Read more.Quote:
Out the way, Core i7, there's a new king in town.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Out the way, Core i7, there's a new king in town.
Huh, how long has it been since we've been able to say "Intel cack their pants and rush to launch a product that isn't really ready"?
Impressive work to get such a large processor to clock like the consumer equivalents, mind you - it gives them back the big advantage they had over AMD before Ryzen. OTOH that power draw :o 50W more than 1800X and 100W more than 1700. It's going to lose that multithreading performance advantage to a moderately clocked Threadripper 16-core that'll probably draw less power too....!
This looks like an Emergency Edition processor - look at the performance/watt its gone backwards from the Core i7 6950X in HandBrake.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
<Dr Evil>One Thoouuusaaaand dollars</Dr Evil>
I'm still looking at a Ryzen build
PreachQuote:
Originally Posted by Phage
Looking at Ryzens near perfect scaling a 10 core Ryzen CPU should score around 2020 point in Cinebench 15
~10% less performance per watt in handbrake* isn't too bad with a 4GHz all core boost, especially with cinebench efficiency going up by almost 30%Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
*using the power draw figures on page 7 and the CPU figures on page 3 I get 0.527 fps/w for the 7900X, 0.595 for the 6950X and 0.675 for the 1700
4.7Ghz.
..Threadripper won't even get close to that, and whilst that maybe a moot point on a £1k top end model, it won't be when talking about the lower priced parts.
As others have said this is basically a 'oh **** AMD's got a good chip' release.
But at the same time it's a good time for people like me that want more cores at faster clock speeds but honestly I'm still waiting on threadripper because I value my money and well intel's prices are a little on the steep side...
Hopefully AMD puts out a close cpu with a decent price :)
Skylake is actually more efficient than Broadwell,and this is why Skylake based laptops improved performance/watt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlucine
It has 13% less performance/watt than the Core i7 6950X made on a 14NM 2nd generation Finfet process which Intel has been using for CPUs since 2014 and remember SKL/KL are meant to be produced on a newer tweaked 14NM process too. Consider that GF licensed their 14NM process(which is more like 20nm with Finfets),and there were issues even getting Polaris made on it ,and this is the first performance CPU on it too,it really smacks of an Emergency Edition CPU,ie,massively overvolted and overclocked to try and pre-empt the Threadripper launch. AMD has more potential to gain improvements on the process side than Intel I suspect.
The main issue is that in servers CPUs tend to be much lower clocked,so AMD really does seem to have a competitive design here and this is ignoring any improvements in clockspeeds.
Edit!!
It looks like the Core i7 7900X does seem to have a much bigger die than the Core i7 6950X:
https://scr3.golem.de/screenshots/16...0X-Test-19.jpg
http://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/2...-size-cpu-size
The Core i7 6950X die was close to 250MM2,and this looks closer to 310MM2.
I wonder if there are more cores but these are deactivated??
You wrote "Is that your wallet opening I hear?"
Erm... no, actually.
There was so much hype pre-launch about this CPU and, well it has not materialised at all, with all the hype i was expecting it to be a lot faster per thread than AMD mainstream CPU and it isn't, the difference in the per-thread performance to the 1800X is marginally better to a little better at best.
Why would i pay a thousand $ for this?
Look at Handbreak, the 7900X is 28% faster than the 1800X with 20% more threads, take out the thread difference an Intel are ahead by 8%... a thousand dollars?
I'll wait for AMD's X399.
If that were really true, I'd expect Intel to suck it up and really reduce the costs of the entire X299 platform when compared to the upcoming X399 platform from AMD. If there is parity there, then the price is justified, but I'm really not seeing where the premium is coming from here. Yes, it's faster than the Ryzen 1800X, but considering it's using Skylake as the base platform and that is mature in comparison, then it's really looking more like a knee jerk reaction from Intel (those power draw figures are awful).Quote:
responding to the new threat by going into all-out attack
Sure it's faster, but I'm certainly not prepared to pay what is going to be an expensive whole platform price premium over what AMD are currently offering (and we haven't even got to Threadripper yet....).
I can wait.
It's a great chip... for 2015
;)
Burn!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
I'm still looking at a Ryzen build
That Italian Bits&Chips site has a rumour that Intel plans to eventually solder the IHS after all:
http://www.bitsandchips.it/52-englis...he-near-future
In a way it would be Devil's Canyon Mk2 I guess.
It's better than I expected, but not good enough. It's obviously out of it's optimal power/frequency curve o reach those clocks, resulting in high power draw. Still, the Ryzen 7 is not the competitor here. Let's see how it fares against AMD's HEDT platform.
i9 7900x $1000 thermal paste.
i9 7900x $1100 soldered.
Is that to much to ask INTEL?
Learn from auto industry, give people what they want.
Exactly what I was thinking when I saw the TDP's.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
If the middle of the road is sucking 140 TDP without overclocking, how much will the higher end ones suck.
Although my thought went more to whether the new Core i9-7980XE will come with a standard water cooling kit given it has all the bells and whistles and almost twice the cores/threads - especially since it will be overclockable. Besides, for around US$2000 (be closer to $3000 Australian when converted and the extras added on), I would expect some sort of water cooling kit thrown in for free. I would definitely class this as an enthusiast processor.
Be interesting to see how AMD's new Threadripper processors stand up (when they are both sorted out properly of course), hopefully well enough to create some major competition and price drops.
One other thing, the Core i7-7740X only has 16 PCI lanes, makes it hard to run 1x or 2x M.2's with a video card / or try to run 2x video cards, or am I getting something wrong?
Efficiency was one of the first things I was interested in for these CPUs. No doubt it's an impressive chip (albeit nothing really unexpected), but even against Intel's best, Ryzen is still holding its ground when it comes to actual power draw (BTW Hexus how come you still seem to use TDPs for your bang4watt ratings, they can be wildly inaccurate - some chips do massively better than their TDPs would imply like the i3s) - an area where AMD were pretty much expected to come behind Intel even if they came close in performance.
In an ideal world, it would be nice if AMD could lift per-core clocks for HEDT use, but given their aims to re-use the same die and therefore saving on production costs, it probably didn't look practical for this generation at least. To lift clocks, they'd likely have to re-do the physical design of the chip and have an entirely separate die for just one market segment which defeats the purpose of the whole single-die approach. And of course it's a trade-off, the approach they've taken seems to concentrate more on efficiency at decent clocks for all segments, and right where the server parts will be at.
A part of me wonders what sort of clocks they could get out of TSMC's 16nm, but they'd likely struggle to get any significant volume out of them for a reasonable price, and then they'd have the WSA to worry about again. AFAIK they've had a *lot* of capacity waiting for them at GloFo which they're probably filling now what with Ryzen and their GPUs, to the point I wonder if it makes more sense for Vega to be made at TSMC a) For presumably higher clocks to make it more competitive and b) because they already have experience with HBM. In fact I think I'd be more surprised if Vega wasn't made at TSMC!
But anyway, back to the topic - very good performance and all, but Intel just can't back away from their pricing structure can they? Sure, it performs better than Ryzen but nearly three times the price of the 1700X??? Threadripper could make things really interesting! While I imaging there are some use cases where Intel's on-die bandwidth will shine, in others it really doesn't matter so much...
The 7700K has 4 extra lanes for the chipset, which can't be used for graphics. So the 7740K will probably have a similar setupQuote:
Originally Posted by whatif
https://i.imgur.com/5KC8UEZ.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
The 'actual power' column is platform power draw while video encoding (handbrake), as hexus doesn't give power consumption in cinebench so actual bang4watt may differ. All the efficiencies I looked at went down with this modification (understandable with the inefficiency of PSUs, and all the systems tested used the same PSU so it should be fair), but the 1700's lead over the 6950X completely disappeared.
Any chance we could get future multithreaded bang4watt given with handbrake performance, so you can compare actual power consumption in the benchmark? It'd leave the singlethreaded bang4watt the odd one out, but with the intelligent power gating and boost on modern chips it isn't useful anyway. True bang4watt in cinebench would be nice, but it'd mean re-testing a lot of chips - going to handbrake is easier, as the data needed is already recorded.
So.. what exactly are you measuring in your table? You absolutely cannot use power consumption from one benchmark and performance from another as power draw can vary drastically between applications.
http://hexus.net/media/uploaded/2017...88598fca49.png
http://hexus.net/media/uploaded/2017...ec59fc3264.png
http://hexus.net/media/uploaded/2017...86d176db50.png
Handbrake power consumption is included in the review.
The Ryzen 7 1700 only has a power delta of 66W to produce 76FPS in Handbrake.
The Core i7 6950X has a power delta of 85W to produce 78.5FPS in HandBrake.
The Ryzen 7 1700 absolutely destroys the Core i7 6950X in this test! Even if you take the absolute power of 113W and 132W respectively its more of the same.
The Core i7 7900X is terrible - a delta of 163W to produce 112.7FPS or an absolute value of 214W.
Even the overvolted Ryzen 7 1800X has a delta of 114W to produce 86.9FPS.
It does suggest that it really wasn't intended for such high clocks, but given the competitive pressure they've pushed above what they typically would and sacrificed some efficiency in the process - it seems less efficient in real terms than Broadwell. I wonder how much of that is down to clocks and how much is other uncore changes like the new mesh? I remember listening to a podcast where David Kanter was talking about the trade-offs between a crossbar design like Ryzen, and a mesh and IIRC hinted efficiency and die size can take a hit in order to keep latency consistent across the chip.
It's not ideal, but it's more relevant than TDP & the best I can do without actually testing the chips myselfQuote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
As CAT pointed out, there are actual handbrake figures presented in the article.
Depending on the benchmak/program it might very well be a worse estimate than the TDP, so you have to be careful. E.g. just on my 7700, 7zip's miltithreaded benchmark draws about 104W at the wall, whilst y-cruncher draws 151W, from 48W idle. Both are 100% loading the CPU, yet the delta goes from 56W to 103W - nearly double for the same CPU!
There's no such thing as a simple 'max power draw' on current CPUs for normal programs - one CPU can draw more than another in one application, but less in another, for a whole host of reasons.
Its quite easy to see what has happened - Intel always were going to release these chips this year,but probably with less aggressive clockspeeds(hence the use of TIM and not solder under the IHS) and maybe a bit later in the year. In order to pre-empt Threadripper they have upped the voltage and clockspeed and brought the launch forward.
Apparently the review guide says SKL-X needs a water cooler even at stock clockspeeds:
https://videocardz.com/70338/intel-c...erclockability
haha amd got sat with that 4.7ghz
So, as many of us here predicted, most of the parts are essentially factory overclocked already. Reminds me of AMD's recent GPU launches, or the FX-9590. Now the telling thing will be whether Intel will now develop a reputation for running hot and be subject to furnace or 'needs-new-powerplant' jokes, or whether those comments are reserved for AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Sharing is caring!Quote:
Originally Posted by kompukare
But probably not, since fairly few reasonable people will go out and buy any of the higher end i9 chips. If they go anywhere it should be heavy duty privately owned workstations, and not servers, so not a huge market.
Also bashing AMD is everyone's favourite pastime.
Its even funnier that all of the crowd on other forums who were bleating on about how games were not threaded and single core performance is the only metric important to consider,and nobody needs 6 to 8 cores for gaming(since Ryzen was far cheaper than the Intel equivalent), have now gone from saying any more cores than what a Core i7 7700K has is useless,to now saying the Core i7 7900X is the bestest CPU for gaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by kompukare
Apparently also if you don't match SKL clockspeeds when overclocked to the max,single thread performance is "poor" yet many of them even a few months ago were even saying Haswell,etc had perfectly fine ST performance,which is weird since none of the recent major new releases are actually using one core.
I can appreciate some games run better on Intel but these are the kind of games either a Core i3 7350K/Core i5 7600K would be a better choice for,not a £1000 HEDT CPU with all the added costs.
Plus in the real world I am yet to see any large scale deployment of HEDT CPUs,actually have any of them being overclocked in any way.
The recent Computerbase 4K review showed not only that at that res most CPUs are very close but that often Ryzen has better min FPS even compared to the 6850K@4.3GHz (all the other CPUs were stock).
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-06/...iele_im_detail
But,but....MOAR MHZ!! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by kompukare
Impressive performance, but as others have said, the price/performance ratio does not come close to Ryzen, especially for gaming, which is what I think the majority of users here want a high end rig for. Compared to an OC 1700 setup, a giant chunk of extra $$$ for the Intel platform is only getting a few extra fps.
It looks like the thermal interface between the die and IHS is truly woeful: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-...-33922-11.html
Interestingly they've done the sort of measurements comparing die and IHS temps I was talking about in my fan profile thread - it shows how bad the problem really is, and just throwing MOAR COOLING at it solves nothing. The die should be soldered, simple as that - I wonder what will happen with the higher core count versions?
But like others have said, I'm patiently waiting for the 'hot and power hungry' pitchfork crowd to appear... nope? Funny that...
Last time AMD made a CPU that needed a water cooler they included it in the boxQuote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
You mean the (IMO) dreadful FX-9000 series? Basically, just drive PD's voltage and clocks through the roof and pretend it's something new.
The thing is you also need to delid the Core i7 7900X too meaning you invalidate your warranty.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
My point is the FX 9000 series were just a strange version of an existing CPU. With Skylake-X it seems you don't have any choice.
I know this i9 is meant to be a productivity chip first and foremost, but even the i3-7350k beats it on Total War? A little embarrassing for Intel.
That's pretty obviously a driver or game optimisation issue. More embarrassing for the game studio tbh, since it indicates that they're doing some odd optimisation shenanigans if it's tripping over a Skylake based processor. Note that the other games put it exactly where it should be...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hand
I think Skylake-X is demonstrating exactly what people were explaining on Ryzen's release - due to Ryzen's substantially similar performance but architectural differences, performance could be a bit strange depending on the application/game. Intel have kept the cache hierarchy pretty much the same since at least Sandy Bridge which has made it a bit of an optimisation target, so when something like Ryzen comes along it's pretty much expected that this sort of thing will happen. It happened with Nehalem too; after devs got used to the large L2 of Core 2, game performance was often much lower for Nehalem.
But, of course being an AMD product, it must be AMD's fault! But exactly as expected, the cache shake-up and moving from a ring bus to a mesh (likely for very similar scalability reasons which led AMD to use clusters and a crossbar for Ryzen) has led to much of the same 'weirdness' in Skylake-X. It's a very high performance processor, but if some binaries have been very tightly tuned to a specific architecture, you have to expect this sort of thing to happen.
Nice one. I will sell my house and buy one
I still can't figure out for what market this is!