Core i9-7900X Skylake-X Review Shows Up

[Deleted member 172152]

Just finished reading. Meh, not impressed at all. Sure it can overclock high, but that power consumption. Man, I would take a RyZen over this power hungry CPU any time. And Threadripper will probably walk all over these "emergency edition processors"

Looks like RyZen put Intel back to the good old days of GHz race. When they loose in efficiency, the clock rate goes up.

Don't know how much more IPC improvement Intel can dig out of the X86. Unless they pull another story of Core2Duo of course.


OK wait a minute. If I am reading those charts correctly, the IPC of 7900X is actually worse comparing to 6950X? Can reduced L3 Cache size have such big impact on performance??

Man Intel is failing so hard after RyZen launch.

4.7ghz is less than claimed before though, but temps are at least not too dangerous. I wpuld rather have a nice, cool, efficiënt ryzen cpu than a student alternative to an induction furnace!

 

[Deleted member 172152]

I guess the 14nm is already exploited as far as IPC goes. They wanted high clocks, so they sacrificed some IPC (most likely by limiting cache). In the end this CPU is still faster. Isn't that what we want? Fast CPUs?

The most important thing in this CPU is that it matches 7700K in single-thread performance.
Yes, more cores is the future, so this CPU is future-proof in the same way Ryzen 7 or Threadripper are future-proof. But this CPU doesn't have any penalty for the present while Zen does.
It will be near the leaders in games and in vast number of single-thread tasks. It'll be just as good in applications that only use 3 or 4 threads.


The power consumption is significant (way to high for me for sure), but not something that we haven't seen before. It'll get better in time (improved node, optimizations).
Based on how Intel usually improves their architecture, it's very likely that in 1-2 years a successor of this CPU will match Ryzen 7 power consumption, while I wouldn't be so sure about Ryzen 7's successor matching 7900X performance...

I expect 10-15+% performance increase from ryzen 2.0 because of higher clocks and improved ipc. Hopefully overclocked speeds will reach 4.6-4.7ghz. Still, 4-4.1ghz is more than enough for me.

 

[phanbuey]

Im happy to see AMD do so well... hoping the 7820 and 7800 do better in games but doesn't seem like it.

 

[Basard]

I love how the new release of any technology these days is accompanied by "Our fastest chip ever!!" as if they were going to make a newer chip that was slower than the old ones.

 

[[XC] Oj101]

Fair enough. I wonder if the 7980XE will be soldered, per chance?

It isn't.

 

[Lucas_]

hahahaha .

 

[R-T-B]

It isn't.

Figured.

 

[Zotz]

"it clocks to 4.7 GHz on all ten cores with relative ease"...

I understand what you meant to say, but you're giving a false general impression. It's not "relative ease" if it results in a 100C die temp (with, presumably, a decent cooler). If Intel has cheaped out (yet again) and gimped the thing with a poor heat bridge, they shouldn't get a pass on it.

 

[dwade]

The powerconsumption on the Bit-Tech review is much lower than the Hexus one. Looks like it's an engineering sample on the Hexus review.

 

[efikkan]

OK some quick search give me this. Yep, a HUGE shrink of L3 Cache.

So Intel is actually going backwards in IPC. Whoever made this decision in Intel needs to be fired 100 times.

Skylake-X features a redesigned cache hierarchy. The old L3 cache had a duplicated L2 cache in L3, but since nearly none of L2 data is ever shared between cores, ~90% of this is waste, meaning ~90% of 256kB per core is wasted.

Intel opted for quadrupling the L2, while reducing the L3 and making it non-inclusive, making the overall cache hierarchy more efficient and improve the hit rate. This makes an increase in IPC.

 

[NicklasAPJ]

OK some quick search give me this. Yep, a HUGE shrink of L3 Cache.

So Intel is actually going backwards in IPC. Whoever made this decision in Intel needs to be fired 100 times.

"How are we gonna compete aganist RyZen"
"I dunno, maybe make our processors even worse?"
"Brilliant idea!"

Does Intel's ass control its brain these days?

View attachment 89146



Same. Really wanna see how Intel PR and fanboys are gonna spin this story.

They going UP in IPC with giveing the CPU more L2 Cache instead.

 

[cadaveca]

They going UP in IPC with giveing the CPU more L2 Cache instead.

I don't think the right terminology is in use here.

Because of Intel cache changes, AMD will benefit when code adjusts.

It's funny, I seem to find myself almost arguing against "popular" opinion in these threads, no matter if AMD or Intel is the main subject.

 

[R-T-B]

"it clocks to 4.7 GHz on all ten cores with relative ease"...

I understand what you meant to say, but you're giving a false general impression. It's not "relative ease" if it results in a 100C die temp (with, presumably, a decent cooler). If Intel has cheaped out (yet again) and gimped the thing with a poor heat bridge, they shouldn't get a pass on it.

I simply meant the OC was not technically diffilcult to attain, but thank you for the feedback and (valid) point.

 

[cadaveca]

I simply meant the OC was not technically diffilcult to attain, but thank you for the feedback and (valid) point.

It shouldn't be, when 4.5 GHz is the max stock Turbo 3.0 bin. Technically, that's only 200 MHz.

I digress, Turbo 3.0 is only on one core, and that core is chosen by the factory, so that OC is a bigger achievement than I might seem to insinuate, but that said, Turbo 2.0 is 4.3 GHz, so it's only 400 MHz.

Also, credit to VSG:

https://www.intel.com/content/dam/w...tasheets/6th-gen-x-series-datasheet-vol-1.pdf

 

[efikkan]

Turbo Boost 3.0 is maximum sustained boost for two selected cores, tested at the factory. This information is available for the OS scheduler, requiring a later OS featuring this, which is why you'll see the products feature both Turbo Boost 2.0 and 3.0 speeds, depending on software configuration.

Even though OC is quite possible on these chips, it becomes pretty useless when it's already having such high clocks across all cores and even higher boost. For CPUs costing >= $1000, sacrificing warranty, life expectancy etc. for a few percent is just pointless. Most buyers of CPUs in this range are looking for a workstation to last them 5-6 years, so bumping the voltage of the CPU is out of the question. One of the largest achievements since the days of Sandy Bridge-E is that we no longer have to choose between good single thread and multithreading performance, these large chips are really working well on all workloads.

 

[phanbuey]

Turbo Boost 3.0 is maximum sustained boost for two selected cores, tested at the factory. This information is available for the OS scheduler, requiring a later OS featuring this, which is why you'll see the products feature both Turbo Boost 2.0 and 3.0 speeds, depending on software configuration.

Even though OC is quite possible on these chips, it becomes pretty useless when it's already having such high clocks across all cores and even higher boost. For CPUs costing >= $1000, sacrificing warranty, life expectancy etc. for a few percent is just pointless. Most buyers of CPUs in this range are looking for a workstation to last them 5-6 years, so bumping the voltage of the CPU is out of the question. One of the largest achievements since the days of Sandy Bridge-E is that we no longer have to choose between good single thread and multithreading performance, these large chips are really working well on all workloads.

It's not a few % in many cases -- with the 7900x it really is a few % and so i agree with you ... but in some cases:

that's a $700 performance difference. If the 7900X did 5ghz easily and stayed cool you would bet that Digital Storm and Alienware would throw pre-sales boom parties.

 

[Prima.Vera]

IPC performance/core is hilarious on this one. Epic fail!

 

[Aenra]

Read the reviews.. some of you guys cherry picked from the results according to your.. side?

It does look as if the new cache size plays a role, but only at select applications and only when (obviously) comparing stock frequencies. You run those chips near or as high they can go, you're still on top with the 7900X, anyway you look at it.

(Also.. when a potential reviewer comes and posts about the TIM being a non-issue and how paying fortunes does not entitle us to even the mere basics because "it's already enough".. and he says that while knowing this thing can reach 100C.. Anyway. I'm sure we'll have people reading that review as well, so why not i guess).

My thinking right now is that this is a purposefully obfuscated launch, meant to disguise the simple fact that no one wins.

You had a Broadwell-E and wanted to upgrade? More like a sidegrade.
You had a 4core and wanted to upgrade? More like sidegrade.
You had neither and about time for something new? Better? You check it out, you see that in the end, Intel is still ripping you off.

- You can buy a 6900K or a 6950X (older gen) or you can.. buy something that clocks a bit higher, has same lanes (not more), but a reduced cache, meaning if you don't OC it a lot, the older gen is actually better for you, lol...

- Or you can buy something both new and better in everything (it being the point, right?). Wait until October, buy an 18c monster, disable some of its cores; that way (and only that way) you have same/higher cache than the B-Es had and a higher clock (hence my saying disabling cores, ie paying for nothing. But no other way to have an improvement in both).
That's the only true "better", compared to the previous gen. Anything else is picking what's more important to you and it's a picking that is not even contained within the same multi-core gen.. fail.

And once again, the "true" improvement here costs the typical Intel bucks. 2K-ish for the CPU, 500ish for the mobo.
So in the end, same old, same old. I don't see the price cutting. It's a deception, fooling those (victims) that only care about saying "i have an Intel 8core, not an AMD one". Those that care about the things we care? We're where we've always been, prices-wise.
That's my review ^^

 

[eidairaman1]

4.7ghz is less than claimed before though, but temps are at least not too dangerous. I wpuld rather have a nice, cool, efficiënt ryzen cpu than a student alternative to an induction furnace!

I expect 10-15+% performance increase from ryzen 2.0 because of higher clocks and improved ipc. Hopefully overclocked speeds will reach 4.6-4.7ghz. Still, 4-4.1ghz is more than enough for me.

Dude start using the multiquote button to insert quotes in your posts, it helps keep the forums on topic and organized.

 

[Aenra]

And don't stick to that 4.7, i am certain the limit's much higher.

 

[EarthDog]

Im confused...

 

[Aenra]

Im confused...

In as far as?

edit: aaah, i know; you saw me having tagged you, came here, saw nothing, lol.. O.K., my bad. I quoted an excerpt showing your 6950X doing better than the new i9 equivalent, but then i read the reviews myself, edited post and somehow deleted my original one. I've quit smoking, ain't myself lately ^^

 

[Deleted member 172152]

"it clocks to 4.7 GHz on all ten cores with relative ease"...

I understand what you meant to say, but you're giving a false general impression. It's not "relative ease" if it results in a 100C die temp (with, presumably, a decent cooler). If Intel has cheaped out (yet again) and gimped the thing with a poor heat bridge, they shouldn't get a pass on it.

One had a nh-d15s!!!!!

The powerconsumption on the Bit-Tech review is much lower than the Hexus one. Looks like it's an engineering sample on the Hexus review.

Entire system and just the chip probably.

 

[johnspack]

To be expected. Intel is running scared. Tiny bit of competition. Ryzen v2 will be even bigger competition. Hurry the hell up guys, I need a $500 20 core cpu soon!

 

[cadaveca]

(Also.. when a potential reviewer comes and posts about the TIM being a non-issue and how paying fortunes does not entitle us to even the mere basics because "it's already enough".. and he says that while knowing this thing can reach 100C.. Anyway. I'm sure we'll have people reading that review as well, so why not i guess).

I don't review CPUs, and I don't care if a CPU "overheats" because I know that they have built-in protections that keep them away from anything dangerous, so really, they actually never overheat. As a reviewer, I know better than to worry about it. Anyone telling you anything different is fear-mongering. CPUs, for me are mere tools I use to do other reviews, and I know my tools well.

Remember so many years ago when everyone was saying OC is dead? That Intel killed it? They weren't lying... but understanding what that meant is a complex subject that it seems only few understand. It's completely baffling to me as a reviewer that enthusiasts don't get it, but, then we get reviews like we did today, and all I can say is "oh well".

Why is 100 C a problem? I fail to understand, because I see zero evidence that shows this to be a real problem. You know there are CPUs that don't even shut down until past 100 C ? If this particular number was a problem, you'd think they'd shut down before that... but they don't.