1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Hardware Intel Core i9-7900X (Skylake-X) Review

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Dogbert666, 16 Jun 2017.

  1. Anfield

    Anfield Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    5,177
    Likes Received:
    412
    Well, if the leaked Epyc prices are any indication then Threadripper won't be too expensive compared to Intels offering...

    16c / 32t $600 - $1100 and those are expensive server chips.
    But of course the consumer vs corporate product rebate may get wiped out by the inevitable premium for the far higher clocks of Threadripper.
     
  2. N17 dizzi

    N17 dizzi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23 Mar 2011
    Posts:
    3,115
    Likes Received:
    312
    Intel have used a cheap TIM between the die and IHS again. Hence why 100 degrees is reached when overclocking.

    Considering what AMD have got on offer, you'd think they would have postponed this release and fixed a basic, fundamental error that should never have existed from Ivybridge onwards.


    Go threadripper, I hope it tears (pardon the pun) the backside out of Intel's nonsense.
     
  3. Pete J

    Pete J RIP Teelzebub

    Joined:
    28 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    5,314
    Likes Received:
    316
    I'm...disheartened by the state of CPUs at the moment, though an upside is that it looks as though I won't have to upgrade pretty much ever again. Hell, there are times I wish I'd just stuck to my i7 920. Reasons for my disappointment:

    1) As Sandys mentioned, entry price for more than 28 PCIe lanes is now ~£1k. All I'll say is now would be a good time to start snapping up 6850Ks, 5930Ks and 4930Ks for those intending to use multi GPU set ups. A niche thing, I know, but that's why I can play games at 60FPS at 4K or greater at the moment without compromise.

    2) Intel continue to cheap out on the TIM (as mentioned by dizzi). For a f**king £1k processor. Utterly unacceptable.

    3) There seems to be this overall feeling that Threadripper is going to be an answer from the Gods. I'm sceptical - for a start, the thing is damn massive. Secondly, it's twp CPUs glued together - this didn't work out so well for Intel's first stab at more than one core in a CPU. And it's still going to be over £1k apparently - the way people go on about it, it's as though people expect AMD to be offloading the thing for pennies. Also, what are the chances a dual CPU 'CPU' actually plays nice with the 64 PCIe lane access it's supposed to have? Though it would be cool to see a quad GPU system with all cards running at 16x.

    AMD have won this round in my opinion, aiming for satisfying the need for most users. However, all of their latest CPUs are limited to 28 (24?) PCIe lanes, so multi GPU users are left with Intel (yeah, I know, all 0.1% of us). There's also AMD's lack of quad channel RAM support, but again, the mainstream to relatively high end user isn't going to care.

    TLDR:

    1) Intel still rule the super high end but their costs are starting to spiral out of control.

    2) AMD CPUs are now the sensible choice for most users.

    3) The above two points are rendered obsolete by the fact that most enthusiasts will already have a decent CPU that will probably still last them at least another 5 years at this rate; Joe Bloggs using Word and Excel doesn't care; and super serious number crunchers will probably already have 6950Ks (if not Xeons) and will find the idea of upgrading laughable due to the need for even more cash and a new damn motherboard.

    EDIT: for fun, I looked up some stats on the venerable i7 920. The PCIe lane controller was on the mobo, but the damn thing could use 36 PCIe lanes. Wish I'd saved myself a lot of money over the years and stuck to my original system OC'd to 4GHz, running 24GB RAM and stuck with two way SLI. Ho hum.
     
    Last edited: 17 Jun 2017
  4. bawjaws

    bawjaws Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    3,435
    Likes Received:
    360
    It's great that we have competition in the CPU space, but it's a slight shame that CPUs are, for a large proportion of users, the one area where what people already have is perfectly sufficient for their needs.
     
  5. Vault-Tec

    Vault-Tec Green Plastic Watering Can

    Joined:
    30 Aug 2015
    Posts:
    9,262
    Likes Received:
    980
    Man this review has annoyed other reviewers !

    Could you please elaborate on the circumstances as to how you got this? people are crying all sorts of foul play ATM, from breaking NDA to deliberately screwing over other reviewers by "leaking" this review.

    As to my thoughts. 10 cores for a grand, that's pretty much £100 a core. And looking at the prices it sorta goes like that too. Well, until the core count increases quite drastically and then the price does too.

    I see a few problems with this CPU myself. Price first. It's got 10c 20t. The Ryzen 1700 has 8c 16t and costs less than a third (£280 as I type this) and is almost at a quarter of the price. That's insane. I have been slapped on the wrist for comparing them (so have you lot at B-T around the forums on the net) because apparently you shouldn't have used the 1800X. I don't understand why? I mean yeah, X299 is a bit more advanced as a platform but at the end of the day a CPU is a CPU, apples to apples and all that happy horse s**t.

    So yeah, price is ridiculous. That's as much as I need to say really. Obviously the Intel guys will see this as some sort of gift from the gods and there isn't much I can do about that..

    So moving on to TR. Right now it is looking like there are no Opterons. I did hear a mention of them, but all I have seen since is TR and Epyc. No mention of anything Opteron..... Yet.

    However, if AMD decide this time around to release TR/Epyc as their workstation/server CPUs then that means that the boards will be cheaper if you use something like an Asus, for example, compared to the prices of some one like Super Micro or Intel etc. So that would be good I think, because it means that you could build a reasonably priced workstation/server using TR/Epyc (so long as they support ECC etc of course !)

    So yeah, I am a little confused about TR/Epyc ATM. Not sure what audience it is set to appeal to, but it's pretty obvious that if you want or need 16 cores then you are not building a desktop.

    And that brings me on to the next part, complaints from people that TR/Epyc is actually two CPUs. I watched a presentation, and they mentioned very low latency. Which is good I assume, but I would also assume you would be using TR/Epyc in a workstation or server, in which case your back would be covered, given Intel make quad CPU servers and workstations. At that level people usually code their own software for machines like that so it won't matter.

    So yeah, yet to be clear on a few things but it's becoming apparently clear that TR is not meant for a desktop.
     
  6. sandys

    sandys Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Mar 2006
    Posts:
    3,113
    Likes Received:
    96
    Two cpus is not a problem for cooling two die separated in such a big package is a good thing, you can attach a massive slab of copper on it.

    As for the software issues it's no different to Ryzen 7 1800, which essentially works like 2 die.
     
  7. Anfield

    Anfield Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    5,177
    Likes Received:
    412
    Guru3d has explained it:

    http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-core-i9-7900x-review-published.html

    So its because Intel are a bunch of dicks who discriminate against the media in Europe.

    Serves them right to see the NDA being broken and also serves them right if people in Europe throw their money at AMD instead.
     
  8. Panos

    Panos Member

    Joined:
    18 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    288
    Likes Received:
    6
    Actually 1700 + B350 + GTX1080Ti = £1000 atm if you shop arround. (have a look at Amazon....)
     
  9. David

    David Take my advice — I’m not using it.

    Joined:
    7 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    13,345
    Likes Received:
    2,277
    Board, CPU and GPU is not an entire PC though.
     
  10. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,820
    Likes Received:
    313
    GTX1080Ti is not a GTX1070, so dunno what point you're trying to make. Out of curiosity I investigated Dave's claim and found it to be accurate: an entire gaming PC is cheaper than the lowest spec Core i9 CPU. Yay Intel! :rock: :clap:

    [​IMG]
     
  11. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    99
    People expect threadripper to be dirt cheap is a growing consensus. If it's less than a £1000 I will be shocked. A £1000 is basically the cost of my pc before I brought a 1080.

    Threadripper will be a workstation cpu fun to benchmark but practically useless for 99% of us. Same as this really.
     
  12. Vault-Tec

    Vault-Tec Green Plastic Watering Can

    Joined:
    30 Aug 2015
    Posts:
    9,262
    Likes Received:
    980
    TBH that about sums it up perfectly.
     
  13. Vault-Tec

    Vault-Tec Green Plastic Watering Can

    Joined:
    30 Aug 2015
    Posts:
    9,262
    Likes Received:
    980
    If the slide is to be believed we already know the rough price outline.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Now if that is to be believed then yes, the 32 core CPUs are eye wateringly expensive. However, the 7281 16 core could cost as little as $6-700.

    And yes I agree that they will all pretty much be about as useless to us as the others. Looking at the pricing though? it's pretty clear most of them if not all are not meant for us lol.
     
  14. TheMadDutchDude

    TheMadDutchDude The Flying Dutchman

    Joined:
    23 Aug 2013
    Posts:
    4,744
    Likes Received:
    522
    Why was there mention that using two cores in the same CPU would be an issue? The Q6600 was just that and it worked brilliantly.

    Secondly, it's not 2006 anymore. AMD have already proven that their scalability is phenomenal with thanks to the way that they link cores together. I can't see it being a flop myself, but I could be wrong.

    The biggest flop here is that Intel uses a "stable" but crap compound over something that could do a much better job. The whole point is that it is stable over a long time and doesn't form weird hard bits or cracks. The downside to it is that it performs like ****.
     
  15. Vault-Tec

    Vault-Tec Green Plastic Watering Can

    Joined:
    30 Aug 2015
    Posts:
    9,262
    Likes Received:
    980
    Yeah and you wonder, could they solder this die? or are they deliberately being anuses.

    Tis a brave man who delids a £1000 CPU. It sucks really bad because this is the one thing Intel offers you for all of that cash (high clock ability) yet they deliberately derp it.
     
  16. law99

    law99 Custom User Title

    Joined:
    24 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    2,382
    Likes Received:
    59
    I stand with Pete J.

    Let's mutiny.
     
  17. Luckz

    Luckz New Member

    Joined:
    18 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ryzen can do ECC, why would TR not be able to?
     
  18. TheMadDutchDude

    TheMadDutchDude The Flying Dutchman

    Joined:
    23 Aug 2013
    Posts:
    4,744
    Likes Received:
    522
    They don't solder due to micro cracks forming over long periods of heating and cooling. However... if AMD can do it, Intel can too. I'm so happy I swapped to a Ryzen system. Intel can jog on. :)
     
  19. Anfield

    Anfield Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    5,177
    Likes Received:
    412
    That is just the excuse they use because they are cheapskates.

    Think about it:

    If they can manufacture a functional chip with billions of transistors crammed into the space of a fingernail, surely they could also figure out how to f***ing solder an IHS in a way that doesn't result in problems.
     
  20. Panos

    Panos Member

    Joined:
    18 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    288
    Likes Received:
    6

    Yet up to now all HEDT CPUs from Intel were soldered...........

    No Intel are cheap, trying to pull a fast one and they do not deserve our customs.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page