Wednesday, May 24th 2017

New Details On Intel's Upcoming 10-core Skylake-X i9 7900X Surface

SiSoft Sandra is one of the best (and more common) sources for details on upcoming, as-of-yet-unreleased hardware details and characteristics. Now, details on one of Intel's upcoming Skylake-X parts have surfaced, which gives us some details on what are likely final specifications, considering how close we are to X299's accelerated release.

The processor in the spotlight is one of Intel's 10-core processors, the Core i9 7900X (which is erroneously reported by the software as the Core i7 7900X), Intel's 10-core CPU. While initial reports pegged this CPU at as running at clock speeds of 3.30 GHz base and with 4.30 GHz Turbo Boost, it would seem Intel's release silicon will leverage much higher stock speeds, with the reported values on this SiSoft report being a staggering 4.0 GHz base, and 4.5 GHz Turbo Boost. These are extremely high clock speeds for a ten-core part, but all the other details about the Core i9 7900X check out: there are 14,080 KB (13.75 MB) of shared L3 cache, 1 MB L2 cache per core (for a total of 10 MB), as well as a 175 W TDP. This difference in clock speeds (especially when you compare it to Ryzen's much lower clock speeds) are probably an indicator of not only architectural differences between both designs, but a statement on Intel's fabrication process capabilities. And as an added bonus, check the motherboard that was used: a juicy, as-of-yet-unknown, X299 Gigabyte AORUS Gaming 7. Two details of this magnitude in a single screenshot? It's clearly a case of having your cake and eating it too.
Source: Overclockers UA
Add your own comment

74 Comments on New Details On Intel's Upcoming 10-core Skylake-X i9 7900X Surface

#1
NdMk2o1o
Ryzen really has ruffled a lot of Intel's feathers!!
Posted on Reply
#2
Dimi
NdMk2o1o said:
Ryzen really has ruffled a lot of Intel's feathers!!
Right lol, it probably took them 3-4 years to develop this cpu.
Posted on Reply
#3
NdMk2o1o
Dimi said:
Right lol, it probably took them 3-4 years to develop this cpu.
Do you think Intel develop new CPU architectures overnight? :kookoo:

Ah ok I see what you mean, no of course not but they couold have easily revised initial clockspeeds to compensate for Ryzens arrival and performance overnight ;)
Posted on Reply
#4
Dimi
These cpu's have been years in the make and people saying this is all because of Ryzen need to get their heads checked.
Posted on Reply
#5
NdMk2o1o
Dimi said:
That is what YOU are implying. These cpu's have been years in the make and people saying this is all because of Ryzen need to get their heads checked.
Go read the edit, I misunderstood what you meant but corrected it with an edited line underneath.
Posted on Reply
#6
Katanai
Now the big guns come out!

Posted on Reply
#7
theoneandonlymrk
Dimi said:
That is what YOU are implying. These cpu's have been years in the make and people saying this is all because of Ryzen need to get their heads checked.
If you think intel would have released this if Ryzen wasn't out, your mistaken.
A cpu would have been released but not at those speeds and likely no where near as soon.
Especially with so much kaby in channel.
Posted on Reply
#8
the54thvoid
Quite a statement from Intel if true. 10 core at 4GHz stock.....

Ouch for AMD. My 1700X looks a bit poorly now. That being said. How much are these chips going to cost? £1500?
Posted on Reply
#9
dorsetknob
"YOUR RMA REQUEST IS CON-REFUSED"
Dimi said:
These cpu's have been years in the make and people saying this is all because of Ryzen need to get their heads checked.
yes years in the planning and making But i expect AMD new CPU's Pushed up the launch date otherwise if Ryzen was not so good Intel would have not released this but given use a lesser upgrade (Enterprise would have had this instead )
Posted on Reply
#10
theoneandonlymrk
dorsetknob said:
yes years in the planning and making But i expect AMD new CPU's Pushed up the launch date otherwise if Ryzen was not so good Intel would have not released this but given use a lesser upgrade (Enterprise would have had this instead )
Exactly , they sound good but realistically for the few and aimed to compete inadequately with Threadripper not Ryzen and i think that 175 watt tdp is conservative for this chip flat out:) so I don't think its That great a chip , too late imho, last year it would have looked great but i would call this intels pile-driver moment to be honest , its going to require quite a cooler.
When you reply that its ok to run hot and fast using loads of juice you better not have called my 8350 before for it;):):p
Posted on Reply
#11
Solaris17
Dainty Moderator
Raevenlord said:
(which is erroneously reported by the software as the Core i7 7900X
is it? do we actually have a spokesperson from Intel calling it I9?
Posted on Reply
#12
Tomgang
ho ho now we are talking som serious shit right there. Intels is not gonna sit back and watch ryzen take it all. 2017/2018 is really gonna be one of the most fun CPU releases in years. intel with pretty high clokke CPU´s with a desent amount of cores whle Ryzen comming with up to 16 cores. Now i just want to se some prices.

But seriously. If not for ryzen, i bet Intels clock speeds on skylake E had been lower to keep with in the TDP range of 130-140 watt they else tend to do. But i am not complaining.
Posted on Reply
#13
birdie
the54thvoid said:
Quite a statement from Intel if true. 10 core at 4GHz stock.....

Ouch for AMD. My 1700X looks a bit poorly now. That being said. How much are these chips going to cost? £1500?
More like £6500.
Posted on Reply
#14
HTC
I'm pretty sure Intel already had this CPU developed and chose to keep it "under raps" in order to milk the costumers as much as possible by using the current architectures.

Then Ryzen happened ...

Intel was caught off guard because they never expected AMD would be able to improve so much in one go, so they started "counterattacking". But they can't launch a "new" product right away, as it takes time to build up inventory as well as motherboards for it and, even if they already had some, it would be a massive $ loss if they launched right away before selling a good chunk of the available current architecture's products to minimize the losses.
Posted on Reply
#15
Solaris17
Dainty Moderator
HTC said:
I'm pretty sure Intel already had this CPU developed
Intel and AMD R&D departments have CPU lines naming conventions and tech roadmaps that span years. I dont understand how people seem to forget this ever ark change. They always insinuate that they just magic'd this shit up last month.
Posted on Reply
#16
theoneandonlymrk
HTC said:
I'm pretty sure Intel already had this CPU developed and chose to keep it "under raps" in order to milk the costumers as much as possible by using the current architectures.

Then Ryzen happened ...

Intel was caught off guard because they never expected AMD would be able to improve so much in one go, so they started "counterattacking". But they can't launch a "new" product right away, as it takes time to build up inventory as well as motherboards for it and, even if they already had some, it would be a massive $ loss if they launched right away before selling a good chunk of the available current architecture's products to minimize the losses.
I agree except for the undelined bit about "milking the costumers" ,that doesn't sound like intels at all.:D
Posted on Reply
#17
Shihabyooo
So many numbers, yet missing the most important of 'em all: MSRP.
It matters little if it's a 20 Cores, 10 GHz beast but more expensive that half a healthy adult's organs!
Posted on Reply
#18
efikkan
The amount of Intel hate in this forum is astounding.



Solaris17 said:
is it? do we actually have a spokesperson from Intel calling it I9?
Exactly, "i9" is still just a rumor.
If the benchmark results are not faked, then the name is probably correct, since it's reported by the CPU.
Posted on Reply
#19
theoneandonlymrk
efikkan said:
The amount of Intel hate in this forum is astounding.




Exactly, "i9" is still just a rumor.
If the benchmark results are not faked, then the name is probably correct, since it's reported by the CPU.
I beg to differ on that it's an intel friendly forum for sure , everyone round these ways agrees if you're using a gtx 1080ti on a 1080p monitor an i7 7700k is still the best cpu to get and it likely still will be.:);):D
Posted on Reply
#20
diatribe
It looks like competition from AMD may showing itself from Intel. Hopefully they will price there new chips to compete with Ryzen so that we can move past the 4-core standard that the market has been stuck at.
Posted on Reply
#21
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Dimi said:
Right lol, it probably took them 3-4 years to develop this cpu.
Skylake released in August of 2015, Skylake-E doesn't really change anything. What happened is intel raised their TDP cap to 175W and are selling CPU's at a higher clockspeed out of the box. This isn't something new and crazy it is the same CPU coming pumped from the factory to make sense for pricing.

Basically Intel got some AMD shit on their shoe and went awe hell nah.

But in reality this is likely to make up for the lower multicore performance. 4.0ghz across all 10 cores isn't exactly ground breaking, most of the 6950X's can do 4.4 on decent cooling
Posted on Reply
#22
trparky
I wonder what this means for folks who have already bought Ryzen-based systems or people who are planning on it. A base clock of 4 GHz is very good, especially for a processor with that many cores on-board. Compare this to the Ryzen R5 1600 with its base clock of 3.6 GHz and it doesn't look very good for AMD Ryzen. Ryzen really needs to up the base clocks in the next version or Intel is going to kill them once again.

Edit: Do I wait for this to come out and meanwhile save more money or do I simply bite the bullet and build a Ryzen-based system? The more I think about it the more I think I should wait.
Posted on Reply
#23
dorsetknob
"YOUR RMA REQUEST IS CON-REFUSED"
efikkan said:
The amount of Intel hate in this forum is astounding.
:) :roll: makes a change from the usual "The amount of AMD hate in this forum is astounding" commento_O
Posted on Reply
#24
biffzinker
I don't know if I'd use the word hate so much as being critical of the shenanigans each of these companies like to pull. They are for profit, no? Pretty sure their not running as a non-profit.
Posted on Reply
#25
jchambers2586
As long as their is a decent AMD option I am using AMD no more anti consumer moves from Intel for me like shit thermal paste instead of solder I am moving away from a hot 6600k to a ryzen 7 I love that you can get a $100 board throw a 6 core chip in it and overclock it I am done with intel moving forward non soldered CPU was the last straw.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment