I think the title is more because Linus did a video recently criticizing a LOT of stuff about this release, despite having Intel as a sponsor.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Intel X299 platform first wave reviews - i7 7740X/7800X/7820X and i9 7900X
- Thread starter dr_rus
- Start date
I think the title is more because Linus did a video recently criticizing a LOT of stuff about this release, despite having Intel as a sponsor.
Is this a joke? There are plenty of CPUs made in the past 5 years that will completely bottleneck you in some games.
And of course, if you are into >60 FPS gaming then almost every CPU can bottleneck you in modern games.
Yes, for general gaming your advice of putting more money in the GPU is sound, but acting like CPUs don't matter at all is wrong.
Somewhere between August 2017 and February 2018. Have fun second-guessing Intel D:
Diablohead
Member
I feel like rocking a 6700k is still really good right now, anything more is luxury.
NeOak
Member
Damn it! Why you always beating me 😝.
Edit - Woof!
Intel FX represents
Et tu, Prescott?
cripterion
Member
Ok. I thought it was weird since a link from dreamhack's intel sponsorship showed a page with Luke and Linus.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Intel FX represents
My 550 watt Gold PSU is cowering behind my leg.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
BF1 64 player is a CPU destroyer. That and Ashes of the Singularity.
What are you talking about, the i5 750 has a 95W TDP, wherever you're seeing the 180W value, I guess that's full system load, not just the CPU alone.Dude, I have an i5-750, under load it's like 180 watts! These puppies look mad efficient to me
Was really hoping for some more comprehensive 7800 and 7820 info today, guess I underestimated how rushed this was. Hopefully that stuff becomes more available over the next couple weeks. Still up in the air between Ryzen, CFL, or either of the lower pair of SKL-X to replace my 2500k.
The value proposition still seems questionable for these unless you're actually using them for work - in which case you probably don't care - but it just shows what Intel can do when there's competition in the market and they're pressured to do more than release incremental upgrades which are about 5% faster for the same or higher prices than the previous year.
The i9-7900X is 35% faster than last year's i7-6950X in some of the tests at Anandtech, at almost half the price.
I had to double-check that I wasn't misremembering things, and confirm that the i7-6950X was actually a 10-core CPU and not an 8-core.
Pretty sizeable gap against Ryzen in many of the tests too - though you have to remember that those are AMD's mainstream CPUs, and it says a lot that they're even showing up in comparisons against Intel's HEDT CPUs.
It will be interesting to see how Threadripper compares if you have 16 Zen cores for less than the cost of 10 Skylake cores.
Threadripper is probably not something you would want for games, unless you can get them to 3.9/4.0GHz on all cores.
The i9-7900X is 35% faster than last year's i7-6950X in some of the tests at Anandtech, at almost half the price.
I had to double-check that I wasn't misremembering things, and confirm that the i7-6950X was actually a 10-core CPU and not an 8-core.
Pretty sizeable gap against Ryzen in many of the tests too - though you have to remember that those are AMD's mainstream CPUs, and it says a lot that they're even showing up in comparisons against Intel's HEDT CPUs.
It will be interesting to see how Threadripper compares if you have 16 Zen cores for less than the cost of 10 Skylake cores.
Threadripper is probably not something you would want for games, unless you can get them to 3.9/4.0GHz on all cores.
Do you mean these HEDT chips or Threadripper?
For these HEDT CPUs, personally, I'm really interested in seeing how Turbo Boost 3.0 interacts with overclocking, and what options the boards have for adjusting that.
It would be pretty neat for an "all-purpose desktop" if you could get say a 7820X to run at >=4.6 GHz if only 1 or 2 cores are loaded, and progressively less down to say 4.0 GHz when all cores are used. (And a lot less than that if it's AVX code)
That should keep power consumption under control while giving you near top of the line performance in both stuff that doesn't scale well and the average moderately well-scaling application.
It would be a shame if the Turbo doesn't have the level of configuration options to make something like this feasible.
AVX (or whatever causes the ridiculous power consumption peaks) seems pointless. It proportionally adds more heat/power use than actual performance. From Anandtech's review:
Cinebench score is also nothing to write home about, normalized for frequency and number of cores it's barely ahead of Ryzen. Honestly expected a bigger advantage (especially at the price Intel wants).
Anandtech said:
Cinebench score is also nothing to write home about, normalized for frequency and number of cores it's barely ahead of Ryzen. Honestly expected a bigger advantage (especially at the price Intel wants).
Threadripper. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
If Threadripper isn't capable of hitting high clockspeeds, then it's going to be relegated to workstation use, and not the "workstation-but-also-a-gaming-rig" that a lot of people here want - which I think often means "gaming rig, but I want to edit video on it too".
16 cores will do really well in lots of workstation tasks even at a lower clockspeed, but if they can't hit 3.9/4.0GHz like Ryzen, it's not going to be competitive in most games.
Yes, I've been saying for a while that CPUs should have that level of control.
In fact, I thought that the motherboard for my 2500K system did offer that level of control, but I never used it as the maximum frequency ended up being exactly the same whether one or four cores were fully loaded.
Two core turbo really isn't going to do much for the majority of applications - gaming especially. Might help with Crysis I suppose.
If you could set up a good 4-core turbo, similar to a 7700K instead of being stuck having to set a speed for all cores, that is meaningful.
In fact that's what I was hoping for, and why I intended to build an Intel HEDT system at the beginning of the year - if they were able to offer 7700K performance but with many more cores.
But things got in the way of that and I didn't have the option to wait. It was a 1700X or a 7700K - or an older HEDT system - and I'm still happy with the decision to go with AMD, given those choices.
Buggy Loop
Member
Will these CPUs create a price drop on the mid range lineup?
These platforms aren't competing for peasant nickels
BlazinSkatinAxel
Member
Is it safe to upgrade my 2600k yet?
JershJopstin
Banned
While I can't give better than second-hand knowledge of Ryzen atm, unless you need quad channel memory or the PCIe lanes, I really can't recommend the 7800X at $150 more than the 1600X + the additional cost of the x299 platform.
What's 'real' supposed to mean here?
michaelius
Banned
Looks like it's server cpu first just like Ryzen - 7700k remains best choice for any gamer.
Azure Phoenix
Member
This feels like an awful time to be looking at building a gaming PC if you've not been following the tech for a few years, between all the current Intel stuff, Ryzen, Threadripper and X299 plus all their quirks I'm absolutely lost.
longdi
Banned
Tbh i expect 7820x can run all 8 cores at 4.5-4.6Ghz at comfortable voltages, without avx512, under 80 degrees celsius.
Too bad Intel chose the TIM, which will restrict anything more than 4.6Ghz on 8c/16T.
And of course the X299 bios seems to be shit atm, probably better to dive in 3 months later.
mysteriousmage09
Member
Lmfao at that power consumption on the 7900X
Finaika
Member
Cool it with sirap.
I personally would've upgraded a 2600k to a 6700k when those came out. That's the longest I could've probably sat on the 2600k.
But since my 2600k I've upgraded to a 4770k and now a 6850k. Next up will be a second hand 6950X since they should drop in price due to these new i9's. I'll sit on that puppy for a few years.
secretanchitman
Member
The power consumption (and price) is way too high for me considering that Ryzen is out, and the case Ill be getting (Dan A4-SFX v2) just wont support those thermals.
I will patiently wait for Coffee Lake later this year (mainstream 6 core 8700K is fine with me). Unfortunately, the Z370 series motherboards that will come out later this year might just be rebadged Z270 boards, so I am more than happy to wait until next year for the true 300 series mobos.
I will patiently wait for Coffee Lake later this year (mainstream 6 core 8700K is fine with me). Unfortunately, the Z370 series motherboards that will come out later this year might just be rebadged Z270 boards, so I am more than happy to wait until next year for the true 300 series mobos.
Sad Affleck
Member
Once again: LOL Intel
Risk Breaker
Member
3570k stays winning apparently
I'll keep this until games don't run. Until then, performance only increases in upcoming CPUs!
I'm guessing I should pass on this as my primary purpose is for gaming only. Mind you, I've been running on a i5 3570k for the past 5 years. What should be my next CPU upgrade for video gaming purposes? Coffee Lake?
I had a 3570k and moved to a 1700 2 weeks ago and I couldn't be happier. The 3570k was getting really long in the tooth.
This doesn't seem much more competitive to me, besides, I feel like going over 8 cores right now is probably not worth it unless you really need the extra cores. The jump from 4c4t to 8c16t is already huge.
Unknown Soldier
Member
550W seems like a pretty small PSU for any fire-breathing gaming PC like what Gaffer would own
Okay, I was planning on building a new PC (video gaming, video editing, audio recording & editing) with something akin to these parts: https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/list/jhBB6X. Now i'm curious: With all the talk of Ryzen/Ryzen+/Threadripper, is it better to go go with an AMD CPU i.e. get the 1700/1700X or wait for Threadripper? Because Intel's latest offerings (7700K, i9) seem...lackluster in terms of performance per dollar in comparison to Ryzen.
It's very unlikely to make much sense to get a Threadripper (or any of the i9s for that matter) for a PC which has gaming as one of its primary tasks.
Currently, in terms of having a nice cost/performance balance at the high end for a multi-purpose machine, getting a 1700 (no X) and OC'ing it as far as it comfortably goes (which seems to be almost invariably 3.9 GHz) seems like the best option.
Skel1ingt0n
I can't *believe* these lazy developers keep making file sizes so damn large. Btw, how does technology work?
I'm still on a 3820... oof.
The 1080 breathed some new life into my machine, but I'm due for a brand-new build by the end of this year. My CPU and slow(er) SSDs just can't keep up, especially at 1440p and on games with lots of streaming like ARMA.
I'm looking to do a 6+, 4.4Ghz + CPU, 32GB RAM, 1080 Ti, and NVMe build here somewhat soon. But it seems Coffee Lake is going to be the one to wait for.
Celcius
°Temp. member
It seems like AVX-512 will make the cpu's run even hotter and consumer more power: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11550...-core-i9-7900x-i7-7820x-and-i7-7800x-tested/3
I can only imagine what Prime95 is going to do to some systems if it supports AVX-512. Is it really worth it to support the instruction set if it means having to turn down the clocks so much? Between that and having the non-soldered IHS, it sounds like going for total stability is going to get tougher when overclock stressing. I only run my 7700k at 4.7ghz but that's Prime95 28.10 stable for 24 hours with no avx offset. I don't even want to think about more heat.
I can only imagine what Prime95 is going to do to some systems if it supports AVX-512. Is it really worth it to support the instruction set if it means having to turn down the clocks so much? Between that and having the non-soldered IHS, it sounds like going for total stability is going to get tougher when overclock stressing. I only run my 7700k at 4.7ghz but that's Prime95 28.10 stable for 24 hours with no avx offset. I don't even want to think about more heat.
My 3930k gets worse by the week. Back in 2012 it did 4.9g at 1.47. Now its 4.4g at 1.47
Dont know how much longer she can hold on, and I really would just rather upgrade to a new rig than stay with this aging platform for another ~2 years.
Intel's mainstream is out of the question since I need the 40+ pci lanes, and Ryzen(and TR I will assume) hits a freq oc wall around 4Ghz (probably due to its LPP) making it a bite the bullet situation for badly optimized/threaded games till the next gen chips come. And i9, I'd have to get a min of 7900x for the pci lanes, which, performance problems aside, looks like it will be a furnace, and suck power if it's clocked high.
Fun.
I've abused the cpu for years
Intel's mainstream is out of the question since I need the 40+ pci lanes, and Ryzen(and TR I will assume) hits a freq oc wall around 4Ghz (probably due to its LPP) making it a bite the bullet situation for badly optimized/threaded games till the next gen chips come. And i9, I'd have to get a min of 7900x for the pci lanes, which, performance problems aside, looks like it will be a furnace, and suck power if it's clocked high.
Fun.
Realistically, and solely for gaming, a recent i7 will be all you need for a very, very long time. Even for VR, I believe.
What A Time To Be Alive
Member
uhh 1.47 is pretty high no wonder your cpu is getting worse.My 3930k gets worse by the week. Back in 2012 it did 4.9g at 1.47. Now its 4.4g at 1.47Dont know how much longer she can hold on, and I really would just rather upgrade to a new rig than stay with this aging platform for another ~2 years.I've abused the cpu for years
Intel's mainstream is out of the question since I need the 40+ pci lanes, and Ryzen(and TR I will assume) hits a freq oc wall around 4Ghz (probably due to its LPP) making it a bite the bullet situation for badly optimized/threaded games till the next gen chips come. And i9, I'd have to get a min of 7900x for the pci lanes, which, performance problems aside, looks like it will be a furnace, and suck power if it's clocked high.
Fun.
Celcius
°Temp. member
How can any cpu be the GOAT for the price when it's only been out for less than 2 years and the 2600k exists?
scoobs
Member
The 6700k smokes the 2600k in gaming. I consider $275 for the 6700k an insane deal and very clearly the processor to buy right now.