Intel price list reveals Core i9-7920X cache size and base clock

Intel has released its latest CPU price list, and right at the top is a pretty interesting little morsel of information: some clock speed and cache size info for the as-yet-unreleased Core i9-7920X. I'll save you the trouble of looking it up: that's a 12-core, 24-thread CPU, and we now know it'll offer 16.5 MB of L3 cache. The listing sets the CPU's base clock at 2.9 GHz, as well, which is a pretty significant step down from the Core i9-7900X's 3.3 GHz base clock.

The addition of the Core i9-7920X appears to be the only change on Intel's price sheet, but that's no real surprise given that the last one came out just three days ago. The listing, which you can see above, prices the new CPU at $1,189. That's $200 for two more cores over the 7900X, and still a pretty far cry from the $1,723 that Intel is still asking for the last-generation 10-core Core i7-6950X. Of course, $1200 seems like it could be a tough price point for this part, given that the Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and its 12 cores and 24 threads will go for just $799. The 16-core, 32-thread Threadripper 1950X will still undercut the i9-7920X by about $200. We don't know how any of these parts will perform yet, though, so we'll withhold final judgment until we have performance numbers of our own to judge by.

Unfortunately, the Core i9-7920X isn't on Intel ARK yet, so we don't know what its boost frequencies (standard Turbo Boost as well as Turbo Boost Max) will be. We would presume, given this CPU's purported 140W TDP, that it will not have the same 4.3 GHz Turbo frequency as the i9-7900X, though it may maintain the 4.5 GHz two-core boost speeds from that chip. Only time will tell, though, as Intel hasn't said a word yet. Hat tip to VideoCardz for the spot.

Comments closed
    • Sahrin
    • 2 years ago

    Intel isn’t just trying to command a markup – their yield problem is substantial. They can’t afford to sell chips as cheaply as AMD is, because they are building much larger, lower yielding and binning parts. AMDs strategy here is really impressive – kick Intel right in the balls and use their fab advantage against them.

    Within three years Intel will be building small die CPUs just like AMD.

    • anotherengineer
    • 2 years ago

    Wow it’s worse than youtube posts here.

    No wonder I don’t come around often anymore.

      • Krogoth
      • 2 years ago

      Fanboys are will be fanboys.

      They can’t address the flaws of their favorite team.

    • Bensam123
    • 2 years ago

    Yup, I’m sure the performance numbers for these will vary wildly from the Skylake processors. Must be tough at Intel swallowing the idea of having to discount all their processors by 30-50% depending what rung you’re at.

    They’re still coasting on the AMD hate and ‘Intel is best’ zeitgeist though. People will eventually figure it out.

      • Krogoth
      • 2 years ago

      Intel is trying retain their massive margins as much as possible because they feel that Core and Xeon brands can justify that premium.

      • Klimax
      • 2 years ago

      Ehm, right now with those prices there is balance – more power -> Intel, cost saving -> AMD
      If Intel drops prices as you suggest, AMD is gone. They don’t have margins nor performance to survive such upheaval. (AMD is sort of holding onto performance/price ratio)

      Be careful what you really wish for!

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

        I think Treadripper will perform better with less powerdraw.

          • Bensam123
          • 2 years ago

          Yup… People are basing the 16c vs 10c off of one benchmark. If it scales linearly with a lot of benchmarks from R7 Vs 7700k the 16c is going to completely trounce the 10c part.

          Also less power consumption which people seemed to care a awfuuuul lot about before Ryzen came along.

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            Power consumption is a massive factor. This isn’t the late 1990s and early 2000s anymore.

            Intel fans love to harp on Bulldozer’s and Pilediver’s “massive” power consumption back in the day but now completely turn a blind eye when the high-core count Skylake-X chips run into the same issue especially when overclocked.

            • chuckula
            • 2 years ago

            Funny how power consumption suddenly became important after being irrelvant since 2006 or so. Anyhoo, if having a bunch of cores with low power consumption numbers was actually something you cared about legitimately, you would have been excited last year when 16-core 65 watt Xeon-D servers launched.

            TR’s own review shows the supposedly “power hogging” 7900X on a platform that has more RAM and more power-consuming features than the AM4 platform practically tying the supposedly efficient 1800X* in Blender: [url<]https://techreport.com/r.x/2017_06_18_Intel_s_Core_i9_7900X_CPU_reviewed/taskenergy.png[/url<] When you consider all the extra board features that just don't exist on AM4 including two extra channels of RAM, the 7900X won a direct CPU to CPU comparison. * And before you act like the 1800X "doesn't count" it beat all the other RyZen chips in TR's most recent review: [url<]https://techreport.com/r.x/2017_06_02_AMD_s_Ryzen_5_CPUs_reviewed_part_two/taskenergy.png[/url<]

            • Bensam123
            • 2 years ago

            Yup…

        • BurntMyBacon
        • 2 years ago

        [quote=”Klimax”<]If Intel drops prices as you suggest, AMD is gone. They don't have margins nor performance to survive such upheaval.[/quote<] AMD has better margins right now than they've had in a long time. Also, their core size is smaller than Intel's IIRC. They certainly don't have as much room to maneuver as Intel, but they aren't exactly backed into the proverbial corner at the moment. Nonetheless, you are correct in the long term. If Intel and AMD pushed into an endlessly escalating price war, AMD's position would lose viability first. AMD has put out a product for the first time since ... Athlon64 X2(?) that actually has enough worth to demand these prices. Rather than push into a price war when it is uncertain that AMD can supply the demand anyways, it would be better business practice to use this high margin time period to invest in the next architecture, pay down some of their debt, and, if all goes well, look towards a growth path again.

        • Krogoth
        • 2 years ago

        AMD has the performance and efficiency advantage in the 1P/2P server markets where AVX is still a non-factor. Intel only has an massive advantage in HPC (where AVX actually matters) and mainstream market due to having a solid SoC solution for portable/desktops.

        Intel can easily hemorrhage the massive margins on entire line-up and sell them next to nothing so they could kill off AMD. However, their shareholders wouldn’t like this and FTC would be starting to breath down Intel’s neck.

          • Gadoran
          • 2 years ago

          Who say this?? have you hard numbers?? it is only a your statement apparently.
          If you don’t want AVX 512 because they are power hungry….just disable it on the bios. If you don’t like the powerful AVX 2 unit of Xeons you can lower the clock speed on the bios, you will have less power draw and equal vector Fp performance vs Epyc.

          Your “AMD has the performance and efficiency advantage in the 1P/2P server markets ” is idiotic in the best case. Stop to troll please

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            Just check out the reviews that are slowly creeping out in the field.

            Here is a starter for the lazy.

            [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade[/url<]

    • defaultluser
    • 2 years ago

    5% higher performance on-paper for 20% higher cost. Sounds like a winner to me!

    Yet-another crazy OC special from Intel.

      • Klimax
      • 2 years ago

      5%? Only in AMD’s dreams.

        • NoOne ButMe
        • 2 years ago

        With 500Mhz (17%) higher clockspeed, and 4 extra core, for MT, 5% faster for the Intel system sounds optimistic towards Intel.

        Gotta see turbo states, I guess AMD will do 100MHZXFR, and apply at default for most loads, but Intel’s turbo will also apply for most loads.

        If this Intel part and AMD 12C TR stay at base, I think win depends on workload. As reviews seemed some applications SKLX flies over Broadwell, many other ones it is equal or a few rare slower.

        • Zizy
        • 2 years ago

        Where did you find AMD?
        12*2.9 = 34.8, 10*3.3 = 33.
        5% gain for the fresh new chip vs the “old” 10C one. For 200$ = 20% higher price.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 2 years ago

          That’s assuming zero turbo.

    • Krogoth
    • 2 years ago

    i9-7920X and i9-7980X make absolutely no sense. They have almost no overclocking headroom even with you were to throw in exotic cooling. HEDT-types that want to go Intel are going opting for Sliver “Xeons” since you at least get ECC support and overclocking is pointless on high-core count Skylake-X chips.

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      [quote<]They have almost no overclocking headroom even with you were to throw in exotic cooling.[/quote<] So where are your overclocking results posted?

        • Krogoth
        • 2 years ago

        7900X reviews speak for themselves. Just throw in extra cores on the same package and what do you think is going to happen when you attempt to overclock it?

        7920X and 7980X are just knee-jerk reactions from marketing types at Intel who are trying to keep up appearances in the “core-count” contest for HEDT (going beyond 12-threads is overkill for this market). They never intended to release high-core count Skylake-Xs as i9s. The i7-i9 Socket 2066 line-up was supposed to stop at 7900X. The high-core count Skylake-X chips were meant to sold only as Xeons SKUs for certain niches that prefer core count over clockspeed.

          • chuckula
          • 2 years ago

          [quote<]7900X reviews speak for themselves.[/quote<] Yes, overclocking north of 4.5 GHz on all cores and hitting 5 GHz with delidding certainly does speak for itself, and only in Krogoth land does that kind of performance on a 10 core CPU running torture test software that RyZen literally can't execute because it doesn't have the silicon count as "no overclocking headroom". I'll once again make the same challenge that I've made before: Show RyZen's superiority by getting an 8 core 1800X clocked stable at 4.2GHz with all cores stable in the same tests where the i9 7900X is "failing" by running at 5.0 GHz. Bonus points if the 7290X with 50% more cores can run at 4.2GHz as a sign of its "failure".

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            That’s with exotic cooling at the helm my friend. You cannot obtain with air-cooling and most commercial AIO water-cooling solutions. 7920X and 7980X are going to struggle with overclocking even with exotic cooling at the helm. The power delivery on Socket 2066 boards are going to be push their limits.

            High-core count Skylake-X chips were never meant for high clockspeed same deal with the high-core count Epyc chips.

            The problem isn’t architecture limits (Ryzen 1 is architectural limited to ~4Ghz). The issue for Skylake-X chip is thermal and power consumption walls. Intel tried pulling the same ridiculous stunts during Prescott-era with P4 Xtreme Edition chips and pushed for BTX form factor.

            • chuckula
            • 2 years ago

            [quote<]That's with exotic cooling at the helm my friend.[/quote<] Der8aure using an H100 on a 4.9GHz overclocked 7900X where he is intentionally [b<]trying[/b<] to draw as much power as is humanly possible is not "exotic cooling". [url<]https://techreport.com/news/32245/rog-rampage-vi-apex-shows-simple-tweaks-can-tame-x299-vrms[/url<] But tell you what, since I'm getting somewhat tired of the blatant double standards around here, I'm taking back my nice challenge from 2 posts ago and stepping it up: If an i9 7920X can overlock better than the 12 core threadripper in any scenario whatsoever (and that means single core performance too) then you take a nice dose of STFU with the FUD about how Skylake can't be overclocked. It was never very intelligent, and now it's just dull.

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            Read that article again my friend.

            [quote<]The professional overclocker presents test results that show his i9-7900X-plus-Rampage-VI-Apex test system stable with a 4.9 GHz overclock. The CPU was pulling a hair-raising 340W from the VRMs in this setup, but the system wasn't throttling due to the temperatures of that circuitry. The processor was limited instead by the thermal dissipation capacity of Hartung's liquid cooler. Attaching a small fan to the VRM heatsink reduced VRM temperatures from a hot-but-within-component-specification 103° C to a much-less-alarming 87° C under these conditions. [/quote<] That's with a high-end water-cooling AIO kit. The motherboard needed extra cooling for the power delivery. He got a golden egg on top of that. Please drop the silly blue-tinted shades. Even an die-hard Intel shill would admit that this is an massive embarrassment on the same level as Pilediver FX 9590.

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            …that’s not “exotic” by any means. What, exactly, is your point here? That high core count CPUs require decent (AIO) cooling and perhaps a bit of extra VRM airflow if overclocking like crazy?

            This is literally a nonissue. The FX9370, on the other hand, was an embarrassing attempt to sell a pre-overclocked part that performed poorly and *throttled at stock* in many of the supported boards.

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            It is a massive turn-off for people who actually give a hoot about HEDT platforms. i7-7800K and i7-7820 are at very least guaranteed to get decent overclocking millage without having deal with thermal and power delivery issues with your Socket 2066 board.

            This isn’t the 1990s and early 2000s anymore when it was norm to use exotic cooling and super-loud air-cooling to get those crazy overclocking.

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            Um, no it isn’t. HEDT platforms are dominated by two markets:

            Overclockers (who have good cooling)
            Workstations (who don’t overclock)

            You’re making a mountain out of a molehill here. There’s nothing exotic about an AIO water cooling system.

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            Acutally, it is pretty much power users and workstations.

            Overclockers have always been a vocal minority even in the HEDT market.

            Power users =! overclockers

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            …so you’re agreeing with me?

            Please, explain why it’s such an epic fail for overclockers who you admit make up almost none of the market who aren’t the target for the chip anyway. 🙂

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            It is an epic failure for overclockers because most overclockers don’t like to resort to exotic cooling for 24/7 operation. They only resort to such solutions for competition and bragging rights. They discard it once the novelty goes away.

            Overclocking is mostly about getting extra performance without having to deal too much thermal, stability and noise headaches. i9-7920X and i9-7980X are sub-optimal choices for this.

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            120mm AIO coolers are not exotic.

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            They are borderline exotic when compared to what most of the market uses. They are basically simplified water-cooling kits of the old days (You got separate water-blocks, piping, water pump and reservoir).

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            …most of the market is not overclockers buying 10+ core chips and running them at the limit.

            Please return to reality.

            • chuckula
            • 2 years ago

            Watch the video.

            The chip runs at 4.9GHz. That’s not “throttling.”

            H100 cooler that is commonly used on rigs all over the place. Hell, I have an arguably better cooler from 2013 on my 4 core Haswell right now. There’s nothing “exotic” about it.

            But I’m going to make this stupid simple on you: Get an H100. Get an 1800X. Overclock all cores on the 1800X to 4.5GHz in Prime95 and crow about how the i9 7900X running two more cores and probably close to 5 times the raw performance at 4.9 GHz “can’t be overclocked.”

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            Moving goalposts eh?

            Also that 7900X 4.9Ghz doesn’t yield 5x the raw performance of a Ryzen R7 X1800@4.0Ghz either. It is much closer to twice the raw performance.

            • Srsly_Bro
            • 2 years ago

            He’s showing his true motives. He has to be right even when wrong. His ego demands it.

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            Nah, he just a silly shill that cannot see clearly when his favorite team made a poor move/play.

            • chuckula
            • 2 years ago

            Wanna bet?

            Because here’s the results webpage from the GIMPS project: [url<]http://www.mersenne.ca/bench.php?cpu=&l2=&orderby=fft1536[/url<] All numbers are time values so smaller is better and they are also single-core scores but the point of Prime95 is to run independent jobs in different cores. I chose the middle of the road FFT1536 there for fun but the other ones are pretty much the same. You'll see that they don't have the 7900X in there quite yet but the 6700K is well represented. So is the 1800X. If you scroll down the page far enough. Oh, and Prime95 is one of the few applications that actually does have AVX-512 codepaths. So maybe you are right: There's a good chance that when I said 5 times the performance I was lowballing the i9 by a big margin. Here's a fun chart for the older 6950X at 3GHz with a magical 4.3 GHz 1800X: [url<]http://www.mersenne.ca/throughput.php?cpu1=Intel%28R%29+Core%28TM%29+i7-6950X+CPU+%40+3.00GHz%7C256%7C25600&mhz1=3000&cpu2=AMD+Ryzen+7+1800X+Eight-Core+Processor%7C512%7C16384&mhz2=4300[/url<] Assume that the i9 7900X at a higher clockspeed is a little slower than the 6950X. Then weep.

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            Cherry picking one application mate?

            It is not a secret that Intel is much faster with AVX since it is their baby. Here is the crux of problem, AVX is only utilized in HPC and synthetic benchmarks at this time. It will be likely be the case for the foreseeable future.

            The workloads that putting those Core i7-i9 will be put through not take full advantage of AVX so that magical “5x more” raw performance figure quickly falls apart.

            • chuckula
            • 2 years ago

            I “cherry picked” the exact application that everybody like you is using to “prove” that the i9 7900X can’t be overclocked dumbass.

            The same torture-test benchmark where the i9 runs 10 full cores at speeds substantially beyond anything out there short of other Intel chips with substantially lower core counts.

            • curtisb
            • 2 years ago

            Who moved the goalposts there? There is nothing exotic about an AIO cooler that can be purchased from Newegg or Amazon, and installed as is.

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            It is borderline exotic as far as most of the market is concerned. Most enthusiast and HEDT buyers aren’t throwing ~$150-$199 on high-end CPU cooling solutions.

            • Srsly_Bro
            • 2 years ago

            1800X @ 4.5 vs i9 7900X @ 4.9 with 2 more cores…and FIVE times the raw performance (of 1800x @ 4.5).

            It’s clear, Chuck. You win the Fanboy of TR. You win everything. You’ll keep on winning. You’ll win so much that one day you’ll get tired of winning. You make TR great. Thank you!

            Edit:

            And a nice -3 from what most likely is from ours truly. When truth hurts your ego, give -3.

            • chuckula
            • 2 years ago

            Put up or shutup: Show us a live demo of your 1800X at 4.5GHz running AVX-256 workloads on Prime95 and show the performance numbers, not just the power draw.

            Or if it’s “cheating” to require that magical 1800X with it’s holy soldered-IHS to run at an unreasonable 4.5 GHz, let’s drop it to 4.4, or 4.3, or 4.2. Hell, how about just getting all cores at 4.1GHz with an H100 since that’s the maximum out of the box turbo boost speed.

            I’m apparently “moving the goalposts” by setting intentionally lower standards for the RyZen chips to meet.

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            AVX-256 doesn’t matter outside of synthetic benchmarks and certain HPC applications which most certainly will not be running under Core i7-i9 systems.

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            Moving goalposts much?

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            No, chuck never stated that it was under AVX workloads. He merely stated that raw performance which is entirely too broad and makes himself look disingenuous at best.

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            Lol. Okay.

            • chuckula
            • 2 years ago

            Oh OK, so we can take AVX off the table then?

            So all those torture tests that rely on AVX to actually consume real electrical power are now off the table in the name of “fairness” to AMD?

            Sure thing. In that case the 7900X can probably do 5.2GHz on air cooling without breaking a sweat.

            How fast is the 1800X going again?

            • Klimax
            • 2 years ago

            X264 and x265, Blender and runtimes (GCC and VC++ at least) say hi and that’s just quick from my memory and about freely and publicly available part. MS SQL Server is using AVX too and I’d be surprised if other SQL or No-SQL database engines didn’t use it either.

            Dirt Showdown IIRC has AVX version too.

            So this post is brutally wrong.

            • Srsly_Bro
            • 2 years ago

            YOU made the claim and you want ME to disprove your claim? I think onus is on the one making the claim to prove it…or it’s just noise. The ball is and has been in your backyard. Toss it over when you’re ready and we can play catch. If the numbers match or exceed your “times 5”, I’ll concede that the Great One is right.

            #yourmove

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            #let’smakeupludicrousscenariostodefendourfavoritebrand.amd

            • Srsly_Bro
            • 2 years ago

            I don’t have a favorite brand lol. I have several Intel systems and only 1 old AMD system, but let me #dontassumemybrandloyaltybro

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            I get that chuckula is inflammatory, but he’s not wrong here.

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            Nah, he is just spin doctoring like a die-hard Intel shill.

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            Nah, you’re just reading too much into everything to justify your position.

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            I think the trolls / AMD fanboys can’t see the forest for the trees.

            No 1800X will run at 4.5 GHz. I wish they would, since I would love to knock Intel off it’s nice little monopoly hill…but until AMD chips clock higher, chuckula wins here.

            There’s no bias, there’s no magic. Intel has the crown in raw performance and as much as many would wish Intel to be the underdog here…it’s not something based in reality. The new i9 platform is not flawed any more than the FX platform from AMD was flawed with low IPC and ludicrous power usage when overclocked.

            • Srsly_Bro
            • 2 years ago

            Chuckula said 4.5 1800x. He’s the troll. Anyone who has been paying attention to Ryzen knows the ceiling for the uArch is ~4.1Ghz.

            You’re barking up the wrong tree, bro.

            Go read your boy Chuck’s post when he made the first assertion that an 1800x could do 4.5Ghz..

            Kthxbro

            It’s clear you don’t even read either.

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            That’s kinda the point…but alas, you missed it.

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            Intel doesn’t have the crown in raw performance anymore. Threadripper and upcoming Epyc have more raw performance in most applications and workloads. Intel only wins decisively in AVX-depended workloads. AVX is really just a long-term bid by Intel to fight against the encroaching threat from Nvidia’s GPGPUs in the HPC market.

            The power efficiency and density battlefiled is much more contested though.

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            If you say so. My day job is HPC, so what do I know?

            • Klimax
            • 2 years ago

            Evidence?

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            That’s only under high-end/exotic cooling. You will almost spend double the platform cost over a 12-Threadripper system for a somewhat higher throughput. 16-core Threadripper will outpace that overclocked 7920X chip under non-AVX workloads that are hilariously paralleled for less. However neither platform is an optimal choice for a workstation build.

            i7-7800K and i7-7820K are the killer deals here. They outpace the regular Ryzen at workstation workloads with better I/O expandability and don’t cost an arm and leg to budget unlike the Threadrippers and high-core count Skylake chips.

            • chuckula
            • 2 years ago

            Your original post is a factually wrong troll that the 7290X can’t be overclocked that was made with zero proof whatsoever and is in direct contradiction to real evidence that’s already available. The only “goal post” moving going on here is your delusion that overclocking doesn’t count when people use commercially available coolers that have been on the market for years (funny how that “standard” doesn’t apply to overclocking AMD hardware though).

            I’m done with the conversation being that 10 core Skylake X can’t be overclocked simply because doing so requires a cooler you can buy from Amazon/Neweg/etc. and that the Skylake clocked at 4.9GHz is using a [i<]LOWER END[/i<] cooler than is even included in TR's own system guide: [url<]https://techreport.com/review/31846/the-tech-report-system-guide-may-2017-edition/9[/url<] It's especially asinine when TR itself is running a story about how more "exotic" coolers are being prepped for Threadripper right now: [url<]https://techreport.com/news/32262/arctic-cooling-liquid-freezer-aios-stand-ready-for-threadripper[/url<] Funny how using a cooler with two 120mm fans is some Area-51 level alien technology that nobody has ever heard of but a bigger radiator with three cooling fans for Threadripper shows just how good it is...

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            Threadrippers are toasty chips too and they will not overclock well either but that’s more due to architectural limitations, but thermal limits would be a problem as well.

            The point is that high-core count CPUs are not optimal choices if you want to decent overclocking ceiling without resorting to high-end/exotic cooling solutions. You have deal with thermal and power delivery walls (hope that motherboard’s VRM/MOSFETs don’t die on you in next year or so for pumping 300W+ into that socket) as well as hoping one of the “cores” doesn’t bail out. It always has been that way.

            7800K and 7820K are much more attractive buys for potential Socket 2066 overclockers since they can easily outperform the regular Ryzen line-up and have more PCIe 3.0 lanes too. They can catch-up to the 12-Core Threadripper at stock for less. The only advantage that Threadrippers have over i7-7800K and i7-7802K is their 66 PCIe 3.0 lanes on the platform.

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            You keep talking about AIO coolers as “exotic” or “high-end”.

            They’re not. Custom loops? Sure.

            Phase change? Absolutely.

            A cooler you can buy every day on Amazon, plug it in, and have it go for years without maintenance? That’s neither high-end or exotic.

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            Decent AIO cooler kits are borderline “high-end” cooling because of their price point. They still do require occasional maintenance and monitoring to make sure that pipes and sealing aren’t leaking and the pump works.

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            Keep diggin’ that hole.

            • chuckula
            • 2 years ago

            [quote<]Decent AIO cooler kits are borderline "high-end" cooling because of their price point.[/quote<] Good. Then in your own words you just said that high-end chips like the 7900X don't even need high-end cooling even in synthetic torture test situations while they are heavily overclocked. They just need "borderline high-end" cooling according to your own statement. Sounds like Krogoth just committed a Freudian slip.

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            The said kits were barely able to manage the heat of a fully-loaded, overclocked 7900X for the short-term. I dread at the long-term.

            The thermal issues will be worse for upcoming 7920X, 7960X and 7980X chips. Threadrippers/Epyc chips are in the same thermal boat as well.

            Stop pretending that any of this is a “good thing” or even desirable.

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            Fully loaded and overclocked…and you’re complaining about needing decent cooling.

            I don’t understand your argument, if you have one. Is it that high end chips running at high volts and clocks are harder to cool than stock chips or chips with low core counts? Do you think anyone disagrees with that statement?

            • beck2448
            • 2 years ago

            The speculation about what some cpu or gpu does is really funny. When products are actually on sale there will be a ton of reviews that will tell the real story.

      • Klimax
      • 2 years ago

      You’re mistaking Ryzen for Skylake-X.

        • Krogoth
        • 2 years ago

        Most of the Ryzen chips make perfect sense for their price points. The same cannot be said for high-core count Skylake-X chips.

        Their overclocking headroom is more limited by architecture as mentioned before not by thermal and power consumption walls which are a massive problem for high-core count chips from both camps.

      • Kougar
      • 2 years ago

      You are making wild assumptions. The 7920X should have more headroom than the 7900X simply due to over 40% of the die area being dark silicon. All that space acting as buffers between active cores will help with the thermal constraints.

      There’s so much of it that one could conceivably end up with a square of 12 active cores, with the 6 deactivated cores in the middle to provide a spacing buffer. That doesn’t include the two deactivated memory controllers. Having such a larger die will necessitate larger waterblocks and therefore more contact area for dissipating the heat over say, a 7900X. So if anything the 7920X chips should be better overclockers than the 7900X chips.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 2 years ago

    [quote<] The 16-core, 32-thread Threadripper 1950X will still undercut the i9-7920X by about $300.[/quote<] more like $200, right? Or did Threadripper get a price drop while I wasn't looking?

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      So they rounded up slightly!

        • willmore
        • 2 years ago

        So there’s another math bug in the i9-7920X? *sigh* Wanders off to caress his double sigma 386DX16.

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 2 years ago

      My mistake, fixed.

    • ronch
    • 2 years ago

    No thanks. I going with Ryzen. Still.

    (Yeah, we know, Ronch!)

      • Jigar
      • 2 years ago

      This is just wrong Ronch – *Insert something good about Intel*

        • ronch
        • 2 years ago

        Don’t get me wrong, Intel does this CPU thing extremely well. But praise needs to be given to a much smaller company that manages to compete, sometimes barely, against Intel. Just look at Ryzen. Or even the ill-fated Bulldozer lineage. Designing a leading edge CPU is rocket science.

    • curtisb
    • 2 years ago

    [quote<]as-yet-unreleased[/quote<] Shouldn't that be "as-yet-released," meaning it hasn't been released yet? Also, $1189 - $999 != $300. 🙂

      • titan
      • 2 years ago

      Nope, as-yet-unreleased is correct. “As yet” can be rewritten as “currently” or “still”.

      An alternate way to write it would be yet-to-be-released.

      But, yeah, 1189 is only 190 more than 999.

        • curtisb
        • 2 years ago

        It just reads weird. The “as yet” isn’t even necessary, but that’s just nitpicking.

          • MOSFET
          • 2 years ago

          If you say it enough, it sounds weird enough. But I do believe it to be relatively synonymous with “at this point in time.”

    • Phartindust
    • 2 years ago

    Ryzen Threadripper 1920X: 12 Cores, 24 Threads, 3.5/4.0 GHz (Base Clock/Precision Boost) $799

    So Intel is going to sell the 7920 for $400 more, and it has a base clock that is 6ooMhz slower?

    Weird.

      • NoOne ButMe
      • 2 years ago

      Something glued together, something something AMD not optimized, something something IPC, something something Intel CEO needs a new car.

      • Krogoth
      • 2 years ago

      Because the folks at Intel think their brand name is worth that much. Facts be damned

      Intel is trying to pull an Apple

        • tacitust
        • 2 years ago

        Not really. The most salient fact is that Intel is still far and away the established brand leader in CPUs. They are playing from a position of strength. Until AMD proves they can execute their roll out successfully, including ramping up to volume and being a dependable supplier, customers will be leery about switching to AMD, and Intel can and will capitalize on that in the meantime.

        Also, list prices are not the bottom line. Corporations buying in volume get discounts, and wherever AMD has also been invited to bid, Intel always has the flexibility to offer deeper
        discounts if necessary.

          • ronch
          • 2 years ago

          I’d hate to admit it, but you’re right. This isn’t like AMD or Nvidia where neither really holds the rights to the architecture or anything. With Intel and AMD, Intel is the rich kid on the block that has all the toys and AMD is that poor little kid next door that knocks on their neighbor’s house and asks to play with the rich kid. AMD may have some toys too, but nowhere near as many as Intel does and they’re playing in Intel’s house, by Intel’s rules, under Intel’s permission. And it’s gonna stay that way no matter what as long as AMD is selling x86 processors. There’s no way Intel will let things be any different even if AMD becomes very successful.

            • RAGEPRO
            • 2 years ago

            That’s not really true, though, at least from a patent and technology licensing perspective. AMD is the creator of x86-64 and was the first company to stick the memory controller on-die on an x86 chip; it was the first to start doing multi-core, so on and so forth. AMD has easily as much control over the ISA as Intel does.

            • ronch
            • 2 years ago

            People love citing AMD64. Ok then, but only AMD64 really made it big, the memory controller was destined to be integrated, with or without AMD. All of AMD’s other efforts to add to the x86 ISA didn’t really become popular and they all pretty much fizzled out. 3DNow, XOP/SSE5, FMA4, HSA, SSE4a (well this is a temporary extension anyway). And lest we forget, AMD64 simply extended the registers and added some new instructions but also includes SSE as parts of its specification. Compare that to Intel which practically built x86 from scratch and continues to add instructions that AMD adopts later.

            • jihadjoe
            • 2 years ago

            AMD pillaged all of that tech from DEC’s rotting corpse! (aside from x86-64)

            • ronch
            • 2 years ago

            IIRC, based on a 1996 issue of PC Magazine, AMD didn’t explicitly poach DEC engineers. Rather, Dirk’s gang thought they wanted to do x86 and if they were gonna do it they had to do it at AMD. How could Jerry refuse Dirk’s entrance? That was probably the single best thing that happened to AMD. It’s just too bad Hector was afraid to get into a slugfest with Intel and allowed AMD to sit on the fundamental K7 architecture for too long, and greenlight Bulldozer on his watch (I reckon the BD project was started in late 2005).

            • smilingcrow
            • 2 years ago

            “AMD is the creator of x86-64 and was the first company to stick the memory controller on-die on an x86 chip; it was the first to start doing multi-core, so on and so forth. AMD has easily as much control over the ISA as Intel does.”

            Memory controllers and multiple cores have nothing to do with the ISA though.
            AMD has very little control of the ISA unless Intel concedes and apart from x86-64 they tend don’t.
            Its Intel’s baby and AMD have done remarkably well at times as the god parent but that’s what they are.

            • RAGEPRO
            • 2 years ago

            Yeah, you’re right, but that’s not really how courts work. “The first to do this in this context” can be nearly as important as “the first to ever do this.” Courts are awful.

        • ronch
        • 2 years ago

        IDF = Intel Distortion Field?

          • Klimax
          • 2 years ago

          Would require Intel’s part to have worse performance. Not the case.

          • BurntMyBacon
          • 2 years ago

          I thought IDF = Intel Developer Forum

        • ronch
        • 2 years ago

        Look at my reply to Tacitust below. But you know what? This is the exact reason why I root for AMD. For me, they’re the ‘other guys’ who have a small budget, working in a small rented garage, who manage to do the same thing as their far more resourceful competitor in a flashy business park with a yuuugge factory and sprawling acres of office space. For me, AMD is always the other chip that also runs all the apps Intel chips can run using an alternative method, an alternative architecture, sometimes just as well, seldom better, but often worse, but at the end of the day it was their alternative architecture done with a far smaller budget, and it works. And I just love the thought of it.

      • Klimax
      • 2 years ago

      Not really. 600MHz is very unlikely to erase IPC difference and AVX will take care of rest.

      There will be simply two classes of people: Those who need maximum performance and those who think they don’t need it.

      Reminder: Even old 5960x is able to battle well Ryzen with clock disadvantage.

        • Krogoth
        • 2 years ago

        AVX only matters for HPC market at this time they would be looking at Gold and Platinum Xeons none of these HEDT chips.

        5960X (It is a Haswell-E) would lose or tie against the Threadrippers in almost everything save for overclocking ceiling. It doesn’t have AVX512 that Skylake-X chips enjoy and allow their massive performance advantage in this area.

      • Vaughn
      • 2 years ago

      I guess intel is hoping the IPC advantage will save them.

    • chuckula
    • 2 years ago

    You see, I always miss out on the good deals.
    That July 11 price* was quite reasonable before Intel jacked it up on July 14.

    * You know, July 11 was Prime Day.
    Coincidence? I THINK SO!!

      • Firestarter
      • 2 years ago

      [quote<]Coincidence? I THINK SO!![/quote<] I concur. Do you concur?

        • freebird
        • 2 years ago

        I DO concur, but catch me if you can…

          • ronch
          • 2 years ago

          Can I just write you a check?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This