Intel X299, Kaby Lake-X & Skylake-X MegaThread! FAQ and Resources

[juanrga]

And more news about the i9-7900x

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3222652/gaming/how-we-hosted-a-star-trek-vr-party.html

 

[goldstone77]

HW News: X399 Outstripping X299, PCIe 5.0, 1900X CCXs
Gamers Nexus
Published on Sep 7, 2017

Speaking with vendors the word on the street is that looking at X299 vs. X399 the venders with whom we have spoken said that the first few days to the first week, depending on which vendor, of sales of the X399 products, related products surpassed the first month of Intel X299 products sales from those same vendors, not retailers, but actual manufacturers.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-3341285/amd-naples-server-cpu-info-rumours/page-10.html#20156921

 

[juanrga]

In the end Intel’s i9-7900X appears to offer the best combination of singlethreaded performance, multithreaded performance, and efficiency at the $1000 price point. It’s not as fast as AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper in well threaded tasks, but it offers significantly stronger performance in single and lightly threaded workloads while remaining more efficient than the competition. More to the point its performance in multithreaded workloads is really quite good. Given the massive disadvantage it has in core count, the gap in performance is smaller than one would expect.

Not strange that SKL-X is selling well

https://www.amazon.com/gp/new-releases/pc/229189/ref=zg_bs_tab_t_bsnr

despite all the biased reviews and the bad press.

 

[8350rocks]

In the end Intel’s i9-7900X appears to offer the best combination of singlethreaded performance, multithreaded performance, and efficiency at the $1000 price point. It’s not as fast as AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper in well threaded tasks, but it offers significantly stronger performance in single and lightly threaded workloads while remaining more efficient than the competition. More to the point its performance in multithreaded workloads is really quite good. Given the massive disadvantage it has in core count, the gap in performance is smaller than one would expect.

Not strange that SKL-X is selling well

https://www.amazon.com/gp/new-releases/pc/229189/ref=zg_bs_tab_t_bsnr

despite all the biased reviews and the bad press.

Globally it is behind threadripper, and TR does not even have Native RAID enabled yet, that comes in an update later this month.

 

[juanrga]

In the end Intel’s i9-7900X appears to offer the best combination of singlethreaded performance, multithreaded performance, and efficiency at the $1000 price point. It’s not as fast as AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper in well threaded tasks, but it offers significantly stronger performance in single and lightly threaded workloads while remaining more efficient than the competition. More to the point its performance in multithreaded workloads is really quite good. Given the massive disadvantage it has in core count, the gap in performance is smaller than one would expect.

Not strange that SKL-X is selling well

https://www.amazon.com/gp/new-releases/pc/229189/ref=zg_bs_tab_t_bsnr

despite all the biased reviews and the bad press.

Globally it is behind threadripper, and TR does not even have Native RAID enabled yet, that comes in an update later this month.

Did you read what I quote? i9 is ahead in global performance, efficiency, and consumes less power. The i9 is a balanced design. ThreadRipper only shines on rendering and similar GPU-like tasks.

Threadripper must have some extras as that you mention, but it also have drawbacks as those weird "game" and "creator" modes that forces one to reboot when changing the tasks.

 

[-Fran-]

In the end Intel’s i9-7900X appears to offer the best combination of singlethreaded performance, multithreaded performance, and efficiency at the $1000 price point. It’s not as fast as AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper in well threaded tasks, but it offers significantly stronger performance in single and lightly threaded workloads while remaining more efficient than the competition. More to the point its performance in multithreaded workloads is really quite good. Given the massive disadvantage it has in core count, the gap in performance is smaller than one would expect.

Not strange that SKL-X is selling well

https://www.amazon.com/gp/new-releases/pc/229189/ref=zg_bs_tab_t_bsnr

despite all the biased reviews and the bad press.

Globally it is behind threadripper, and TR does not even have Native RAID enabled yet, that comes in an update later this month.

Did you read what I quote? i9 is ahead in global performance, efficiency, and consumes less power. The i9 is a balanced design. ThreadRipper only shines on rendering and similar GPU-like tasks.

Threadripper must have some extras as that you mention, but it also have drawbacks as those weird "game" and "creator" modes that forces one to reboot when changing the tasks.

His point was on sales. Your statements are of no relevance to the sales figures. Funny how it swings both ways.

Cheers!

 

[goldstone77]

In the end Intel’s i9-7900X appears to offer the best combination of singlethreaded performance, multithreaded performance, and efficiency at the $1000 price point. It’s not as fast as AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper in well threaded tasks, but it offers significantly stronger performance in single and lightly threaded workloads while remaining more efficient than the competition. More to the point its performance in multithreaded workloads is really quite good. Given the massive disadvantage it has in core count, the gap in performance is smaller than one would expect.

Not strange that SKL-X is selling well

https://www.amazon.com/gp/new-releases/pc/229189/ref=zg_bs_tab_t_bsnr

despite all the biased reviews and the bad press.

Globally it is behind threadripper, and TR does not even have Native RAID enabled yet, that comes in an update later this month.

Did you read what I quote? i9 is ahead in global performance, efficiency, and consumes less power. The i9 is a balanced design. ThreadRipper only shines on rendering and similar GPU-like tasks.

Threadripper must have some extras as that you mention, but it also have drawbacks as those weird "game" and "creator" modes that forces one to reboot when changing the tasks.

His point was on sales. Your statements are of no relevance to the sales figures. Funny how it swings both ways.

Cheers!

It's not funny it's typical of Juanrga to change the point, or skew results to try and scrap away at some theoretical win in his own mind. No one else believes it. And it's always because of lack of factual corroborating supporting evidence. Referring to something your wrote in a previous post on another forum doesn't count as truth!

 

[juanrga]

In the end Intel’s i9-7900X appears to offer the best combination of singlethreaded performance, multithreaded performance, and efficiency at the $1000 price point. It’s not as fast as AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper in well threaded tasks, but it offers significantly stronger performance in single and lightly threaded workloads while remaining more efficient than the competition. More to the point its performance in multithreaded workloads is really quite good. Given the massive disadvantage it has in core count, the gap in performance is smaller than one would expect.

Not strange that SKL-X is selling well

https://www.amazon.com/gp/new-releases/pc/229189/ref=zg_bs_tab_t_bsnr

despite all the biased reviews and the bad press.

Globally it is behind threadripper, and TR does not even have Native RAID enabled yet, that comes in an update later this month.

Did you read what I quote? i9 is ahead in global performance, efficiency, and consumes less power. The i9 is a balanced design. ThreadRipper only shines on rendering and similar GPU-like tasks.

Threadripper must have some extras as that you mention, but it also have drawbacks as those weird "game" and "creator" modes that forces one to reboot when changing the tasks.

His point was on sales. Your statements are of no relevance to the sales figures. Funny how it swings both ways.

Cheers!

It's not funny it's typical of Juanrga to change the point, or skew results to try and scrap away at some theoretical win in his own mind. No one else believes it. And it's always because of lack of factual corroborating supporting evidence. Referring to something your wrote in a previous post on another forum doesn't count as truth!

I didn't change the point. Yuka forgot to mention that 8350rocks didn't even mention sales. What 8350rocks wrote was "Globally it is behind threadripper" and he could be referring to sales (Yuka interpretation) or he could be referring to performance/features (my interpretation when I wrote the reply to 8350rocks).

 

[juanrga]

Pushed to the limit!

 

[Phaaze88]

^That's impressive, but the average Joe won't ever run it that high...

 

[TechyInAZ]

^That's impressive, but the average Joe won't ever run it that high...

Yeah CPU wear and tear would get the best of that CPU relatively quickly with that kind of vcore.

Still impressive nonetheless.

 

[8350rocks]

In the end Intel’s i9-7900X appears to offer the best combination of singlethreaded performance, multithreaded performance, and efficiency at the $1000 price point. It’s not as fast as AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper in well threaded tasks, but it offers significantly stronger performance in single and lightly threaded workloads while remaining more efficient than the competition. More to the point its performance in multithreaded workloads is really quite good. Given the massive disadvantage it has in core count, the gap in performance is smaller than one would expect.

Not strange that SKL-X is selling well

https://www.amazon.com/gp/new-releases/pc/229189/ref=zg_bs_tab_t_bsnr

despite all the biased reviews and the bad press.

Globally it is behind threadripper, and TR does not even have Native RAID enabled yet, that comes in an update later this month.

Did you read what I quote? i9 is ahead in global performance, efficiency, and consumes less power. The i9 is a balanced design. ThreadRipper only shines on rendering and similar GPU-like tasks.

Threadripper must have some extras as that you mention, but it also have drawbacks as those weird "game" and "creator" modes that forces one to reboot when changing the tasks.

His point was on sales. Your statements are of no relevance to the sales figures. Funny how it swings both ways.

Cheers!

It's not funny it's typical of Juanrga to change the point, or skew results to try and scrap away at some theoretical win in his own mind. No one else believes it. And it's always because of lack of factual corroborating supporting evidence. Referring to something your wrote in a previous post on another forum doesn't count as truth!

I didn't change the point. Yuka forgot to mention that 8350rocks didn't even mention sales. What 8350rocks wrote was "Globally it is behind threadripper" and he could be referring to sales (Yuka interpretation) or he could be referring to performance/features (my interpretation when I wrote the reply to 8350rocks).

I absolutely was discussing sales...if SKL-X was the second coming, it would be selling well...it is about 50% lower in total units sold than TR at the moment. Expect that number to continue going forward as well.

 

[8350rocks]

Pushed to the limit!

My FX-9590 would post at 5.5 GHz 4 years ago, and I could probably dig up an old CPU-Z screenshot...it just would not run any benchmarks without crashing.

I will remain skeptical until there is a 5.6 GHz cinebench score.

 

[juanrga]

Pushed to the limit!

My FX-9590 would post at 5.5 GHz 4 years ago, and I could probably dig up an old CPU-Z screenshot...it just would not run any benchmarks without crashing.

I will remain skeptical until there is a 5.6 GHz cinebench score.

Your 9590 CPU has 8 weak conjoined cores. We would need about 40 of those cores to match the performance of this i9 beast.

 

[juanrga]

In the end Intel’s i9-7900X appears to offer the best combination of singlethreaded performance, multithreaded performance, and efficiency at the $1000 price point. It’s not as fast as AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper in well threaded tasks, but it offers significantly stronger performance in single and lightly threaded workloads while remaining more efficient than the competition. More to the point its performance in multithreaded workloads is really quite good. Given the massive disadvantage it has in core count, the gap in performance is smaller than one would expect.

Not strange that SKL-X is selling well

https://www.amazon.com/gp/new-releases/pc/229189/ref=zg_bs_tab_t_bsnr

despite all the biased reviews and the bad press.

Globally it is behind threadripper, and TR does not even have Native RAID enabled yet, that comes in an update later this month.

Did you read what I quote? i9 is ahead in global performance, efficiency, and consumes less power. The i9 is a balanced design. ThreadRipper only shines on rendering and similar GPU-like tasks.

Threadripper must have some extras as that you mention, but it also have drawbacks as those weird "game" and "creator" modes that forces one to reboot when changing the tasks.

His point was on sales. Your statements are of no relevance to the sales figures. Funny how it swings both ways.

Cheers!

It's not funny it's typical of Juanrga to change the point, or skew results to try and scrap away at some theoretical win in his own mind. No one else believes it. And it's always because of lack of factual corroborating supporting evidence. Referring to something your wrote in a previous post on another forum doesn't count as truth!

I didn't change the point. Yuka forgot to mention that 8350rocks didn't even mention sales. What 8350rocks wrote was "Globally it is behind threadripper" and he could be referring to sales (Yuka interpretation) or he could be referring to performance/features (my interpretation when I wrote the reply to 8350rocks).

I absolutely was discussing sales...if SKL-X was the second coming, it would be selling well...it is about 50% lower in total units sold than TR at the moment. Expect that number to continue going forward as well.

It is selling well despite the biased reviews, bad press, and FUD spreadingh as cancer on each forum. It is selling well even at the Germany store that everyone mentioned. I copy and paste an older post from an user in another forum:

Not surprised considering DIY people waiting for CFL. Not to mention the different release dates. New products always sell more than old. 7700K alone have sold around 20K units, 7600K 10K units and all Ryzen chips around 30K units.

At Mindfactory 175 TR chips have been sold compared to 1040 SKL-X. And that's an AMD retail partner.

And a post posted today:

Last ~2 weeks all Ryzen and 7700K+7600K have sold about 1000 units on each side at Mindfactory. So fast things change when the current Ryzen market is close to saturated and the CFL market is about to open. SKL-X also easily outsold TR in the same timeframe.

 

[8350rocks]

Pushed to the limit!

My FX-9590 would post at 5.5 GHz 4 years ago, and I could probably dig up an old CPU-Z screenshot...it just would not run any benchmarks without crashing.

I will remain skeptical until there is a 5.6 GHz cinebench score.

Your 9590 CPU has 8 weak conjoined cores. We would need about 40 of those cores to match the performance of this i9 beast.

Irrelevant to the conversation about clockspeed m8.

 

[juanrga]

Pushed to the limit!

My FX-9590 would post at 5.5 GHz 4 years ago, and I could probably dig up an old CPU-Z screenshot...it just would not run any benchmarks without crashing.

I will remain skeptical until there is a 5.6 GHz cinebench score.

Your 9590 CPU has 8 weak conjoined cores. We would need about 40 of those cores to match the performance of this i9 beast.

Irrelevant to the conversation about clockspeed m8.

It is fully relevant because getting higher clockspeed on a wide core as Skylake-SP is much more difficult than on a narrow core as Piledriver. This is the classic difference between speed-demons and brainiac microarchitectures.

And it is fully relevant because getting 5.5GHz on a CPU with 8 Piledriver cores is a much simpler task than getting the same clocks on a hypothetical CPU with 40 Piledriver cores.

 

[8350rocks]

Pushed to the limit!

My FX-9590 would post at 5.5 GHz 4 years ago, and I could probably dig up an old CPU-Z screenshot...it just would not run any benchmarks without crashing.

I will remain skeptical until there is a 5.6 GHz cinebench score.

Your 9590 CPU has 8 weak conjoined cores. We would need about 40 of those cores to match the performance of this i9 beast.

Irrelevant to the conversation about clockspeed m8.

It is fully relevant because getting higher clockspeed on a wide core as Skylake-SP is much more difficult than on a narrow core as Piledriver. This is the classic difference between speed-demons and brainiac microarchitectures.

And it is fully relevant because getting 5.5GHz on a CPU with 8 Piledriver cores is a much simpler task than getting the same clocks on a hypothetical CPU with 40 Piledriver cores.

An intel CPU with no benchmarks overclocking to 5.6 GHz is as relevant as mine going to 5.5 GHz.

I could not produce anything beyond a CPU-Z for mine either.

Hence, the conversation about clockspeed is all we are discussing. Anything beyond that is existential, but irrelevant.

 

[juanrga]

Pushed to the limit!

My FX-9590 would post at 5.5 GHz 4 years ago, and I could probably dig up an old CPU-Z screenshot...it just would not run any benchmarks without crashing.

I will remain skeptical until there is a 5.6 GHz cinebench score.

Your 9590 CPU has 8 weak conjoined cores. We would need about 40 of those cores to match the performance of this i9 beast.

Irrelevant to the conversation about clockspeed m8.

It is fully relevant because getting higher clockspeed on a wide core as Skylake-SP is much more difficult than on a narrow core as Piledriver. This is the classic difference between speed-demons and brainiac microarchitectures.

And it is fully relevant because getting 5.5GHz on a CPU with 8 Piledriver cores is a much simpler task than getting the same clocks on a hypothetical CPU with 40 Piledriver cores.

An intel CPU with no benchmarks overclocking to 5.6 GHz is as relevant as mine going to 5.5 GHz.

I could not produce anything beyond a CPU-Z for mine either.

Hence, the conversation about clockspeed is all we are discussing. Anything beyond that is existential, but irrelevant.

Precisely my point was on explaining why getting those higher clocks on wide 16 cores (Skylake-X) has a lot of merit, whereas getting similar clocks on 8 narrow cores (Piledriver) has little merit on comparison.

 

[8350rocks]

Pushed to the limit!

My FX-9590 would post at 5.5 GHz 4 years ago, and I could probably dig up an old CPU-Z screenshot...it just would not run any benchmarks without crashing.

I will remain skeptical until there is a 5.6 GHz cinebench score.

Your 9590 CPU has 8 weak conjoined cores. We would need about 40 of those cores to match the performance of this i9 beast.

Irrelevant to the conversation about clockspeed m8.

It is fully relevant because getting higher clockspeed on a wide core as Skylake-SP is much more difficult than on a narrow core as Piledriver. This is the classic difference between speed-demons and brainiac microarchitectures.

And it is fully relevant because getting 5.5GHz on a CPU with 8 Piledriver cores is a much simpler task than getting the same clocks on a hypothetical CPU with 40 Piledriver cores.

An intel CPU with no benchmarks overclocking to 5.6 GHz is as relevant as mine going to 5.5 GHz.

I could not produce anything beyond a CPU-Z for mine either.

Hence, the conversation about clockspeed is all we are discussing. Anything beyond that is existential, but irrelevant.

Precisely my point was on explaining why getting those higher clocks on wide 16 cores (Skylake-X) has a lot of merit, whereas getting similar clocks on 8 narrow cores (Piledriver) has little merit on comparison.

Except that does not solve the issue of there being nothing beyond a CPU-Z validation to prove the OC was stable. Just FYI, CPU-Z is hardly a stability metric!

 

[juanrga]

Pushed to the limit!

My FX-9590 would post at 5.5 GHz 4 years ago, and I could probably dig up an old CPU-Z screenshot...it just would not run any benchmarks without crashing.

I will remain skeptical until there is a 5.6 GHz cinebench score.

Your 9590 CPU has 8 weak conjoined cores. We would need about 40 of those cores to match the performance of this i9 beast.

Irrelevant to the conversation about clockspeed m8.

It is fully relevant because getting higher clockspeed on a wide core as Skylake-SP is much more difficult than on a narrow core as Piledriver. This is the classic difference between speed-demons and brainiac microarchitectures.

And it is fully relevant because getting 5.5GHz on a CPU with 8 Piledriver cores is a much simpler task than getting the same clocks on a hypothetical CPU with 40 Piledriver cores.

An intel CPU with no benchmarks overclocking to 5.6 GHz is as relevant as mine going to 5.5 GHz.

I could not produce anything beyond a CPU-Z for mine either.

Hence, the conversation about clockspeed is all we are discussing. Anything beyond that is existential, but irrelevant.

Precisely my point was on explaining why getting those higher clocks on wide 16 cores (Skylake-X) has a lot of merit, whereas getting similar clocks on 8 narrow cores (Piledriver) has little merit on comparison.

Except that does not solve the issue of there being nothing beyond a CPU-Z validation to prove the OC was stable. Just FYI, CPU-Z is hardly a stability metric!

No one said that those would be 24/7 overclocks, simply showing the overclock potential of the new chips, which seem to overclock even better than the lower core count models.

 

[juanrga]

i9 7980XE performance leaks

 

[TechyInAZ]

FYI, if you all could keep your massive blocks of quotes to a minimum, that would be great. Especially for our mobile users.

 

[AndrewJacksonZA]

@TechyInAZ: Thank you.

 

[8350rocks]

Spoiler

Pushed to the limit!

My FX-9590 would post at 5.5 GHz 4 years ago, and I could probably dig up an old CPU-Z screenshot...it just would not run any benchmarks without crashing.

I will remain skeptical until there is a 5.6 GHz cinebench score.

Your 9590 CPU has 8 weak conjoined cores. We would need about 40 of those cores to match the performance of this i9 beast.

Irrelevant to the conversation about clockspeed m8.

It is fully relevant because getting higher clockspeed on a wide core as Skylake-SP is much more difficult than on a narrow core as Piledriver. This is the classic difference between speed-demons and brainiac microarchitectures.

And it is fully relevant because getting 5.5GHz on a CPU with 8 Piledriver cores is a much simpler task than getting the same clocks on a hypothetical CPU with 40 Piledriver cores.

An intel CPU with no benchmarks overclocking to 5.6 GHz is as relevant as mine going to 5.5 GHz.

I could not produce anything beyond a CPU-Z for mine either.

Hence, the conversation about clockspeed is all we are discussing. Anything beyond that is existential, but irrelevant.

Precisely my point was on explaining why getting those higher clocks on wide 16 cores (Skylake-X) has a lot of merit, whereas getting similar clocks on 8 narrow cores (Piledriver) has little merit on comparison.

Except that does not solve the issue of there being nothing beyond a CPU-Z validation to prove the OC was stable. Just FYI, CPU-Z is hardly a stability metric!

No one said that those would be 24/7 overclocks, simply showing the overclock potential of the new chips, which seem to overclock even better than the lower core count models.

With enough voltage, you can get anything to POST at a given clock speed...getting it to run at that speed is another matter.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-overclock-59/

There is a Ryzen at 5.9 with benchmarks...