru has taken it too far to complain about 1.3V on air being a problem with Skylake-X HEDT.
If you look back I have repeatedly mentioned about being wary of Intel's die-TIM-IHS solution that can be hit and miss, but this is a separate variable to 1.3V on air that was not possible with Haswell-E or Broadwell-E; one of the best international OCers Der8aur suggests only 1.2V to 1.24V on air with Broadwell-E (8C+) that hits around the 4GHz all cores - still impressive IMO especially for the 10C.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
So many choices right now for a new CPU literally after I refunded my dead Asrock x370 board.
 
CSI_PC said:
And I wonder what fan loads they are at for 1.3V.
But anyway 6700K is not a HEDT CPU nor running 8+ cores.
And TIM has nothing to do regarding 1.3V, as I mentioned previous HEDT Broadwell-E for air was around all cores 4GHz at 1.2V, then you hit the wall and need water - that is using solder.
Haswell-E on water had issues at just above 1.3V - specifically the 5930 and 5960 meaning 8C and I am not sure that was even locked at all core.
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2014/09/25/core_i75960x_5930k_5820k_overclocking_performance/3
And plenty of other reviews with water cooling on these Haswell-E 8C CPUs had same experience.

So like I mention, Kitguru has taken it too far to complain about 1.3V on air being a problem with Skylake-X HEDT.
If you look back I have repeatedly mentioned about being wary of Intel's die-TIM-IHS solution that can be hit and miss, but this is a separate variable to 1.3V on air that was not possible with Haswell-E or Broadwell-E; one of the best international OCers Der8aur suggests only 1.2V to 1.24V on air with Broadwell-E (8C+) that hits around the 4GHz all cores - still impressive IMO especially for the 10C.
Cheers
Click to expand...

Why are we fixating on air? Using paste means overclocking on water will be worse too compared to solder. You can't tell me with a straight face that you'll achieve the exact same results under water when using paste vs solder.

If you noticed, here's my original complaint:

Looks like you're gonna have to delid and go custom water to get the most out of these chips.
Click to expand...

And because of how Skylake-X is packaged, it's no longer a simple razor delid, because you have two different PCBs to contend with, each with their own adhesive:

e42intelskylakex_delihps0y.jpg
 
Last edited:
Lets take a guess at $2399 for the 18 core.

Amd will be like $999 dor thier 16 core...

Now lets see if AMD forces Intel to price battle.

Shintai said:
The 18 core is 1999$. So you can pack the FUD away.
Click to expand...

Lol after taxes you will be there at nearly 2400 bucks especially if you live in VAT countries. That processor is nothing more then a useless Halo they expect to sell next to none of.
 
The Intel part looks very compelling for someone like me who does heavy drone footage editing and lots of VMs running. But the price is just redumbulous since I dont have a HUGE corporation making the purchase for me hence my desperate Hope AMD 16 core contends close enough to force a price war on the chips. I do not expect the price on the 18 core to drop but 16 v 16 should be a good fight if they measure up of course.

ECC is a bonus not a requirement.
 
lolfail9001 said:
And Threadripper is tax-exempt totally not-Halo kekeke.


Are you tangoseal's long lost brother by any chance?
Click to expand...

Nope just added what Tangoseal said as well. Simple fact is 2,000 bucks for a processor is just a no seller, I dont know what AMD will sell theirs for but I am guessing less then a thousand and I dont expect a ton of sales from those either. Once you go above 500 bucks the amount of people willing to buy drops below 5%, just like when cars exceed 60,000, they are made to fit a tiny niche and be a Halo product.
 
Gideon said:
Simple fact is 2,000 bucks for a processor is just a no seller,
Click to expand...
For you. 6950X was probably one of the best selling CPU in BDW-E (not that it had much competition).
Gideon said:
Once you go above 500 bucks the amount of people willing to buy drops below 5%, just like when cars exceed 60,000, they are made to fit a tiny niche and be a Halo product.
Click to expand...
These CPUs are not made for 95%, you know.
 
juanrga said:
Using same kind of sarcasm, AMD releasing Threadripper with double the number of cores of RyZen is NOT a reaction to SKL-X, and ThreadRipper NOT appearing in the old desktop roadmaps was a fortuitous causality...
Click to expand...

AMD announced RTR before Intel announced Core i9.

Rumours of 16-core MCM Unlocked Ryzen chips circulated before rumours of 14+ Intel cores circulated.

Nice try.
 
Not gonna lie, I didn't see a 16 core, and certainly not an 18 core coming from Intel. I feel like they just dropped the mic a bit here. The 7800x and 7820x look really compelling for the price. The pricing on the top models is a bit insane, but meh, they aren't worthwhile or practical for 99% of us, and they're probably worth the cost to the "time is money" folks that can actually use that many cores.
 
So I'm reading someone OC'd the 18 core to 5.7ghz on liquid nitrogen? And Thread Ripper is OCing on water to 5ghz. S*$@ is about to get real and I'm buying something.
 
Dullard said:
I'm not the one who told Intel to not make ECC memory an option on i9 (I haven't seen if it is or isn't, to be honest). If these chips don't support it, Intel makes others that do.
Click to expand...

Really? Do tell. What unlocked chips does Intel make that support ECC?
 
$1,000 for a proper 44-lane PCIe part, and everything below that is gimped? Well, thanks, Intel, just let me watch as AMD eats your lunch with Ryzen Threadripper and 44 PCIe lanes across the board.

This isn't just a multi-GPU thing, either. NVMe? 4 lanes per SSD, usually. High-end video capture/framegrabber cards that can handle signals above 60 Hz? PCIe x4. Thunderbolt 3.0? PCIe 3.0 x4 at the core. Quad-controller USB 3.0 cards? PCIe x4 yet again, one lane per controller/root hub. 10-Gigabit Ethernet? PCIe 2.1 x8! (They need to move on to PCIe 3.0 x4 there.) Then toss in the occasional PCIe x1 sound card and so forth that you could run through the DMI lanes...

Even if multi-GPU is less relevant now than it was before, there are lots of other things that warrant fast PCIe lanes, especially with NVMe now becoming the new standard for SSDs. 16 PCIe lanes on the mainstream parts is no longer going to cut it, and I'm skeptical on 28 lanes being enough even with a single GPU. More lanes means more expandability for the future, even if everything starts looking outdated once PCI-Express 4.0 rolls out.

I miss when Intel wasn't gimping PCIe on HEDT parts just because they could for artificial segmentation's sake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: isp
like this
Sprayingmango said:
Can't believe that I now have to buy a $999 processor for 44 PCI-e lanes. This is insane!!!
Click to expand...
No kidding. I see so many people in this thread giving Intel all kinds of praise for releasing some "competitive" HEDT chips to go up against AMD. And while I do like some of them that look pretty nice by the price/performance metric like the 7820k, forcing people to go up a tier for all 44 PCIe lanes is really stupid.

On X99 everyone knew that the tradeoff of getting a relatively cheap HEDT in the form of the 5820k was the fact that you only got 28 lanes. But if you wanted all 44, you could step up to the 5930k/6850k for. ~$600. That was still only half the price of the 5960x or 6900k.

So now they have TWO SKL-X chips that have gimped PCIe lanes? That's some stupid, arbitrary bullshit. We all knew the cheapest one would, but forcing customers to a $1000+ chip just for the extra lanes is the same old Intel behavior where they know they can do it, cause what other option do you have?

So while I am still excited, I don't really think Intel deserves all the praise they're getting. They're just begrudgingly being *somewhat* competitive price wise cause I think they really got caught off guard by threadripper.
 
lolfail9001 said:
For you. 6950X was probably one of the best selling CPU in BDW-E (not that it had much competition).
Click to expand...

In terms of margin probably. I bet 6800K is the volume seller though (that's what "best selling" means to me).


capnstabn said:
So I'm reading someone OC'd the 18 core to 5.7ghz on liquid nitrogen? And Thread Ripper is OCing on water to 5ghz. S*$@ is about to get real and I'm buying something.
Click to expand...

It's the 10 core 7900X

http://hwbot.org/submission/3563152_elmor_cinebench___r11.5_core_i9_7900x_34.79_points
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
Though Intel has shown us prices a lot more reasonable than I expected out of them.

One thing is certain, between AMD and Intel, prices just came down on high core count CPUs in a huge way. Consumer wins, all around.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why so many people keep saying this, that prices are so much more reasonable than expected or in the past.

I mean going by core count, yeah, they have improved pricing quite a bit compared to X99, I'll agree with that. But compared to their historical HEDT pricing tiers? No, I don't think so. They've just increased the number of CPUs in the lineup and pushed the high end even *higher*.

I mean $2000 for the flagship CPU? GTFO. That's a $500 increase just since the last generation, I can't be the only one who thinks that's ridiculous.
 
Price/core has come down there's no arguing that. But it's clear the HEDT lineup is now more segmented than ever. $999 for the privilege of having more than 28 PCIe leans is just some fine horseshit. Also, not sure if you guys noticed, but the 7800X's IMC only officially supports up to 2400 ram while everything else (even the fucking quad cores) support 2666, meaning it's probably binned for a crappier IMC. Man with Intel there's always a catch.

Not to mention going ass backwards and using fucking paste instead of soldering the IHS, that's just criminal. I've been itching to do a total platform upgrade from my X79 setup, but Intel can go fuck itself now.
 
Last edited:
capnstabn said:
So I'm reading someone OC'd the 18 core to 5.7ghz on liquid nitrogen? And Thread Ripper is OCing on water to 5ghz. S*$@ is about to get real and I'm buying something.
Click to expand...

Nobody did either of that.
 
n=1 said:
Why are we fixating on air? Using paste means overclocking on water will be worse too compared to solder. You can't tell me with a straight face that you'll achieve the exact same results under water when using paste vs solder.

If you noticed, here's my original complaint:



And because of how Skylake-X is packaged, it's no longer a simple razor delid, because you have two different PCBs to contend with, each with their own adhesive:

e42intelskylakex_delihps0y.jpg
Click to expand...

Hang on my last post was much more than just about air.
Anyway your primary OP was around Kitguru article and their focus is:
Consumers can expect temperatures of around 85C+ from a 10-core i9-7900X at 1.3V using high-end air cooling. Given that 1.3V is still far from the highest Vcore many overclockers will be dialling in, this is certainly a disappointment.
Click to expand...
Loojking at my posts again can see where I am coming from with what you posted, especially my last post.

And my last post actually covered that Haswell-E had difficulties even with around 1.32V on water specifically the 8C, even provided the HardOCP review, along with pointing out there are different variables involved between 1.3V and the die-TIM-IHS solution implemented.

Maybe would had been best not to include the KitGuru article as part of your complaint, which is what I focused on in the OP and emphasised my bone of contention was Kitguru rather than you.
Like I said I am wary of the die-TIM-IHS and life would be simpler if they left it as before, but the issue was more than the TIM used and really want to see benchmarks just to find out how much of an enthusiast CPU it is with the standard packaging; key products will be 8C+.

Really best not try to razor delid HEDT since Broadwell-E due to the packaging, but on the plus side there are quite a few tools that help to simplify the delidding that will apply to Skylake-X as well.

But my point still stands, if TIM still succesfully provides good temps up to 1.22V all cores at 4.5Ghz then people will not see much impact (this is what Intel is probably aiming for), because Haswell-E and Broadwell-E really hit the wall quickly around 1.3V and were more difficult to cool relative to 5960X.
And here is the 5960X at 1.31V on water:

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9DLzUvNDUwMTQ5L29yaWdpbmFsLzQuNS1HSHotOC1Db3Jlcy1UZW1wZXJhdHVyZS5wbmc=



And here is 6950X; it would hit 4GHz at around 1.2V to 1.22V, but to hit 4.3GHz required 1.38V on water (others got away with around 1.35V) and with temp:

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS81L0QvNTgzMzkzL29yaWdpbmFsLzMyLTY5MDBLLVRlbXBlcmF0dXJlLVRvcnR1cmUucG5n


So water really did not provide much in the way of increasing voltages for 24/7 safe use, possibly quieter and more efficient than running Noctua D15 at 1.2V for 4GHz though.

So the key is really how well Intel can get the latest die-TIM-IHS package and implementation to perform at around 1.2V to 1.24V, and yeah I am wary but lets see what the benches show.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
NKD said:
Asking all humble men to thank amd by liking this post. I mean anyone else believe intel wouldn't have raped you on these processor if AMD didn't have Threadripper coming?
Click to expand...

Funny enough ThreadRipper didn't appear in AMD roadmaps/plan a pair of years ago. AMD only had AM4, SP4, and SP3.

SP4 platform has been a fiasco and AMD re-purposed it for desktop under the ThreadRipper brand. Then Intel has reacted with the new >10 core SKL-X models. The original merit is for Intel killing AMD's SP4 original aspirations.
 
lutjens said:
Again, I'll wait for the official (and current) launch information from AMD...;)
Click to expand...

Here you go then.
https://videocardz.com/70093/amd-ryzen-threadripper-with-64-pcie-lanes

TR4 Socket is not compatible with EPYC socket

Threadripper will be using a socket called TR4 essentially it’s very similar to the higher-end server socket, but it’s not compatible, so you can’t put EPYC CPU into Threadripper platform […] I think it might even have the same number of pins, it’s a very similar socket.
Click to expand...

That makes it 7 sockets for Zen products.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
They aren't SB-E like for throughput tasks. For those, it's more like 16 Haswell cores vs. 12 Skylake cores.
Click to expand...

Clock for clock RyZen is behind Haswell in throughput workloads and more IB-E like. On latency workloads RyZen is behind SB-E. Taking an average of both applications RyZen looks more like SB-E to me, specially when we add on AVX256 workload to the above.
 
juanrga said:
Clock for clock RyZen is behind Haswell in throughput workloads and more IB-E like. On latency workloads RyZen is behind SB-E. Taking an average of both applications RyZen looks more like SB-E to me, specially when we add on AVX256 workload to the above.
Click to expand...

You told me before it was Haswell-like for throughput tasks, and SB-like for latency tasks. I was quoting YOU.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
*sigh* You missed the point entirely. See, the 7820X *is* the most interesting on that list, IMHO. We're talking 8 cores for a reasonable price. Yesterday this was $1050. Now $600 for a faster one (or $300-$450 for a slower AMD version). It's a huge deal man, don't minimize it. Now, yeah... I don't see Joe Dirt going and buying himself an 18 core monster. But we're going to see 6 and 8 core chips become a LOT more common. And that's movement I can get behind.
Click to expand...

I have a problem with their 8 core offering because of lack of PCIe, so it is big f. no to me. In order to get 44 PCie you have to pay $999 so Intel really didn't do us any favor. This time around my money i on AMD. I bet they will pull 12/24 CPU for $999 giving you shit load of PCIe.
 
Luka said:
I have a problem with their 8 core offering because of lack of PCIe, so it is big f. no to me. In order to get 44 PCie you have to pay $999 so Intel really didn't do us any favor. This time around my money i on AMD. I bet they will pull 12/24 CPU for $999 giving you shit load of PCIe.
Click to expand...

What do you need the extra PCIe lanes for?
 
I bet they will pull 12/24 CPU for $999 giving you shit load of PCIe.
Click to expand...

The question is what % of applications will this be faster than the 10C / 20T Intel (that has the same # of PCIe lanes)?

Although AMD will support ECC so maybe that gives them an advantage that is worth paying the same price for a system that is slower but will have a better chance for an upgrade in the future.
 
juanrga said:
Clock for clock RyZen is behind Haswell in throughput workloads and more IB-E like. On latency workloads RyZen is behind SB-E. Taking an average of both applications RyZen looks more like SB-E to me, specially when we add on AVX256 workload to the above.
Click to expand...


Might as well say its as fast as Piledriver. Your full of it even with [H] data and the others in front of you. You have to resort to some 3rd party BS site that nobody knows thats in a different language to prove your points, and you always have to think that AMD has to match or beat Intel in every single metric. Not gonna happen. Some situations run slower, some blow it away. 4.0ghz Ryzen ~= 4.5ghz 2600k in gaming according to HardOCP which you post here but obviously, don't agree with their results.

I have owned all these chips, SB, SB-E, IVB, HSW, HSW-E, BDW-E. I came from a 6800k and do not notice a difference in performance with my 3.8ghz Ryzen 1700 in gaming. Imagine that. Running a 1080ti @ 4k and it does not hold it back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top