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

[AcesB]

A few realized that Intel strategy is to sell processor AND motherboard chipset, at once. You have to buy BOTH to be update your rig, and it is quite expensive. See how many Intel chipset were used in the Core line-up: LGA 1151, 1150, 1155, 1156, 2011, 2011-3, 2066...
That's why I'm looking elsewhere, were my investment in motherboards last longer!

 

[AgentLozen]

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?

I've never worked with a quad channel motherboard before. However, I know that in dual channel setups, there will be 4 DIMM slots with 2 slots on one channel and 2 slots on another. I suspect that if each DIMM slot on a quad channel motherboard is mapped to a different channel, then dual channel CPUs can only access slots from the first 2 channels.

This seems like a convoluted explanation. Let's say a dual channel CPU can only access channel A and B and a quad channel CPU can access A, B, C, and D. If you plug ram into channels C and D with a dual channel CPU, the CPU probably can't see them at all.

 

[John Nemesh]

I was quite impressed with how well the Ryzen 1800 stood up in the benchmarks here! I am currently planning out a new gaming rig, and I was considering this Core i9 at $999 or a comparably priced Threadripper. I was all set to go Intel/Nvidia, but with the Threadripper and Vega coming, I might hold off until those benchmarks come in. Regardless of what brand you prefer, this year is shaping up to be one of the most exciting in a decade! Love that AMD is stepping up and offering some competition to Intel and Nvidia again!

 

[Jakko_]

"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.

Ehm Ryzen beats Skylake-X in performance per dollar and performance per watt. To me this is one big fail on Intels part, the pricing and restrictions show their arrogance.

 

[AlienWare sli latop config]

Ok i9 costs 2 times as much as amd variant, but only 25% improvement? Why is this so unrealistic?

<Removed>

For example, we have seen it with the GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 that were logistically priced.
When the 2 videocarts came out, the GTX 1080 also cost 2 times as much as the GTX 1070, yet the GTX 1080 only improved 25%.
It's logic you will pay 100% more to have 25% performans improved.

 

[Korvics_8]

Excellent review. Looks like even 1800X is a solid buy and the overall system will cost less than half compared to system build around 7900X while consuming much less power. Yes 1800X is slower in a few benchmarks, but if you care about price/performance and perfomance/watt... it just seems that AMD is a better choice. Really curious about Threadripper now, with 64PCIe lanes and a two die solution I think it will be an excellent product.

 

[bloodroses]

A Bugatti isn't twice as fast as a Vette, but has a price 10x or more than it. If you want to have the fastest, you pay the price.

 

[photonboy]

RANTOC,
If you switch to high resolution you'll just start eliminating the CPU bottleneck thus the benchmarks will be closer or even the SAME. It arguably is pointless since the people who need a 10C/20T CPU will still by it even if it's slightly slower in some games.

 

[the nerd 389]

Ok i9 costs 2 times as much as amd variant, but only 25% improvement? Why is this so unrealistic?

all-caps obscenity removed

For example, we have seen it with the GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 that were logistically priced.
When the 2 videocarts came out, the GTX 1080 also cost 2 times as much as the GTX 1070, yet the GTX 1080 only improved 25%.
It's logic you will pay 100% more to have 25% performans improved.

You're forgetting the new cooling requirements. You pay 100% more, and that's fine. What's not fine is that you need to pay an additional 20-30% on top of that for a less reliable cooler that won't fit in most cases. Add to this that the power consumption is almost 100% more than Ryzen under load, and you have a very disappointing product.

I can live with the 100% increase in cost for 25% improvement in performance if all else is equal. I can't accept a series of stringent new requirements and caveats at the same time, though. I certainly do not appreciate the reduced connectivity either.

I expect more than simply better compute performance for that kind of price increase. I expect a product that has been well designed for it's intended application. This CPU falls short in that regard.

 

[photonboy]

JAMES MASON,
Be careful with delidding. There are reasons other than CPU temperature to use certain types of paste. Some pastes will degrade faster thus requiring you to apply it again. Having said that, it does feel like Intel could have used better paste so I'm not 100% clear on the best approach (especially since delidding kills your Warranty).

 

[XxMX26xX]

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.

And i mean, intel's late to the party here as well. My R9 290X could to that 3 years ago!

 

[kingroth1]

intel arrogant ? let me think i totally agree with that they are
they gave up the process lead (because nobody can catch us ) and its going to really hurt them in buisness you never give a sucker (amd) an even break cos they will beat you
tried to corner notebook with only their igp and block nvidia and amd they have given up on integrated graphics because of the backlash
just good enough graphics is no good
and trying to block nvidia and amd out of the server market add in boards for acceleration
intel also seems to be in complete denial of whats happening they must think they are a football club that their fans are gonna buy their products no matter what the cost and are going to support them when they are changing their whole kit ( cpu motherboard watercooler ) every year
at least with the ryzen you can just drop a new cpu in there next year save you a lot of money not having to upgrade motherboard
intel hasnt really come up with anything new in terms of cpu technolgies in the last couple of years and have not embraced anything from the hsa foundation seriously
the zen ccx is far simpler and far smarter and with all the new technolgies they have invented and pushed mantle which created dx12 and vulkan and hsa which allow all the hsa supporting comanpanies to license ip to each other and intergrate really easy
amd can now intergrate what ever it wants into a soc because of hsa
amd has changed the game

 

[redgarl]

Once again, these useless 1080p gaming benchmarks. These needs to go away Toms, it is an unrealistic benchmark not representing real-world application. Nobody in their right mind would buy a 1000$ CPU and a 1000$ GPU to play at 1080p.

I WANT 1440p AND 4K BENCHES! I don't care if those are GPU bounds, it represent real-world scenarios!

 

[photonboy]

KINGROTH1,
Intel didn't make a "crap" effort. It's impossible to make a CPU that is the best at EVERYTHING. You can't optimize for programs that can use 20 threads fully and also do better with programs that only use two or three cores fully.

People who pay $1000 for a CPU usually can justify the cost. Note that in some applications it scales very well and was over 2x faster than the i7-7700K. If it takes less than two hours vs four hours it can be worth it. In fact, it can make the difference between REAL TIME or not in certain video editing scenarios (jerky vs smooth playback).

As for the "ten programs" test you should understand that one program doesn't use a single core fully. You probably have close to two hundred programs running right now (see Task Manager). If you want to test multiple programs then it would be best to just use a few well threaded programs at the same time. Ideally realistic scenario such as: playing AotS whilst streaming (using CPU not video encoder) while also converting a video with HANDBRAKE.

Yes, Ryzen is currently topping out about 4GHz. That's a product of the chip design and the fabrication process. It can and will be improved. They aren't "saving" the better chips for Threadripper likely, though I'm not certain. I'm not sure if there are physically two 8-core Ryzen CPU's stitched together or if Threadripper is on the same die.

 

[photonboy]

AGENTLOZEN,
That makes sense. Quad CPU's can use all EIGHT slots, and the two Dual-Channels can probably use up to FOUR only.

There are 4-slot boards though so you can use all four slots no matter which CPU you choose. (should be up to 64GB for four slots, and up to 128GB for eight slots)

 

[redgarl]

Hey, photonboy, Intel is showing that they are in damage control when they release a CPU in such a shape. The thermal results are a joke. This is a 10 Cores CPU, not 32. This product was rushed to respond to competition... and this is what you get.

My 1700x is running better and better with every AGESA update.

 

[aambrozai]

Still using my Skylake Core i5-6600 (not even the K ending)... Till date I haven't found any game that had performance issues with it. IMHO video card is more important.

 

[logainofhades]

"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.

30% performance at 3 times+ the price. The 1700 is going for around $300, vs a $999 i9. You can get a cooler, board, and ram for about 2/3 the cost of just the i9. Factor in the cheapest x299 board is an Asrock for about $230, slightly more expensive quad channel ram, and an even more expensive cooler to cool the beast, the price difference just gets worse. This thing basically screams the need for a custom loop. Figure all that in, you could probably build 2 Ryzen rigs, for the cost of a single i9 rig.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($299.39 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG - H5 Universal 65.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($54.86 @ Newegg Marketplace)
Motherboard: ASRock - X370 KILLER SLI/ac ATX AM4 Motherboard ($148.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Trident Z 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($143.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $647.22
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-06-19 13:30 EDT-0400



My personal build is in no way something one would consider a budget build either.

 

[JamesSneed]

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

Looks even better when you consider this was a 10 core CPU, much of the 25-30% is because of 25% more cores. Things get even more interesting when you compare to the 7820x since it uses almost as much power as the 7900x.

 

[the nerd 389]

The main issue I see with this CPU is that the people who can justify the cost are usually professionals.

Professionals usually require more reliable builds than your typical consumer. AIO coolers and custom loops either don't meet those reliability requirements, or they end up costing nearly as much as this CPU. In order to get the same reliability as the 6950x, you'd end up having to spend the difference in CPU price on better cooling, and even then you won't have quite as reliable a build.

If Intel had implemented this CPU in such a way that it could be used with air cooling, it would have a target market. As it stands, I can't think of a situation where the i9-7900X is a good choice. Even in video editing builds, in the cases where water cooling is used, it's in an effort to reduce noise at the expense of reliability. You can't pull that off at all with this CPU.

I can only hope that Intel designs the new Xeons to work with air cooling. Otherwise, they're going to put their hyperscale revenue at serious risk. Water cooling isn't an option in dual socket 2U servers.

 

[islandgam3r]

Wow...Just wow people just lake at all the game benchmarks for FPS and you will see how easily the 1600X Ryzen 5 Keeps up without breaking a sweat. 700 bucks cheaper than the 7900X...thats wat you call performance/dollar. Not a fanboy of either since I built systems with both companies...but to see how well RYZEN bites on Itels heels for the previous gen now this gen is crazy a frickin 10core vs a 6-core and the 6 core is trading blows. How inspiring is that???

 

[silverblue]

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($299.39 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG - H5 Universal 65.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($54.86 @ Newegg Marketplace)
Motherboard: ASRock - X370 KILLER SLI/ac ATX AM4 Motherboard ($148.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Trident Z 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($143.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $647.22
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-06-19 13:30 EDT-0400



My personal build is in no way something one would consider a budget build either.

I did type a whole post on this, but it got lost in the ether. In any case, we get screwed for prices here in the UK; speccing something very similar here would come out at about $800, and my personal "wish list" on Amazon of Ryzen 5 1600/Corsair Vengeance LPX 2x8GB 3200MHz CL16/MSI B350M Mortar would approach $540. Either would be a massive upgrade from my Athlon X4 860K/Corsair Vengeance 2x4GB 2133MHz/ASUS A88XM-A, and probably use less power as well.

 

[Glock24]

Is there an error in the Y-Cruncher single thread benchmark? There's a significant difference between the Ryzen 1800X and the 1600X, and they should get the same score given the clocks are equal and the benchmark is single threded (as the title suggests). Both have the same cache size and same feature set.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Once again, these useless 1080p gaming benchmarks. These needs to go away Toms, it is an unrealistic benchmark not representing real-world application. Nobody in their right mind would buy a 1000$ CPU and a 1000$ GPU to play at 1080p.

I WANT 1440p AND 4K BENCHES! I don't care if those are GPU bounds, it represent real-world scenarios!

Why are you only using DX11 and 1080P. I would like to see 1440p and 4k game paly

Lower resolutions put more of a load on the CPU.

Also, if you're GPU-bound, how are you usefully testing the CPU? Those benches will come; this article is not about them.

 

[none12345]

So, NO ECC on x299, avx half disabled on the 8 core or lower, pci lanes disabled on the 8 core and lower. And no usb 3.1 gen 2 on the platform at all. And the cherry on top raid keys...what is intel doing.

And thats before you get to kabylake-x where you lose even more pci lanes, and you lose quad channel memory.

Cant wait to see what threadripper brings to the fight. Tho im not a HEDT customer, so i wont be buying either platform.

Ryzen gave me exactly what i wanted/needed. More high performance cores for a great price, im completely happy with my decision to buy the am4 platform. 8 cores for $350 on inexpensive motherboards have been a dream so far for my daily workloads.