Monday, August 7th 2017

Intel Unveils Full Intel Core X-series Processor Family Specs; 14- to 18-Core

Today, Intel is releasing the specifications for the 12- to 18-core processors: Intel Core i9-7920X, Intel Core i9-7940X, Intel Core i9-7960X and the Extreme Edition Intel Core i9-7980XE processors. Announced at Computex 2017, the Intel Core X-series processor family is the most powerful, scalable and accessible high-end desktop platform offered by Intel, designed to deliver the performance needed to meet extreme computing demands for virtual reality (VR), content creation, gaming and overclocking.

The new X-series processor family is the ultimate platform for content creators and gamers. Multitasking becomes extreme mega-tasking with simultaneous, compute-intensive, multithreaded workloads aligned in purpose, powered by up to 18 cores and 36 threads. And, with up to 68 PCIe 3.0 lanes on the platform, people have the ability to expand their systems with fast SSDs, up to four discrete GFX cards and ultrafast Thunderbolt 3 solutions.
Content creators can expect up to 20 percent better performance for VR content creation and up to 30 percent faster 4K video editing over the previous generation. This means less time waiting and more time designing new worlds and experiences. Gamers and enthusiasts will experience up to 30 percent faster extreme mega-tasking for gaming over the previous generation.

The 12-core Intel Core X-series processor will be available starting on Aug. 28, and 14- to 18-core Intel Core X-series processors will be available starting Sept. 25. The 4- to 10-core Intel Core X-series processors are already on shelves and available at multiple retailers, along with more than 200 Intel X299 Chipset motherboards.
Add your own comment

35 Comments on Intel Unveils Full Intel Core X-series Processor Family Specs; 14- to 18-Core

#1
phanbuey
They really should release a coffee lake X variant on the lower end.
Posted on Reply
#2
P4-630
The Way It's Meant to be Played
@xkm1948 you need one of these babies.... :D:D
Posted on Reply
#3
Imsochobo
So they're almost confirming defeat of the throne to AMD.

But intel is Very much so a force to be reckoned with at 6-10 core that they must play on till Zen2 comes with improved clocking.
Reports show that XFR on B2 may see 4.4 ghz or more likely 4.3 and 4 ghz allcore which means AMD is plugging the gap rapidly and then Intel can only compete on price to performance like AMD have had to for years.

I hope Intel really suffers for a good portion of 2017, it means they will wake up and make even better products and that AMD can keep up their pace after Zen2.

Looks like a heated market till 2020!
Posted on Reply
#5
xkm1948
P4-630 said:
@xkm1948 you need one of these babies.... :D:D
Nope. Not gonna buy these.

Don't get me wrong, that many threads is nice. At the same time using TIM instead of soldering for 18 core HEDT is simply insane. Plus that freaking price! If i am buying a new platform i would 100% go AMD Threadripper.
Posted on Reply
#6
hardcore_gamer
Nice. I can't wait to spend $1999 on a 2.6Ghz 18-core to play CS GO. Gimme a minute to bend over and take it from behind, Intel.
Posted on Reply
#7
Chaitanya
Too little too late. At that price point Xeons certainly look more attractive for building workstations.
Posted on Reply
#8
thesmokingman
powered by up to 18 cores and 36 threads. And, with up to 68 PCIe 3.0 lanes on the platform
Intel getting pushed to offer more and more into each and every cpu, except it'll cost two times more.
Posted on Reply
#9
the54thvoid
Imsochobo said:
Reports show that XFR on B2 may see 4.4 ghz or more likely 4.3 and 4 ghz allcore !
Got a source for that wild speculation?

I ask because that's my next upgrade if it's on AM4.
Posted on Reply
#10
Bansaku
Yawn.....
Nice try Intel; Your days of the Extreme king are over! It's been 5 years since I upgraded because your CPUs have stagnated yet your prices increased for a mere 10% performance gain? Then you expect me to buy a whole new mobo that are just as crazy priced? Then there is the fact that 3rd party manufacturers are scratching their heads over your decision to race out products to play catch up... time to get a new CEO and rethink your marketing strategy!
Posted on Reply
#11
Dimi
Bansaku said:
Yawn.....
Nice try Intel; Your days of the Extreme king are over! It's been 5 years since I upgraded because your CPUs have stagnated yet your prices increased for a mere 10% performance gain? Then you expect me to buy a whole new mobo that are just as crazy priced? Then there is the fact that 3rd party manufacturers are scratching their heads over your decision to race out products to play catch up... time to get a new CEO and rethink your marketing strategy!
You're mad at Intel that your CPU has lasted you for 5 years?
Posted on Reply
#12
Bansaku
Dimi said:
You're mad at Intel that your CPU has lasted you for 5 years?
:p
Well, when you put it that way.....
But seriously, I upgraded cheaply and frequently in the past and hit a wall in 2012, right when AMD started tanking badly leaving me, and others, with no real options for any significant gains. I applaud AMD for getting their house in order and is finally offering innovation and competition!
Posted on Reply
#13
punani
Dimi said:
You're mad at Intel that your CPU has lasted you for 5. years?
I feel I agree with both of you, my i7 920 has endured for 8 years now and still up to par and been really happy with it (yay intel). Yet i've been angry with them for pushing those insane prices these last years.
Posted on Reply
#14
TheLaughingMan
The best of the bunch seems to be the i7 7800X. Price, core count, etc seem to all be the right mix. Everything ranges from meh to WTF
Posted on Reply
#15
Prince Valiant
I'm still baffled by the 7640/7740X being on the platform.
Posted on Reply
#16
Xzibit
TheLaughingMan said:
The best of the bunch seems to be the i7 7800X. Price, core count, etc seem to all be the right mix. Everything ranges from meh to WTF
Agree but then you compare platform cost and usability. You can find the 1800X for sale @ $350.
Posted on Reply
#17
Basard
So which chip gives the 68 lanes? I only see 44 in the chart... Or is it like with AMD, some are reserved for chipset? Not that I care or anything, too rich for my blood, just curious.
Posted on Reply
#18
Dimi
7820x is 549 at microcenter!
Posted on Reply
#19
Hood
Basard said:
So which chip gives the 68 lanes? I only see 44 in the chart... Or is it like with AMD, some are reserved for chipset? Not that I care or anything, too rich for my blood, just curious.
X299 chipset has 24 PCIe 3.0 lanes, so the 28 lane CPUs make a total of 52 and the 44 lane CPUs make it 68 total PCIe 3.0 lanes (only the CPU's lanes are available to graphics cards, the chipset lanes are for storage, USB ports, thunderbolt. M.2, etc.
Posted on Reply
#20
thesmokingman
Basard said:
So which chip gives the 68 lanes? I only see 44 in the chart... Or is it like with AMD, some are reserved for chipset? Not that I care or anything, too rich for my blood, just curious.
Those lane counts are rather BS, ie not real lanes off the cpu. They tacked on 24 lanes on the x4 DMI, so they can add the cpu lanes plus chipset lanes to get a whopping big yet fake number.
Posted on Reply
#21
Basard
Hood said:
X299 chipset has 24 PCIe 3.0 lanes, so the 28 lane CPUs make a total of 52 and the 44 lane CPUs make it 68 total PCIe 3.0 lanes (only the CPU's lanes are available to graphics cards, the chipset lanes are for storage, USB ports, thunderbolt. M.2, etc.
Oh, I was under the impression that it was all on the CPU these days... Are they trying to "hide" the 24 chipset lanes so people don't get confused or something? Or have I just been under a rock?
Posted on Reply
#22
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
thesmokingman said:
Those lane counts are rather BS, ie not real lanes off the cpu. They tacked on 24 lanes on the x4 DMI, so they can add the cpu lanes plus chipset lanes to get a whopping big yet fake number.
This, it's at least part of it. DMI 3.0 is practically the same thing as 4x PCI-e 3.0 to the chipset as an interconnect.

What people also need to remember is that those 24 lanes are rarely all ever available to be used as PCI-e lanes. Many of them serve multiple roles and there are a lot of cases where you might lose PCI-e 1x slots or SATA ports when you use an M.2 card because the lanes are sometimes shared kind of like how when you use one of the 8x PCI-e slots in your motherboard, it makes another 16x drop down to 8x, because they're splitting the lanes. So people have to remember that those 24 lanes includes M.2 slots or SATA(and express) ports or extra ICs that a motherboard manufacturer adds to the motherboard to add more functionality or just as PCI-e lanes. Simply put, it's still a PCH. You know what PCH stands for right? Probably Can't Help.

Edit: I'm being harsh but, when I say this, I mean for any truly intensive purpose. The PCH is great for peripherals or networking but not for when you need a lot of bandwidth.
Posted on Reply
#23
Hood
PCH lanes are possibly not as fast as the direct-to-CPU lanes used for graphics cards, because of all the other stuff that may be connected (SATA ports, USB ports, M.2, etc), which all must go through the DMI bus. I've been wanting to see this in Z170/270/X99/X299 board reviews since the 950 Pro came out, as in, how do the M.2 slots perform compared to using an AIC adapter for M.2 in a 4x or 8x graphics card slot. I think you'll only get 90-95% of the drive's true speed, but I may be wrong, and that's why I'd like to see this tested in board reviews, so we could know what to expect before buying.
Posted on Reply
#24
Hossein Almet
Well, my 960 Evo 500GB, in a graphics card slot (as I lost the M.2 screw), gives me these scores: 2837, 1773, 382289, 279624 respectively.
Posted on Reply
#25
ViperXTR
Family of Heatlake-X complete?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment