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

Discussion in 'Intel Processors' started by -Sweeper_, May 12, 2017.

  1. OrangeKhrush

    OrangeKhrush [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,576
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2016
    Tech release day and the internet blows up
     
  2. -Strelok-

    -Strelok- [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,002
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Dude but where will the RGB go?

    ;)
     
    EuphoricRage470, Armenius and Shintai like this.
  3. Nihilus1

    Nihilus1 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    441
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
  4. Armenius

    Armenius I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital

    Messages:
    19,515
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Nice editorializing.

    Nowhere in your link do they state that Skylake-X is "closer to Ryzen in gaming than Kabylake (X)." Never mind the fact that they compared it to a Kabylake chip, the 7700K, not a Kabylake-X chip.
     
    juanrga and -Sweeper_ like this.
  5. Gideon

    Gideon 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,370
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Its a regression in performance, the 7700K should not be faster then the 7800x and yet it is.
     
    Nihilus1 likes this.
  6. Shintai

    Shintai [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,691
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2016
    Why not? Uncore is clocked 900Mhz higher, base clock is 700Mhz higher and turbo clock is 500Mhz higher.
     
    -Sweeper_, juanrga and Armenius like this.
  7. Armenius

    Armenius I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital

    Messages:
    19,515
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Did you read the part I quoted? And again, if you're buying a HEDT processor just for gaming then you need to reexamine your priorities. I mean, unless you're really starving for PCI-E lanes by running a lot of PCI-E SSD or something.
     
    juanrga and Shintai like this.
  8. Gideon

    Gideon 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,370
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    A 6 core processor is not a HEDT setup man. Just cause Intel likes to rip people off does not make it a HEDT. Your 6 core is for the guy that likes to game more often then using it for productivity except the 7800x is a large regression on gaming performance despite the speed being almost the same. They clocked it up and it did not matter the 7800x is a disappointment there. Just sounds like excuses to me why it has regressed Armenius, hell Ryzen may not need a upgrade at the rate Intel is going.

    [​IMG]
     
  9. -Strelok-

    -Strelok- [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,002
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    If you check hardwareunboxed, even at 4.7ghz it was slower than the stock 7700K. But I saw a review of a 7900X that was 20%+ faster than one of the engineering samples that was given to a reviewer. But the retail sample was delidded, so it’s also possible the stock performance is limited by heat transfer issues. Either way, no point going X299 for strictly gaming.
     
  10. zerogg

    zerogg Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    203
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2017
    Will be interesting to see what comes of the larger core count chips such as the 16 and 18 core models. Especially since the mobos on the market now weren't initially designed for them, we might see a v2 of some of them.
     
  11. juanrga

    juanrga Pro-Intel / Anti-AMD Just FYI

    Messages:
    2,560
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Not even close. This article is "Intel vs Intel". There is no RyZen reviewed. The only reason why they barely mention RyZen in the conclusions is for price, not performance.

    RyZen numbers are found in the Skylake-X review

    https://www.techspot.com/review/1433-intel-core-i9-core-i7-skylake-x/page3.html

    where you can find top 8-core Ryzen loosing to six-core Skylake even in games more favorable to AMD

    [​IMG]

    http://www.amd.com/en-us/markets/game/featured/ashes-of-the-singularity#
    https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/...update-substantially-boosts-ryzen-performance
     
    -Sweeper_ likes this.
  12. juanrga

    juanrga Pro-Intel / Anti-AMD Just FYI

    Messages:
    2,560
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Skylake-X is not designed for gaming and still it is only 8% behind the king of gaming CPUs. Note as well that OC the mesh in SKL-X gives huge double digit performance improvements in games.
     
    -Sweeper_ and -Strelok- like this.
  13. -Strelok-

    -Strelok- [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,002
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Hmmm that sounds interesting. Maybe this is a dumb question, but how do you OC the mesh?
     
    juanrga likes this.
  14. TahoeDust

    TahoeDust Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    494
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2011
    In the bios. Increase frequency and add voltage as needed. Just like overclocking core. Factory is 2400MHz. In my case 3200MHz was easily attainable.
     
    juanrga and zerogg like this.
  15. -Strelok-

    -Strelok- [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,002
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Would you mind running some benchmarks?
     
  16. TahoeDust

    TahoeDust Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    494
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2011
    No problem...except I sent my 7820x to Silicon Lottery to be delidded yesterday. I should have it back this weekend...hopefully.
     
  17. Nihilus1

    Nihilus1 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    441
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015

    Really AoS? Great example. Lets look at Techspot quote fro a real game:

    "I triple checked the numbers though and they are indeed accurate. Interestingly this is reminiscent of what we saw when comparing the, the 8-core Ryzen 7 1800X for example was much much slower than the 7700K. In fact, given what I'm seeing here, the 1800X might actually be faster than the overclocked 7800X in this title so that's something I'm keen to check out soon."

    I don't remember x99 losing to mainstream Intel processors this much when comparing similiar frequencies. No reason the HEDT should have to make so many comprimises.
     
  18. EarlyAdopter

    EarlyAdopter [H]Lite

    Messages:
    88
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Which ones would you like to see?

    I've got my 7820x running at 4.6/4.7/4.8 (8c/4c/2c) with mesh OC to 3.0Ghz.

    Here are a few I just ran with my 1080 Ti at stock (100% power, +0/+0):
    3DMark Time Spy 10014 (graphics 9843, CPU 11109)
    3DMark Firestrike Normal 22631 (graphics 27724, physics 24312)
    3DMark Firestrike Ultra 7133 (graphics 7018, physics 23504)
    Unigine Superposition 1080p Medium 18210
    Unigine Superposition 1080p Extreme 5812
    Unigine Superposition 4K Optimized 9247

    EDIT: I set the mesh back to stock, 2.4Ghz, and re-ran the benchmarks to help isolate it:
    3DMark Time Spy 9960 (graphics 9854, CPU 10611)
    3DMark Firestrike Normal 22089 (graphics 27341, physics 24032)
    3DMark Firestrike Ultra 7113 (graphics 6985, physics 23984)
    Unigine Superposition 1080p Medium 18033
    Unigine Superposition 1080p Extreme 5792
    Unigine Superposition 4K Optimized 9239

    Now back to BF1 multiplayer, where this thing is a beast.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2017
    -Sweeper_, zerogg and -Strelok- like this.
  19. juanrga

    juanrga Pro-Intel / Anti-AMD Just FYI

    Messages:
    2,560
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Some results stock mesh vs Oc mesh

    [​IMG]
     
    zerogg likes this.
  20. Skyblue

    Skyblue Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    262
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    10% to 20% is fairly impressive. What is the general speed of the cpu and the ram?
     
  21. Gideon

    Gideon 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,370
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Not bad, looks like about the same bump Ryzen gets with higher clock speeds with Ram. Would be nice if I could control the Fabric speed like the Mesh. It tends to have the greatest effect at low resolutions, once your at 1440p and above it tends to have little effect on fps or in this case benchmark scores. Nice to see the effect it has tho.
     
  22. Dayman

    Dayman Gawd

    Messages:
    605
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2017
  23. Gideon

    Gideon 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,370
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Thats pretty slow base clock, it's going to be a problem for them with their current process as the core count goes up it favors AMD, lower core counts favor Intel. I just dont see people rushing to get these unless they overclock better then I expect.
     
    Nihilus1 and Dayman like this.
  24. BrainEater

    BrainEater Gawd

    Messages:
    950
    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Yea , not impressed really.
    ----

    I'm going to go with a pair of Xeon 6144's I think.

    :ROFLMAO:
     
  25. drescherjm

    drescherjm [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    14,566
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    I am not so sure that the 2.9GHz is really an issue. I mean with the higher IPC of the i9 would that slower or faster per thread than a 3.4GHz TR? I would expect it to be still a little faster per core than the 16C TR. But the 16C TR will clearly be better if you can use 32 threads.
     
    juanrga likes this.
  26. Cali3350

    Cali3350 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,654
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    TR appears to be ~10 to 15% slower per clock. So they will likely be close to even.
     
  27. Gideon

    Gideon 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,370
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Except the problem is the 7800x is showing a drop in performance of around 10% in some benchmarks, not all. So your talking about a 5% gap or less between AMD and Intel. The 7900X has issues in some benchmarks as well. Intel is using server chips and using them in a normal desktop way and it's hurting them a bit. Will be interesting to see how the benchmarks end up tho.
     
  28. Nihilus1

    Nihilus1 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    441
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    At such a low base clock, I don't see the 12 core being any faster multi threaded than the 10 core while being a good bit slower at single threaded use. So where is the gain?
     
  29. FrozenSun

    FrozenSun [H]Lite

    Messages:
    110
    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Potentially unpopular opinion, but I kinda feel like AMD and Intel are getting ahead of themselves with these 12+ core CPUs. HEDT is already niche, but finding a buyer for a 16 core who isn't already better served by the server platforms seems like it's super duper niche. On top of that, it seems like with all the heat struggles we're already seeing with the 10 core, I feel like the 16 cores are going to have to have too low of clock speeds to be interesting to almost anybody (and again, CPUs with tons of cores and low clocks already exist in the server land, so why recreate them?) Maybe I'm missing something.
     
  30. Cali3350

    Cali3350 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,654
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    ThreadRipper includes 64 PCIE lanes, that's a big deal.
     
  31. drescherjm

    drescherjm [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    14,566
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    For those few who need it. Most users will have no need for that.

    I could use the cores in my medical imaging research work but have absolutely no need for that many lanes on a workstation. A server possibly but that's a lot of raid cards / HBAs.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2017
    Armenius likes this.
  32. Cali3350

    Cali3350 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,654
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Sure, but others may. Capture cards / Audio cards / More Nics / .... other things (admittedly im not the target market here either).

    I dont think ThreadRipper or SKL-X are gonna set the world on fire, but I do think a sub $3000 workstation with such capabilities have a place.
     
    sirmonkey1985 likes this.
  33. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,926
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    I think 'yall are missing a bigger picture here comparing the 12 core i9 with the 12 core RTR.

    Even if the RTR is - say - 10 % slower in ALL tasks, its still $799, versus the (likely) $1500+ i9.
     
    Ranulfo and zerogg like this.
  34. Shintai

    Shintai [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,691
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2016
    People are indeed missing the picture, and its called turbo clocks ;)
     
    Armenius, juanrga and -Sweeper_ like this.
  35. juanrga

    juanrga Pro-Intel / Anti-AMD Just FYI

    Messages:
    2,560
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    You missing cost of mobos, memory,...

    Those chips don't target games, but professional people. For some of us getting the work done on 20% less time compensates for the acquisition price gap.
     
  36. Nihilus1

    Nihilus1 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    441
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Ok even with Turbo Core, low thread workloads MIGHT be as fast as the 7900x while still being about the same on multi thread with the lower freq. So again, what is the point?
     
  37. Shintai

    Shintai [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,691
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2016
    Could you elaborate? Else its like claiming a 7820X will be as fast as a 7900X.

    What's the all core turbo on the 7920X? :)
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2017
    juanrga likes this.
  38. -Strelok-

    -Strelok- [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,002
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Doesn’t look like the Mesh OC did much on a 7800X. Maybe it helps with the 7900X or you need to OC it to 3.2ghz, but so far it sounds like this isn’t the magic fix.

    Can’t link it right now but hardwareunboxed just did a video on it. Basically it helped in some games, but once you overclocked the CPU it was within the margin of error for the most part. 7700K still steamrolled it in most games.
     
  39. Osjur

    Osjur Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    186
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Well, we know that 7920X is going to cost 1189$ and its base frequency is going to be 2.9Ghz... we can only estimate turbo frequencies but I'm pretty sure the all core turbo frequency is going to be lower on the 7920X compared to 7900X. Turbo 3.0 (2 cores) freq might actually be the same.