You want moar cores? I'll give you moar cores. >htt

>>61783451
They are just rebranding and marking up their xeon line.

18 cores? on what, 1GHz?

24.75 mb of L3 cache. Oh my.

>>61783477
2.6ghz base apparently. Threadripper runs @ 3.4 base for the top end 16c model. Any advantage the 18c i9 has due to the 2 extra cores is lost due to the much lower clock speed.

>>61783475
Marking up? These are cheaper than the equivalent Xeons I think.

>>61783573
So it won't boost at all on 18 cores?

>>61783592
Not sure, I dont think the all core turbo has been leaked yet. I doubt the 18c chip will go above 3ghz all core though due to power and thermal limitations. Any 2 cores on the chip are supposed to be able to turbo to 4.2 for the first step of lightly threaded turbo, and 2 "preferred" cores are supposed to go higher to 4.5 on the second step.

That's at least what I've been able to get from their leaked lineup. So, Intel would have a minor single/very lightly threaded advantage, and a disadvantage (sometimes quite significant) everywhere else.

>>61783652
Shitty napkin math simulated Cinebench scores incoming.

1920X
((3500*12)*1.4)/25.4
2314

1950X
((3400*16)*1.4)/25.4
2998

i9-7900X
(((3800*1.125)*10)*1.275)/25.4
2146

i9-7920X
(((3600*1.125)*12)*1.275)/25.4
2439

i9-7940X
(((3400*1.125)*14)*1.275)/25.4
2688

i9-7960X
(((3200*1.125)*16)*1.275)/25.4
2891

i9-7980XE
(((3000*1.125)*18)*1.275)/25.4
3049

>>61783740
Where'd you get these clock rates from?

>>61783740
Even then the theoretical 3ghz all core turbo for the 18c puts it just 50 points above the non-turboed 1950x. Adding in turbo for the 1950x brings it up to par +/- 2-3 points, as apparently Threadripper gets a little bit over 3k in cinebench.

>>61783823
Just guesstimates.
>Source: My ass

>>61783852
Oh lord.

>>61783846
Cinebench scores can have a +/- 50 variance even on the same system.

>>61783911
Try shutting down background programs and pulling out your LAN cable.

File: A8AxJz7WBwPjZcrpoFmmLJ.png (22KB, 1320x250px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 1320x250px

>>61783846
Well looks like the real all core turbo for 18 core is 3.4 GHz. Which means this thing is going to explode in flames under load.

http://www.pcgamer.com/full-details-for-intels-core-i9-processor-lineup/

>>61785663
Or its gonna throttle like hell.

File: 1494124354081.png (216KB, 354x397px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 354x397px

>>61783451
https://www.engadget.com/2017/08/07/intel-18-core-x-series/
>intels 16-core supposedly gets a cinebench score of 3200
>70% more expensive than the 1950X for less than 5% performance increase and less I/O
>requires more power and is impossible to properly cool without voiding the warranty

>>61785820
>also requires you to modify your mainboard as all the current ones run into thermal protection mode due to the VRMs overheating even with the 10 core i9

seriously, without new mainboards this will get ripped apart by reviewers

>>61785900
That only happens when OCing it. Which honestly shouldn't be happening anyway because with an enthusiast platform, you expect to have some OCing potential.

>>61785929
but the 16/18 cores will suck up just as much power as an OCd 7900X. Those 60/80% more cores want to be fed.

File: [HorribleSubs] Gabriel DropOut - 10 [720p].mkv_snapshot_12.21_[2017.03.13_11.24.09].png (804KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

804KB, 1280x720px

>>61785991
>i9-7900X - 90c under synthetic load
>i9-7980XE - 90c under any load