Intel Core X preorders begin June 19

During the pre-show festivities for the PC Gaming Show at E3, Intel revealed the launch date for its Core X series of CPUs. The first Kaby Lake-X and Skylake-X chips will go up for preorder Monday, June 19, and shipments will begin "the following week." The products launching at that time range from the four-core, four-thread Core i5-7640K all the way up to the 10-core, 20-thread Core i9-7900X.

Watch live video from PCGamer on www.twitch.tv
Model Base

clock

(GHz)

Turbo

clock

(GHz)

Turbo

Boost

Max 3.0

clock

(GHz)

Cores/

threads

L3

cache

PCIe

3.0

lanes

Memory

support

TDP Socket

Price

(1K

units)

i9-7980XE 18/36 LGA 2066 $1999
i9-7960X 16/32 $1699
i9-7940X 14/28 $1399
i9-7920X 12/24 $1199
i9-7900X 3.3 4.3 4.5 10/20 13.75MB 44 Quad-channel

DDR4-2666

140W $999
i7-7820X 3.6 4.3 4.5 8/16 11MB 28 $599
i7-7800X 3.5 4.0 NA 6/12 8.25MB Quad-channel

DDR4-2400

$389
i7-7740X 4.3 4.5 NA 4/8 8MB 16 Dual-channel

DDR4-2666

112W $339
i5-7640X 4.0 4.2 NA 4/4 6MB $242

Folks with a hunger for more cores will have to wait, however. Intel says the 12-core, 24-thread i9-7920X is expected to begin shipping in August, while the i9-7940X, i9-7960X, and i9-7980XE aren't expected to be available until October. Stay tuned as we learn more from the PC Gaming Show at E3. 

Comments closed
    • D@ Br@b($)!
    • 2 years ago

    So after reading all the is/isn’t ‘s

    I think they just caught them off guard.

    Again.

    • chuckula
    • 2 years ago

    Easy indicator of Skylake X potential success/failure: If the reviews go live on the 19th (the same day pre-orders start) then Intel thinks it’s a stronger release.

    If you have to wait for reviews to go live until the 26th when it actually launches, then there could be trouble.

    • tipoo
    • 2 years ago

    Really appreciated Linus’s video on this…

    [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWFzWRoVNnE[/url<] The whole thing seems very reactionary and rushed.

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      It’s funny to see Linus suffer an existential crisis.

        • tipoo
        • 2 years ago

        I can find him a little cringey, but I do appreciate that he made a long tirade against one of his biggest sponsors. That’s refreshing as a walk in the rain.

    • ronch
    • 2 years ago

    OK, since when did pre-ordering CPUs became a thing?

      • tipoo
      • 2 years ago

      Same year pre-ordering routers became a thing

      • the
      • 2 years ago

      Just wait until you can pre-order your pre-order!

        • chuckula
        • 2 years ago

        I always wait for the pre-order review before I order the pre-order.
        You can never be too careful.

          • ronch
          • 2 years ago

          I tried pre-ordering a burger once. It came in a frozen polypropylene bag. Ordered too early, I guess.

            • Redocbew
            • 2 years ago

            Your burger was fine. You just had to unpack it and get it burned in first.

      • Welch
      • 2 years ago

      When AMD was actually competing again. Intel is hoping to hold on to every last enthusiast that has been tempted by ThreadRipper.

    • SuperSpy
    • 2 years ago

    Poor Intel wasting all this time designing tiny hacksaws so they can cut all the features out of the Xeon to ‘compete’ in the desktop market.

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      #PoorVolta

      • Prestige Worldwide
      • 2 years ago

      I’m sure they’re crying all the way to the bank..

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 2 years ago

        If AMD is taking sales because Intel can’t deliver product, I think “crying to the bank” is a poor fit. They need to design things that are possible to ship.

    • Jigar
    • 2 years ago

    So they want to make sure, none of the potential clients go to Threadripper ?

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      It’s too late! The Threadripper has already ripped out Intel’s puny cores!

        • NoOne ButMe
        • 2 years ago

        Threadrippper is not competing with Xeon Phi… or Atom.

    • Unknown-Error
    • 2 years ago

    Even though this is Intel (and not that 3-letter messy company), I would still caution people on pre-ordering. Always wait for the independent reviews of not just the CPU but the whole platform and then make an informed decision.

    • chuckula
    • 2 years ago

    I’m toying with the idea of getting a 7900X (although it’s contingent on selling my current system so not guaranteed).

    It’s not the price of the CPU that’s the kicker, it’s the RAM. On a per-GB basis DDR4 in the 2666 – 3200MHz range is just as expensive if not moreso than DDR3 2133MHz was back in 2013. That may kibosh plans for starting the rig out with 64GB.

      • smilingcrow
      • 2 years ago

      That’s still only half the price of the CPU so I’m not sure it’s such a big deal!
      But it’s not fun buying RAM knowing how much cheaper it was 12 months or so ago.
      Amazon have this for $410: Mushkin Enhanced Redline 64GB (4 x 16GB) 2666

        • chuckula
        • 2 years ago

        By the time I’m done the CPU will be a big part but by no means the dominating part in the whole build. My main cost-saving measure is that I’m keeping the GTX-1080 from last year since I don’t need the be-all end-all gaming machine.

        Other than that I want at least 32 GB of RAM (64 is ideal), two M.2 SSDs for storage, and an X299 board that includes onboard 10GBit ethernet would be extremely sweet too (although that may not happen either).

      • ptsant
      • 2 years ago

      Plus it doesn’t make sense to get 8GB modules. You’re looking at $400+ of RAM and a $300+ MB.

      The HEDT series processors never seemed a very bad deal (perf/$) until you start adding the other parts.

    • willmore
    • 2 years ago

    Can someone explain to me the point of the i7-7740X and i5-7640X? Those really look like normal non-X parts. 16 PCI-E lanes? Check. Dual-channel memory? Check. The memory isn’t even all that fast for those ‘only’ dual-channels.

    Is there some huge benefit to the very expensive motherboards that these are going to require that makes those parts make sense? Does this platform use a bigger/wider/faster DMI that explains it?

      • MOSFET
      • 2 years ago

      as far as i can tell, it’s a “get you into the platform” move; and maybe just maybe you’ll upgrade all the way to the $1750 part next cycle – hey you already have the board!

        • willmore
        • 2 years ago

        Hmm, maybe. The i5-7600K is the same price but is clocked 3.8/4.2 instead of 4.0/4.2, but the rest of the specs match. So, for the price of the expensive board (vs a less expensive Z270) you get 200MHz of base clock.

        So, I guess if you really want 4 cores and 4 threads at the fastest clocks, that is the chip to get. It still seems like the board is going to more than make up for that little boost in base clock.

        I’m glad I’m not in the market for an upgrade. Things look just crazy both at Intel and AMD. Though the latter does seem a bit saner, though they still have warts. I’m looking at you Ryzen 5 1400! You make no sense!

      • Krogoth
      • 2 years ago

      Product filler because Intel cannot get enough Skylake-X parts for the HEDT market to meet motherboard vendor quotas for Socket 2066 boards.

      • Voldenuit
      • 2 years ago

      Probably for rack/cluster compatibility.

      Build a bunch of multi socket 1U/2U/4U rack-mounted mobos and populate/upgrade with CPUs as needed.

      Course, that scenario makes more sense if they were Xeons…

      In the desktop/enthusiast space, I’m as mystified as you are.

      • Bauxite
      • 2 years ago

      The point is to take money from the stupid people that buy stuff because it is the “latest and greatest” and laughing all the way to the bank. You are correct, those cpus are a joke (on the buyers) and literally offer nothing more than a “different” bin of 7600/7700k in the new socket.

      No new capabilities of any kind, huge waste of die space for the unconnected “gpu” and not even bothering to offer the extra 4 lanes that E3 xeons can enable on 1151 in C-series boards. They might have been really interesting for max IPC/lowest latency if they nuked the gpu and used the die space for L3/4 cache or similar, but that would take actual work.

        • Krogoth
        • 2 years ago

        This doesn’t make fiscal sense since Intel is already bank with their normal Socket 1151 stuff and it is still selling in volume. The margins are also greater on normal 2xx chipset platfom and Socket 1151 stuff versus Kaby-Lake-X/X299 boards. Kaby-Lake-X chips are also going for the same MSRP as their Socket 1151 counterparts.

      • blahsaysblah
      • 2 years ago

      No iGPU and DDR3 memory controller. They are supposed to have much better 24/7 OC headroom(even air/water). This is likely for “official/business” very low latency solutions market.

      AKA the very old, crusty and utter shit code that no one can touch and its just cheaper to run the software on the fastest hardware than to re-write the code from scratch.

      Who wants to bet, part of the increased OC headroom is professional and non-toothpaste TIM?

    • Krogoth
    • 2 years ago

    It appears that there’s significant yielding issues with Skylake-X silicon. It is never a good sign that you need to advertise “Pre-ordering” hardware and you top-end SKUs are still in “TBD” status. It also perfectly explains why “Kaby-Lake-X” even exists. They are forced to repackage normal “Kaby-Lake” silicon on a platform that it cannot fully support to make supply quotas so motherboard guys can justify making Socket-2066 boards.

    Intel is going to have a rough ride ahead of them in the enterprise and HPC markets. Their fab technology isn’t going to be enough to overcome the issues in making massive ring-architecture, monolith dies.

    AMD pulled a “RV770” in the CPU market. It is much easier to fab small dies and glue them together with on-package “HTT” links a.k.a “Infinity Fabic”. That’s kinda why Epyc/Threadripper socket is so bloody huge. It was engineered with the intention that it can powered 8-die chips (64-cores) with a modest clockspeed (barring TDP). Datacenter/HPC customer water at the aspect. The only variable is how well AMD delivers on their Epyc/Threadripper platform and hopefully there’s no stupid bug or issues lurking in it.

      • Waco
      • 2 years ago

      There are no announced (or even hinted at) 64 core AMD parts. Perhaps you’re thinking 64 thread?

        • Krogoth
        • 2 years ago

        On the roadmap, there’s future plans for a 64-core “Epyc” coming down the pipe. It isn’t that far-fetched either it isn’t going that “difficult” for AMD to cram additional dies on the packaging.

        The only thing that is really stopping them is clockspeed/power consumption curve.

          • Waco
          • 2 years ago

          What roadmap? Sources?

            • the
            • 2 years ago

            There is [url=https://techreport.com/news/31896/rumor-leaked-amd-roadmaps-give-a-peek-at-future-cpus<]this one[/url<] but it only points to 48 core Epyc chips on 7 nm. One thing I am predicting though is that AMD goes all in with interposers and shatters their current SoC into multiple dies. The result would be mixing a standard set of IP blocks with an [i<]n[/i<] number of CPU-only dies. This would permit rapid core count scaling, limited purely by power and package size. This also makes it easy to integrate things like GPUs into the same package too.

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            I’m aware of their roadmap, that’s why I was surprised to hear a 64 core claim.

            • Klimax
            • 2 years ago

            Power, package and interconnect. Overhead won’t be trivial and even brand new limits will likely appear.

          • VincentHanna
          • 2 years ago

          That and the “nothing can use more than 8 threads” curve…

      • smilingcrow
      • 2 years ago

      Seemingly they added the chips with 14 cores and above late in the day as a response to AMD which is why they will arrive later.
      So it will take them a while to build stock and validate them on a different socket/platform as the HCC chips otherwise would have been on the new Xeon platform/socket only.
      None of this implies they have yield issues or that they are going to be limiting supply to Enterprise/HPC because of HEDT.
      Adding a 4 core Kaby Lake X chip is good business sense as otherwise they’d be forced to sell a LCC 12 core die as a quad core which is very wasteful.
      So they can extend the lower end of the platform in terms of CPUs which allows them to upsell people from the Kaby Lake platform; aimed at those looking for an upgrade path.
      But AMD will likely also have a low entry point for their HEDT platform and if priced right it should make Kaby Lake X seem silly.
      Probably not below $500 but the extra cores and features should make the Intel entry point seem lame but at half the price it might get the timid to jump on board.

      It’s all speculation on your part from your usual biased position.
      Repetitive bias is not impressing me.

        • Krogoth
        • 2 years ago

        Kaby-Lake X is not a good business decision unless Intel has no choice. It cost additional time and money to repackage silicon to a different socket platform. They are making lower margins on top of that. The only reason Intel is doing this because there’s not enough Skylake-X stock right now to satisfy motherboard vendors to make Socket 2066 boards and Coffee Lake isn’t ready yet. It is all circumstantial evidence but it is painfully clear if you read between the lines.

        Kaby-Lake-X is going flop hard because it is going to be competing against its Socket 1151 counterpart which are going to a better deal overall for 4C/8T users. There’s no point in investing in a Kaby-Lake X chip unless you plan on doing a future drop-in upgrade with Skylake-X (when prices and supplies are more sane) or its successor.

          • smilingcrow
          • 2 years ago

          “There’s no point in investing in a Kaby-Lake X chip unless you plan on doing a future drop-in upgrade with Skylake-X (when prices and supplies are more sane) or its successor.”

          Which is what I’ve been saying for ages.
          I know audio workstation guys who keep a platform for a long time so they can jump in now at 4C knowing they have a massive upgrade path in terms of Cores, RAM and I/O.
          It’s niche but so is HEDT anyway and Intel get to sell a more expensive motherboard chipset so they are hardly losing out.

            • Zizy
            • 2 years ago

            And just who will buy your 4C afterwards? The i7 is viable for people that want top single threaded performance *now*. Well, now-ish.
            Resale value is going to be extremely low as consumer stuff will be better fairly soon, and motherboards will continue being expensive. So, your chip needs to be 100$ cheaper to compete with the consumer parts in total costs. And it is used. And lacks GPU.

            As for upgrade path, grab ordinary 8C Ryzen 1700 and just sell the CPU and the board when you want this massive number of cores, ram and io, and you will have better near-term performance AND it will be cheaper AND you will resell it with less loss.
            Or, if you really want this platform, at least get the 8C part. This will at least find buyers when you are moving to the 18C beast.

      • brucethemoose
      • 2 years ago

      Intel already mentioned that multi-chip designs are the future for them.

        • Krogoth
        • 2 years ago

        They probably started doing it as soon as they realized that 14nm process and beyond is ill-suited at making massive pieces of silicon. It is going to take some time for Intel engineer/architects to shift gears though.

          • smilingcrow
          • 2 years ago

          14nm is fine but beyond is a problem for sure.

            • NoOne ButMe
            • 2 years ago

            Intel 14nm (P1272, maybe P1273 also) is not fine.

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            It works wonderfully for low-power consumption and smaller dies. It appears that issues arise as you attempt to scale up the silicon and clockspeed.

            • NoOne ButMe
            • 2 years ago

            right on Their P1273 (SoC) process probably is what you are describe.

            earlier post
            >They probably started doing it as soon as they realized that 14nm process >and beyond is ill-suited at making massive pieces of silicon.

            Intel’s 14nm P1272 (CPU) and improved varients are fine for clockspeed and large die.

            It’s not fine on yields… for Intel’s historic standards. For TSMC standard, Intel probably has desirable yield.
            One other problem is due to Intel lack of very dense part. And given process design is probably inherent of high clock, low power CPU process.

      • Prestige Worldwide
      • 2 years ago

      [quote<]It appears that there's significant yielding issues with Skylake-X silicon.[/quote<] Citation needed

        • Krogoth
        • 2 years ago

        The circumstantial evidence heavily points to it. Why bother with paper launching higher-end i9 parts and do these pre-orders if Intel is able to get sufficient Skylake-X parts to channel? Why bother spending the extra time and effort to repackage normal Kaby Lake silicon as Socket 2066 parts when they never bother to do the same thing for their previous Socket 2011 platform?

        Intel’s regular Socket 1151 offerings are quite competitive with Ryzen R5-R7 for mainstream workloads and AMD still has no competitive answer to Intel’s portable line-up yet.

        It seems odd to pull these marketing stunts if Intel is able to deliver Skylake-X units in en mass.

          • Anonymous Coward
          • 2 years ago

          Another thing I notice, at Re:Invent 2016 (november 2016) Amazon announced they were launching “c5” servers with Intel’s newest Xeons, the same chips Intel is trying to launch now on desktop, and the servers are [i<]still not available[/i<]. I don't think Amazon intended to pre-announce by 7 months and counting. I say Intel is having some kind of problem.

      • ronch
      • 2 years ago

      Guess they learned their lesson with Barcelona. They regretted doing a monolithic 4C die on 65nm in those days and wished they did an MCM instead.

      • Redocbew
      • 2 years ago

      I’d love to see someone with industry experience talk about the pros and cons of monolithic vs MCM designs. Both AMD and Intel have been on differing sides at one point or another, so the cons of each approach are clearly not insurmountable, but AMD seems to have gone to considerable lengths to avoid a monolithic design this time around. I wonder if that’s just due to the cash-strapped nature of the company, or if there’s more to it than that.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 2 years ago

        If you see AMD shipping bigger and more powerful CPUs than Intel, then all the pros and the cons will be no more than a bunch of bullet points on paper.

        • chuckula
        • 2 years ago

        It’s a relatively cheap & easy way to get high core counts while building chips that, while not “simple” in nature, are still far less complex & may have better yields than producing multiple designs for different core counts.

        For many workloads the disadvantages of all the inter-core communication overhead (that we already observe even in single-die RyZen parts) don’t substantially impact the results. Cinebench being one big example, although games are a counter-example where the latency spikes can hurt your performance.

        If you are a company like AMD that’s clearly not swimming in money, it’s the best way to go since they literally only need to make 2 types of silicon: 1. the pure-CPU RyZen chips that are out now; and 2. The APUs that come out later this year. That’s it for AMD’s entire lineup, which is vastly simpler than what you see with Intel scaling from mobile all the way up to high-end server parts.

        That doesn’t mean it’s inherently “superior” to other designs, it’s just that it’s the best strategy for a company in AMD’s position.

          • raddude9
          • 2 years ago
            • chuckula
            • 2 years ago

            Didn’t see frame time numbers, but my more fundamental question is this: I’ve seen plenty of firmware screenshots that let you turn off cores, but did they also have the ability to turn off exactly 1/2 of the L3 cache in each CCX so that the 2 + 2 setup was running with 4 + 4 MB of L3 cache [8 MB for the whole chip] just like the 4 + 0 setup?

            Because showing a 2 + 2 setup with twice the L3 cache still losing at games (even if not by a massive margin) to an alternative configuration that has only 1/2 the L3 cache pretty much proves my point.

            Maybe they did, but the video format of that review didn’t make it obvious.

        • Duct Tape Dude
        • 2 years ago

        Kanterjuice, Kanterjuice, Kanterjuice!

      • psuedonymous
      • 2 years ago

      [quote<]It appears that there's significant yielding issues with Skylake-X silicon.[/quote<] Does anyone have any sort of source for this? It seems to have sprung up fully formed as a rumour within the last week or two but with little attribution. Skylake-EP (nee -EX) has been expected for H2 2017 [url=http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/47/IMG0047332_1.png<]at least since 2015[/url<]. The consumer 'extreme edition' chips have always been the dregs of the 'Big Xeon' lines repackaged for consumers, so it's pretty foolish to judge the state of the Xeons based on those, and we don't even know the availability of THOSE yet! It looks like Xeons will be confined to Purley on LGA3647 anyway, with no dedicated single-socket line for LGA2066. [quote<] It is never a good sign that you need to advertise "Pre-ordering" hardware and you top-end SKUs are still in "TBD" status. [/quote<]Ryzen 7 also was announced and pre-orders opened before Threadripper's specs were announced. Likewise here, the 4/6/8/10 core chips with specs have been announced with pre-orders opening soon, and the 12+ core chips without full specs are not opening for orders until later (August for 12/14/16, October for 18 core). This is all in the announcement. As always, don't pre-order CPUs without testing, don't pre-order games without testing, don't pre-order ANYTHING without independent testing! Or alternately: don't buy things based only on marketing. tl;dr: The chips available for pre-order have specs. The chips without specs you can't order for a few months yet.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 2 years ago

        I have higher standards for Intel than I have for AMD. With Intel, I expect stuff to ship in volume, on time, and with the specs well known.

        My best evidence for these things being delayed is that Amazon (AWS) announced boxes (c5 instances) using these in late november 2016, but those boxes are not yet available. You’d have a hard time convincing me that they intended to tell people about something they couldn’t have for the entire first half of the next year, and still counting.

    • raddude9
    • 2 years ago
      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      So anyone think RyZen would have happened without [url=https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80313<]Haswell[/url<]? I'm really thankful there's something new coming out in 2017.

        • raddude9
        • 2 years ago
          • chuckula
          • 2 years ago

          No, I understood it just fine. You aren’t original, intelligent, or witty and people smarter than you were making the same posts over and over again years ago.

          My post, however, was technically accurate and, while not made to get easy upthumbs from the in-crowd, is sure as hell going to be proven true in 2021 or so when AMD “innovates” RyZen 3 and it looks suspiciously like Skylake X.

            • raddude9
            • 2 years ago
      • Chrispy_
      • 2 years ago

      The 7820X at only $599 is because Intel can’t sell that product against Ryzen 1800X at $499 without egg on their face in all the performance/dollar analysis reviews.

      The interesting thing for me is what will happen to the i9-7960X at $1699 when AMD’s 16/32 Threadripper arrives. Rumours put it at $850 but even if they charged double the $499 of the i9-7960X, AMD is still $700 cheaper. You could practically buy another one for that sort of money….

    • freebird
    • 2 years ago

    It takes that LONG to repackage a XEON processor into an new box and socket?

      • willmore
      • 2 years ago

      The firmware to nerf all of the XEON features takes time. Don’t want to accidentally enable stuff without charging extra for it.

      • Krogoth
      • 2 years ago

      No, it doesn’t take that long at all. The issue is more likely that Intel was in middie of yielding issues and didn’t expect on launching Skylake-X and Kaby-Lake X so soon. They wanted a Q3-Q4 2017 launch but pressure from AMD changed Intel’s short-term plans.

    • Prestige Worldwide
    • 2 years ago

    I had read somewhere that the NDA on these would lift today (May 12) but I don’t see any reviews.

    I guess that’ll be on the 19th?

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      [quote<]I had read somewhere that the NDA on these would lift today (May 12) but I don't see any reviews.[/quote<] Ah crap, I knew I was going to get stuck in a one month time loop.

        • Prestige Worldwide
        • 2 years ago

        lol oops

      • Neutronbeam
      • 2 years ago

      I both admire and am in fear of your infernal time machine, sorcerer! Yes, JUNE 19.

        • Prestige Worldwide
        • 2 years ago

        *Sets confused time machine for June 19*

        Arrives in June 19, 1979

      • Srsly_Bro
      • 2 years ago

      Today?

        • Prestige Worldwide
        • 2 years ago

        My brain imploded. Months are hard.

    • DeadOfKnight
    • 2 years ago

    Pre-ordering PC hardware is just as dumb as pre-ordering PC software. Just don’t do it.

      • odizzido
      • 2 years ago

      was going to post this as well. Thankfully you’ve already done it.

      • EzioAs
      • 2 years ago

      Hmm, Idk. Pre-ordering hardware might have it’s merits based on the buyer’s necessity to have it sooner than most and what said buyer expect to do with it. For example, a reviewer that targets to put out an article as soon as possible but does not have enough connection to get it from respective manufacturer(s) and if the physical product is on limited stock for the foreseeable future.

      On the other hand, pre-ordering software does seem kinda dumb seeing as anyone will probably be able to get it day one…

      No offense to people who pre-order software. If you know it’s pros and would like to share it with the rest of us, I implore you to do so.

        • Amgal
        • 2 years ago

        Yeah I can see how silly it sounds with there being no scarcity with software, although nowadays it’s just code for “Buy us now and we’ll throw in X extra items on top!”

        The moniker probably needs to change to more accurately reflect that, or the understanding of it, to be reconciled.

        • BobbinThreadbare
        • 2 years ago

        If a reviewer doesn’t get press samples, they’re already behind. I doubt pre-ordering would make any difference

          • NoOne ButMe
          • 2 years ago

          Some reviewers maybe care about making sure they get a review to their readers timing be damned.

          Remember when review was delayed here due to short times with products? Ryzen 1600x I think.

          Me and many of you were waiting for the review. Especially because this site focuses on a metric many sites don’t do, or don’t well.

      • jihadjoe
      • 2 years ago

      Hardware goes out of stock, software doesn’t. I bet there’s at least one idiot out there who’d pay a scalper an extra $400 just to be able to say he has that 18-core i9 sooner than any of his friends.

      Edit: Now that I think about it, this pre-order is probably Intel’s idea of protecting their fanboys from scalpers.

    • smilingcrow
    • 2 years ago

    TR says:

    “The 12-core, 24-thread i9-7920X will begin shipping in August, while the i9-7940X, i9-7960X, and i9-7980XE won’t be available until October.”

    Intel says from the link you gave:

    “The 12-core Intel Core i9-7920X X-series processor [b<]expected[/b<] to start shipping in August, and the Intel Core i9-7940X X-series processor, Intel Core i9-7960X X-series processor and 18-core Intel Core i9-7980X Extreme Edition processor, [b<]expected[/b<] to start shipping in October." You've changed an estimate into a firm date.

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      Nobody [b<][i<]expects[/i<][/b<] the Intel inquisition!

        • smilingcrow
        • 2 years ago

        Except for Qualcomm.

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 2 years ago

      I’ve restored the qualifiers, sorry.

        • chuckula
        • 2 years ago

        Putting in a purported would earn you bonus points.

          • Neutronbeam
          • 2 years ago

          Purportedly.

    • Duct Tape Dude
    • 2 years ago

    All this scrambling to counter AMD has left a lot of gaps in that table.

    I imagine Intel management the last few weeks has been a lot like Spaceball One reacting to secret hyperjets :
    [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk7VWcuVOf0[/url<]

      • the
      • 2 years ago

      I’m actually surprised that the 12 core chip doesn’t have its clock speeds or launch date set. It is reportedly the same die as the 10 core chip but fully enabled. (Or to put that another way, the 10 core chip has 2 cores disabled from a 12 core die.)

      The one thing that does stand out in the table is that you have to spend $1000 USD to get a chip with 44 PCIe lanes now.

      Threadripper on the other hand reportedly will offer 64 PCIe lanes for far less. The raw core count to me isn’t Threadripper’s biggest selling point. Three full bandwidth PCIe slots and three M.2/U.2 drives without the need for a bridge chip is very impressive.

      Edit: Well there is a launch window but those don’t need to be firm dates.

        • ChicagoDave
        • 2 years ago

        [quote<]The one thing that does stand out in the table is that you have to spend $1000 USD to get a chip with 44 PCIe lanes now. Threadripper on the other hand reportedly will offer 64 PCIe lanes for far less. The raw core count to me isn't Threadripper's biggest selling point. Three full bandwidth PCIe slots and three M.2/U.2 drives without the need for a bridge chip is very impressive. [/quote<] Bingo, you hit the nail on the head. When I saw the pricing for the latest HEDT CPUs and saw the cheapest 44 lane was 1k, I gave up on Intel for at least another gen or two. I'm hoping Threadripper isn't too expensive, as I'm looking for tons of PCIe bw direct to the CPU, not going through the chipset. I'm guessing there will be a low core, and low-mid level featured Threadripper CPU that will fit the bill, but we'll have to see pricing and features. Intel's low end HEDT offerings simply don't make sense to me. Unless there really are a lot of people who "buy into a platform" and upgrade to a $1,000-$1,500 CPU a year or two down the line. I sure as hell don't.

        • VincentHanna
        • 2 years ago

        It’s a little less of a selling point because SLI/Crossfire is being terribly underutilized this generation. Most of the reviews I’ve seen seem to indicate that it’s either enabled, or not enabled, with not much wiggle room in between.

        I honestly have no idea what I’d do with more than about 32 lanes…(note 32 is greater than 22…)

      • TEAMSWITCHER
      • 2 years ago

      It’s been working on me. Getting an 8-Core Intel Skylake-X chip for only $100 more than Ryzen seems like a good value. The Intel part has TurboBoost 3.0 and will hit 4.5 GHz. I can have my cake .. and eat it too.

        • POLAR
        • 2 years ago

        What is wrong with you

        • Magic Hate Ball
        • 2 years ago

        Hmm, or you could buy an R7 1700 with adequate cooler included for $329, which means you’re paying $270 more as well as the motherboard cost increase since you only need a B350 motherboard to OC with Ryzen.

        If you want max performance, regardless of cost, yes you’re going down a good road, but don’t cherry pick models to make an imaginary price parity.

          • chuckula
          • 2 years ago

          Pretending that the 1800X doesn’t exist is also cherry picking, and if you really want to get into it then there’s a $389 6-core Skylake X that might not beat the 1800X at every single productivity benchmark but is 1. Definitely going to win *some* productivity benchmarks since we already saw the old 6800K holding its own; and 2. Definitely going to win pretty much every gaming benchmark, and yes, games still count.

          Oh, and while we’re talking about cherry-picking: Saying you should overclock the RyZen parts while pretending that’s not an option for Skylake X is yet another form of cherry picking.

            • raddude9
            • 2 years ago
            • chuckula
            • 2 years ago

            Where’s my apology for the personal attack you launched about AMD’s RyZen price cut… that never happened.

            [url<]http://www.pcworld.com/article/3200040/computers/no-amd-didnt-slash-ryzen-prices-ahead-of-threadripper-launch.html[/url<] As for 6 core Ryzen parts, sure they exist. We can talk about them vs. Coffee Lake in August. As for the 7800X, I'm pretty sure it will do OK running at 4.5GHz or so.

            • raddude9
            • 2 years ago
            • raddude9
            • 2 years ago
            • chuckula
            • 2 years ago

            STFU, it’s not my responsibility to babysit you.

            But if you insist:

            [quote<]Ahh, the famous Chuckula "objectivity". Objectively, it plain to see that the Ryzen 7's have been selling well, that's obvious on any of the publicly available sales rankings. Oh wait, cue some more faux-outrage, your definition of "wildfire" is probably that they have to out-sell intel 5-1. Why are you bringing up the GPU mining thing again? It's just to have another little dig at AMD again isn't it. And you really think your view of these opposing companies is balanced enough to have an objective opinion. [/quote<] [url<]https://techreport.com/news/32030/amd-and-newegg-drop-prices-on-ryzen-7-cpus?post=1038882[/url<] That was in response to a 100% correct analysis I had that AMD wasn't cutting RyZen's price "in response" to anything. Oh, and I was not only right about GPU mining (since unlike you, I understand this thing called "supply & demand") but I was ahead of the curve now that the latest mining craze is in full swing. And I was even more right that I originally thought: AMD never cut RyZen's price. They didn't "respond" to anything at all. Didn't stop you from posting your usual personal attack when I was right (again) though. Having said that, 95% of what you post is flamebait anyway. The last time you attempted to make an independent post that wasn't insulting Intel it was to show your ignorance about how cooling inside of cases works and multiple people had to tell you how deeply you misunderstand high school level physics.

            • raddude9
            • 2 years ago
            • Redocbew
            • 2 years ago

            Not any of these CPUs. Max TDP for those cases is listed at 95 watts with a recommended TDP of 65 watts. Plus, you might have noticed that all the fanless models are sprouting fins which might actually be functional in this case(hah!), and they use heatpipes to transfer the heat directly to the case exactly as I said it would need to in order to make any difference. It’s almost like they know the heat from a CPU won’t just jump across so much empty air space, and that the whole fanless thing just doesn’t work as well.

            Ugh, seriously, I don’t know why I even bother. Now I’m being like [url=https://xkcd.com/386/<]this guy[/url<] also.

            • raddude9
            • 2 years ago
            • Redocbew
            • 2 years ago

            Heat will naturally flow from hot to cold in order to achieve a balance. However, it could take hours, days, or even longer depending on the situation. That’s not the same thing as promoting forced heat transfer and saying “this will help keep my PC cooler”.

            • chuckula
            • 2 years ago

            Once again, the point is not that wood conducts heat as well as metal.

            Nobody except you said that, and pointing it out in no way proves you are right.

            The point is that conducting heat through the case is [b<]not[/b<] how cooling in modern PCs works, so whether or not a solid panel on the exterior of a case that is not designed to act as a heatsink is made of wood or metal is irrelevant. This isn't just theoretical either. I own a Fractal Define XL R2 that includes bitumen sound dampening panels that are attached directly to the case. Furthermore, the Fractal Define R5 includes the same bitumen panels and is part of TR's recommendations in its system guides. Guess what: Bitumen has practically the same thermal conductivity as ... you guessed it... wood! [url<]http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html[/url<] Doesn't prevent my four year old 4770K from running 24/7 at 4.7GHz, because [b<]the case is not a radiator except for extremely specialized builds that are in no way "normal" cases[/b<].

            • raddude9
            • 2 years ago
            • VincentHanna
            • 2 years ago

            Uhhmm why is the 7800X “definitely going to win just about every gaming benchmark?”

            Sorry I’m slow.

            • chuckula
            • 2 years ago

            Look at the 7600K (don’t even bother with the 7700K although with a little light overclocking the 7800X will have the same clockspeeds).

            Look at its game scores. You can see them here: [url<]https://techreport.com/r.x/2017_04_11_AMD_s_Ryzen_5_1600X_and_Ryzen_5_1500X_CPUs_reviewed_part_one/ryzen5-value.jpg[/url<] Realize that the 7800X is the same basic architecture except with more cores, clockspeeds that are similar to the 7600K and has 4 times the L2 cache that ain't going to hurt in a game workload either. We can have interesting debates about how Skylake X will perform in more exotic workloads, but it's not even worth talking about game performance vs. RyZen and especially the ThreadRipper that is going to be OK in the right multi-threaded workloads but literally amplifies the problems that regular RyZen already has in games.

        • Krogoth
        • 2 years ago

        It will be a decent-value. The only potential issues is whatever or not they require the stupid “SSD M.2 RAID DLC key” non-sense for X299 platform.

    • chuckula
    • 2 years ago

    Pre orders on June 19, but the more important question is: when does the buffalo ride again?

      • the
      • 2 years ago

      How many buffalos? How meaty are they? Are they cooked well done?

        • chuckula
        • 2 years ago

        Well done?!!?!!?

        You have disrespected the spirit of the noble Buffalo that sacrificed itself for your burger!

          • the
          • 2 years ago

          More than that was sacrificed as bacon is good.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 2 years ago

          Hey, man, bison meat is exceptionally tasty.

            • chuckula
            • 2 years ago

            I fully agree. That’s why you respect it with a nice medium rare grill.

    • End User
    • 2 years ago

    Fingers crossed that TR gets their hands on an i9-7900X and overclocks it. 🙂

    • DPete27
    • 2 years ago

    Intel: “You thought $1,000 was a lot for a flagship CPU? Watch this.”

      • DrDominodog51
      • 2 years ago

      [quote<]Intel: "You thought $1,000 was a lot for a flagship CPU? Hold my beer."[/quote<] FTFY

      • Krogoth
      • 2 years ago

      It is hardly new.

      Intel used to common beyond $1,000″ back in the 1990s with their flagship line-up. AMD were in a similar boat when K8s were smashing Intel’s Netburst offerings during 2004-2005.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        No reason to get hyperbolic about AMD’s pricing when they were king. The Athlon 64 FX-53 launched at $800.

        [url<]https://techreport.com/review/6799/amd-athlon-64-3800-and-fx-53-processors/16[/url<] Not to say that's not a breathtaking price or anything, but it's plenty high on its own without you giving it a 25% markup.

          • Krogoth
          • 2 years ago

          I remembered that FX-55 and FX-60 were going well over $999 back when they debut though while Intel was still stuck on Netburst stuff. It is just before Intel unleashed the Core 2 family.

    • Bomber
    • 2 years ago

    All this grid does is remind me how much I love my 5820k at 4.5ghz going on nearly 3 years later.

      • Krogoth
      • 2 years ago

      The upcoming 6-core Coffee Lake chips will be its spiritual successor to the masses.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This