The Rest of the Skylake-X Line Leaked

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,532
This post shows a slide that profiles the rest of the upcoming Skylake-X processors from Intel, as it now try to race ahead when it comes to how many cores they can put on package for desktop machines compared to AMD's upcoming Ryzen Threadripper. After seeing how extremely hot the 7900X runs when overclocked, it will be interesting to see what we can do with the 18-core i9-7980XE. Thanks Seth!

Check out the picture.
 
Damn, $2,000 for the i9-7980XE. They must be really proud of that CPU. Considering the heat issues and pricing, guess I'll go Threadripper for my next major build.
 
Damn, $2,000 for the i9-7980XE. They must be really proud of that CPU. Considering the heat issues and pricing, guess I'll go Threadripper for my next major build.

I would have no problem at all with this price (and would purchase it instead of a 16C TR) if it supported ECC.
 
I'm eager to see benchmarks. It's amazing to see some competition in the HEDT market for the first time in a long time.
 
Was eyeing the 12-core, thinking I might just go with the 10. Waiting on TR reviews to make my final decision.

Crazy. First time in about a decade that I am unsure about which CPU I want to go with in my next platform upgrade. It might come down to the motherboards available.
 
But I thought a monolithic CPU design would guarantee the best possible performance always and forever while other designs that are module based will always lag behind. JuanRGA said so in AMD subforum many times.

I don't understand how base clocks on the Intel 16-core being 2.8 ghz vs. the Threadripper base clock of 16-core being 3.4 ghz which is a 600 mhz or 21% difference in base clockspeed. Even if the Threadripper IPC wise is 10% behind Intel, the clockspeed boost allowed by the higher clock speed and that occurring at a lower thermal envelope (not to mention the threadripper is $700 cheaper on the processor purchase price and brings 64 PCIe lanes to the table vs. Intels 44 PCIe lanes) sure seems like Threadripper would be able to edge out the 16-core Intel I9-7960X generally speaking.

Heavily threaded tasks will most likely go AMD's way with that kind of mhz lead over Intel's offering. And single threaded tasks might go Intel's way if (and only if) the complete workload topology for the CPU allows the Intel CPU to truly hit its highest speed boost setting.

I'll wait to hear how Intel has done it completely correctly this go around and how AMD screwed up yet again with an inferior module based design which can't possibly compete with Intel.
 
But I thought a monolithic CPU design would guarantee the best possible performance always and forever while other designs that are module based will always lag behind. JuanRGA said so in AMD subforum many times.

I don't understand how base clocks on the Intel 16-core being 2.8 ghz vs. the Threadripper base clock of 16-core being 3.4 ghz which is a 600 mhz or 21% difference in base clockspeed. Even if the Threadripper IPC wise is 10% behind Intel, the clockspeed boost allowed by the higher clock speed and that occurring at a lower thermal envelope (not to mention the threadripper is $700 cheaper on the processor purchase price and brings 64 PCIe lanes to the table vs. Intels 44 PCIe lanes) sure seems like Threadripper would be able to edge out the 16-core Intel I9-7960X generally speaking.

Heavily threaded tasks will most likely go AMD's way with that kind of mhz lead over Intel's offering. And single threaded tasks might go Intel's way if (and only if) the complete workload topology for the CPU allows the Intel CPU to truly hit its highest speed boost setting.

I'll wait to hear how Intel has done it completely correctly this go around and how AMD screwed up yet again with an inferior module based design which can't possibly compete with Intel.

It all boils down to how the programs are written. If there is a lot of thread locks, and Interlocked increment/decrements spread out across many cores where the infinity fabric comes into play, then yes Thread Ripper will suffer. But it's easy to avoid such situations if you are a decent programmer. Properly programmed trees for things like tournament sorts, or analysis on pattern movement vectors for movie compression/transcoding should excel on thread ripper.
 
No, what will be interesting is how badly intel fails against Threadripper. Cant wait for the comparative benchmarks!!!

I see it as less of an Intel failure than AMD finally getting their shit together. Even if this just gets us back to the old approximate paradigm of intel only really having to worry about AMD's performance one year in 5 and their pricing 3 years in five, it'll be good for the consumer.
 
I swear, you just never get the feeling that you are getting very much for your money with Intel. They are too in love with their profit margins.
 
Who's going to commission a custom liquid Potassium metal cooler for these bad boys?

I think that's what it will take to keep it cool, lol.
 
If you need ECC for enterprise esque applications, then EPYC would be for you and you would still come out ahead.
Shhh, dont ruin his excuse to keep giving his beloved intel more of his money.

On a serious note, my understanding is, all AMD cpus support ECC, but is understandable that is not common knowledge, since we are all trained in the intel ways of having a millions SKU's because they cut and dice the cpu features, to artificially increase their prices.
 
keep giving his beloved intel more of his money

I would easily pay more (2 times the cost) for the better processor. Which is the point of my statement.

With that said TR is a better platform.

beloved intel

Actually I am not a fanboy of either. I used to be an AMD fanboy but that was long ago.
 
I really don't see the point in releasing the i9s at such a limmiting TDP. boost it to 200w and put those cores to good use..
 
And boom goes Intel's HEDT market monopoly...Sure the cows are gonna still get milked, but enough will smarten up see the light, save some coin and switch camps. $2000 for 18 cores using TIM? get bent. I guess its better than the $1750 10 core last year but I think ill save a $1000 and go to the other team. Thanks for making the choice clear Intel! Good riddance to the monopoly!
 
That might be the plan...or this could just be the initial stage where yields of MCM for Eypc could be having some teething issues. So they turn em into TR's instead. OR lack of production capacity at GF has forced Epyc and TR together...Looking forward to reviews, its gonna be slower, but 80-90% of the performance for 50% of the price is just too good to pass up. Way better thermals as well
 
7820X looks like the sweet spot for me 8 cores 16 threads 4 channel ram
 
What if amd releases a 24 or 32 core threadripper for 2k $?

I would say that depends on how well it overclocks. I see that DDR4 2666 ECC is available. I was worried about having to use DDR4 2400.

Also for me (with my medical imaging research) its a negative not to have avx-512.
 
I'm glad that AMD and Threadripper seem to have the upper hand, or at least compete strongly for raw performance, not just price. Its good to hear from the rest of the Intel competition though for this round. One thing of which I'm curious - I seem to remember that in order to activate certain features (not even things like ECC which, if I recall AMD Threadripper actually supports yet Intel won't let Skylake-X to keep from Xeon competition), wasn't there some dongle or key supposed to be necessary on even high-end Skylake-X proc's and motherboards? I don't recall exactly what features they were, but I seem to remember the "premium" dongle or whatnot was necessary to unlock certain RAID support and other features, adding even more cost to an already expensive platform? Any update on this?
 
wasn't there some dongle or key supposed to be necessary on even high-end Skylake-X proc's and motherboards?

The dongle is to enable raid5 / raid10 with NVMe drives.
 
And boom goes Intel's HEDT market monopoly...Sure the cows are gonna still get milked, but enough will smarten up see the light, save some coin and switch camps. $2000 for 18 cores using TIM? get bent. I guess its better than the $1750 10 core last year but I think ill save a $1000 and go to the other team. Thanks for making the choice clear Intel! Good riddance to the monopoly!

The review sites are making it seem like intel is WAY ahead of Ryzen in gaming performance...then you dig into the benchmarks and see that, real world, Ryzen is within 3-4 fps of the highest clocked intel chips! I think there is a flat out bullshit perception out there that AMD is still not competitive in gaming...and it's simply not true! I am going with Threadripper for 3 reasons:

1) HALF the cost of Intel
2) no ARTIFICIAL restrictions on PCI lanes to try to milk more money from consumers
and 3) solder on the heatspreadder (aka, ATTENTION TO DETAILS!)

I dont care if the next guy can get a few more fps out of his rig, I refuse to pay $2000 for Intel's best chip...or have to pay $1000 just to get the full 44 lanes that Intel offers! I will most likely get the $999 chip anyway (because, why not? I am already spending a ton on my next build, and $500 more isnt breaking the bank), but at $999 I am going to get a hell of a lot more performance for my dollar than an Intel chip will provide.
 
Back
Top