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

CSI_PC

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 3, 2016
Messages
2,193
They'd be better off shipping the CPUs and the IHS separately in the box and allowing you to choose your desired TIM during installation.
And how many consumers really would be bothered to screw around putting it together?
If Intel did this you and others would complain Intel is not selling a complete product.

There is nothing wrong with the die-TIM-IHS packaging/design with the Skylake-X as it looks fine to do 4.5GHz all cores on a powerful air cooler (such as Noctua D15), this is good enough for most buying this product and you still hit 4.8GHz with the AIO without delidding on a 10C.....
Still substantially better than what we see with Ryzen that is soldered.
I think Der8auer sums up the attitude and criticism quite well after his testing, who is one of the top league overclockers internationally.

Cheers
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,513
Look at the bright side, who is going to be the first to direct die cool the $2k CPU on [H]!?
 

TahoeDust

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
502
This has me pretty pumped for a 7820x. It should be easier to keep cool than its 10 core big brother. Sounds like 5.0GHz on all cores my be possible with a good chip, delided, under my push/pull h115i. That would be sick.
 
Last edited:

lutjens

Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
792
The comment was made largely in jest, but the 18-core die likely has a big enough size that it could very likely get away without the IHS entirely.

At the end of the day, I could give a rat's posterior about the 10-core...I'm waiting for both Threadripper and the HCC Core i9s to materialize...;)

The specs for the 10-core (and below) chips were probably decided some time ago, including the decision to use TIM instead of solder. As for the HCC i9s, considering they were just decided upon by Intel (and the specs haven't been finalized yet) maybe, just maybe Intel may consider soldering the 12-18 core chips to better match AMD in that regard and to maximize their performance potential. One can hope they do, in any event.
 
Last edited:

TaintedSquirrel

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 5, 2013
Messages
10,675
Shouldn't we see reviews for these soon? As in, the next few days.

edit: Looks like Intel NDA's typically end on Tuesdays, sometimes Wednesdays.
 

Ranulfo

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
2,524
Are you admitting that you were trolling?

You weren't? Come on, a obvious Evo troll but woot 7ghz on LN2 boys! Thats just more confirmation that KY-X is meant to be a we're still #1 in single thread perf chip. Otherwise it makes little sense to spend the cash on a a x299 mobo for that chip. Just buy a 7700k now on a stable platform or go Coffee Lake in 2-3 months.

Have you considered the upgrade path that it provides? I don't claim that KBL-X will be preferred choice, but some people could follow that route.

Well, rumors abound about how some mobo makers aren't too keen to deal with supporting them given the issues of 16 pci lanes vs 44 on Sky-X. As for upgrade path, no I haven't thought much of it. I mean, I guess in 3-5 years you could pop in a cheaper used sky-x in there but why bother? Go Sky-X from the start or wait for Coffee Lake if that makes it out in August. It seems to likely be the far better deal.
 

juanrga

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
2,804
The specs for the 10-core (and below) chips were probably decided some time ago, including the decision to use TIM instead of solder. As for the HCC i9s, considering they were just decided upon by Intel (and the specs haven't been finalized yet) maybe, just maybe Intel may consider soldering the 12-18 core chips to better match AMD in that regard and to maximize their performance potential. One can hope they do, in any event.

As commented in #555 soldering is only providing 4% more overclock than TIM.
 

lutjens

Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
792
As commented in #555 soldering is only providing 4% more overclock than TIM.

One result doesn't make it gospel and even if consistent with all the chips I'd think that that 4% is a 4% that Intel would rather take and use rather than leave on the table, In any event, it's doubtful that Intel is willing to concede anything to AMD regarding the chips in this upper market segment, and may choose not to have even the appearance of inferiority.

Also, given the relatively low volume of these chips (the >10C chips) the actual costs of using solder for them should be very minimal, and the likely higher TDP ratings of these chips may get them solder instead of TIM. The costs of not using it from a marketing/perception standpoint may end up being much higher.
 
Last edited:

Shintai

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
5,678
https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel/intel-core-i9-skylake-x-specs

- Core i7 X-series chips and the 10-core Core i9 launching next week
- Pre-orders for the 'mega-tasking' (bleurgh) 12-, 14-, 16- and 18-core processors also kicking off at the same time
- Intel did though show the first live demo of the 18-core, 36-thread Core i9-7980XE processor running an intensive VR-gaming, streaming and green-screen rendering workload spitting out to Twitch - 36 threads running at around 70-80% load across the board
- Core i9-7920X, Core i9-7940X, Core i9-7960X, Core i9-7980XE hitting the retailers from August through to October this year
 

-Sweeper_

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2016
Messages
184
So in the latest days we got positive news on the OCing front and also official word from Intel about August-October launch for 18C parts (not 2018). Let's see if the click bait websites will update their articles or ignore this completely as usual.
 

Patton43

n00b
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
34
Now I'm hearing June 19th for the NDA lift. Sad, was looking forward to some good reading today.

That 7820X looks like a good balance of speed and cores. My 5820k is probably more than enough, but a few hundred MHz and a couple more cores couldn't hurt. I can't justify ~2x the cost for the full complement of PCIE lanes and 2 more cores.

AMD's offerings look good and I'd love to go back (been blue since my opterons), but need the best single core I can get with 6-8 cores for my usage case.
 

Milena

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
444

From my point of view Skylake-X is a pretty impressive CPU. We now have have a 10-core that's a lot cheaper than the Broadwell-E before and it clocks a lot higher. Even with the stock Intel paste I was able to reach 4.8 GHz on the CPU (i9-7900X) using Corsair 280 (mm) AIO. So there is still some headroom, I guess if you use a custom new water cooling you might be able to hit 4.9 GHz on a very very good chip without delidding. So after this test I delidded the CPU and replaced the stock TIM with liquid metal and this helped me push the CPU with an AIO to 5 GHz.
So we had Broadwell-E before who could run like 4.3-4.4 GHz, it cost 1700€. Now we have Skylake-X which is a lot cheaper and we CAN push it to 5 GHz, so what's all this negative press about? I don't really understand it. So from my point of view this is a very impressive CPU, so we have very high single-thread performance on the 10-core and also high MT performance, which we didn't have before in a Broadwell-E (probably comparing to mainstream).

...I think you can maybe hit 5.1 GHz on a custom water cooling loop if you have a very very good chip. Keep in mind that this chip was already pre-tested so it's already a really good CPU. On average CPU you might be able to get 4.7-4.8 GHz if you delidded it and on a pre tested CPU 5 GHz should be possible.


That sounds promising. I'm going to wait until October though, hopefully Intel will have their new SSD's out as well and I want to wait for a possible ASUS X299-E WS board.
 

Shintai

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
5,678
12.jpg
 

TaintedSquirrel

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 5, 2013
Messages
10,675
12K gaming, oh geez.

Why are they marketing a stronger CPU for higher resolutions? Best case scenario, weaker CPUs will do fine at higher resolutions because your GPU can't keep up. Worst case scenario, performance is the same. Either way, buying a faster CPU for 1080p -> 4K -> 12K makes no difference.

Their marketing is pretty much the inverse of reality.
 

SighTurtle

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2016
Messages
1,410
12K gaming, oh geez.

Why are they marketing a stronger CPU for higher resolutions? Best case scenario, weaker CPUs will do fine at higher resolutions because your GPU can't keep up. Worst case scenario, performance is the same. Either way, buying a faster CPU for 1080p -> 4K -> 12K makes no difference.

Their marketing is pretty much the opposite of reality.

Money.
 

Shintai

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
5,678
12K gaming, oh geez.

Why are they marketing a stronger CPU for higher resolutions? Best case scenario, weaker CPUs will do fine at higher resolutions because your GPU can't keep up. Worst case scenario, performance is the same. Either way, buying a faster CPU for 1080p -> 4K -> 12K makes no difference.

Their marketing is pretty much the inverse of reality.

Its more about PCIe lanes and multiple graphics cards than cores if you read the notes.
 

realworld

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
365
Some shops have preorder for x299 boards. Lowest I've seen thus far is $215 MSI MATX board.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,825
AMD or worse level marketing from Intel lol

You're either a 480p 400Hz twitch CS kangz which makes sense to go Intel, 7700k already got you sorted, or you need all the cores or a blend of both. If a blend - 8 cores, Ryzen has bang/buck cornered here.
If you need more cores, threadripper is going to be about half the cost per CPU. Two TR/maybe one Epyc vs 18cores with no ECC from Intel?
Is the extra few hundred on smaller core count systems worth it for x299? That's a lot of pricey DDR4 ram, GPU or SSD. If I had to choose between just a 15% CPU per core boost, or double the ram and SSD or another GPU tier jump, I'd choose the latter every time. Especially considering a 2600k is considered a benchmark CPU still, per-core performance has stagnated compared to decade or two ago. if you need cores, core counts are king right now and AMD has that cornered with their brilliant 8 core + infinity fabric solution with TR.

I really wonder if we'll see the market turn this time around. Intel doesn't have the traditional tv/media marketing bullshit stranglehold they had last time AMD took a big dump on them with the Athlons, plus they got owned for anticompetitive practices by pitching suppliers and stores on their side under threat of removing stock and branding, so will be more careful this time around, let alone some of the YT personalities are calling Intel out on their bullshit market segmentation, plus more normalfags reading PC stuff online, means this is a wholly different market to how it used to be in the days of small forums, PC mags and physical stores.
 

TahoeDust

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
502
I would pay significantly more for Intel's equal-core parts over Ryzen if it means 10-15% higher IPC and 5 GHz clocks. I imagine a lot of people buying $500+ CPUs have similar feelings.
I agree. The "X" series intel chips has never been aimed at value oriented customers.
 

tunatime

Well...OK
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
4,866
I would pay significantly more for Intel's equal-core parts over Ryzen if it means 10-15% higher IPC and 5 GHz clocks. I imagine a lot of people buying $500+ CPUs have similar feelings.
If the amd was close to the same clock speed i would trade 10-15% slower for a good bit cheaper and buy another 1080ti as i game at 4k. However when you look at 15% slower and 15-20% clock speed deficiency the amd looks bad
 

juanrga

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
2,804
10--15% is the IPC gap between SKL/KBL and SR on throughput workloads. The gap is bigger on latency workloads such as games.

SKL-X has higher IPC than SKL_/KBL. I would expect about 20% gap with TR on throughput workloads.
 

bjornb17

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
1,978
I would pay significantly more for Intel's equal-core parts over Ryzen if it means 10-15% higher IPC and 5 GHz clocks. I imagine a lot of people buying $500+ CPUs have similar feelings.

I hope AMD succeeds, but you're right, the Intel parts tend to clock higher, have slightly higher IPC, and are more stable with less quirks. I'll gladly pay extra for all that. But then again I'm not trying to build a budget system.
 
Top