Intel Core i9-7960X Review: Skylake-X At 16 Cores

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think there is something missing here: 'Similar to the other Skylake-X CPUs, the -7960X supports up to DDR4-2666 memory.'
 
Well, for now, my i7-7700k is no slouch, can't wait to see what the i7-8700K's will be able to do. No rush to upgrade yet as I've only had the 7700k since March. Thanks to AMD for pushing Intel to produce better options.
 
Really, Intel, is this a joke? Why release a chip that requires water cooling, have bad thermals and power consumption to previous AMD's bulldozer.
 
Well, it is good for competition that AMD have cooler and better behaving product this time compared to Intel. It forces Intel to do better next time!
Go AMD go! And keep Intel in its toes! Better products, better prices (?) to the customers. I hope that Intel is forced to reduce the pricing...
 
That is a supremely powerful chip... but, man... at what cost? I give a nod to the speed and power, but it is anything but practical. It isn't even that much faster than the competition in most tests, and a good deal of that competition comes from Intel themselves. It is really a case of, "why bother?". I'd suggest just getting the 7900 or the 1950 if you are looking at this segment. Why spend so much more for so little extra?
 
Intel needs to stop using paste and do it right. It's beyond comprehension that they charge a lot more and and yet AMD charges less and does it right.
 
Hey Intel... solder your chips next time. The monolithic die is not commercially viable and provide really few advantages.

You even acknowledged that modular design is the way of the future... EMBID anyone!?
 
"Of course, finding a use for that many lanes might be challenging, but it's certainly nice to have them available."

Heh,no challenge at all: solo pro setups, multi GPU rendering, extra NVMe SSDs for workflow, digvid cards, etc.



"... but we shied away from that because we want to test this processor in the future. "

IMO this perfectly reflects how users will regard these expensive chips, ie. too costly to risk pushing that much at all. At least for those who want to use them for productive work.


"... Be sure to bring a custom loop if you plan to overclock."

Aka significant hidden extra cost. GN did a great video on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwqYh6c3Xco


Btw, for CPUs of this class, why the focus so much on gaming? IMO such reviews should present productivity, rendering, transcoding and scientific bench data first.

Ian.
 


From your point of view and mine that's perfectly true. Intel is probably either aiming at a small segment of the market or selling the results of their research for a more affordable next generation. No reason to hold it against them, just don't buy one.
 
Wait why is there a 'gaming price efficiency chart' instead of an 'applications/workstation price efficiency chart'. Aren't these High core count CPU's geared towards that market?

Why is gaming put as a priority here please. I do like toms hardware ariticles but I think you guys have fallen of a bit.
 
In the Cinebench R15 chart, Threadripper is highlighted in red instead of the Intel chip. At a glance, makes it look like chip being reviewed didn't score as highly as it did.
 
None of the result images in the rendering / encoding section load on either my home or work computer, both up to date browsers. Is it a TH issue? Really interested to see the results!
 
So who is this CPU for?

-If you are a semi-professional who works from home: Threadripper offers the same performance with SUBSTANTIALLY lower cost, ECC support, and 64 PCIE lanes. You would have to be nuts to choose Skylake-X.

-If you are a business where money is no object: Skylake-X isn't an option. It requires incredibly exotic cooling solutions, and no company is buying custom watercooling builds in bulk lol. Oh and again lack of ECC makes this a complete no-go for a business.


So who would buy this? In what situation could this ever be better than Threadripper?


P.S. Gaming is not relevant. The benchmarks show all of these top end CPU's get above 100Hz anyways, and if you are a real gamer the 1600 or 7700K are better.

Moderator edited for politeness to other members
 
No surprise, it's not worth it.

For $700 more or 70% more than it's competitor, (Not including needing to buy a water cooling solution, add more money) you're not getting 70% more performance.

Also, why is gaming performance pushed to the forefront with this chip? You're not going to buy this chip to play games exclusively and it's insulting to present that as a pro for the chip. If you want to game, buy a gaming CPU that puts this to shame and is much cheaper, this is a workstation chip.

I'd also have to say with the price you have to pay, it's bragging rights or if you absolutely must have the fastest hardware for your work load and even then I'd argue there's better things to spend money on that'll give you more performance. (Motherboard, RAM, SSDs...etc)
 
In the past, I'd entertained serious thoughts about buying an i9 7980XE, but reading about AMD's Threadripper 1950X, I felt buying Intel's latest ripoff was a sucker's move. I couldn't be happier with my TR 1950X! What a nice piece of technology!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom