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

DuronBurgerMan said:
Did I say "exactly equal to" sir? No. You're playing a game of weasel wording and strawmen, sir. It doesn't become you. Look, we get it, this isn't an exact science. But you were right the first time around, so I don't know why you are changing your opinion, unless there's some new data I'm not aware of.



Actually in this case it is. We already know that Ryzen receives minimal benefit in gaming from the additional cores, except in very specific cases. So Kyle's tests are still relevant for this discussion. And yes, he tested different clockspeeds. That was the point, sir. Ryzen @ 4GHz came out ahead of SB @ 4.5GHz. If core count over 4c/8t gives minimal gains then clearly Ryzen's per clock gaming is higher than SB's. I trust Kyle's testing methodology more than those used on most sites (he is exceptionally thorough), so his benchmark numbers carry more weight with me than, say, hardware.fr. I'd be curious to see him conduct the same test with a 4 core Ryzen, just to be sure (though it is probably unlikely that he will - that was a lot of work), but the tests are still relevant to the discussion.



No, this isn't a misunderstanding sir. You said what you said. And the reason I remember it clearly enough is that you convinced me of the truth of it.

Anyway, between Kyle's tests, and the data you provided... I'd say Ryzen is closer to IB for gaming & latency sensitive tasks than SB, and Haswell-like for throughput tasks, as you originally claimed for the throughput part.

On the flip side, I'm getting real tired of rehashing this same subject in every thread, so can we please go back to drooling over Intel's Skylake-X CPUs? That was much more pleasant conversation, sir.
Click to expand...

cough, replace Kyle's name with Brent since he's the one that did all the game testing, lol. other than that i agree with what you said.
 
The 18-core Skylake-X chip is a very nice processor and it's $2000 price is actually quite good for what you're getting, especially as compared to the 18-core chips from the Haswell-EP and Broadwell-EP. I just wish that Intel would leave the top SKU Extreme Edition 18-core chip fully enabled to give more people an incentive to buy it. I'd definitely buy it if ECC was enabled.
Click to expand...

This, no ECC or big fat registered dimms even on the top tier 12-18 core models, WTF?
Not confirmed yet but this is intel so likely true. They can fuck off and get sucked off by their army of fanboys who are lining up already to choke then, no sale here.

Another arbitrary "just-because" regression from X99 which already goes to 22 cores and 32GB modules.
I can't be the only getting sick and fucking tired of computer platforms from a company that idolizes darth vader's "pray I don't alter the deal further" every damn generation. If you're intentionally competing with your own older products on baseline features you are outside the realm of actual capitalism with competition.
 
None of the chips will support ECC. If you want ECC you drop overclocking and buy a Xeon.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
Did I say "exactly equal to" sir? No. You're playing a game of weasel wording and strawmen, sir. It doesn't become you. Look, we get it, this isn't an exact science. But you were right the first time around, so I don't know why you are changing your opinion, unless there's some new data I'm not aware of.
Click to expand...

Someone is playing silly games, but it is not me. I didn't pretend you said "exactly equal to", but simply mentioned you insist on that saying "Haswell-like" and "Ivy-like" are contradictory statements because you omit the "like" and the fact that Zen is somewhat between Haswell and Ivy on throughput workloads.

DuronBurgerMan said:
Actually in this case it is. We already know that Ryzen receives minimal benefit in gaming from the additional cores, except in very specific cases.
Click to expand...

Not true. All game reviews I remember put the 8-core RyZen performance significantly higher than the 4-core RyZen. That is why you throwing 8-core RyZen vs 4C Intel games benches did mean nothing for my claims about IPC and SMT.

upload_2017-4-12_21-2-6-png.21691


4C/8T vs 4C/8T shows that RyZen play games like a Sandy Bridge 2600k. We obtain again Zen ~ SB clock-for-clock.
 
lolfail9001 said:
And Intel deserves a "fuck you" for that, tbh.
Click to expand...

Indeed. A flagship chip is supposed to have flagship features, not be needlessly kneecapped wherever possible. It's like buying a Cadillac V-series and finding wires hanging out of the heated seat button. You ask the dealer, WTF?!? He says, "yeah, we don't think the price you're paying justifies including that feature, so we paid one of our techs to disable it." But you can buy a model with a 55mph speed limiter built in and we'll give it to you with that model."
 
Shintai said:
None of the chips will support ECC. If you want ECC you drop overclocking and buy a Xeon.
Click to expand...

Ummm, I want BOTH, overclocking and ECC. Drop overclocking and buy a Xeon?? To that directive I answer with simply...NO. I don't have to. I actually have a choice now. There is now fortunately an alternative that has both options enabled. Before the high-end user had no choice. Now, we have a choice, thanks to Threadripper. It's really quite simple...if Intel wants me to purchase their high-end products, they need to provide the same options.

You also say, "none of the chips will support ECC." You say that like it is you yourself that is making that call.
 
Last edited:
lutjens said:
Ummm, I want BOTH, overclocking and ECC. Drop overclocking and buy a Xeon?? To that directive I answer with simply...NO. I don't have to. I actually have a choice now. There is now fortunately an alternative that has both options enabled. Before the high-end user had no choice. Now, we have a choice, thanks to Threadripper. It's really quite simple...if Intel wants me to purchase their high-end products, they need to provide the same options.

You also say, "none of the chips will support ECC." You say that like it is you yourself that is making that call.
Click to expand...

Then buy TR? Not sure what the issue is?

I see lots of people on the AMD side go on and on and on about ECC on a system....And never use it. Most, though not all who are going for OCing tend to not be the same people looking for ECC, most who care about ECC want something as stable as can be and do not OC, because they can't risk an issue in the middle of a day(s) long render etc etc. Most ECC RAM is also very slow, good luck finding some highspeed/OCing ECC RAM. It seems those already going for AMD think this is some "gotcha" feature. However it's not, it's just a deciding factor on which system to use if it's that big of a deal to your use load.

The option is there with AMD, assuming everything is as rumors are saying, you seem to think AMD is the better chip and better priced (it might be, we don't know yet), so why is it an issue? I get the feeling you would buy AMD regardless.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Then buy TR? Not sure what the issue is?

I see lots of people on the AMD side go on and on and on about ECC on a system....And never use it. Most, though not all who are going for OCing tend to not be the same people looking for ECC, most who care about ECC want something as stable as can be and do not OC, because they can't risk an issue in the middle of a day(s) long render etc etc. Most ECC RAM is also very slow, good luck finding some highspeed/OCing ECC RAM. It seems those already going for AMD think this is some "gotcha" feature. However it's not, it's just a deciding factor on which system to use if it's that big of a deal to your use load.

The option is there with AMD, assuming everything is as rumors are saying, you seem to think AMD is the better chip and better priced (it might be, we don't know yet), so why is it an issue? I get the feeling you would buy AMD regardless.
Click to expand...

The thing is that AMD has enabled ECC and leaves the end user to decide if they wish to use it or not, which is the way it should be. One can overclock and still want ECC...there are a good many overclockers who merely want to use the headroom in a chip and don't push it to the ragged edge of stability. My i7-6950X was just rebooted yesterday for Windows Update...after 43 days+ of uptime. It's been overclocked to [email protected] since day 1. My E5-1680 V3 mini iTX server is set to 4.0GHz at default voltage AND it runs 2x32GB of RDIMMs. Works perfectly.

There is no reason not to have the feature present and let the end user decide if they want to use it or not, instead of an outright forbidding of the feature on the part of Intel. Many people wouldn't use it, but some would. If it were enabled on the i9-7980XE, I'd likely buy two or more of them...one for a gaming machine (replacement for my i7-6950X that wouldn't use ECC) and one for an upgrade for my E5-1680 V3 mini iTX server. As it stands, Threadripper is going into a main server/workstation upgrade that'll replace both the iTX unit and my dual E5-2687W V2 and possibly into a non-ECC replacement for the i7 as well (I'll decide when the performance numbers come out). If the i9-7980XE supported ECC, I'd keep and upgrade the iTX server and upgrade the V2 system. The flexibility of Threadripper with its 64 lanes and ECC support makes it quite attractive, although I probably won't use all those lanes, it's nice to have them. It's for this flexibility (coupled with HCC performance) that I'm willing to pay...and I'll buy what I feel meets my needs the best and what provides the best performance...cost is not a primary consideration.
 
Last edited:
lutjens said:
The thing is that AMD has enabled ECC and leaves the end user to decide if they wish to use it or not, which is the way it should be. One can overclock and still want ECC...there are a good many overclockers who merely want to use the headroom in a chip and don't push it to the ragged edge of stability. My i7-6950X was just rebooted yesterday for Windows Update...after 43 days+ of uptime. It's been overclocked to [email protected] since day 1. My E5-1680 V3 mini iTX server is set to 4.0GHz at default voltage AND it runs 2x32GB of RDIMMs. Works perfectly.

There is no reason not to have the feature present and let the end user decide if they want to use it or not, instead of an outright forbidding of the feature on the part of Intel. Many people wouldn't use it, but some would. If it were enabled on the i9-7980XE, I'd likely buy two or more of them...one for a gaming machine (replacement for my i7-6950X that wouldn't use ECC) and one for an upgrade for my E5-1680 V3 mini iTX server. As it stands, Threadripper is going into a main server/workstation upgrade that'll replace the iTX unit and possibly into a non-ECC replacement for the i7 as well (I'll decide when the performance numbers come out). The flexibility of Threadripper with its 64 lanes and ECC support makes it quite attractive, although I probably won't use all those lanes, it's nice to have them. It's for this flexibility (coupled with HCC performance) that I'm willing to pay...and I'll buy what I feel meets my needs the best and what provides the best performance...cost is not a primary consideration.
Click to expand...

Ok....So buy TR?
 
BlueFireIce said:
Ok....So buy TR?
Click to expand...

I will be buying TR to upgrade my main server/workstation, but would buy two or three i9-7980XEs if they included ECC (and performed better in benchmarks). If i9-7980XE doesn't support ECC, I may buy one and even that is uncertain.
 
juanrga said:
Someone is playing silly games, but it is not me. I didn't pretend you said "exactly equal to", but simply mentioned you insist on that saying "Haswell-like" and "Ivy-like" are contradictory statements because you omit the "like" and the fact that Zen is somewhat between Haswell and Ivy on throughput workloads.



Not true. All game reviews I remember put the 8-core RyZen performance significantly higher than the 4-core RyZen. That is why you throwing 8-core RyZen vs 4C Intel games benches did mean nothing for my claims about IPC and SMT.

upload_2017-4-12_21-2-6-png.21691


4C/8T vs 4C/8T shows that RyZen play games like a Sandy Bridge 2600k. We obtain again Zen ~ SB clock-for-clock.
Click to expand...

See, that is an average of many games. There are a *couple* games that see big benefits from 8c over 4c, and they'll throw that average. They are rare, but they do exist. Ashes of the Singularity is one such that featured in many testing suites. Total War and Civilization are others (these two appear in Hardware.fr's testing). In fact, AFAIK, strategy games are the ones the most benefit from this, due to the fact that AI can be offloaded to additional cores more easily. This was one reason I liked having 8 cores at my disposal, because RTS games are really the only games I still play - but I'm hardly typical.

Kyle's (or more appropriately, Brent's) testing was not in games that see this huge multicore benefit. If you remove those games from hardware.fr's average, you see much closer results between 4c Ryzen and 8c Ryzen.

All that being said, I would like to see some [H]ard testing for the 4c Ryzen to confirm, because again, I trust this site's methodology more than pretty much any other. I just don't think that we're going to get it -- too much work, and how many [H] readers are buying a 4c Ryzen anyway?

Edit: Here's a quote from Brent in the article I am citing:

"We experienced no performance improvements or gameplay differences because Ryzen 7 had twice the cores and threads. It seems to have done nothing, in terms of gaming performance in ten games, six video card configurations, and three different resolutions of gaming. And quite frankly we did not expect that at all since none of today's top games are tremendously thread-aware."
 
Last edited:
lutjens said:
I will be buying TR to upgrade my main server/workstation, but would buy two or three i9-7980XEs if they included ECC (and performed better in benchmarks). If i9-7980XE doesn't support ECC, I may buy one and even that is uncertain.
Click to expand...

Ok? So you want ECC on a gaming box? Even though your current system as you stated had been up for over 40 days without issue running non-ECC RAM while being OCed? How often do you think soft errors occur with RAM today? Most RAM errors can be traced to hard errors and not soft, that being a HW design flaw that only shows up under given uses, bad chip or to much stress in OC/load, not soft errors where some stray particle causes a bit to flip. If this were true, computers, phones and most other devices would be crashing left and right.

Now, if you have a mission critical use, ECC insurance is something you will probably go for, but that doesn't seem to be the case for you, it's just something you want, for some reason. Now, if that is something you MUST have that it decides which system you go with, go for it. I don't see the point however trying to justify the AMD choice because of ECC.

I myself think AMD, again, if rumors are true might be the best buy, but because of pure CPU power and price, not ECC that most people will not even consider.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Ok? So you want ECC on a gaming box? Even though your current system as you stated had been up for over 40 days without issue running non-ECC RAM while being OCed? How often do you think soft errors occur with RAM today? Most RAM errors can be traced to hard errors and not soft, that being a HW design flaw that only shows up under given uses, bad chip or to much stress in OC/load, not soft errors where some stray particle causes a bit to flip. If this were true, computers, phones and most other devices would be crashing left and right.

Now, if you have a mission critical use, ECC insurance is something you will probably go for, but that doesn't seem to be the case for you, it's just something you want, for some reason. Now, if that is something you MUST have that it decides which system you go with, go for it. I don't see the point however trying to justify the AMD choice because of ECC.

I myself think AMD, again, if rumors are true might be the best buy, but because of pure CPU power and price, not ECC that most people will not even consider.
Click to expand...

I want the option available to use if I decide to use it...and don't want the manufacturer deciding for me. On some of my systems, I want ECC (like my storage servers) and on others, it's not a big deal. If one is using the same CPU in two different systems...one with ECC and one without, I don't see why Intel doesn't just leave the option on for at least the top SKU (the i9-7980X).
 
lutjens said:
I want the option available to use if I decide to use it...and don't want the manufacturer deciding for me. On some of my systems, I want ECC (like my storage servers) and on others, it's not a big deal. If one is using the same CPU in two different systems...one with ECC and one without, I don't see why Intel doesn't just leave the option on for at least the top SKU (the i9-7980X).
Click to expand...

Then get AMD?
 
- Core i9-7900X: 4.3/4.3/4.1/4.1/4.1/4.1/4.0/4.0/4.0/4.0 (TB 2.0) / 4.5 (TB 3.0)

All core Turbo up by 600 MHz compared to Core i7-6950X, 1-2 core Turbo up by 800-1000 MHz.
 
Last edited:
-Sweeper_ said:
- Core i9-7900X: 4.3/4.3/4.1/4.1/4.1/4.1/4.0/4.0/4.0/4.0 (TB 2.0) / 4.5 (TB 3.0)

All core Turbo up by 600 MHz compared to Core i7-6950X, 1-2 core Turbo up by 800-1000 MHz.
Click to expand...

The chips are unlocked. People will set their own turbos based upon what the chip's capable of, although a higher stock turbo should indicate more headroom. Unfortunately, the lack of solder may hurt the pursuit of higher clockspeeds than would otherwise be possible...:(
 
Well, i expect delidded 7900Xs on some really rad water cooling setup to be stable at ~4.7Ghz in workloads without AVX-512. AVX-512 will probably fuck that up to be stable only up to 4.3 before the thermals kick in.
 
One shouldn't be forced to delid to get optimal thermal performance from a high-end chip.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Yeah all of the Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X chips are using TIM.

Real bummer. Killed all of my hype.
 
-Sweeper_ said:
- Core i9-7900X: 4.3/4.3/4.1/4.1/4.1/4.1/4.0/4.0/4.0/4.0 (TB 2.0) / 4.5 (TB 3.0)

All core Turbo up by 600 MHz compared to Core i7-6950X, 1-2 core Turbo up by 800-1000 MHz.
Click to expand...

Most of the real world results I have seen/read show the Broadwell-E operate all core up to their Boost 3 frequency rather than Turbo 2 peak - I assume with Multicore enhancement enabled; so that means 4GHz for the 6950X against 4.5GHz for the 7900X.
I would say nearly everyone gaming with HEDT would be using the multicore enhancement (or equivalent name), or should be with these CPUs.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
1. TIM use
2. Lack of PCI lanes
3. Raid keys??
4. Possible vrock only with Intel drives
5. Integrated graphics fused off

Well, I hope that is all.
 
Nihilus1 said:
Wow, Linus tears into Intel hard. I agree, KabyLake X is a joke.

On a plus side, for Intel X299 will have more MB options than Threadripper. Here is a mITX already in the wild:
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/57850/asrock-delivers-x299-mitx-motherboard/index.html

Even now, Ryzen only has a POS biostar for mITX, meaning TR will have little hope for SFF.
Click to expand...

threadripper might not see the mitx format at all, have you seen the size of the socket?

aside that i havent saw the size of the chipset, if you have post pics please.
 
X99 to X299 looks like a small upgrade compared to what X79 to X99 was in late 2014. The RAID key thing is a sick joke really. And then it only works with Intel SSD's.
 
Even despite Ryzen, a $390 soldered 6C with a full feature set and SKL ipc would have been an insta buy for me. Now I'm not even sure if CL will be appealing and I am thinking about just grabbing a cheap 4770K/4790K off the used market.

Snooze...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top