Intel Core i7-7820X Skylake-X Review

[g-unit1111]

Just want to say the Ryzen 7 1800x isnt $500 anymore and has not been for weeks now.

The processor is selling for $420 or less. Heck I bought mine yesterday from Fry's for $393

Yeah I bought my R7-1700 for less than $300. It's a great value right now for new CPUs.

 

[the nerd 389]

My takeaway from this is that AMD should release an 8-core version of ThreadRipper. After all, this is currently the only hole in their lineup.

The only downside is that it would reduce the price of the 1800x. On the plus side, it would give AMD a value advantage across the board.

That said, there's always the Naples option.

 

[zerothbase]

"Intel should probably feel lucky that Core i7-7820X won't be going up against AMD's Threadripper, since the cheapest model will sell for $800."

Umm what? wait...a $600 7820X + a couple hundred extra for a motherboard *isn't* competitive with an $800 threadripper? I'm confused.

 

[Paul Alcorn]

"Intel should probably feel lucky that Core i7-7820X won't be going up against AMD's Threadripper, since the cheapest model will sell for $800."

Umm what? wait...a $600 7820X + a couple hundred extra for a motherboard *isn't* competitive with an $800 threadripper? I'm confused.

Don't forget, we don't know X399 pricing yet. It has a massive TR4 socket, 4,094 pins compared to X299's 2,066 pins. That is going to be expensive. Also, they will support quad channel memory, not dual channel. They aren't going to be as cheap as AM4, and I'm guessing they might be around, or slightly above, X299 pricing. We find out in about four hours, the Aorus goes on preorder then.

 

[rhysiam]

Thanks for the review. It's going to be really interesting to see going forward the extent to which game optimisations can improve the titles which don't seem to run well with SL-X new mesh and/or cache structure.

Ryzen 7 1800X typically can't beat the -7820X in those scenarios. But it's certainly competitive. AMD's CPU is also $100 cheaper. On top of that, X370-based motherboards cost a lot less than Intel's X299 platform, and liquid-cooling isn't a requirement in Ryzen's case.

As others have mentioned though, I still don't understand why you persist in favouring the Ryzen 1800X in your value analysis. The Ryzen 7 1700 is not mentioned even once in your conclusion page. Rather, you compare the 7820X value wise to an 1800X only. That just makes no sense to me. Surely any legitimate value analysis has to consider the best value alternatives? The 1800X is objectively the worst value CPU on the entire Ryzen platform. Take cores per dollar, or even cores * base clock per dollar, and it's significantly worse value than other any AM4 CPU. That's true with current pricing just as it was at launch and that before even considering the value-adds of bundled cooling and overclocking.

At very least I think the Ryzen 7 1700 deserves a shout out in any value analysis. But I would have thought, as the best value 8 core CPU, doesn't it actually deserve to be a primary data point in any value based analysis about HEDT CPUs right now?

**edit* -> Sorry Paul & TH team -> Re-reading this is sounds more negative than I was intending. Just to reiterate, the review is a great read and much appreciated. I was merely intending to ask a question and stimulate some discussion around your value analysis.

 

[the nerd 389]

Thanks for the review. It's going to be really interesting to see going forward the extent to which game optimisations can improve the titles which don't seem to run well with SL-X new mesh and/or cache structure.

Ryzen 7 1800X typically can't beat the -7820X in those scenarios. But it's certainly competitive. AMD's CPU is also $100 cheaper. On top of that, X370-based motherboards cost a lot less than Intel's X299 platform, and liquid-cooling isn't a requirement in Ryzen's case.

As others have mentioned though, I still don't understand why you persist in favouring the Ryzen 1800X in your value analysis. The Ryzen 7 1700 is not mentioned even once in your conclusion page. Rather, you compare the 7820X value wise to an 1800X only. That just makes no sense to me. Surely any legitimate value analysis has to consider the best value alternatives? The 1800X is objectively the worst value CPU on the entire Ryzen platform. Take cores per dollar, or even cores * base clock per dollar, and it's significantly worse value than other any AM4 CPU. That's true with current pricing just as it was at launch and that before even considering the value-adds of bundled cooling and overclocking.

At very least I think the Ryzen 7 1700 deserves a shout out in any value analysis. But I would have thought, as the best value 8 core CPU, doesn't it actually deserve to be a primary data point in any value based analysis about HEDT CPUs right now?

For people considering the 7820x, the closest current offering from AMD is the 1800x. Sure, the 1700 is a better value, but the 1800x is still faster. Plus, people looking at the 7820x aren't looking for the BEST value. If they were, they'd probably be looking at the 1600 instead. They're people who want more performance than the best value has on tap.

 

[rhysiam]

For people considering the 7820x, the closest current offering from AMD is the 1800x. Sure, the 1700 is a better value, but the 1800x is still faster. Plus, people looking at the 7820x aren't looking for the BEST value. If they were, they'd probably be looking at the 1600 instead. They're people who want more performance than the best value has on tap.

The point I'm raising is about the approach to analysing value though. Of course, for those who want the best and can pay for it any good review should be able to tell them which is the fastest. This review does that. No issues there whatsoever. If you want the fastest 8 core, get a 7820X.

Value still matters to many people and any good review will consider the place of the product relative to the alternatives in the market. This review does that too, it compares the 7820X value wise to an 1800X. My point is simply that in any value based analysis, you really need to consider the best value alternatives. Otherwise your analysis is flawed.

 

[rhysiam]

Further to the above, I just noticed the tagline on the comment thread for the article:

Intel's Core i7-7820X lands on the X299 platform with eight cores, 16 threads, and a $600 price. Let's see if it can match Ryzen 7's strong value proposition.

So then, in the value analysis, presenting Ryzen's strong value proposition exclusively from the 1800X, the worst value AM4 CPU, misses the mark for me. That's the simple point I'm trying to make.

 

[chaosmassive]

Nvidia limiting GPU performance by disabling cores and certain feature for differentiation product
AMD limiting GPU performance using same technique as well
AMD disabling CPU cores because its defective
but Intel managed to limit the performance by bottlenecking thermal transfer by using toothpaste...kudos to you Intel !

 

[synphul]

A couple of interesting things, outside of heavy actual multitasking and video encoding there just isn't a huge need for these high core count cpu's. The difference in many of the games and even the productivity benchmarks showed an i7 7700k with its 4 measly cores doing quite well. The difference with twice the cores was barely noticeable, outside of blender and video encoding.

I'm also curious why when comparing systems one always has to be gimped to match the other. Like the ram. Not sure if faster ram would have made any difference, the fact that intel supports faster ram than amd does doesn't mean intel systems need to be matched to amd. That's a bit like trying to make them as similar as possible. If it were an advantage ("if") then intel or amd may as well make use of it. After all if it's available then it's a real potential advantage one has over the other.

It would be like well we'll compare haswell or skylake to the fx lineup but because amd didn't have m.2 let's not use it. In that case intel did have access to it and it's not their fault amd didn't. If someone wants to use a particular feature or higher speed ram or quad channel memory etc etc then it's an option. That would be more of a platform comparison than strictly a cpu comparison but the platform is part of the cpu in real world use. You're either opting for one platform or the other and all the perks that go along with it.

 

[the nerd 389]

A couple of interesting things, outside of heavy actual multitasking and video encoding there just isn't a huge need for these high core count cpu's. The difference in many of the games and even the productivity benchmarks showed an i7 7700k with its 4 measly cores doing quite well. The difference with twice the cores was barely noticeable, outside of blender and video encoding.

I'm also curious why when comparing systems one always has to be gimped to match the other. Like the ram. Not sure if faster ram would have made any difference, the fact that intel supports faster ram than amd does doesn't mean intel systems need to be matched to amd. That's a bit like trying to make them as similar as possible. If it were an advantage ("if") then intel or amd may as well make use of it. After all if it's available then it's a real potential advantage one has over the other.

It would be like well we'll compare haswell or skylake to the fx lineup but because amd didn't have m.2 let's not use it. In that case intel did have access to it and it's not their fault amd didn't. If someone wants to use a particular feature or higher speed ram or quad channel memory etc etc then it's an option. That would be more of a platform comparison than strictly a cpu comparison but the platform is part of the cpu in real world use. You're either opting for one platform or the other and all the perks that go along with it.

If you were to use DDR4-4000, the price gap between Intel and AMD would widen considerably. At that point, you're better off comparing it to the higher end Intel CPUs with slower RAM at the same total price.

Also, there aren't any quad-channel kits at DDR4-4000. You could combine two dual channel kits, but it may not reach that speed.

 

[cats_Paw]

"The Core i7-7820X has eight Hyper-Threaded cores, so comparisons to AMD's Ryzen 7 models are inevitable."
Inevitable?
No. More like Required.

 

[cats_Paw]

One thing I would consider less than ideal is the Overclock on the Intel.
If you cannot run prime95 on watercooling without throttle (and to be honest, anything over 90C used to be considered unsustainable a few years back in previous reviews), Id say the overclocking is a bit unrealistic.

Apart from that, very nice review!

 

[Olle P]

ROFL 1080p benches with a 1080 GTX...
You guys are conscious that you are doing benches for not even 1% of the users? ...

We also get lots of complaints that we don't test CPUs @ 4k, but....relevance. Due to time constraints, we want our results to be applicable to as many people as possible.

What's relevant to the gamer is a very binary question:
Is this CPU fast enough to play the games I play at the settings I want, given the other hardware I have?
The answer is either "YES" or "NO".
With the settings used in your tests the (totally expected) answer is that all the tested CPUs are equally good enough (at a broad margin) making this test irrelevant.
Nobody in his right mind would buy this CPU and graphics combo just to get passable 1080p frame rates...

My takeaway from this is that AMD should release an 8-core version of ThreadRipper. ...
The only downside is that it would reduce the price of the 1800x. ...

I don't see an 8-core TR influencing the price of Ryzen 7, since they use a totally different platform. (Much like how much Core i7-7740X has influenced the price of Core i7-7700K.)
... But I also think that an 8-core TR would be about as relevant in AMD's lineup as the Core i7-7740X is to Intel...

... I still don't understand why you persist in favouring the Ryzen 1800X in your value analysis. The Ryzen 7 1700 is not mentioned even once in your conclusion page. ... That just makes no sense to me. ... The 1800X is objectively the worst value CPU on the entire Ryzen platform. ...
At very least I think the Ryzen 7 1700 deserves a shout out in any value analysis.

I'd like to modify this a bit:
* Assuming the user won't overclock the CPU then the 1800X does provide the best AMD alternative (to the i7-7820X) in terms of price and performance.
* When overclocking is taken into consideration the 1700 is the better alternative, being equal to the 1800X in performance at a significantly lower cost.
* "Value" is something of a moving target. Depending on what the computer is used for having more raw performance can either be profitable or just an uneccessary expense if it comes at a higher purchase price. Going only in terms of performance per dollar cost I think the latest generation Pentium CPUs are hard to beat, but they can for some applications be too low performance to be at all useful.

 

[Guest]

If i was buying a new computer i would get i7 7820X over Ryzen x1800 any time because it is better CPU in term of performance and overclocking and extra money justifies it. Compared to 6/12 and 8/16 variants of i7 7800x and 7820x Ryzen has nothing to offer in my opinion.

 

[alithegreat]

Civilization VI Graphics Test " while the 10-core Broadwell-E-based -6900K takes pole position "

https://ark.intel.com/tr/products/94196/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-Processor-20M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz

i7 6900k is 8c/16Thread, typo?

 

[AgentLozen]

If i was buying a new computer i would get i7 7820X over Ryzen x1800 any time because it is better CPU in term of performance and overclocking and extra money justifies it. Compared to 6/12 and 8/16 variants of i7 7800x and 7820x Ryzen has nothing to offer in my opinion.

I read this and I was like "This has to be a troll." Then I saw the user name and thought "That's about right."

I sort of vaguely agreed with freak earlier. I think the 7820x is a better CPU than anything in the Ryzen family right now. It's way more expensive though. If you're a pharmacist pulling in $100k a year, then go for it. The 7820k will suit you well. For EVERYONE else though, the Ryzen family is a better offer.

Btw freak777power and I are best friends irl.

Edit: English.

 

[artk2219]

My takeaway from this is that AMD should release an 8-core version of ThreadRipper. ...
The only downside is that it would reduce the price of the 1800x. ...

I could see it working, but only if they decide to keep the extra pcie lanes. Otherwise, it would just serve as a way to get people on the platform. But it would be expensive to AMD for what it is, threadripper's are already harvested 32 core Epyc's, youd be cutting 24 cores off of that chip in order to make it work.


http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-ryzen-threadripper-actually-has-32-cores-under-that-heatspreader.html

 

[the nerd 389]

Apparently, even with that many CCX modules, it's only about $135 to produce. They have plenty of wiggle room. I could be wrong about that, though.

That said, there is an 8 core EPYC in the works.

Also, with four modules, the release schedule makes more sense. They can fine tune EPYC using feedback from ThreadRipper. It's actually a fairly elegant strategy to make the most of a limited R&D budget.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Just want to say the Ryzen 7 1800x isnt $500 anymore and has not been for weeks now.

The processor is selling for $420 or less. Heck I bought mine yesterday from Fry's for $393

MSRP and retail pricing are rarely ever the same. MSRP on a GTX 1080 is $499 but try to find a non FE one fore lesst than $550.

I think the article has some incorrect information on the first page.

"However, you do have to tolerate a "mere" 28 lanes of PCIe 3.0. Last generation, Core i7-6850K in roughly the same price range gave you 40 lanes, so we consider the drop to 28 a regression. Granted, AMD only exposes 16 lanes with Ryzen 7, so Intel does end the PCIe comparison ahead."

Doesn't Ryzen have 24 lanes? Still under intel but I'm pretty sure there's more than 16 lanes.

Don't forget the X299 chipset also has up to 24 of its own PCIe lanes that are used for the chipset needs while all 28 in the 7820X are used, normally, for PCIe graphics/slot tasks.

yes i read but =) if put one side you need the other side, intel cpu can eat more than 500w on overclock its more than 96 core from amd system "EPYC". when I build a system the power is first thing and the cooling come to second. what i can see that have more power eat can i pay and can't use a aircooler need water forced injection to stay cool and you will have more watts need to keep it cool. 20w fans 18-20w for pump. my last system 4770k 4.3ghz passive cooler with thermalright ultra 120 extreme rev c.

More than a 96 core system? Epyc only supports dual sockets currently and has 32 core/64 thread CPUs. That means max is 64 core/128 threads. However each CPU in that system is 180W TPD and you are comparing a CPU that is overclocked to a system where the CPUs are clocked lower to handle the thermal requirements.

You cannot compare X299 CPUs to Epyc. Epyc can only be compared to Xeon server CPUs, which both are designed for the platform. It is like comparing Intels U series mobile chips to Ryzen. Apples and Oranges.

ROFL 1080p benches with a 1080 GTX...

You guys are conscious that you are doing benches for not even 1% of the users?

If you want to do 1080p benches so much, use 480/580 1050/1060.

TH: "But we want to avoid CPU bottleneck in a world that you cannot avoid it anymore... so we can show how insignificant our benches are!"

Me: "I want to know what this system can do compared to others at ALL popular resolutions so I can make my choice when it comes to my hardware and not slam a fanboy war over pointless rethorics."

And I want to see what a CPU can do and not the GPU YAY!!!!!!!!!

Seriously what is the point of maxing out a GPU in the CPU test portion? Notice in most of the GPU reviews Toms pushes 4K maxed out on top end GPUs to see where they stand yet they use the same best performing CPU?

 

[iban__]

Why is not Premiere Pro in the Creative Suit charts?
Which of the published benchmarks can be taken into cosideration to know the CPU performance in Premiere Pro?

 

[rhysiam]

If i was buying a new computer i would get i7 7820X over Ryzen x1800 any time because it is better CPU in term of performance and overclocking and extra money justifies it. Compared to 6/12 and 8/16 variants of i7 7800x and 7820x Ryzen has nothing to offer in my opinion.

Classic comment here, but I'll bite 🙂

Cheapest OC-cabable(ish) 7820X option right now
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: Intel - Core i7-7820X 3.6GHz 8-Core Processor ($678.75 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Corsair - H110i 113.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($104.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: MSI - X299 RAIDER ATX LGA2066 Motherboard ($221.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $1005.72
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-07-28 00:40 EDT-0400


Alternative OCable(ish) Ryzen 7 build
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($286.76 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: MSI - B350M PRO-VDH Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard ($74.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $361.74
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-07-28 00:43 EDT-0400

What AMD is offering is performance that's approaching that of the 7820X on a decent platform for only slightly more than a third of the cost (including CPU + Mobo + cooling). No question that the Intel options are faster and that X299 is a higher-end platform. Money aside, it's all great. But to be able to get a reasonably fast 8 core CPU with a respectable bundled cooler and a decent motherboard for just a little over $360 is incredible IMHO. It's not the fastest and certainly isn't the right choice for everyone, but I'd rate it as an hugely compelling offering for wide range of users who have better things they can do with extra $600+ they'd have to fork out to go with Intel.

 

[iban__]

If i was buying a new computer i would get i7 7820X over Ryzen x1800 any time because it is better CPU in term of performance and overclocking and extra money justifies it. Compared to 6/12 and 8/16 variants of i7 7800x and 7820x Ryzen has nothing to offer in my opinion.

Classic comment here, but I'll bite 🙂

Cheapest OC-cabable(ish) 7820X option right now
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: Intel - Core i7-7820X 3.6GHz 8-Core Processor ($678.75 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Corsair - H110i 113.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($104.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: MSI - X299 RAIDER ATX LGA2066 Motherboard ($221.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $1005.72
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-07-28 00:40 EDT-0400


Alternative OCable(ish) Ryzen 7 build
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($286.76 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: MSI - B350M PRO-VDH Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard ($74.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $361.74
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-07-28 00:43 EDT-0400

What AMD is offering is performance that's approaching that of the 7820X on a decent platform for only slightly more than a third of the cost (including CPU + Mobo + cooling). No question that the Intel options are faster and that X299 is a higher-end platform. Money aside, it's all great. But to be able to get a reasonably fast 8 core CPU with a respectable bundled cooler and a decent motherboard for just a little over $360 is incredible IMHO. It's not the fastest and certainly isn't the right choice for everyone, but I'd rate it as an hugely compelling offering for wide range of users who have better things they can do with extra $600+ they'd have to fork out to go with Intel.

Why is the first one the cheapest OCable option? There are cheaper motherboards. Are they not capable to overclock the 7820x?

 

[mapesdhs]

"Regardless, if gaming is your primary use case, we still recommend Core i7-7700K as the best option, ..."

Not if one is also streaming, 7700K can't handle that scenario. Check out the results by Gamers Nexus, the i7 1700 fares much better. Indeed, since these types of tests are usually done with fresh installs, they're not reflecting the likely load of background tasks in general.

If you were to use DDR4-4000, the price gap between Intel and AMD would widen considerably. At that point, you're better off comparing it to the higher end Intel CPUs with slower RAM at the same total price.

Sure the price gap would widen, but then that's the point, ie. one can say ok here is the performance option with the better RAM, but at the same time here's what that does to value - up to the buyer whether the performance difference is worth it.

... but I'd rate it as an hugely compelling offering for wide range of users who have better things they can do with extra $600+ they'd have to fork out to go with Intel.

And of course that cost saving can be largely fed into a better GPU, which makes the much more important difference for gaming. This is why (as an aside example but the same concept), back when I was building a gaming PC for a friend over a year ago, we went with a used 5GHz 2700K instead of a new 6700K: the cost saving allowed him to get a 980 Ti instead of just a 980. Your example though is even more impressive, the saving is enough to cover a 1080 Ti instead of a 1060 6GB.

Why is the first one the cheapest OCable option? There are cheaper motherboards. Are they not capable to overclock the 7820x?

Doesn't matter, the overall cost difference is still enormous. Plough that into a better GPU (or whatever).

Ian.

 

[Olle P]

"Regardless, if gaming is your primary use case, we still recommend Core i7-7700K as the best option, ..."
Not if one is also streaming, 7700K can't handle that scenario. ...

While streaming is a fairly marginal activity, in term of users, it's more relevant to run gaming benchmarks while also being active on voice chat, running Spotify and have a browser with ten tabs open in the background.