Intel Core i9-7900X Review: Meet Skylake-X

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pros: 10/20 cost now $999
Cons: Everything else

My biggest problem with this Intel lineup is that if you want 44 PCIe you have to pay $999. No, thanks. My money goes to AMD ThreadRipper.

Good review!
 
Doubt many who purchase such high end cpu for gaming runs at a low full hd 1080p resolution, i know its more cpu taxing to run lower res at higher fps but that's for the sake of benchmarking the cpu itself.

I would like to see 1440p + 2160p resolutions on a suitable high end card (1080ti or equalent) benchmarked with the cpu as well as it would represent real scenarios for the peeps considering such cpu.

Thanks for a good review!
 
Meet netburst 2.0 that not only can hit 100c at only (4.7Ghz)1.2v on good water cooler but only barely beats a 7700k not overclocked in games. All this is yours for the low low price of 3X. Its slower than the old 6950x in a few tests with was odd.
 

The differences would be less noticeable at higher res than 1080p, so.... you'd just see less dissimilar numbers.
 
Hmmmmm. I bought a Ryzen 1700, a water cooler, Asrock B350 MB, 16gb ram 3200Mhz for $590 plus tax. I live in New Jersey. I was very nervous about making the purchase as I knew this was coming out this week but the sale prices got me. Unless you all think I got ripped off, (DON'T TELL ME). But in all honesty I have not regretted the purchase one bit!! I even managed to save enough to get a GTX 1080 FE GPU. I did have a few bumps in the road getting the system stable (about 3 hours configuring after assembly) but I am VERY happy. I used Intel primarily and never really considered AMD other than for Video adapters and SSDs.
After reading this along with other articles and YT videos, I have no regerts as I enjoy my Milky Way and play my games among other things.
Just my experience. I am not seeking positive reinforcement nor advice.
I just feel very satisfied that I did not wait and cough up 3oo more fore something I could have for less. I know, I know it makes no sense.
But come on fellas, its the computer game!!
 


PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($299.39 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock - AB350M Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard ($65.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($124.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $490.36
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-06-19 10:47 EDT-0400

Depends on which watercooler and which ram, but not really.
 
Wow, compared to the Ryzen 1800X, the Intel Core i9-7900X:

is about 25-30% faster
costs 105% more
uses 35-40% more power

Ryzen looks really good here, and together with the temperature problems, Intel seems to be in some deep shit.
 
With these results and crippling by Intel, I think I can wait another 2 months for the ThreadRipper.
Thank goodness for competition.
 
Is there any way you could investigate the performance of AVX-512 on that CPU?

The thermal paste has me worried that they won't be able to deliver significant gains over last year's models in that department.
 


Like I said, I wasn't looking for positive reinforcement or validation as I am more than happy with my set up. But thank you for checking.
 
well ... at least for 1000 bucks you now not only get a fairly powerful cpu but also a heater for the winter / grill in the summer ... and that just with the standard 10 core model.

imagine the potential of the obviously unplanned and hastily shoehorned in 12-18core models once they come out in 2018 ... your rig will go nova ^^
 


I agree. Imagine if you ran Grand Theft Auto 5 in 640x480 mode. Your graphics card would barely have any work to do. All that's left is whatever the game asks from the CPU. That's when you see which CPU shines brightest.

Regarding the 7900x, I'm glad to see that Intel responded so quickly to Ryzen. It's too late in the development cycle to make Skylake-X a Ryzen killer, so what we get to see is what Intel had planned for us before AMD made it's comeback.

The article isn't very flattering toward Skylake-X but it's a much better deal than Broadwell was a year ago. Mostly higher performance at a lower price point. Good for Intel! Good for competition. Still, if I were building a PC right now I might go Ryzen.
 
"Still would buy a Ryzen 1700, and overclock it, over this. The 7900x might be faster, but not enough to justify the higher price tag. I personally think the i9 was a knee jerk reaction to threadripper."

You're wrong. I don't even think you understand how processors are made. No company just says "they released that?! Quick make a 10 core processor".

If 30% increase in performance isn't enough to justify the price tag -- than the processor was never for you to begin with. Neither is Threadripper. These processors are not for budget builds or for feeling the need to justify your decisions to save money. They are for a specific market that is very little of Intel's bottom line.
 
DUAL CHANNEL vs QUAD CHANNEL:
**I find the article CONFUSING... yes, the two lowest CPU's are only Dual Channel but there are plenty of dual-channel, FOUR SLOT motherboards which allow you to use every slot.

Wouldn't a QUAD CHANNEL board just populate as 2xDUAL if using a Dual-Channel CPU?

Do you really lose half the memory slots with those CPU's or not?
 
intel have really made a crap effort here the 2 best proccesors on the market are i7 7700k and ryzen 1800x both proccesors are far far cheaper which are great at doing most tasks they win and lose to each other equally for dx 11 gaming 7700k has a fraction of the lead and it seems in dx12 the ryzen has a fraction of a lead they both use far less power
this must have intel really worried all i can see is there is no ryzen die going above 4ghz
so so i can only come to 2 conclusions 1 its either ryzen cant do more than 4ghz or 2 there binning all the great dies for threadripper that can overclock great and keeping their mouth shut til Dday
intel has the more refined probably better uarch but amds is new and i suspect when they got the arm license they incorporated any uarch benefits to x86 uarch and they can improve it at a faster pace
the real problem is not the cost of the proccessor but the cooling is everthing nowadays
desktops going to aio systems and laptops you will be able to get an asus rog ryzen 8 core laptop that you can carry around easily thats why i got rid of the desktop for the cost and portability of it im getting one as soon as i can
i was always a big fan of intel had a p4 and then had athlons and crappy buldozer and core but on thing stands out to me intel processors over the years even though faster always seem to stutter a lot not very fluid
i would like to see a bench where toms did ten different tasks at one time to see what proccessor would finish first that would be the ultimate benchmark
i use more than ten programs at one time as most of us do nowadays
 
Yes. This was the reason why Intel suggested the mainboard vendors to build lower-end boards for this Kaby Lake-X toys. But not one vendor does it. Too expensive in development. No sense for a small series mainboard.
 
Wow, compared to the Ryzen 1800X, the Intel Core i9-7900X:

is about 25-30% faster
costs 105% more 215% more. 999 to 460
uses 35-40% more power

Ryzen looks really good here, and together with the temperature problems, Intel seems to be in some deep shit.
1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom