Rumor: Mysterious slide lists full Intel Core i9 specifications

Inveterate leaker WhyCry over at Videocardz got ahold of a slide yesterday that appears to list the full specifications for the remainder of Intel's Core i9 CPU series. In case you missed it, Jeff reviewed the Core i9-7900X a little while ago, but more than a month later that remains the only available CPU from Intel's fledgling Core i9 CPU line. WhyCry himself admits he can't verify the veracity of this chart, so get out the Morton sifter.

Image: Videocardz.com

Despite our skepticism, the chart more or less lines up with the numbers on Intel's price list for the Core i9-7920X. The slide also looks at least believable, all the way down to the formatting. Most of the purported info at hand isn't that surprising if one has had a look at the Xeon Scalable family on the Intel ARK. The Core i9 chips are likely close relatives of the new metallically-branded Xeons, and the relationship shows—assuming this slide is real, anyway.

The niftiest potential tidbit of data here is that every Core i9 chip (besides the i9-7900X) will supposedly scale up to 4.4 GHz on lightly-threaded workloads. That figure is for Turbo Boost Max 3.0, thereby limited to two-core clock boosts, but it's impressive in any case. The standard, non-"Max" Turbo Boost clocks on these parts aren't all that far behind at either 4.2 or 4.3 GHz. 

The purported 165 W TDP on the i9-7940X, i9-7960X, and i9-7980XE CPUs is all the more believable given the combination of clock rates and core counts here. A massive set of 18 Skylake-E cores clocked at up to 4.2 GHz will surely suck down some power. Hopefully Intel's elected to solder down the heat spreaders for these chips.

Comments closed
    • Zizy
    • 2 years ago

    Some quick calculations of performance, perf/w and perf/$ of i9 so you don’t need to bother with them. gigahertz * cores = gigacores (GC).

    7980XE: 46.8 GC, 0.28 GC/W, 23.4 GC/k$
    7960X: 44.8 GC, 0.27 GC/W, 26 GC/k$
    7940X: 43.4 GC, 0.26 GC/W, 31 GC/k$
    7920X: 34.8 GC, 0.25 GC/W, 29 GC/k$
    7900X: 33 GC, 0.24 GC/W, 33 GC/k$

    So, 7940X is a huge jump in performance and perf/$ cause of 165W, but perf/W is increasing steadily throughout the range.

    Compared to other i9, I believe 7920X is a complete waste of money as both parts around it offer higher perf/$ and the chip does not have any redeeming quality. 7960X is mostly pointless too – either part above or below will be a better purchase.

    I wonder how TR competes with this lineup.

    • ronch
    • 2 years ago

    Having only one 16-core in their lineup, I wonder if Intel is deliberately avoiding direct skirmishes with the Ryzen 1950X. At $999 the 1950X should also be the Smarter Choiceβ„’, hands down. Even if the 7960X offers better single thread performance, the thing is, you don’t buy a high core count chip and run single thread apps on it. More likely you have tons of highly threaded stuff otherwise you don’t shell out big bucks for chips like these.

    So yeah, I expect the 1950X to be both faster and cheaper.

      • SomeOtherGeek
      • 2 years ago

      But then you need to start up the program that needs to run a multi threaded process. What if that takes forever?

      • the
      • 2 years ago

      The i9 7960X appears to be setup for failure against the 1950X. It’ll cost $700 more and come in with lower base clocks. That base clock difference is going be the critical factor in overcoming SkyLake-X’s higher IPC. Faster and cheaper seems to be the expectation.

      Then there are the differences in the platform like 64 vs. 44 PCIe lanes too.

        • maroon1
        • 2 years ago

        i7 7820X runs same base clock as 1800X and yet beats it in almost every benchmarks and sometimes by over 30% (like in Handbrake video encoding)

        Also, the base clock don’t mean anything, because skylake-X can still boost even when all cores are active

          • the
          • 2 years ago

          Handbrake has recently been optimized for AVX2 where the i7 7820X has [i<]double[/i<] the theoretical throughput. The reality of Zen only being defeated by 30% is actually a good showing considering that Intel is throwing twice as much execution resources at the same problem. Sky Lake can indeed boost while all the cores are running but that is if there is thermal headroom. Running AVX based loads, I highly doubt that there is as Intel will under clock the chips running AVX code to keep power consumption in check. This is why there is now an AVX base block. AVX-512 is even more power hungry and can reduce clock speeds even further.

          • Zizy
          • 2 years ago

          Actually efficiency of these two chips is pretty similar, so if this holds for the big ones as well, TR should beat 7960X simply due to 180W vs 165W. Possibly be even comparable to the 18C one.

      • Krogoth
      • 2 years ago

      Unless you throw in high-end/exotic cooling solutions on 16-core and 18-core SKUs, because they really just “re-purposed” server-tier chips. They are the results of Intel marketing wanting to keep up appearances in the “core count” race.

        • Ummagumma
        • 2 years ago

        The apparent “core count” race seems like wasted time & energy. These kinds of “core counts” in a desktop part see foolish.

        Perhaps Intel is doing what you say and also silently thumbing their figurative nose at those that think they need/want such high “core counts” at their desktop.

        As always, there will be those with more money than brains, and they are willing to part with the former after losing what’s left of the latter.

    • moose17145
    • 2 years ago

    Am I the only one who thinks the x299 platform is just a total mess?

      • derFunkenstein
      • 2 years ago

      Nope.

      • fullbodydenim
      • 2 years ago

      Yeah it feels a bit rushed and the CPU are not having widespread availability yet as some have yet to even be released.

        • moose17145
        • 2 years ago

        Well not only that, but the fact you cannot get 44 pci-e lanes until you are willing to spend at least a grand on a processor ( a downgrade from x99 platform where you could get 40 lanes from the 6850K in the 600(ish) price bracket), and then those two low end chips with only two memory channels and 16 PCI-e lanes which makes absolutely no sense for a HEDT platform (and I am not buying Intels idea of “buy a cheap processor for your 300+ dollar HEDT mobo today and then spend more money in the future on a bigger processor!” as a viable reason for those to even exist…).

        For me the PCI-e lanes is a total deal breaker because I actually use my IO expansion slots for various add in cards.

        Granted I am not really looking to upgrade as I am already set with a very nice x99 machine, but it still just feels like for as much as the x299 platform is a step in the right direction with updated IO and support for the skylake architecture that it is also (in many ways) a step backwards compared to x99.

        If I were looking at a new HEDT platform “today”, I would be looking VERY closely at the upcoming Threadripper platform. But, that is just my rambling thoughts on the matter.

          • Flying Fox
          • 2 years ago

          If by “total mess” you mean:
          – more segmentation typical of Intel
          – the “downgrade” can be interpreted as a hidden price hike
          Then you win. πŸ˜›

          I’m just calling them as they are.

            • moose17145
            • 2 years ago

            Yea but with the threadripper platform coming out… those may not be the best strategies for Intel right now…
            *benchmarks and reviews pending, of course*

          • ChicagoDave
          • 2 years ago

          Yeah I do not understand why Intel insists that the cheapest CPU to have 44 PCIe lanes costs $1,000. It kills the value proposition for the two low end ones that are stuck with the same number of lanes as the z 270 CPUs. I could maybe talk myself into a $400 CPU if it had a ton of PICIe lanes and quad channel memory, but 2.5x that is just too much….not spending a grand on a CPU. Really interested to see how Threadripper compares to Intel’s HEDT chips..they have the potential to throw Intel’s entire high end lineup into disarray.

          • G8torbyte
          • 2 years ago

          Likewise I use a lot of the expansion slots for audio, pcie wifi, and NVMe drives. The prices are dropping nicely now on the 6850K for the X99. Microcenter had a recent back-to-school sale on them for $299 recently but sold out pretty quick. I also see no incentive to upgrade from my X99. I considered Threadripper but I just don’t need all the cores at this time. I am glad to see AMD bringing in more innovation.

      • Chrispy_
      • 2 years ago

      You’d need to be a brainwashed Intel disciple to think anything else.

      Even in a vacuum, without the competition from AMD, Intel’s pricing strategy and segmentation of the x299 platform makes no sense. It doesn’t even compete effectively with the old X99 platform. I mean, WTF is the point of the bottom two processors that don’t even have quad channel memory or more than 16 PCIe lanes? Why would you even look at x299 for that in the first place!?

      …and that’s completely ignoring the fact that AMD is offering way more performance and PCIe lanes for less. So Intel is NOT operating in a vacuum; Intel is operating in a competitive market. Sure, their IPC is 10-15% higher than AMD’s, but AMD will sell you 32 threads for a grand whilst Intel only give you 20. More importantly, Intel’s $1699 16C/32T solution doesn’t really have the clockspeed it needs to go against Threadripper either. A 10-15% IPC advantage is wasted if Intel is only running at 2.8GHz to AMD’s 3.4GHz.

    • maxxcool
    • 2 years ago

    Not h8ting on this.. but I’d love to see the GHZ thermal ceiling on AVX512 on that 18-core model…

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      You haven’t met Intel’s new fiberglass [s<]heatspreader[/s<] heatconcentrator yet... because using cheap thermal paste just wasn't cranking it up enough.

    • the
    • 2 years ago

    The raw performance offered by core count * clock speed isn’t that great near the top. The saving grace of these chips appears to be that they are all unlocked and should all reach similar clocks when overclocking. The other thing is that the default voltages likely decrease as core count goes up due to the decline of clock speeds too. Overclocking these chips will be a massive undertaking as power consumption should sky rocket. Going from a 2.6 Ghz, 165 W base to 4.0 Ghz should consume around 250 W assuming that voltages are not adjusted. I never thought that there would be a legit reason for some coolers to be spec’d at 400 W or 500 W of thermal dissipation but those could be tested. Liquid cooling seem like a requirement for overclocking these.

      • DragonDaddyBear
      • 2 years ago

      It’s not uncharted territory. AMD’s released a 5GHz FX proc that consumed stupid levels of power.

        • ronch
        • 2 years ago

        Well, it’s uncharted… for Intel. πŸ™‚

          • Klimax
          • 2 years ago

          Really? [url<]http://ark.intel.com/products/27224/Intel-Xeon-Processor-7020-2M-Cache-2_66-GHz-667-MHz-FSB[/url<] (165W in 2007)

        • SomeOtherGeek
        • 2 years ago

        And I have always wondered – what was the life of those chips?

          • brucethemoose
          • 2 years ago

          I’ve heard that some aren’t even stable at stock voltages out-of-the-box.

          That being said, they do undervolt when idle, so it’s probably somewhat reasonable.

      • willmore
      • 2 years ago

      Was there any follow-up from the earlier testing the TR did where the new Intel chips were showing higher than expected power draws? Unless that’s become resolved, then that 165W may already be lower than you might get at standard clocks.

      If cooling 8 cores is tough, how are 18 going to be?

        • smilingcrow
        • 2 years ago

        Cooling also depends on the size of the die so the bigger chips potentially may offer a larger area per watt. It also depends on the layout of the chip in terms of hot spots. But based on the LCC chips there is obvious cause for concern.

        I noticed when 14nm was first available for desktop and server parts that the performance per watt was disappointing for the lower core count chips which require high clock speeds.
        For the big iron where they just add more cores and keep the clock speed and voltage down scaling per watt has gained but for the bread and butter chips 14nm seems a disappointment.

        • the
        • 2 years ago

        There are three main variables here for power consumption: clock speed, voltage and core count.[super<][b<]*[/b<][/super<] The equation would be as follows: P = n* f * V[super<][b<]2[/b<][/super<] The main factor is that voltage is [i<]squared[/i<]. As clock speeds increases, more voltage is necessary which leads to that horrible performance per watt curve regarding clock speeds. This has been why Intel has favored increasing core count at the high end as they can get more compute performance that way while keeping clock speeds and voltages low to control power consumption. *Capacitance is another variable in the power consumption calculation but it is effectively a constant and removed for figuring out differences here.

      • freebird
      • 2 years ago

      How many Professionals will be overclocking? I’d imagine 80-90% of buyers will ACTUALLY use these systems for work and to make money/a living. So, unless it is overclocked by the OEM and with warranty, I doubt OC performance will sway many buyers.

      I would question the longevity of any system with the power draw of any system OCed that high with more than 10 cores like the 7900x

      “Pushing all of the Core i9-7900X’s cores with Prime95 or LuxRender propels power consumption to incredible heights. You do get 48 percent more rendering performance in LuxRender, but at the expense of 58 percent-higher power use. This approach has the elegance of a sledgehammer. Then again, if you need speed at any cost, Core i9-7900X is top-notch.”
      [url<]http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092-10.html[/url<] Personally, I also keep a fire suppression device nearby... πŸ˜‰

        • lem18
        • 2 years ago

        Ironically, SledgeHammer was very elegant πŸ˜‰

        • the
        • 2 years ago

        Depends on the profession. Overclocking is not unheard of in the 3D rendering and video editing markets to get more out of their hardware. The work that they do is insulated from things like single bit errors and easily can be recreated/re-run in the event of a system crash. These markets are also not that sensitive to performance/power so that 48 gain for 58 more power would be acceptable from your example. At 18 cores, the performance/power curve is going to be worse but still within tolerance for that market. (The video editing market does favor quiet systems which does increase in difficulty as power consumption raises.)

        Longevity is indeed an open question, especially as concerns have already been raised about VRM stability etc. I do think we’ll be seeing some second or third major revision of the X299 platform, especially as we near the Cannon Lake-E launch. The X299 launch was clearly rushed by Intel.

    • chuckula
    • 2 years ago

    Nice try Intel, but your last minute panicked response won’t stop me from buying Vega.

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      Make that Threadripper.

      • dodozoid
      • 2 years ago

      Its becoming increasingly sad… Whenever you dont meet any pro-AMD shill, you make one yourself

      Have you considered creating another account so you could post random uneducated exclamations to prove point of your main account?

      Despite your actual tech related posts usually being interesting and inteligent, you as a person are becoming more and more anoying.

        • maxxcool
        • 2 years ago

        Your sarcasm meter must be broken …

          • dodozoid
          • 2 years ago

          No, more like overloaded in this case

        • chuckula
        • 2 years ago

        I generally find that pro-AMD shilling is more entertaining — not to mention more logically coherent — when it’s delivered by somebody who doesn’t take AMD or Intel too seriously.

          • dodozoid
          • 2 years ago

          I must admit that in can indeed be source of high quality trolling

          • Mr Bill
          • 2 years ago

          There’s [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM2OK_JaJ9I<]good eatin'[/url<] in those Ryzen shills.

      • freebird
      • 2 years ago

      I’ll up vote you just because it’s you saying that… and since it is humor. πŸ˜‰

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This