Intel 10-Core Skylake-X Core i9 7900X Leak Suggests 4GHz Base

>>60579162
Intel doesn't publicly talk about their Turbo function and how many cores are allowed full turbo speeds, and I highly doubt all 10 cores can go to 4.5Ghz at the same time.


However, if you're gaming and only 4-8 cores are being used, all of those could probably turbo up to 4.5GHz without heat or power draw going over spec.

And according to the same benchmark Raven Ridge iGPU at 800MHz has the same performance as a Rx 460

>>60579162
>4.2 on all cores (amd can do this)
>4.5 on one core
WOW IM SO IMPRESSED

>>60579221
Why Intel cares about integrated gpus so much? No matter how good they are people will always buy real gpu

>>60579162
What the fuck am I going to do with 10 cores? Most software and game engines are awful when it comes to parallel processing.

>>60579247
makes 20 virtual machines

>>60579237
what are people supposed to do if their graphics card is dead on arrival? Or if their power supply isn't good enough for the graphics card?

>>60579231
I mean, i'm sure it can do more than 1 core at 4.5GHz, but I doubt it can do all 10. Probably 6-8 cores can be at 4.5GHz.

>>60579162
Custom motherboard function to force all cores?

>>60579237
There's such a thing as laptops.
But that wasn't the point, the point is that sisoft sandra has benchmark results of the same hardware all over the fucking place.

>>60579260
>what are people supposed to do if their graphics card is dead on arrival?

Blame shitty gpu makers?

>Or if their power supply isn't good enough for the graphics card?

Blame themselves

>>60579277
True that. I wonder how much of an impact on battery these new iGpus make

>>60579162
Intel's own slides put the 10 core at like 3.3 base clock, either that's overclocked or Intel told power consumption to fuck itself with a top SKU aka AMD's Centurion.

>>60579237
gamers do.

File: rmntZWd.png (660KB, 698x840px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 698x840px

>>60579162
>1 7 5 W
>7
>5
>W

>>60579162
>175W
EPYC doesn't go that high and it's a fucking 32-core server chip.

File: 89e05be007c18067cddfe833ab71cc8d.jpg (23KB, 445x600px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 445x600px

>>60579162

if amd is dead then why do you keep making these threads.

the only reason to do so would be if you felt nervous for some reason.

do you have any reason to be nervous anon?

>>60579377
Yea and it runs at 1 ghz

>>60579162
>>yyyou can't reach 4.2 GHz on a 8 core chip!!111

said no one ever. stop shilling intel. also this crap is gonna be priced at 800 usd at least. no thanks.
+AMD

>14mb cache.
Yeah no.

Intel wasted billions R&D making shitty igpus because they own the fagtop market.
They should just rip the band-aid off and throw the igpu portion in the trash

>>60579407
Not everyone is a poor indian

>>60579377
>doesn't go that

maybe because intel is honest with their power ratigns and AMD is not?

File: 1453281024467.png (346KB, 499x358px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 499x358px

>>60579397
Holy shit. Is intel finished?
Sauce on that?

>>60579397
>this much damage control
Last time I checked they were around 2.6GHz which is higher than a comparable Broadwell Xeon.
But feel free to correct me if you have better sources.

>>60579162
Are all of you retarded? 5960x can OC quite well, it's Ryzen that has a clock limit, but that's not even that bad when its IPC can compete with Intel. You know you're fucked when 4GHz can compete with almost 5GHz on gaymes and an 8 core can compete against your 10 cores at everything else.
I went with a 1600 since it's at a great price and can eventually give me room for Zen+ on 7nm.

File: IMG_2558.jpg (504KB, 2094x1242px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 2094x1242px

>>60579477
>4.1ghz amd can compete with 4.5ghz intel

Lul no
Sorry to break it to you, but your newly purchased chip is a piece of poo

>>60579429
other way around

>>60579162
>yyyou can't reach 4.2 GHz on a 8 core chip!!111
That's what Jewtel has been saying for quite some time now... suddenly it's possible...

Competition is important

>>60579429
1. no one is honest with TDP ratings
2. Intel is never honest
3. TDP ratings are very approximate and their main function is to give you an idea what cooling solution to buy

That being said, if your 10-core CPU has a TDP within range of a competitor's offering that has three times the number of cores, you have a fucking problem.

>>60579501
>IMG_2558
kek

File: 1452557755225.png (336KB, 626x660px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 626x660px

>>60579507
That's because Zen sweet spot is around ~3 GHz. It uses very little power to reach it. Ryzen has shown us it can reach 4 GHz under acceptable power usage, but anything above it has terrible efficiency.

>>60579534
Don't respond to him, it'll only encourage him more.

>>60579559
This. You need nuclear voltages to go past 4.0ghz on any ryzen

>>60579559
That's because of the voltage wall and, as it was explained to me, that has a lot to do with their current manufacturing process. I expect Zen+ or whatever it's called to rectify this problem.

>intel riding off having higher IPC for years
>Desktop chips are just rejects cut down to quad cores
>AMD finally releases a product that forces intel's hand
>8 core desktop chips that we could have had 5 years ago are now on there way
>"AMD is finished and bankrupt fuck AMD die die die"

Retards I swear.

File: IMG_3611.png (52KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 960x540px

>>60579598
Amd still has lower ipc

>>60579584
This seems to just be a factor of the process technology used. The nm might be the same for the two processors but completely different fabbing techniques are at work- intel is better at fabbing.
If you threw ryzen onto intel's fabs you'd probably end up with a 4.8GHz Ryzen part.
You know, if tooling up was actually easy and not a hundred million dollar pain in the ass.

>>60579675
So?

>>60579675
And this test is done with 1T timing on the Zen part.

>>60579692
Intel is better at fabs but that's not what's happening here, GloFo's process is optimized for low voltages, and it scales better than Intel's at lower voltages, aka server clockspeeds <3.0GHz

Intel scales much better at higher clocks like 3.6GHz and up to 4.5GHz, after that it goes nuclear.

GloFo 14nm - specialized for low power
Intel 14nm - Good at everything, especially high clocks, jack of trades master of none
Intel 10nm - see Glofo 14nm

>>60579237
dedicated gpu is useless for me personally.
i want as much CPU power as I can get, and I don't game. I don't want to waste money on a gpu when I can have the basics built into the cpu for my desktop usage.

>>60579162
>sweetie
is this some new Reddit meme or something?

>>60579369
>>60579377
>>60579429
>>60579502
>>60579507
Can you answer this important question:
Who gives a single fat orge fuck about power consumption or heat generated when you're going to put a good cooler on it and desktops don't have batteries?
Electricity is so cheap you won't even notice the difference on your utility bill.

File: HNI_0031.jpg (100KB, 873x758px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 873x758px

>>60579162
literally unironically delete this

>>60579450
they're 1.4Ghz
>>60579675
>zen and kaby lake are the same colour
What a dumb graph

>>60579870
How much does the entire server blade operating cost? 60mm San Ace fans at 2.7A * 12V?

>>60579870
You're missing the point here.
It wouldn't be a problem if that was the single 10-core chip on the market, but that's not the case. AMD has Threadripper which is more efficient and has 6 more cores which kind of makes this Intel "offering" pointless.

>>60579939
>they're 1.4Ghz
Do you have a source? The best I found is this paper: https://www.amd.com/system/files/2017-05/TIRIAS-AMD-Single-Socket-Server.pdf

Also the 1.4 GHz clocks look like the lowest frequency achievable by power management and not the base frequency.

>>60579988
I agree with that. Threadripper will completely BTFO Skylake-X this generation (so long as they keep the price below $800 for the 16core)
But that's because Intel doesn't innovate and because they're overpriced, it has nothing to do with something as irrelevant and stupid as power consumption and heat production.
>>60579975
How much does a consumer who will buy exactly one of these care? People who buy tons of them buy 8P Xeons or Naples, not HEDT.

This TDP meme is holding us back. I would gladly take a 6GHz threadripper with 16 cores and an iGPU with 400W TDP. Who cares?

>>60580072
I might be wrong. It was on wccftech when they were announced, but they've since revised the article. Sorry about that.

How about some perspective people? Their 4 core is 115W TDP at 4.4GHz.

These aren't base clocks unless it's 200W, no jesus in hell.

>>60580075
Don't you mean 4.1-4.2? That's what the 1800X is capped at.

>>60580075
Koolance liquid cooled server racks up to 10 racks?

File: 1240467477213.jpg (66KB, 599x605px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 599x605px

>>60580075
>6 GHz at 400W
You know power usage doesn't scale linearly with clocks, right? At 16 C @ 6 GHz, you'd be easily going over the 1000W mark (and that's being way conservative, assuming it could be reached).

Literally nothing would manage to cool down this thing.

>>60579297
It's most likely overclocked.
Intel likes to put the base clock low as shit on these higher core versions and there's a lot of room to oc.
5820k and 5960x base clocks are set at a bit over 3Ghz and turbo to 3.5Ghz or something, yet I've seen those 6-8 cores at a stable 4.7Ghz on this board.

>>60579162
>TDP 175 WATT
Top kek, that's a completely unprecedented level of housefire.
Prescot can't touch this.

>>60580373
>>60580373
>yet I've seen those 6-8 cores at a stable 4.7Ghz on this board.
Silicon lottery winner?

>>60579247
realtime encoding ten streams of yourself sucking dicks

i use my shit for compiling, vms, video capture and encoding so i want all the fast cores i can get

File: hedtlol.png (67KB, 1585x559px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1585x559px

Threadly reminder that Intel sold so few i7-6900K's that 1800X's supplanted them in marketshare immediately after it was released. And that wasn't even their HEDT platform.

>>60579162
>talking about Hz counts after the year 2010

>>60579162
>175W
You can't make this shit up. It's 2005 all over again.

File: housefire inside.png (126KB, 357x330px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 357x330px

>>60579262
>Probably 6-8 cores can be at 4.5GHz.
Not only would that cause a nuclear meltdown, but nobody buys into HEDT just to run half the cores at high clockspeed. Especially at Intel prices.

>>60580218
>You know power usage doesn't scale linearly with clocks, right?
It does. Increasing the voltage results in a quadratic increase of power usage, but as long as that's not required the increase is linear. That's why undervolting power-limited GPUs works so well.

>>60580886
Well, it's kinda implied that you'd need nuclear amounts of voltage to reach 6 GHz, but yeah, you're right.

>>60580657

Yes those are on the better end, but every single one of those chips should be able to reach around 4.5Ghz
That generation was a beast at overclocking.

>>60580755
It's a miracle that Intel sold as many as they did.
6900k is retarded expensive compared to the models with two less cores.
Costs nearly 1k more than the 6 core model. Their price scaling is retarded and not sustainable against any kind of reasonably priced competition.
They better unfuck themselves with these new cpus, or they're going to sell only a handful of them.

>>60580803
>cause a nuclear meltdown
uhhh are you retarded?

A 22nm 5820k can hit 4.4-4.6GHz on all 6 cores and still be under 180w TDP.

>>60579162
Are you completely retarded?

Only the FIRST core can it reach 4.5 Ghz, the others will run at stock 4.0.

Almost all the chips that are i7 or i9 have only the first 1-2 cores reaching that ammount of boost. Even the 7700K reaches that ammount on the first 2 cores only and then it drops by .1 GHz per next core.

>>60581184
Yeah well, second part of the post is still true.

>>60581266
Plenty of people do. Anyone with mixed workloads would be happy to have 4ghz on all cores and 4.5Ghz on 6+ cores.

If you regularly do work of varying parallelization, then having cores that can adjust their frequency depending on load would be great to have.


The majority of the HEDT market is not consumer, it's enterprise, business, government, and education.

>>60579162
How much 2.5k is it gonna cost?

>>60581304
>Anyone with mixed workloads would be happy to have 4ghz on all cores and 4.5Ghz on 6+ cores.
It's going to be hard to argue losing several cores compared to threadripper is worth higher clockspeed in some workloads. And especially at Intel's usual pricing.

>it's enterprise, business, government, and education
Aren't they using actual server shit? Not binned Xeon rejects?

>>60581371
>Aren't they using actual server shit? Not binned Xeon rejects?
Depends, for servers yes, for workstations? Depends if they need ECC.

There are plenty of people who don't need the features of the Xeons and just need more cores with a good number of PCIe lanes for GPUs doing compute or some such.


tldr; it's gonna depend

>>60579162
are you getting a 30 year mortgage to afford it?

Is this the start of a glorious competition age? Will Intel finally stop half-assing everything and finally do the first worthwhile change since sandy bridge? Will they finally lower their prices? Or will AMD eat them alive with 80% of the performance and 50% the price?

>>60579162
>you actually can get 4.5 stable with 1 0 C O R E S.
Tech illiterate retard.
Why have you not deleted this after embarrassing yourself so much? You really have no self respect. You'd eat shit if you got (You)s for it, wouldn't you?

The 4.5GHz is only what it boosts to on one or 2 cores.
It's only 4GHz on all cores.
Ryzen overclocks to 4.1-4.25 on all cores for the same 155w TDP.

>>60579237
fucking kid
>>>/v/

>>60579237
They like to push some work to it like quick sync. Not sure of more examples though, or if it's even worth it. A little "nice to have" that most people don't give a shit about.

>>60579863
Oh honeybunch, did you just stumble upon this site for the first time today?

>>60579162
>175W TDP
literal housefire

File: x264-1-740x371.png (28KB, 740x371px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 740x371px

>>60579675
Meanwhile most real world IPC comparisons look like this ..

>>60580075
>400W TDP
literally no way to cool that unless you drastically increase the size of the CPU die. We're already struggling to dissipate 100W (often more than that because of overclocking) of heat through a 170mm^2 die, let alone 4x that much.

of course bigger die would also mean higher cost

File: image.jpg (269KB, 427x820px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 427x820px

>175w
Ebin

>>60582617
>of course bigger die would also mean higher cost
Just go full retard like NVidia did. Consumers are willing to pay $18k for a CPU, right?

File: 1393617938706.jpg (105KB, 1020x753px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1020x753px

Imagine if AMD and Intel merged. We'd have like 60 core CPU's running at 6Ghz for $10 next year, right?

>>60582883
AMD is tiny compared to Intel. It would be a buyout. A bad one, that would resort in Intel sitting on their ass again while ARM munches their marketshare even more.

>>60579237
Powerful iGPUs help consume the budget market. If you don't need to spend an extra $100-200 on a GPU, save your money there instead of on your processor. Also, business markets who have no interest in dGPUs.

>>60579162
So what's the price? And that isn't 4.5ghz on all cores, its 4.5ghz on a single core

Also its nearly a 200W CPU at stock

File: 57716_08_intel-core-i9-7900x-benchmarked-10c-20t-3ghz.jpg (98KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 800x533px

>>60579162
The leaked slides show it as 3.3ghz base, 4.3ghz turbo 2 and 4.5ghz turbo 3, not the mad up fake bullshit in the OP.

As usual, this is a bait thread.

>>60579237
No, I use an iGPU as I don't play games.

>>60580075
>This TDP meme is holding us back. I would gladly take a 6GHz threadripper with 16 cores and an iGPU with 400W TDP. Who cares?
This is why you belong to the kitchen

>>60579162
Let's see how much it costs, but it looks like a solid product

>>60579501
(You)

File: Girls.png (490KB, 449x401px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 449x401px

>>60579675
>Absolute IPC
LMAO

>>60583006
>turbo
>on a server chip

I thought they basically never used that shit

>>60579231
>(amd can do this)

Yeah but it's still beaten to bits by old 4 cores

>>60583099
Gr8 b8 m8 I r8 it 8/8.

>>60579221
An APU with the same performance as a Ryzen CPU and a RX 460 sounds like a really, really sweet deal for Low Budget Systems. If they can put them at less than what a G4560+RX460 costs, it'll surely sell like hotcakes.

>>60583171
They've already teased laptops using it. http://hexus.net/tech/news/laptop/105937-asus-rog-teases-amd-ryzen-powered-gaming-laptop/

>>60583171
Yeah, but it's unlikely to be 460 performance.
If it is though, AMD just handily took over the entire low and low-midrange laptop market.

>>60579501
>A videogame
>A CPU Intensive one at that
>Even though it's been demonstrated over, and over, and over again that Single Core Performance is the only negative part of the Ryzen CPUs
(You) should leave.

>>60583250
>Yeah, but it's unlikely to be 460 performance.
That depends.
The there's no problem putting an iGPU with 460 performance on the die but the bottleneck is still the (relatively) slow RAM it has to share with the CPU. Having some fast cache for the GPU helps a lot, but the bottleneck is still there.

>>60583325
They're not telling which TDP part they're testing there.
And those power consumption/GPU perf settings can vary, some SKUs might trade power for more clocks.

>>60583250
yeah no kidding

I'm waiting on the apu's from amd for my sisters' laptop; she spilled wine on her old one so I've got her on a temporary linux mint install on my old pos computer.

I might even get a ryzen laptop myself if my new pc doesn't break the bank; although I care a lot more about long battery life than most people and virtually every laptop I've seen still can't do even 8 hours of continuous basic use without getting plugged in.

>>60583961
Ryzen is very power efficient. I think it'll be worth it.

>>60583977
Zen is power efficient, and only half of Ryzens are ultra power efficient(most notably the non-X models)

>>60584093
How is the 1700 going to use less power when all the best chips end up going towards EpyC.

4.0GHz @ 1.440V 1700 ( 1.045x higher )
4.0GHz @ 1.424V 1700X
4.0GHz @ 1.408V 1800X
4.1GHz @ 1.440V 1800X

>>60583006
>Professional work on a gayming laptop
Yeah, that picture's totally legit m8

>>60579407
>800 usd
try 1500

>>60580075
>keep the price below $800 for the 16 core
why? intel is probably pricing their 12 core at $1500+, amd's 12 core is probably going to be at $800 and just slightly slower than intel's one

>>60584930
It all depends on clocks.
Not every threadripper CPU will be 3.6/4.0, but at least one will be.

>>60581184
and you need absurdly good cooling to maintain it for any period of time

>>60579203
>Intel doesn't publicly talk about their Turbo function and how many cores are allowed full turbo speeds
But they do
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/processors/000006652.html

>>60580641
>Top kek, that's a completely unprecedented level of housefire.
Its not, Knights Landing chips do 200 watts.

>>60584957
It's better binned than the 1800X. If anything it'll clock slightly higher at the same voltage.

>>60585067
only if you can turn off one of the two dies, it would dump too much heat with both

>>60585219
Larger die surface area and IHS to remove the heat. It's still the same heat per mm^2

File: oOXDJDU.jpg (181KB, 358x500px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 358x500px

>>60585291
Pictured is Skylake-X once AMD releases Threadripper at 3.6/4.0 and people OC it to 4.0ghz all core.

>>60585291
but even with more surface area, it's still a fuckton of heat to dissipate

>>60585443
>Threadripper at 3.6/4.0
Anon, please. I doubt Zen can clock that high with double the cores. I don't think even the best of samples could reach that given how current Ryzen struggles to get past 4GHz. Zen is already amazing, Zen+ will be magical.

>>60585017
>But they do
2 generations and older only, what the fuck does that have to do with current X99 offerings, or future X299 offerings (like this post is about)

>>60585510
SP3r3 is a 180W socket so it's very possible, especially when you take into account threadrippers are B2 stepping instead of B1

>>60585510
Why would you doubt that? The 1800x is voltage limited in overclocking, not heat limited. Given how much physically larger the surface area will be, it's entirely possible that two 1800x's in one package wouldn't be thermally limited from hitting 4.0ghz on all cores.

intel did slash the PCIe lanes in half with the 6 and 8 core skylake x so there is a chance they will have a price drop

not to mention the addition of a 12 core drops them down a notch and if coffee lake is 6 core next year it wouldnt be crazy to think the 8 core will be in the $600 price range

>>60585707
>intel did slash the PCIe lanes in half with the 6 and 8 core skylake x
Thus removing one of the main reasons to go HEDT .. so it doesn't really matter what the price is, because Threadripper will still be a better option.

So, 16 Zen cores for at least $1000?

>>60585707
>it wouldnt be crazy to think the 8 core will be in the $600 price range
That would be a massive price drop from the $1100 i7-6900X. I don't see it happening. And even if they did, it'll still lose to the $480 1800X. RIP.

>>60585783
Right but I'm looking at it from future proofing gaming CPU

>>60585794
Honestly, I want to see them charge more than that. There's more than the Threadripper platform offers than just MOAR CORES.

>>60585821
How long do you plan on hanging on to it? Because if it's not at least 6 years, you're not getting your money's worth.

>>60585806
If someone is looking to buy a 8 core gaming CPU and are willing to go with the 1800x and not just getting a 1700 and OC what would stop them from spending the extra $150

>>60585851
I'm still using a overclocked i7 920 lol

>>60581937
To be honest I'm not sure what this picture is trying to prove. X264 encoding?
Please explain.

File: cinebench-r15-740x371.png (35KB, 740x371px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 740x371px

>>60585915
It's an IPC test.

>>60585855
Because Intel isn't going to sell you an 8 core HEDT CPU for $600 any time this century. Especially when their i7-8700K 6 core Coffee Lake S CPU will probably be $375-$400.

Gonna need the 280mm radiator for this one

>>60585945
I see. I found this to improve my understanding of the benchmark.

http://hwbot.org/newsflash/3009_new_benchmark_coming_soon_hwbot_x265_benchmark_(encoding_in_1080p_and_4k)

>>60585957
Why not? Let's say the 12 core takes the $1700 price tag and the 8 core drops down to where the 6850k was and that's $600, there is a reason they cut so many PCIe lanes if not to drop the price then why

>>60586136
They also cut the Cache in half

Man Intel's been holding out. Ryzen comes out and suddenly they have all these badass processors ready to go. Gotta love competition

>>60586187
yeah but they increased the super expensive L2 cache a lot just because of their memex512

>>60586136
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3193149/computers/intel-projects-decline-in-chip-prices-and-amds-ryzen-is-one-reason.html

>Intel is forecasting a “slight decline” in its premium chip prices for the remainder of the year

That's straight from Intel. They aren't slashing prices by any means.

>>60586200
If by "Badass" you mean "Literal housefire", sure. There's no huge improvement here, just stuffing in more cores and raising the TDP.

>>60586200
>badass processors
kek

>>60586226
The point the other anon is that the 6850k price point is left open for the skl-x 8 core if there's a 12core sku sitting at the top and only one 6 core at the bottom. It might be a little more expensive but not that much more than the 6850.

What they should have done though is have full pcie lanes through the line, even on the 4cores. I hope to god amd cash in on this miss and release an 8core threadripper with all that juicy io. The 1800x brings the consumer costs up a bit too high and it might cause their hedt stuff to come in too high at a minimum unfortunately.

>>60586371
there won't be an 8 core threadripper, only 10+

>>60586371
>release an 8core threadripper with all that juicy io
Uhh.
M8.
Threadripper is 2 Zeppelin dies (Aka, Ryzen) on the same PCB all tied together with Infinity Fabric, these 4 CCXs is what enables Threadripper to have such massive IO.
An 8 core threadripper would be R7 friendo.

I'll wait for ryzen 2 and 3

I've had 2 Intel's a i5 and i7 and that's enough for me I am sick of the socket changes every 2 years and shit all ipc gains the past 3 years suggests Intel are gonna get btfo

>>60586396
I'm just thinking something like a pair of 1500x mcm'd for a lower cost option, unless there really is a cheaper 10core.

I just want a cheaper hedt platform, at one point I even wished babylake-x was going to be full 40 pcie lanes on a 4 core and it's likely threadripper is going to start priced above the 1800x whiich is where intel prices full lane 6850/5920

>>60586396
But with x399 platform also wonder what if any effect quad channel memory had ryzens performance

>>60579237
cheap ass's mainly

>>60586396
They could just disable 2 cores in every CCX and leave everything else intact. I don't think they'll do that though.

>>60586486
$1800 12 core means the 10 core will get a price drop so why wouldn't the 8 core after having its PCIe lanes slashed in half..... granted it might only drop down to 800-900$

>>60586590
the 10 core is probably going to be somewhere around $1200~$1400, so the 8 core will probably cost somewhere around $800~$1000