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

Skyblue said:
They don't have a remote warehouse.
Click to expand...

Yes they do via the proxy of the distributor. If you have bought like this before you know. When they dont have it themselves they book it at the distributor and you get it on the date you expect.

I have bought MULTIPLE times this way and always got it on time.
 
Last edited:
Shintai said:
Yes they do via the proxy of the distributor. If you have bought like this before you know. When they dont have it themselves they book it at the distributor and you get it on the date you expect.

I have bought MULTIPLE times this way and always got it on time.
Click to expand...
I bought an Intel Nuc from them in february. It arrived in may. At all times they kept pushing the delivery date by one week. "One week" is their way of saying: "we don't know". In a week it will say "available on 16 of september".
 
thumb-Bimg_20170905101603_xhagvfne.png

Delidded 7980XE
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Shoot, if a core that massive can be overclocked to 5 GHz with any sort of consistency, who even needs Kaby Lake any more?

For all the flak I've given Intel about hamstringing their PCIe lane count on the cheaper CPUs, these numbers are hard to ignore at the high end.
 
cSvy8dz.png

Tweaked the RAM like crazy. Ryzen and x99 was very hard to get it to stable. x299 and Kabylake was a breeze. With an x299 system, I wouldn't even bother with DDR4-3200. I recommend at least a 3600 with tight timings and low tRFC to counter the drawback of the mesh architecture. Kabylake is a beast with DDR4-4000. Now imagine Coffee Lake with DDR4-4400 and beyond!
 
realworld said:
cSvy8dz.png

Tweaked the RAM like crazy. Ryzen and x99 was very hard to get it to stable. x299 and Kabylake was a breeze. With an x299 system, I wouldn't even bother with DDR4-3200. I recommend at least a 3600 with tight timings and low tRFC to counter the drawback of the mesh architecture. Kabylake is a beast with DDR4-4000. Now imagine Coffee Lake with DDR4-4400 and beyond!
Click to expand...

Good informtion. I am getting 52.1ns with my 7820x using 3600 16-16-16-36 1T 300tRFC and 3200 mesh.

mNA38wS.jpg
 
Has any mobo manufacturer talked about custom CPU brackets/CPU retention devices for running bare die delidded skylake HEDT CPUs yet?

During the haswell era i remember a few of the manuracturers did that for Haswell desktop chips.

It's simply pointless to put the lid back on if you are delidding for the purpose of better temperatures through better heat conduction, as you will be using a custom open-loop waterblock if you are looking for the best cooling capacity anyways.

Considering these CPUs seem to easily hit 4.8 ghz and beyond, such a setup would probably be important for someone getting a 7980XE and trying to run full speed AVX512 workloads at max overclock coupled with DDR4 4000+ to lower the amount of bottleneck from the memory (even though it will still be a massive bottleneck for these workloads and is why the die of the 7980XE has 6 memory controller channels) .
 
Last edited:
SA has published a fairly good review of the i9-7900X

https://semiaccurate.com/2017/08/24/intels-core-i9-7900x-review/

There are some mistakes like when he mentions turbo works only in one core and the picture of an Intel Confidential chip makes me a bit suspicious, but overall it is a good review. Also it seems evident that the new BIOS is playing its role on power consumption. He also has good words for the X299 platform.

Resume: the i9 wins in ST, gaming¹, power consumption, and efficiency, whereas the 16C Threadripper wins in MT, but for a small amount.

¹ Yes, I know that a better gaming sub-testing would bring higher advantage for the i9, but still they report a win for the i9.
 
Last edited:
Using Unraid to virtualize multiple gaming computers in one system with lots of CPU cores and multiple discrete graphics cards, huh? I'm pretty sure I saw Linus or one of the other major YouTube tech sorts do exactly that before, just not with a VR focus.

I'm actually hoping that becomes more common in the future, since it's a big step toward today's desktops becoming tomorrow's home mainframes of a sort. It also makes for a small LAN party in a box, given enough client stations connected to the system, though we're gonna need some serious advancements in wired networking latency before that becomes practical instead of a mess of cables (read: at least one DP or HDMI + USB per client as opposed to a single Ethernet cable that's easier to do long cable runs with).

The only problem there is that the hardware required to pull that off just isn't very cost-effective compared to simply building two cheaper gaming rigs on mainstream Intel or AMD platforms. The i9-7900X's price tag alone could build a pretty spiffy gaming computer!
 
juanrga said:
SA has published a fairly good review of the i9-7900X

https://semiaccurate.com/2017/08/24/intels-core-i9-7900x-review/


Resume: the i9 wins in ST, gaming¹, power consumption, and efficiency, whereas the 16C Threadripper wins in MT, but for a small amount.
Click to expand...

You might have linked the wrong review:
"Compared to Ryzen Threadripper 1950X we can see that the i9-7900X offers a significant advantage in our single threaded testing. The reverse occurs when we move to our multithreaded tests where AMD’s Threadripper pulls ahead. In gaming Intel and AMD are more or less evenly matched."

But I suppose your interpretation is what really matters.

Let's also ignore that it only matched the 1920x in multithread.

"As time goes on I wouldn’t be surprised to see the performance needle move further in favor of Threadripper as these apps are updated to make better use of the high core counts now at their disposal. But for now Intel’s i9-7900X offers extremely stiff resistance to AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper assault"

STIFF RESISTANCE. Not exactly a win as YOU report.
 
Nightfire said:
You might have linked the wrong review:
"Compared to Ryzen Threadripper 1950X we can see that the i9-7900X offers a significant advantage in our single threaded testing. The reverse occurs when we move to our multithreaded tests where AMD’s Threadripper pulls ahead. In gaming Intel and AMD are more or less evenly matched."

But I suppose your interpretation is what really matters.

Let's also ignore that it only matched the 1920x in multithread.

"As time goes on I wouldn’t be surprised to see the performance needle move further in favor of Threadripper as these apps are updated to make better use of the high core counts now at their disposal. But for now Intel’s i9-7900X offers extremely stiff resistance to AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper assault"

STIFF RESISTANCE. Not exactly a win as YOU report.
Click to expand...


*cough* you forgot to quote these as well *cough*

As we said in our Ryzen Threadripper 1950X review the choice between these two chips basically comes down to whether you prioritize lightly threaded performance or multi-threaded performance. If you want the best lightly threaded performance coupled with multithreaded performance that is still excellent then the Core i9-7900X is the chip for you. On the other hand if your goal is to build the best rendering box with single threaded performance that’s still top-tier then AMD’s Threadripper is a better choice.
​
and

In the end Intel’s i9-7900X appears to offer the best combination of singlethreaded performance, multithreaded performance, and efficiency at the $1000 price point. It’s not as fast as AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper in well threaded tasks, but it offers significantly stronger performance in single and lightly threaded workloads while remaining more efficient than the competition. More to the point its performance in multithreaded workloads is really quite good. Given the massive disadvantage it has in core count, the gap in performance is smaller than one would expect.
​
We can all read the review, it's ok. He's more on point than you are with the quotes you gave from the review. So what was that about interpretation again?
 
Nightfire said:
You might have linked the wrong review:
"Compared to Ryzen Threadripper 1950X we can see that the i9-7900X offers a significant advantage in our single threaded testing. The reverse occurs when we move to our multithreaded tests where AMD’s Threadripper pulls ahead. In gaming Intel and AMD are more or less evenly matched."

But I suppose your interpretation is what really matters.

Let's also ignore that it only matched the 1920x in multithread.

"As time goes on I wouldn’t be surprised to see the performance needle move further in favor of Threadripper as these apps are updated to make better use of the high core counts now at their disposal. But for now Intel’s i9-7900X offers extremely stiff resistance to AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper assault"

STIFF RESISTANCE. Not exactly a win as YOU report.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding?

i9-7900X advantage on ST: 24%
TR-1950X advantage on MT: 15%
i9-7900X advantage on gaming: 2%

Therefore when the i9 wins it does for a larger amount that when it loses. And this is on stock settings. Thanks to higher overlocks, the i9 can close that 15% MT gap.

Moreover as I wrote in the footnote that you ignored, the SA review used a very small number of games. A more broad selection of games increases the performance gap between the i9 and TR


It seems that the reviewer agreed with me, because he liked my tweet.

Regarding your last comment, I know AMD is always about hypothetical future performance. Now we are supposed to wait to 2025 or so to see ThreadRipper to perform better. But I am talking about performance measured today in the review, not about some future imagined or expected performance.
 
Last edited:
AlexisRO said:
​
We can all read the review, it's ok. He's more on point than you are with the quotes you gave from the review. So what was that about interpretation again?
Click to expand...

It's the fact that the less than 2% gain in gaming performance is a win with no caveat and the loss of 15% in my is a loss albeit "a small margin." THAT is what I mean by interpretation. Also, some of the tests did not scale from the 1920x to the 1950x.

At least he only called the less than a 2% gain in gaming as simply "a win." According to Shintai, it is "in a different leauge." (From another thread nearby)
 
It is also worth noting, when they are both overclocked to their full potential, the MT difference shrinks and the ST and gaming performance difference increases.
 
Nightfire said:
It's the fact that the less than 2% gain in gaming performance is a win with no caveat and the loss of 15% in my is a loss albeit "a small margin." THAT is what I mean by interpretation. Also, some of the tests did not scale from the 1920x to the 1950x.

At least he only called the less than a 2% gain in gaming as simply "a win." According to Shintai, it is "in a different leauge." (From another thread nearby)
Click to expand...

The fact is that my claim about games was accompanied by a footnote explaining that a broader selection of games would increase the performance gap between the i9-7900X and the TR-1950X. That 2% gap measured in that review is not representative. Not only you ignored the footnote, but you deleted it when quoted my post. The gaming performance gap between the i9 and the TR chip is not 2%

 
Nightfire said:
@ Tahoedust : Can you actually show this or is it an asumption?
This test shows SKL-x scaling poorly compared to Ryzen despite having a higher overclock:
https://www.techspot.com/amp/review/1450-core-i7-vs-ryzen-5-hexa-core/page9.html
Click to expand...

Avoid those guys as the plague, because that is probably the worst review ever published....

1) Testing with frame-limiting and GPU-bound settings. That is the reason why overclocking the 7800X by a huge 34% did only bring 3% higher framerates, whereas OC the 7700k by 16% did only bring 2% higher framerates; both the Skylake and the Kabylake CPUs were bottlenecked.

2) They didn't test a retail 7800X chip but they tested a qualification sample


Note that the guy writes "ES sample" and "QS sample" which is the same than writing "engineering sample sample" and "qualification sample sample".

3) They used a motherboard explicitly incompatible with the 7800X and managed to burn the chip.

http://www.asrock.com/MB/Intel/X299 Taichi/index.asp#BIOS

 
Last edited:
Juangra, I am not sure that you can use your own Twitter post as source. "General gaming"? What does that mean even?
 
As for the review I linked, many of the games were GPU/ frame limited, however Civ 6 and Warhammer were not.
Also, it was a collection of some of the most popular games played at 1080p. So does it make much sense to only find games that are very cpu limited if no one plays them? (Sort of like if a tree falls in the woods....) Clearly, most games are happy with at least 8 threads and 4 ghz of Ryzen or better IPC.
Do we need to link 720p resolutions to show a bigger win for SKL-X to make everyone here happy?
 
Nightfire said:
Juangra, I am not sure that you can use your own Twitter post as source. "General gaming"? What does that mean even?
Click to expand...

I posted the tweet because the reviewer of the article under discussion liked it.

"A more general gaming testing gives the i9 a 10--20% lead" means that using a broader collection of games of 15 games or more shows the general gaming performance of the i9. He only tested four games and the larger gap in performance was 9%. He didn't test games where the i9 is 37% faster

LkF2BYLBn4DM6SRxkVFP86-650-80.png
 
juanrga said:
Note that the guy writes "ES sample" and "QS sample" which is the same than writing "engineering sample sample" and "qualification sample sample".
Click to expand...
missed the "well" in there? he corrected himself...
and i agree, don't use you own tweets as "proof", its not, and i don't gaf who liked it.
 
pendragon1 said:
missed the "well" in there? he corrected himself...
and i agree, don't use you own tweets as "proof", its not, and i don't gaf who liked it.
Click to expand...

You missed my point. His "ES sample" and "QS sample" are incorrect. The correct forms are either "ES" or "engineering sample" for the first case and "QS" or "qualification sample" for in the second sample.

The 'proof' wasn't in the tweet, but on whom liked the tweet.
 
pendragon1 said:
missed the "well" in there? he corrected himself...
and i agree, don't use you own tweets as "proof", its not, and i don't gaf who liked it.
Click to expand...
juanrga said:
You missed my point. His "ES sample" and "QS sample" are incorrect. The correct forms are either "ES" or "engineering sample" for the first case and "QS" or "qualification sample" for in the second sample.

The 'proof' wasn't in the tweet, but on whom liked the tweet.
Click to expand...
who the fuck cares aboot that?! only you i think....
one like, from a dude ive never heard of that's a geography major that happens to write for opinion blogs, and?
 
Last edited:
So you guys show a bunch of graphs with no links that show test parameters that have nothing to do with the HEDTs being discussed.

Bravo.
 
Nightfire said:
So you guys show a bunch of graphs with no links that show test parameters that have nothing to do with the HEDTs being discussed.

Bravo.
Click to expand...

Pardon?

You pretended that TR-1950X is only 2% behind the i9-7900X on games, using a review with weak game benchmarking (only four games were tested). Even the reviewer of the article you use to claim that 2% liked a tweet from mine where I said that the performance gap in games is more in the 10--20% range when one uses a broad collection of games (15 or more).

What is your point? Continuous negation that the i9-7900x is a better gaming chip than the TR-1950X?
 
So niether the review you linked and the review I linked offer a good picture of gaming performance?

I am sure we can find a review where the 1950x gets more than a 15% gain in mt.

Talk about cherry picking. Find the one game that shows a 31% difference and ignore everything else including the review you actually linked.
 
Jesus Christ you two.

Overall Intel is still better for gaming. If you do professional work AMD is now fully in the fight, and good enough for gaming - especially with 4K.

Shut the fuck up. Or get a room and fuck it out in PMs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top