Threadripper Competition Emerges As Intel Lets Core i9-7920X Details Slip

[Guest]

We expected Intel to release the Core i9-7920X later this year, but the sudden appearance on the company's July price list suggests it may come sooner than expected.

Threadripper Competition Emerges As Intel Lets Core i9-7920X Details Slip : Read more

 

[TJ Hooker]

The Core i9-7920X features a 3.3GHz base frequency, which is a substantial decline from its eight-core Core i9-7900X counterpart's 3.3GHz

The first "3.3GHz" should be "2.9GHz".

Edit: Also, as @freak777power points out below, the "eight-core Core i9-7900X" should say "ten-core".

 

[falchard]

Larger L2 makes sense when working with large out of order tables. 256 kb is fine for consumer, but 512 kb may work better for professional workloads at the sacrifice of latency.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

The Core i9-7920X features a 3.3GHz base frequency, which is a substantial decline from its eight-core Core i9-7900X counterpart's 3.3GHz

The first "3.3GHz" should be "2.9GHz".

Oops! Thanks!

 

[gggplaya]

The side by side benchmarks will be very interesting when they both come out. Also, what it'll take to cool the intel chip to run at boost without dethrottling.

 

[InvalidError]

256 kb is fine for consumer

Except there is no such thing as "consumer" since the exact same dies are used for both desktop and server/datacenter CPUs. With dwindling desktop sales, it makes no sense to design chips specifically for desktop, which is why AMD designed the Zeppelin die for EPYC instead of desktop. AMD likely calculated that taking the hit on die size for its projected sales volume is cheaper than the R&D for a desktop-specific die.

 

[Guest]

16/32 Core Broadwell-E which i have has clock speed of 2.6Ghz but all cores run at 3.1Ghz and Turbo all the way up to 3.6Ghz. So, you guys are reading this chart wrong because Intel wasn't clear enough here.

This CPU i assume will have all cores running 3.1Ghz as well. Base clock means nothing. It is a clock speed which CPU will run at if Turbo was entirely disabled in UEFI.

 

[Guest]

The difference between AMD and Intel is that AMD glued two 8 core Ryzens together which allowed for same clock speed as single 8 Core Ryzen. Unlike AMD, Intel didn't slap together two cpus like they did back in a day with q6600. To keep CPU cool with that many cores it is not easy. Whether you like it or not 7900x is a monster and performs great beating everything else on the market but for a hefty price.

Since i don't have lot of money, i will get AMD ThreadRipper because offer the most otherwise if money was not an issue i would go with 18/36 i9.

Having said that...there is no bad product here.

 

[bloodroses]

Ouch, Intel really wasn't ready for massive core scaling. With that said, I know they'd spent quite a bit of resources trying to improve per core performance, integrated graphics, and wattage usage due to the ARM threat they had on small devices with their Atom chip; which they lost. Things are about to get quite interesting on the AMD/Intel multi-core front.

 

[JamesSneed]

The difference between AMD and Intel is that AMD glued two 8 core Ryzens together which allowed for same clock speed as single 8 Core Ryzen. Unlike AMD, Intel didn't slap together two cpus like they did back in a day with q6600. To keep CPU cool with that many cores it is not easy. Whether you like it or not 7900x is a monster and performs great beating everything else on the market but for a hefty price.

Since i don't have lot of money, i will get AMD ThreadRipper because offer the most otherwise if money was not an issue i would go with 18/36 i9.

Having said that...there is no bad product here.

TH should look into if this account was hacked, that was way to sensible coming from Freak.

 

[Guest]

Article says eight-core Core i9-7900X counterpart's 3.3GHz

It is 10 core i9-7900X

 

[InvalidError]

if money was not an issue i would go with 18/36 i9.

You can't since those haven't launched yet and aren't going to be available for many more months still regardless of how much money you may have to throw at Intel

 

[Guest]

Since I have x99 platform i got eye on 22 Core Broadwell-E Turbo 3.6Ghz, it will be $100 on eBay in year or two.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

Article says eight-core Core i9-7900X counterpart's 3.3GHz

It is 10 core i9-7900X

Jeez. Sorry guys, working too fast in the race to get the news up

 

[spiketheaardvark]

Seems like Intel is either confident about the performance or AMD has a less thermally limited chip.

 

[rwinches]

Four top cores for max boost all boost conditional on number of cores running and utilization on those cores. TB2 and TB3 won't happen in heavy utilization cases on more than a few cores if at all. AMD has the benefit of a design that allows more cores to clock in their higher range.

We only have details so far no chips in hand so this is more hipe than real.

Is the lower clock showing a limitation of their inter-core ring solution?

 

[PaulAlcorn]

Seems like Intel is either confident about the performance or AMD has a less thermally limited chip.

Well, the Threadripper package is massive, it's on a 4,094-pin TR4 socket compared to Intel's 2,066-pin socket. That equates to a heatspreader surface area advantage, but the socket may make the motherboards more expensive. The MCM package supports up to four Zeppelin die with a total of 32 cores, and AMD likely has all four die present with only half the cores active. That creates a nice big dark silicon buffer to absorb heat, as well. That gives AMD a lot more room for thermal dissipation.

 

[Th558]

Why the <Removed> do they have an i5 on this platform?

 

[Th558]

It's crazy that AMD's 16 core cpu is running at 3.4Ghz and Intel's 12 core is running at 2.9Ghz. They better not have used toothpaste again. If they did they're in deeep trouble. No one would want to buy a high core count Intel CPU if it doesn't overclock better that Threadripper for almost double the price.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

Why the fLuck do they have an i5 on this platform?

I would chide you about your language, but that seems to be the general reaction lol.

 

[InvalidError]

Why the fLuck do they have an i5 on this platform?

I would chide you about your language, but that seems to be the general reaction lol.

I don't remember seeing even one positive review about that decision. Linus outright called BS on that and most others have basically done the same in a more polite manner. A $200-300 CPU does not belong on a $300-600 platform where it cannot drive half of the platform's key features.

With AMD enabling everything a given platform is capable of across their whole product range, this will hopefully put all the nails in that idea's coffin.

 

[Mad_3_]

As per usual, Freak quotes INTEL as if they were known for telling the truth about competitors.
Some things never change.

 

[trevor_dennis]

That kills the 7920X for me. I was thinking it might be the sweet spot in the i9X line up, but as most of my workload is Photoshop which is lightly cored, the 2.9Ghz base clock speed is going to make the 7920X less effective than the 7900X. Plus the 7900X is significantly cheaper. I was leaning towards Threadripper after AMD's recent update on information, but the rumour mill has its memory speed lower than i9X, and that is another con for Photoshop. On the other hand, I am liking some of the X399 motherboards, like the ASRock Pro Gaming which has excellent storage capacity.

 

[Lucky_SLS]

I hope this Intel/AMD competition continues even after cannon Lake and zen 2. Planning to build a new one in like 2 years

 

[InvalidError]

I hope this Intel/AMD competition continues even after cannon Lake and zen 2. Planning to build a new one in like 2 years

I don't know when I'll replace my i5-3470, but I sure hope the Intel-AMD competition will undo the last six years of price-performance stagnation by the time I decide to pull the trigger on that upgrade.