Friday, June 16th 2017
Core i9-7900X Skylake-X Review Shows Up
An Intel Core i9-7900X has appeared for a full review at the site Hexus.net. Spoiler alert, it clocks to 4.7 GHz on all ten cores with relative ease (only taking 1.25 V, apparently, though it racked up nearly 100°C in Cinebench at that voltage).
The review praised Intel's overclocking headroom and general muscle in a mostly positive review. Still, not all is rosy in Intel land. They found performance per watt to not have improved much if at all, criticized the high price tag, and Hexus.net had the following to say about the overall experience:
"X299 motherboards don't appear to be quite ready, there are question marks surrounding the Skylake-X processors due later this year, and at the lower end of the Core X spectrum, Kaby Lake-X is nothing short of puzzling."
It would seem AMD is not the only major chip-maker who can have motherboards ill prepared at launch time, even the mighty Intel may have teething issues yet.
You can read the full review (which is mostly positive, by the way) in the source link below.
Oh, and a special shoutout to our own @the54thvoid for discovering this article.
Source:
hexus.net
The review praised Intel's overclocking headroom and general muscle in a mostly positive review. Still, not all is rosy in Intel land. They found performance per watt to not have improved much if at all, criticized the high price tag, and Hexus.net had the following to say about the overall experience:
"X299 motherboards don't appear to be quite ready, there are question marks surrounding the Skylake-X processors due later this year, and at the lower end of the Core X spectrum, Kaby Lake-X is nothing short of puzzling."
It would seem AMD is not the only major chip-maker who can have motherboards ill prepared at launch time, even the mighty Intel may have teething issues yet.
You can read the full review (which is mostly positive, by the way) in the source link below.
Oh, and a special shoutout to our own @the54thvoid for discovering this article.
247 Comments on Core i9-7900X Skylake-X Review Shows Up
Intel material science engineers actually published a few studies about a decade ago on indium solder TIM and its potential reliability issues, here's the summary of one of them.
And if the temps are within spec then they shouldn't be an issue for CPU longevity, Intel CPUs start throttling anyway before exceeding that spec. The biggest issue is usually voltage since that can actually damage the little transistors inside the chip over time, even if temperatures are kept low.
Also AMD's lower TDPs are an architectural and node trait, nothing to do with using indium solder. And I'm not sure about that laptop with the R7 1700 being paired with an RX580 since that GPU is by far one of the worst on the market right now when it comes to perf/W.
People really need to stop spreading fud, I can understand that you're a fan of a publicly traded multi billion $ corporation, but that doesn't mean that you should spread fud.
And the rx580 runs at 1100-1200mhz I believe and only has 4gb ram to keep costs and temp down. I assume some things have been changed in polaris to keep power usage down other than lowering clockspeeds. O, and the gl702zc has a b350 chip and the disclaimer you can't oc has been removed, so mayeb you could get it running at 3.7ghz on all cores. Just a shame there is no thunderbolt port for egpu's, because than I would've pre-ordered one. Still better than a max-q/mobile 3gb 1060 on average probably in new, relevant games and it migjt even beat a max-q/mobile 6gb 1060.
2. Ram doesnt really get hot man..that isnt it.
There is one intel thing I'm excited about btw, and that is the 15w quad-cores! Something spicy, but not hot in contrast with the expensive enthousiast cpu's!
Even the source of most of the AMD hype, Wccftech, recognized the i7-7900X offered "Features Great OC Headroom, Insane Multi-Tasking Performance and Excellent IPC".
Skylake-X is better than AMD at overclocking, offers IPC improvements, more cores, and higher clocks. Still all the fanboys claims it's a disaster. The amount of Intel hate in this forum is really sad.
Also, barely any ipc improvements from broadwell-e to skylake-x, insane tenps to go with the insane overclock from the insanely low baseclock. O, and raid keys and a mere 28 lanes if you care about that stuff.
Insane temps...insanely low base clocks (300mhz below ryzen).. hahahalolol jesus man... just ask amd to marry you already and get it over with... holy shit. Lol!
Since in certain workloads the cache's size has negative effects on performance, even @ overclocked speeds (compared to the 6950X), the disparity in cache size should give threadripper the advantage, despite it's lower clocks, no?
That's most important, all Intel processors when you install work on Turbo Boost, It's enabled by default. OK i9-7900X will work maybe on 4.3GHz Turbo Boost 2.0 but he is stable and on 4.5GHz.
If you look on that way who would buy i7-5960X when single threaded performance as weaker than i7-3770K.
But of course no one keep him on 3.0GHz, that's funny, People keep him on 4.0-4.5GHz, over 30% better perfomance in single and multi than default.
Only AMD look Intel's result on 3.0GHz and base frequency when compare with their processors. Because AMD OC 200MHz and Intel 1000-1500MHz.
Difference between i7-6900K and 1800X after you overclock both is much different than default setting because Intel have low frequency.
No one use such processors to work on 3.0-3.5GHz that's killing fps in games. Better fps have CPU with 4 cores on 4.5GHz than. But after you overclock Xtreme on 4.0GHz + you get something completely different.
Because of that I thin Intel Turbo Boost 3.0 is great.
To be honest I would not overclock i9-7900X first days.
i7-5820K need to be manually overclocked to be comparable with i7-6700K in single apps. but i9-7900X is out of box ready for gaming, only enable Turbo Boost 3.0.
I would keep Adaptive clock, on High Performance Plan 4.5GHz and on Balanced idle frequency.
Only is problem because I can't see reason to upgrade from six core to six core. Again I will be slower than 1800X than. That's not worth paying premium motherboard for that.
I search for some i9-7900X without warranty or maybe i7-7820X or ES. Than immediately I buy CPU and sell my platform to buy Rampage VI Extreme.
In a lot of ways I don't just want AMD to hurt Intel, I want AMD to make them bleed. I want them to gut punch Intel so hard they'll be pissing blood for the next week. For too damn long Intel has been screwing us over, I want them to not only hurt but I want them doubled over in agony as AMD stands over them yelling "Does that hurt?! Yeah! I bet it does!" I want them to go Rocky all over Intel.
There was a video that I watched on YouTube where someone took a year old Intel chip that was running a bit too hot for his liking so he took the chip and de-lidded it and sure enough, the cheap-ass shit TIM that Intel was using for his chip damn near crumbled as he scraped it away. That tells you something!
New PC sales have been down for the last couple of years, what better way to force people to buy new PCs thus have to buy new CPUs than to purposely design their new CPUs to prematurely fail? :mad:
Designed to fail...lol
Insane temps... lol
Thinking one video in youtube about paste borking is The Gospel and it happens on all/most/many...lol
Thinking this is going to prevent an average consumer or most enthusiasts from buying it... lol
Come on guys... use your head for a second would ya?
Sure, I understand that the chip is designed to run at high temperatures but that doesn't mean it's healthy for them to be constantly running at such high temperatures. 100 degrees Celsius is hot, damned hot; too damn hot for a chip to be running at. I don't care if it can "handle" it, it's way too damn hot.
Point is, run it where its 90c peak like the advice those in the know always say. You are still getting a faster cpu with more overclocking headroom than the cannot-actually-compare-to amd temps.
Im mean facts are in front of you about the temp being ok... i cant help anyone belive it. Leads horse to water...
Its just funny to see personal preference cloud judgement and form opinion..then the opinion spread fud.
Intel has been using 256kB L2 cache for many years, while AMD is using 512kB. Most people are under the misconception that the cache hierarchy is storing the "important stuff", but in reality it's just a streaming buffer. The entire contents of the L2 cache is swapped out thousands of times per second. A larger L2 cache makes the CPU able to more eagerly prefetch data, which in turn improves the hit rate which reduces stalls of the CPU. This should help nearly use case, but probably especially data intensive use cases like video encoding.
These changes are definitely a step in the right direction. But that's not to say that we can expect similar gains from simply increasing the L2 cache, since the gains for each increase will be less.
For someone that doesnt f@h where cpu is running like that 24/7, in the vast majority of cases, it will easily last well past its warranted life.
Good luck guys. Enjoy your cool running CPUs while spreading fud and showing ignorance through your opinion on the matter.