Tuesday, May 30th 2017

Intel Formally Announces the Core i7 and Core i9 X Series Processors

Creating rich, immersive experiences and bringing them to life takes a lot of compute power. Creators, gamers and enthusiasts have an insatiable demand for more power, more performance and more capability that lets them focus on what they want to do, not on whether their computer is up to the task. Intel is committed to continue giving them that extreme platform. Introducing the new Intel Core X-series processor family: Intel's most scalable, accessible and powerful desktop platform ever. Ranging from 4 to 18 cores, it offers unprecedented scalability. With price points to match, there is an Intel Core X-series processor that is sure to meet the needs for the widest range of enthusiast customers ever.

We're also introducing the entirely new Intel Core i9 processor brand, representing the highest performance for advanced gaming, VR and content creation. At the top of the lineup is the new Intel Core i9 Extreme Edition processor - the first consumer desktop CPU with 18 cores and 36 threads of power. Select SKUs of the Intel Core X-series processor family brings extreme performance to enthusiasts with Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 creating new levels of single-threaded and dual-threaded performance.
The Intel Core X-series processor family also delivers the first teraflop desktop CPU from Intel. And install Intel Optane memory, a smart system accelerator to improve system responsiveness with large storage drives. Intel Core X-series processors use more cores and more threads to do more simultaneous workloads, like extreme mega-tasking. For our enthusiasts, we have new overclocking features including AVX 512 ratio offset, memory controller trim voltage control, and PEG/DMI overclocking to get more performance than ever before.

Extreme Performance for Single-Thread and Multithread Computing:
  • Up to 10 percent faster multithread performance over previous generation
  • Up to 15 percent faster single-thread performance over previous generation
  • Massive 36-thread performance and quad-channel memory for content creation and extreme mega-tasking
  • Up to 44 lanes of PCIe 3.0 directly connected to the CPU, to expand your system with fast SSDs, multiple discrete graphics cards and ultrafast Thunderbolt 3 technology
Key Features:
  • New! Intel Core i9 Extreme Edition processor featuring 18 cores and 36 threads
  • New! Intel's most scalable high-end desktop platform ever with 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, and 4-core options
  • New! Intel X299 chipset with improved I/O capabilities
  • New! LGA 2066 socket for Intel Core X-series processor family
  • New! Additional system performance and amazing responsiveness with Intel Optane memory support
  • Improved Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 (select SKUs) for single- and multithreaded performance
  • Up to 44 lanes of PCIe 3.0 directly connected to the CPU
  • Up to 4 channel DDR4-2666 memory support, support for the Intel Extreme Memory Profile (Intel XMP) specification, revision 2.0 for DDR4
  • Fully unlocked for performance tuning
  • Rebalanced smart cache hierarchy
  • Intel Hyper-Threading Technology
Systems and boxed processors are available at launch via online retail and through channel partners in all geographies.

Scalability with 10, 8, 6, and 4 cores (18, 16, 14, and 12 cores coming soon!)
For more information, visit the product page.
Add your own comment

55 Comments on Intel Formally Announces the Core i7 and Core i9 X Series Processors

#1
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
lol so the minimum price for 44 PCIe lanes (x16/x16) is $999? Flee off Intel.
Posted on Reply
#2
Chaitanya
Intel desperately scrambling for ideas at this point, with those two quad core CPUs in HEDT lineup. :shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#3
Chloe Price
And what I've heard, at least the cheapest ones aren't even soldered, they have this crappy TIM like 115x CPUs.. :banghead:
Posted on Reply
#4
ne6togadno
9700 Pro said:
And what I've heard, at least the cheapest ones aren't even soldered, they have this crappy TIM like 115x CPUs.. :banghead:
look closer to the pictures.
even i9s arnt soldered
Posted on Reply
#5
Caring1
btarunr said:
lol so the minimum price for 44 PCIe lanes (x16/x16) is $999? Flee off Intel.
And that's tray pricing too :roll:
Posted on Reply
#6
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Caring1 said:
And that's tray pricing too :roll:
So retail + 18% VAT = $1300-ish. There used to be a time when for $275 (+taxes), you could get the Core i7-920, and full x16/x16 on any X58 motherboard.
Posted on Reply
#7
R0H1T
btarunr said:
So retail + 18% VAT = $1300-ish. There used to be a time when for $275 (+taxes), you could get the Core i7-920, and full x16/x16 on any X58 motherboard.
Yeah I remember that time, a lot of my friends used to have hair back then, on their head :shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#8
Naito
btarunr said:
So retail + 18% VAT = $1300-ish. There used to be a time when for $275 (+taxes), you could get the Core i7-920, and full x16/x16 on any X58 motherboard.
To be fair, AMD doesn't even offer that at such a price point. But, I do agree that it is a deplorable tactic on Intel's behalf.
Posted on Reply
#9
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Naito said:
To be fair, AMD doesn't even offer that at such a price point. But, I do agree that it is a deplorable tactic on Intel's behalf.
Buy a $160 FX8370 with a 990FX motherboard.
Posted on Reply
#10
ERazer
and thats why thank god AMD is back in the game, soo much BS with intel pricing
Posted on Reply
#11
Kurt Maverick
Why do I have the impression than half of the negative nancies here must be Ryzen users? The AMD community is just that toxic, and I'm finding hard to believe that people aren't in awe of the 7820X being only 100 bucks more expensive than the 1800X, having in mind the CPU monster that it must be.

But don't worry, once the benchmarks comes out and the 7820X obliverates a CPU that can't even compete with the 6900K in gaming performance, we'll see how quickly people forgets about that delidding thing (as long as temperatures stays in nominal levels. Heck, if Intel bothers to put a decent thermal paste this time, it might even be the best option all-around, offering normal temperatures to non-OC users, and allowing delidding to OCers).

Anyway, we'll see the thermal results in the benchmarks as well. Until then, keep living in your bubble, Ryzen owners.
Posted on Reply
#12
Dimi
I was hoping the 7900x would come in at 699 or below that. I don't wanna settle for less than 10 cores so i'll just have to wait my upgrade for another year or 2.

TIM instead of solder is also a bit of a low blow tbh.
Posted on Reply
#13
Kurt Maverick
Dimi said:
TIM instead of solder is also a bit of a low blow tbh.
I vote for waiting for the benchmarks before judging.

And at worst, buy a good AIO.
Posted on Reply
#14
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Chaitanya said:
Intel desperately scrambling for ideas at this point, with those two quad core CPUs in HEDT lineup. :shadedshu:
I would honestly with there being a 4C/8T part for the entry level, but that i5 is just wrong.

Also, I really wish Intel left the "X" branding to like two different Extreme chips.
Posted on Reply
#15
bogami
Abnormal prices are now part of Intel's offerings. Everything what has been unsuccessfully produced is sold as top dog processor based on price !, and i9 7900X, 1,000$, which will be sold a minimum 1220 $ is the only successful cutout that is essentially the first real 266 chipset processor with 44 Linie. AMD, I m WAITING .For half cheaper and better product !
Posted on Reply
#16
yogurt_21
so... they're xeons... seriously they seem priced like xeons and enter the xeon core count realm.

Maybe the motherboards won't cost as much as server boards? if not you're pretty much just getting server hardware branded as something else. Unless of course they strip out the trusted execution technology, in which case maybe just buy the xeon...

https://ark.intel.com/products/92984/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2640-v4-25M-Cache-2_40-GHz

40 pci e lanes, same 10 cores/20 threads, more cache, significantly lower tdp, and yes lower clock but you can work with that, xeons can take quite a beating.

So unless Intel is going to make the motherboards for these significantly cheaper, I'd rather go Xeon at that price point.
Posted on Reply
#17
the54thvoid
Kurt Maverick said:
Why do I have the impression than half of the negative nancies here must be Ryzen users? The AMD community is just that toxic, and I'm finding hard to believe that people aren't in awe of the 7820X being only 100 bucks more expensive than the 1800X, having in mind the CPU monster that it must be.

But don't worry, once the benchmarks comes out and the 7820X obliverates a CPU that can't even compete with the 6900K in gaming performance, we'll see how quickly people forgets about that delidding thing (as long as temperatures stays in nominal levels. Heck, if Intel bothers to put a decent thermal paste this time, it might even be the best option all-around, offering normal temperatures to non-OC users, and allowing delidding to OCers).

Anyway, we'll see the thermal results in the benchmarks as well. Until then, keep living in your bubble, Ryzen owners.
Thanks for the insight. I'm a Ryzen owner and it games fine with my 1080ti at 1440p. No probs. Glad I saved £500 on the Intel core equivalent.
Posted on Reply
#18
ERazer
Kurt Maverick said:
Why do I have the impression than half of the negative nancies here must be Ryzen users? The AMD community is just that toxic, and I'm finding hard to believe that people aren't in awe of the 7820X being only 100 bucks more expensive than the 1800X, having in mind the CPU monster that it must be.

But don't worry, once the benchmarks comes out and the 7820X obliverates a CPU that can't even compete with the 6900K in gaming performance, we'll see how quickly people forgets about that delidding thing (as long as temperatures stays in nominal levels. Heck, if Intel bothers to put a decent thermal paste this time, it might even be the best option all-around, offering normal temperatures to non-OC users, and allowing delidding to OCers).

Anyway, we'll see the thermal results in the benchmarks as well. Until then, keep living in your bubble, Ryzen owners.
Or maybe intel users sick and tired of intel holding out? Doesn't matter whose team has more core in the end day majority will buy a cpu thats best bang for their money. Dont act like amd is not shaking things up give them some credit.
Posted on Reply
#19
notb
the54thvoid said:
Thanks for the insight. I'm a Ryzen owner and it games fine with my 1080ti at 1440p. No probs. Glad I saved £500 on the Intel core equivalent.
I adore your math. :p

7800X and 7820X are the "core equivalents" of Ryzen 5 1600 and Ryzen 7 1800X. The cost more (the latter being $600), but it's nowhere near 500 GBP.
Plus, based on what we've seen already, they should perform better. I'm sure AMD is lowering Ryzen prices for a good reason. :)
Posted on Reply
#20
efikkan
Kurt Maverick said:
Why do I have the impression than half of the negative nancies here must be Ryzen users? The AMD community is just that toxic, and I'm finding hard to believe that people aren't in awe of the 7820X being only 100 bucks more expensive than the 1800X, having in mind the CPU monster that it must be.

But don't worry, once the benchmarks comes out and the 7820X obliverates a CPU that can't even compete with the 6900K in gaming performance, we'll see how quickly people forgets about that delidding thing (as long as temperatures stays in nominal levels. Heck, if Intel bothers to put a decent thermal paste this time, it might even be the best option all-around, offering normal temperatures to non-OC users, and allowing delidding to OCers).

Anyway, we'll see the thermal results in the benchmarks as well. Until then, keep living in your bubble, Ryzen owners.
Yes, the bias is clearly visible in every single forum thread. Hate agains Intel and Nvidia is the norm.

i7-6800K already beats Ryzen 7 1800X at a lower price. i7-7800X is not only higher clocked, but also brings whatever improvements Skylake-X has over Broadwell-E, so Intel is not shaking in fear :)
Posted on Reply
#21
Chaitanya
Frick said:
I would honestly with there being a 4C/8T part for the entry level, but that i5 is just wrong.

Also, I really wish Intel left the "X" branding to like two different Extreme chips.
even that 4C-8T part is useless crap: 112W Tdp, TIM instead of solder, only 8MB L3 cache, 16 lane PCI-E hub, and dual channel memory. Intel has seriously lost their mind with this new HEDT lineup and scrambling for ideas on how to milk customers.
Posted on Reply
#22
notb
Chaitanya said:
even that 4C-8T part is useless crap: 112W Tdp, TIM instead of solder, only 8MB L3 cache, 16 lane PCI-E hub, and dual channel memory. Intel has seriously lost their mind with this new HEDT lineup and scrambling for ideas on how to milk customers.
112W seems realistic for this part. 7700K was pretty hungry already.
I agree the TIM is surprising, but we don't know anything about it. It doesn't have to be the same material they use in LGA1151.

As for anything else you've mentioned: it's fairly obvious that Intel decided to move OC-oriented CPUs from LGA1151 to LGA2066.
I won't be surprised if Kaby Lake successor (whatever it will be in the end...) has no -K CPUs at all. This would finally become a consumer platform - designed for stability and features.
Posted on Reply
#23
Chloe Price
notb said:
112W seems realistic for this part. 7700K was pretty hungry already.
I agree the TIM is surprising, but we don't know anything about it. It doesn't have to be the same material they use in LGA1151.

As for anything else you've mentioned: it's fairly obvious that Intel decided to move OC-oriented CPUs from LGA1151 to LGA2066.
I won't be surprised if Kaby Lake successor (whatever it will be in the end...) has no -K CPUs at all. This would finally become a consumer platform - designed for stability and features.
Well, Intel said that the TIM was better on Devil's Canyon CPUs, but it was the same kind of crap than on previous ones.
Posted on Reply
#24
JalleR
the 4core version is for people that doesn't have the money for I expensive motherboard and an expensive cpu at the same time, then they buy the 4c and later on upgrade to the bigger models, I would have done that with the X99 and a cheap Xeon, but I got a good tax return :D
Posted on Reply
#25
the54thvoid
notb said:
I adore you're math. :p

7800X and 7820X are the "core equivalents" of Ryzen 5 1600 and Ryzen 7 1800X. The cost more (the latter being $600), but it's nowhere near 500 GBP.
Plus, based on what we've seen already, they should perform better. I'm sure AMD is lowering Ryzen prices for a good reason. :)
I adore your english. :p I know it's not your first language!

I was referring to Broadwell-E 8 core (as Skylake X wasn't around when I bought my AMD chip). Besides, I paid <£400 for my CPU, so it's still over 50% extra.

All said however if the 8 core drops at £600 (unlikely, more like £750 after tax and retail pricing) it's not so bad if it runs at 4Ghz on all cores.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment