I was browsing UserBenchmark the other day, and came across some pre release benchmakrs of the 7900x and 7920x. 7900x, being the 10 core thing it is, scored a surprisingly low 5th place. How could that be? It has specs to almost match the 6950x, after all. Btw, 7920x stole 1st from the 6950x, but its 12 core, though.
Disappointing benchmarks for i9 7900x
- Thread starter Vespill
- Start date
Solution
- Jun 17, 2015
- 4,910
- 46
- 12,990
well, a new cpu without proper support can do that
but in general, it seems that intel just released alot of unused middle/low quality server parts and hoped for the best on this new platform that no one seems to like
it is not working, is what most people are saying, time will tell, perhaps optimizations make them usable, at 2000 dollars...
but in general, it seems that intel just released alot of unused middle/low quality server parts and hoped for the best on this new platform that no one seems to like
it is not working, is what most people are saying, time will tell, perhaps optimizations make them usable, at 2000 dollars...
I agree completely. Normally when Intel releases a new line of Cpus they are practical and well received. I am just not buying the idea of these i9s. I mean, if they offer the same core count and faster speed than the 6950x at half the price, Intel must have cut corners elsewhere, that will only be visible once people start using the chip.
It is only a week or two from release. This sample must be the final one. If it performs like this on day one, I may opt for the 6950x instead, regardless of whether optimisation makes it better over time, as I am building a pc within the coming 2 weeks.
- Mar 16, 2013
- 175,396
- 19,870
- 184,590
This happens a lot.
Ryzen, initially:
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/ryzen-amd-bios-fix-fma3-crash/
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-performance-negatively-affected-windows-10-scheduler-bug/
Woe be to him who blindly jumps into a whole new product on day 1.
Let the other fools spend money and find the problems.
- Mar 16, 2013
- 175,396
- 19,870
- 184,590
Depends on how soon you need it, and your actual usage.
I wouldn't buy an i9 for at least a couple of months after release. Or any other brand new lineup.
CPU, GPU, RAM, whatever....
The i9 may or may not become a great CPU. It will almost certainly end up really, really good. Time will tell.
But if I were building something in the next 4 weeks...it wouldn't be an i9 based system.
By the way, I think the only i9s that could really perform better (not on par, but better) are the 12 core and up versions. However, I doubt many people would want to buy those, as modern computing tasks find 10 cores sufficient. Diminishing returns, as they say. 10 cores is also probably in the diminishing returns zone.
MrN1ce9uy
Judicious
- Aug 20, 2009
- 6,998
- 666
- 35,890
It says 3.1GHz in the benchmark. The actual chip will have a turbo boost speed of 4.3GHz. https://ark.intel.com/products/123613/Intel-Core-i9-7900X-Processor-13_75M-Cache-up-to-4_30-GHz
- Jun 17, 2015
- 4,910
- 46
- 12,990
i wouldn't buy any intel now
you need to wait to see how the dust settles
the new x299 effectively kills x99, so the 10 c0re beast is the last beast that will exist for x99, so you will buy a dead platform
wait for price cuts, you might end with a ryzen cpu and happy with the results
you need to wait to see how the dust settles
the new x299 effectively kills x99, so the 10 c0re beast is the last beast that will exist for x99, so you will buy a dead platform
wait for price cuts, you might end with a ryzen cpu and happy with the results
- Jun 17, 2015
- 4,910
- 46
- 12,990
when you can't buy new cpus because manufacturer didn't made more, ram support starts to move on to faster modules for newer platforms and you can't find new mainboards from any manufacturer and all you find is old expensive models, the platform is dead
intel likes to do this each 2 years more or less, it is the turn for that platform
i wouldn't invest a single cent on a platform knowing that, especially with the 1300 dollars price of that cpu you want to buy, that needs a already obsolete x99 mainboard that is as expensive as the cpu
they killed his current platform and made unpayable their new lineup, that is why i say wait, they have to adjust to the new reality, where threadripper hasn't been released and have everybody excited, not like intel releasing a extreme i5 4 cores....
intel likes to do this each 2 years more or less, it is the turn for that platform
i wouldn't invest a single cent on a platform knowing that, especially with the 1300 dollars price of that cpu you want to buy, that needs a already obsolete x99 mainboard that is as expensive as the cpu
they killed his current platform and made unpayable their new lineup, that is why i say wait, they have to adjust to the new reality, where threadripper hasn't been released and have everybody excited, not like intel releasing a extreme i5 4 cores....
- Mar 16, 2013
- 175,396
- 19,870
- 184,590
And the alternative is to fall into the AMD realm, and live with no real platform or performance updates for 5 years or so?
A system is only 'dead' when it no longer does what you need it to do.
So my current i7-4790k can't use DDR4. So what? Excuse me while I fail to shed a tear for my dead and unplayable system.
- Jun 17, 2015
- 4,910
- 46
- 12,990
shed tears when the mainboard dies and you have to pay premium for the replacement board, sold second hand and at premium price
ddr3 is not exactly dead yet, but is not the future, definitively
don't shed tears for intel, nor for amd either
shed tears for the cost of the platform you chose and when you want to move on and can't afford the migration
other than that, accept your reality and wait for the best deal
5 years on the same socket, you make it sound like a bad thing, your platform is at least 4 years old now, what are you saying? shed tears there
ddr3 is not exactly dead yet, but is not the future, definitively
don't shed tears for intel, nor for amd either
shed tears for the cost of the platform you chose and when you want to move on and can't afford the migration
other than that, accept your reality and wait for the best deal
5 years on the same socket, you make it sound like a bad thing, your platform is at least 4 years old now, what are you saying? shed tears there
- Jun 17, 2015
- 4,910
- 46
- 12,990
my point is not buy intel just yet, wait for prices to settle accordingly to the new reality, not their distorted reality where a cpu can cost 2000 dollars, no matter how good a cpu is, that is the price for a server part, and they surely are taking the 18 cores from bad parts from their xeon lineup that they didn't knew what to do with
about the 6 months, i advised most people to wait for ryzen, for price changes and possibly for a good ryzen platform, so far it has been a good advise, same as for now
anyway, the x299 platform looks very weak, as said before, time will tell, but doesn't look good for intel ultraexpensive platform, i would choose a expensive threadripper instead
about the 6 months, i advised most people to wait for ryzen, for price changes and possibly for a good ryzen platform, so far it has been a good advise, same as for now
anyway, the x299 platform looks very weak, as said before, time will tell, but doesn't look good for intel ultraexpensive platform, i would choose a expensive threadripper instead
- Jun 17, 2015
- 4,910
- 46
- 12,990
1300 is not cheap either, perhaps the rumor of 850 for ryzen makes a bit more sense
i would shed a tear when this thing becomes the best platform and i can't afford it
well, anyway, why do i bother? my current platform cost me 450 dollars and i barely could afford it!
i would shed a tear when this thing becomes the best platform and i can't afford it
well, anyway, why do i bother? my current platform cost me 450 dollars and i barely could afford it!
- Jun 17, 2015
- 4,910
- 46
- 12,990
the i9 samples have been delivered and monday and tuesday we will see real numbers, that might still apply the new platform, full of problems logic
but some leaks point ot a just a bit better than the old x99 best cpu, for more price than the old x99, added to the terrifying cost of the mainboar,d which i'm sure will not cost less than 400 dollars and it seems that you might need a psu with two 8 pin eatx 12v connectors, i hope i'm wrong on the last part!
people are still trying to understand what they did with that platform, intel itself seems to know the same as the users, nothing
from the epyc leaks for amd server platform, everything points to a 16 cores 32 threads cpu at around 900 dollars
the problem with that x399 is that mainboards will be expensive too, but at least the cpu doesn't cost double or triple the mainboard, that one afik, does need the new psu with two 8 pin 12v eat connectors for cpu :/
but some leaks point ot a just a bit better than the old x99 best cpu, for more price than the old x99, added to the terrifying cost of the mainboar,d which i'm sure will not cost less than 400 dollars and it seems that you might need a psu with two 8 pin eatx 12v connectors, i hope i'm wrong on the last part!
people are still trying to understand what they did with that platform, intel itself seems to know the same as the users, nothing
from the epyc leaks for amd server platform, everything points to a 16 cores 32 threads cpu at around 900 dollars
the problem with that x399 is that mainboards will be expensive too, but at least the cpu doesn't cost double or triple the mainboard, that one afik, does need the new psu with two 8 pin 12v eat connectors for cpu :/
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Review AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D Review: Devastating Gaming Performance- Started by Admin
- Replies: 201
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram