Intel Core i9-7900X “Skylake-X” Reviews

Discussion in '[H]ard|OCP Front Page News' started by Kyle_Bennett, Jun 16, 2017.

  1. Kyle_Bennett

    Kyle_Bennett El Chingón Staff Member

    Messages:
    45,944
    Joined:
    May 18, 1997
    Intel Core i9-7900X Skylake-X processor reviews are starting to leak out before the embargo that is next week. Enjoy!

    Bit-Tech - "The fact that you can get a 10-core CPU to 4.6GHz with relative ease at less than 1.25V with a decent cooler is remarkable, and we have no doubt that it's the lack of solder between the heatspreader and core that's holding things back. Thankfully, the Core i9-7900X still represents a big leap in performance in many real-world tests, especially video transcoding and rendering both at stock speed and when overclocked despite thermals limiting overclocking."

    Hexus - "Our chip seems to be a good one and had no qualms about running at 4.7GHz across all 10 cores. Heck, it needed only 1.25V to make it happen."

    DCd6rmPXUAAF1p-.jpg
     
    F.E.A.R., Stimpy88, Peter2k and 7 others like this.
  2. azuza001

    azuza001 Gawd

    Messages:
    622
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2012
    Let the games begin.

    As the hexus review points out . . .

    I9 - 999$
    Ryzen 1800x - 499$

    And that doesn't take the ryzen 1700 into account.

    So yeah, let the games begin. And fired the first shot, Intels first counter shot seems a bit hit and miss.
     
  3. Ocellaris

    Ocellaris Ginger Ale, an alcoholic's best friend.

    Messages:
    17,841
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2008
    The i9 and 1800X are in different performance classes, of course the i9 is going to cost more for that top tier performance.
     
  4. Araxie

    Araxie [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,548
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    yep 8c/16t that top at 3.9ghz - 4.0ghz versus 10c/20t that top out at 4.6ghz - 4.7ghz with also more IPC advantage.
     
    Armenius, F.E.A.R. and Maxx like this.
  5. bigdogchris

    bigdogchris Wii was a Novelty

    Messages:
    16,604
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Hold on ... i9 10 core CPU on the highest end platform and they are still using thermal paste?

    [​IMG]
     
    Armenius, the901, TheHobbyist and 3 others like this.
  6. WhoBeDaPlaya

    WhoBeDaPlaya 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,070
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2002
    Hey, at least there are no dongles or delidding involved ;)
     
    N4CR and Vercinaigh like this.
  7. SeymourGore

    SeymourGore [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    2,043
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    This place is going to be a dorky warzone this summer.
     
    MacLeod, N4CR, mbelue and 7 others like this.
  8. risc

    risc n00bie

    Messages:
    11
    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Still a software and system balance issue for desktop users.

    The more cores approach solves a few problems, but only a few workloads can take advantage. Efficiency and single thread performance are still most important.
     
    jologskyblues likes this.
  9. Whach

    Whach Gawd

    Messages:
    1,020
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    I'll say it again. Isn't competition great?
     
    mat9v, mbelue, BloodDonor and 13 others like this.
  10. lolfail9001

    lolfail9001 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,546
    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    Between what and what?

    I hate every time people use that phrase because ultimately, none of KBL-S, Ryzen nor SKL-X compete with each other besides pricing or core counts.
     
    Armenius and Semantics like this.
  11. WhoBeDaPlaya

    WhoBeDaPlaya 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,070
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2002
    Replace sportscars with CPUs / GPUs, and you've got it :p

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2017
    Armenius, mat9v, Whach and 13 others like this.
  12. Kyle_Bennett

    Kyle_Bennett El Chingón Staff Member

    Messages:
    45,944
    Joined:
    May 18, 1997
    Nothing like coming into turn 1 at CoTA running about 155 though. ;)
     
  13. Dayaks

    Dayaks [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,833
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    It's technically competition if they are in the ball park. If you can do the same thing for 50% cheaper but it's 20% slower that's still competition. They are still competing for system sales. They don't need to dead on par with each other. I will agree I wish they'd stop comparing them like they have the same performance...

    On a different note I wish they'd make the power consumption charts watts/units of work. It looks like the i9 is pulling tons of power but in some tests it also is doing way more work.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2017
    mat9v, Whach and Brutos like this.
  14. jkw

    jkw Gawd

    Messages:
    566
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2004
    Not enough of a performance or feature gain to get me to jump from my 6950.
    I'll definitely though be getting a 16c Threadripper and Vega for my first AMD build in a LONG time.
    Will have to see specs on the 18c i9 to decide if its worth the upgrade (probably not).
    Intel seems to be caught off guard and rushing out a half baked X299 chipset.
     
    mat9v and heatlesssun like this.
  15. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun Pick your own.....you deserve it.

    Messages:
    46,145
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    I hear you. That clock speed seems impressive. It's going to take some time for the dust to settle and see where we are with this generation of CPUs. I'd like to see AMD do at least one iteration and see how Intel responds. Interesting times ahead in CPUs at the top end it seems.
     
    jkw likes this.
  16. Budwise

    Budwise [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,738
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    That's nothing compared to the back straight, at least the hill helps slow you down. DON'T FAIL ME BRAKES!
     
  17. Kyle_Bennett

    Kyle_Bennett El Chingón Staff Member

    Messages:
    45,944
    Joined:
    May 18, 1997
    The hill decreasing the length of the braking zone is what makes is fun! Deeper....faster.....
     
    Armenius, tunatime and Budwise like this.
  18. Budwise

    Budwise [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,738
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    True it is an amazing turn. Sweeping back down for the S's is such a great feeling as well. It's by far my favorite track, though the only track I ever melted pads on haha. Hngggg

    155mph on the front straight, you must be in something with 500+ hp? I can maybe hit 150 on the back straight and then I run out of gear lol.
     
  19. tunatime

    tunatime 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,590
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Would buy the 8 core if it had the 44 pcie. Not paying $600 for that nor $1k for the 10c one but i might pay $1200 for the 12 core one as its only 200 more and i think it might clock better or at lower vcore as its on a biger die correct?
    To me this whole product stack is odd as hell. No one is going to buy the 4c chips and the only one with 28 lanes should be the 6 core chip as on x79 and x99 on some mb if you used the lower pcie chips some stuff on the mb would not work or slots would only go to 4x and stuff like. You should not have to deal with that at the $600 price point
     
  20. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,418
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Well, I for one think these reviews should focus on dollar against dollar. $500 CPU versus $500 CPU.
     
    Armenius and ZeqOBpf6 like this.
  21. rgMekanic

    rgMekanic [H]ard|News Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,614
    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    I'm still waiting to see what the costs on the motherboards is going to be. With all the funky compatibility that x299 is going to require, I imagine those boards are gonna be expensive as hell.
     
    Armenius, mbelue, Brutos and 4 others like this.
  22. Gideon

    Gideon Gawd

    Messages:
    926
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Ryzen owners have hit 4.2 at the top as for saying the 10c I9 can hit 4.7, it did but at 100c. I think delidding will be needed to try for a reasonable temp. I think 4.6 to 4.5 is more likely on the Intel unless your running some kind of custom water loop. Will be curious to see how the even bigger core counts do with temps and power consumption.
     
    mbelue likes this.
  23. DPI

    DPI [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,618
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2013
    The back and forth between nervous geeks is lesbian like. I'm avoiding.
     
  24. Peter2k

    Peter2k Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    217
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2016
    err
    no?

    the more cores you add, the more heat you produce
    that's why the more cores you add the less frequency you have
    at stock
    threadripper should be well beneath Ryzen
    clockwise

    a 7700k with 5Ghz at 1.35v (I think Der8auer used 1.35v for the 5Ghz i9 overclock with an AiO) draws 150w

    8 cores 300w
    10 cores 375w
    12 core 450w

    you're thinking heat might transfer better, because the DIE area is bigger?
    maybe if you deactivate 2 cores that could hold true
    or you clock them way way lower

    in theory what one could do is 4 cores at 5Ghz or more, 4 at 4.8 and 2 or 4 at 4Ghz
    leaving more headroom temp wise

    also there are naturally stronger and weaker cores in a CPU (Intel's favourite core for boosting is a good example)


    all said and done

    those CPU's are something that one might want to buy pre binned and pre delidded

    how Intel thinks those monsters of CPU's can do without solder to save a buck on each one is beyond me

    hell I'll put 10 bucks on top if they solder the damn thing
    at those prices no one would notice anymore
    but everyone sure does temp wise
     
  25. RAutrey

    RAutrey [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,554
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Well damn man. We can't do that because Intel loses.

    I expect that very few reviews will put emphasis on price performance ratio
     
    mynamehere likes this.
  26. eldertru

    eldertru [H]Lite

    Messages:
    124
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    When is the projected launch for threadripper?
     
  27. azuza001

    azuza001 Gawd

    Messages:
    622
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2012
    To be fair I understand that Intel can hit a much higher clock, and yes those i9s reviewed showed in some tasks the i9 was superior by a decent margin.

    But the ryzens were just as fast at gaming, even the ryzen 7 was at most 10fps away from that 1000$ cpu.

    Not an amd fanboy (don't own any amd processors atm) but when the cost is so high plus all the different issues with the different chips and the x299 platform being so messed up it really seems like Intel is rushing to get something out to keep them top dog. And the review said a few times that they needed a bios update to fix a few serious issues.

    I think that thread ripper will really put more pressure on Intel than they will care to admit. Amd woke the giant, but it's still groggy.
     
    N4CR and Jim Kim like this.
  28. Shintai

    Shintai [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,590
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2016
    And a 350$ 7700K beats them all.

    Most of the benches was GPU limited.
     
    Armenius and Syntax_Error like this.
  29. Stimpy88

    Stimpy88 Gawd

    Messages:
    841
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    OK, I'll address this little detail...

    The i9 got up to 4.7GHz at 1.25v, bravo, all is good so far...

    Now, they said it got up to 100C at that speed running Cinebench...

    If you stick Prime 95 on that system, or any other decent stress and stability testing software, that i9 is going to thermal throttle very damn fast.

    I put money on the same system only being able to run at 4.3 to 4.5GHz when properly configured so that it does not thermally throttle itself.

    So now we only need ThreadRipper to clock up to 4GHz with 12 cores for less money... I wonder if AMD can do this?
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2017
  30. Dayaks

    Dayaks [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,833
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Negative ghostrider.

    There's a ton of reviews showing Ryzen is not nearly as fast OC vs OC. If you're gaming at 60 FPS Ryzen is probably fine, but VR or high refresh you're gimping yourself.
     
  31. chenw

    chenw 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,664
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2014
    Might not be that simple.

    $500 AMD CPU and $500 Intel CPU sits on completely different platforms, so the cost (and benefits) of the platforms would also need to be taken into account.
     
  32. Shintai

    Shintai [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,590
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2016
    Hexus got 4.7 on air, and it was first with the increase to 1.3V everything went wrong heat wise.

    Prime95 with AVX512 support will go crazy if you dont use the AVX512 clock offset that it does at stock. The performance would also be utterly insane. Faster than 45 SB/IB/Zen cores at 4Ghz.
     
  33. Stimpy88

    Stimpy88 Gawd

    Messages:
    841
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    But would it not thermal throttle immediately, especially if using any kind of AVX instructions? At least that's my experience with Intel CPUs.

    Until I see it proved otherwise, I cannot see this CPU doing 4.7GHz when fully utilizing all cores in a true stress test, closed case environment, unless its with exotic cooling methods.
     
  34. alamox

    alamox Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    194
    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2014
    for 999$ it would be competing with threadripper 16 cores most likely, personally i think AMD will own EDt this time around on almost every aspect, assuming intel releases their cpus as rumored.
     
  35. Shintai

    Shintai [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,590
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2016
    1950X, meet 7900X.
    https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/3108993
    https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/3117213

    1950X: 4216 ST, 24723 MT
    7900X: 5462 ST, 32686 MT

    EPYC, meet Xeon Platinum.
    http://ranker.sisoftware.net/top_ru...c3fecbed85b88dabd3eedff99cf9c4f4d2a19ca4&l=en
    http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_r...d4ecddeedce5d7f183be8ea8cda895a583f0cdfd&l=en

    Processor Arithmetic:
    2x AMD EPYC 7601 32-Core Processor (4N 32C 64T 3.2GHz, 1.33GHz IMC, 32x 512kB L2, 8x 8MB L3) = 706.18GOPS
    2x Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8180 CPU @ 2.50GHz (28C 56T 3.8GHz, 2.4GHz IMC, 28x 1MB L2, 38.5MB L3) = 1425.82GOPS

    Processor Multi-Media:
    2x Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8180 CPU @ 2.50GHz (28C 56T 3.8GHz, 2.4GHz IMC, 28x 1MB L2, 38.5MB L3) 5989.90Mpix/s
    2x AMD EPYC 7601 32-Core Processor (4N 32C 64T 2.7GHz, 1.33GHz IMC, 32x 512kB L2, 8x 8MB L3) 974.33Mpix/s
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2017
  36. Cha0s

    Cha0s n00bie

    Messages:
    21
    Joined:
    May 6, 2017
  37. Dayaks

    Dayaks [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,833
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    That was run on Linux. Gotta do apples to apples. Can't compare that to Shintai's posts.

    Raampppaaaaaaggeeee. We know AMD won't be the top performer. We just need them to not be 10-20% too high in price for their price/perf like they always seem to do...
     
  38. Cha0s

    Cha0s n00bie

    Messages:
    21
    Joined:
    May 6, 2017
    https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/2191993

    Like this? Still not bad considering it's 2 less cores and lower overall clock speed. Also still beats 1950X, indicating that score has something seriously wrong with it, almost like only half the processor was utilized.
     
  39. Ieldra

    Ieldra I Promise to RTFM

    Messages:
    3,493
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2016
    different versions of geekbench as well
     
    Armenius likes this.
  40. Cha0s

    Cha0s n00bie

    Messages:
    21
    Joined:
    May 6, 2017
    Difference is marginal at best.