• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Intel Core i9-7900X reviews are going live!

zornyan said:
well they're more effective at cooling than the AIOs used on these engineering samples, so capable of 4.6/4.7ghz.
Click to expand...

Hexus were using a D15. They were hitting 100C.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/107017-intel-core-i9-7900x-14nm-skylake-x/?page=8

We'll start with the usual proviso: your overclocking mileage may vary and discussions with various partners lead us to believe that frequency headroom fluctuates significantly from one sample to the next. Our chip seems to be a good one and had no qualms about running at 4.7GHz across all 10 cores. Heck, it needed only 1.25V to make it happen.

Could frequencies go higher with more voltage? Probably, but putting 1.3V through the Core i9-7900X veins resulted in temperature soaring beyond 100ºC and automatic throttling. We swapped out our favoured Noctua NH-D15S in favour of an EVGA CLC 280 liquid cooler but even that couldn't cope with the increase in voltage.
Click to expand...

Also doesn't look like they ran Prime95 or anything to really work the cores.

I will make a prediction. Running CPUs at 90C+ will suddenly become acceptable.
 
muon said:
Hexus were using a D15. They were hitting 100C.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/107017-intel-core-i9-7900x-14nm-skylake-x/?page=8



Also doesn't look like they ran Prime95 or anything to really work the cores.

I will make a prediction. Running CPUs at 90C+ will suddenly become acceptable.
Click to expand...

could be because they're using an engineering sample and not a retail cpu?

since we've seen several 4.8ghz overclocks without hitting 100c.

hopefully Monday will show us more, I'm not interested in the 10 myself, I'm after the 7820x.
 
zornyan said:
could be because they're using an engineering sample and not a retail cpu?

since we've seen several 4.8ghz overclocks without hitting 100c.

hopefully Monday will show us more, I'm not interested in the 10 myself, I'm after the 7820x.
Click to expand...

Several? I've seen one pre-selected chip that was delidded running on a bench.
 
muon said:
Several? I've seen one pre-selected chip that was delidded running on a bench.
Click to expand...

lucky_noob managed 4.6ghz with a really crappy air cooler that didn't even have a fan attached.

there's that Czech overclocker that postage a 'quick' 4.8ghz with auto voltage on an aio, and obviously der8aeur got 4.8ghz without a delid and 5ghz with.

should mean an easy 5ghz for 8 and 6 cores without a delid since we'll have 20% less heat from the chip
 
muon said:
It isn't really. That just wouldn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the benchmarks? It's losing despite being clocked 200mhz higher. As humbug as put- it's throttling.
Reminds me of the AMD fx series. Bump them as high as possible with no regard for power or heat.
Obviously they aren't as pathetically slow.
 
What gets me about this chip is that even when it is running at 4Ghz its only 28% faster than AMD's mainstream eight core, its a £1000 ten core, 28% faster with 20% more cores, A thousand pound... and they used cheap thermal compound.

Wait for the 16 core Ryzen, it will humiliate this and at a lower price.
 
humbug said:
What gets me about this chip is that even when it is running at 4Ghz its only 28% faster than AMD's mainstream eight core, its a £1000 ten core, 28% faster with 20% more cores, A thousand pound... and they used cheap thermal compound.

Wait for the 16 core Ryzen, it will humiliate this and at a lower price.
Click to expand...


that's exactly what was expected of it. 8% higher ipc than ryzen, with around 500-1ghz higher clock speeds.

as I've said, if you want price/performance then amd are very good, but if you want all out performance then Intel is a good deal better, but you have to be willing to pay for it.
 
zornyan said:
that's exactly what was expected of it. 8% higher ipc than ryzen, with around 500-1ghz higher clock speeds.

as I've said, if you want price/performance then amd are very good, but if you want all out performance then Intel is a good deal better, but you have to be willing to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Well no, the 1800X has an all core boost of 3.7Ghz, this has an all core boost of 4Ghz, the difference between 3.7Ghz and 4Ghz is about 6 or 7%, so the actual IPC gain Skylake-X has over Ryzen is........ Nothing.
 
I can only imagine Threadripper will thoroughly trash this in the price/performance stakes. It'll also out perform it in the key area for HEDT platforms - multithreaded performance.

The 7900X will lead the single core performance lead, but IPC looks similar and multithreaded performance will leave the 7900X looking very sorry for itself.

That's the price of resting on your laurels for years. Not soldering these is absolutey retarded too.
 
humbug said:
Well no, the 1800X has an all core boost of 3.7Ghz, this has an all core boost of 4Ghz, the difference between 3.7Ghz and 4Ghz is about 6 or 7%, so the actual IPC gain Skylake-X has over Ryzen is........ Nothing.
Click to expand...

4ghz ryzen is around 1700 cinebench
4ghz 10 core 7800x is 2180, although ram speeds can impact this largely, but my 1800x scored 1709 with 2666mhz ram (same speed as in test) that leaves a rough 5% margin between ipc no?

that's comparing 1800x at 2666 vs this at 2666mhz ram.
 
Minstadave said:
I can only imagine Threadripper will thoroughly trash this in the price/performance stakes. It'll also out perform it in the key area for HEDT platforms - multithreaded performance.

The 7900X will lead the single core performance lead, but IPC looks similar and multithreaded performance will leave the 7900X looking very sorry for itself.

That's the price of resting on your laurels for years. Not soldering these is absolutey retarded too.
Click to expand...

still comes down to mindshare, ryzen with all its massive amounts of hype only managed 2% or market share, and amd predicted it would lose 1% in this quarter (that's why their shares dropped hugely one day as investors were worries why amd themselves saw loss of sales so soon)...so 1% market share over 6 months.
 
humbug said:
What gets me about this chip is that even when it is running at 4Ghz its only 28% faster than AMD's mainstream eight core, its a £1000 ten core, 28% faster with 20% more cores, A thousand pound... and they used cheap thermal compound.

Wait for the 16 core Ryzen, it will humiliate this and at a lower price.
Click to expand...

100 / 8 cores = 12.5 per core, 128 / 10 cores = 12.8 per core. Difference 0.3 / core. Performance per core appears to be identical (at 300MHz higher frequency and alsost twice the price).
 
Kaapstad said:
10 core is not very impressive when compared to the 6950X.
Click to expand...

Considering the temps, throttling, and scores over it, I agree.

Although the Hexus "review" looks more like a rush job to get clicks and views. They didn't even show temps at "stock" for the processors; or with their other overclocks.

Only mentioning 100c at 1.3v in Cinebench; not even an AVX workload.

We'll have to wait for the real reviews to come out; but I'm not impressed by the temps mentioned so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom