• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

Page 610 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,208
626
121
Well, 28. august is here, no reviews of 7920x? Or we are still waiting for exact hour of the day?
I am only guessing here, but I would think that there will be very few reviews of that chip. In no situation is it the fastest Skylake-X chip (see the image below), so Intel has no incentive to send out free chips for reviewers to test. Reviewers have a lot more important things to do with their time and money than to buy this chip for a review.

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/11698/turbos2.png

The cheaper 7900X is as fast or faster than the 7920X in all core counts, except for the 11 and 12 core use cases. But, the 7940X is as fast or faster than the 7920X in all cases, including the 11 and 12 core situations. So the 7920X sits in a bad location. Intel doesn't even price the 7920X low enough to make it a worthy buy. If you are already spending $2000+ on a system with the 7920X, just spend $200 more for the much better 7940X.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
1,999
126
@Arachnotronic,
Are you the lawyer / PR of Intel or something?
No.

I really don't understand the logic you present.
You might do better in getting an explanation without the personal attack.

If one CPU Single Core Turbo is higher than the other I'd assume that for 1 core test it would have better performance.
The above holds for any other generation of Intel processor (If the architecture is the same and only boost turbo is higher).
In theory, yes, but we have no idea what the test conditions were when these tests were run. Did the tester have something running in the background, even something relatively lightweight that might have been running on one of the other cores?

Also, a lot of Z270 boards automatically push the KBL cores to all-core turbo speed, so were we really seeing a 4.5GHz 7700K against an 8700K without that feature enabled on the Z370 board?

There's also just the plain and simple fact that the frequency difference is so small between peak 7700K and peak 8700K that these results pretty much fit within margin of error.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,360
690
126
If you are already spending $2000+ on a system with the 7920X, just spend $200 more for the much better 7940X.
And that is why the 7920x exists.

Some products sole existence isn't to get sold but to up-sell the customer. Same in retail stores. First the introduced budget brands and then later on luxury brands. Luxury brand hardly sells and per se isn't really profitable except as studies have shown if costumer can choose between 2 prices, the go with the cheaper one, if the can choose from 3, they take the middle one. The analogy with the middle one doesn't exists here, but the fact that you can release a mediocre product to increase sales of a more expensive one.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
1,999
126
I am only guessing here, but I would think that there will be very few reviews of that chip. In no situation is it the fastest Skylake-X chip (see the image below), so Intel has no incentive to send out free chips for reviewers to test. Reviewers have a lot more important things to do with their time and money than to buy this chip for a review.

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/11698/turbos2.png

The cheaper 7900X is as fast or faster than the 7920X in all core counts, except for the 11 and 12 core use cases. But, the 7940X is as fast or faster than the 7920X in all cases, including the 11 and 12 core situations. So the 7920X sits in a bad location. Intel doesn't even price the 7920X low enough to make it a worthy buy. If you are already spending $2000+ on a system with the 7920X, just spend $200 more for the much better 7940X.
I'd much rather have the 7900X than the 7920X. If I'm going to go core crazy, then I'd just save up for the 7980XE, but even that chip is going to be a PITA to keep cool at high frequencies.

7900X is my favorite of the SKX lineup.
 

Timmah!

Senior member
Jul 24, 2010
734
62
91
I am only guessing here, but I would think that there will be very few reviews of that chip. In no situation is it the fastest Skylake-X chip (see the image below), so Intel has no incentive to send out free chips for reviewers to test. Reviewers have a lot more important things to do with their time and money than to buy this chip for a review.

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/11698/turbos2.png

The cheaper 7900X is as fast or faster than the 7920X in all core counts, except for the 11 and 12 core use cases. But, the 7940X is as fast or faster than the 7920X in all cases, including the 11 and 12 core situations. So the 7920X sits in a bad location. Intel doesn't even price the 7920X low enough to make it a worthy buy. If you are already spending $2000+ on a system with the 7920X, just spend $200 more for the much better 7940X.
Haha, i plan to do so, 7940x over 7920x, since i saw their specs including those turbo bins. Still, i would be interested in 7920x review and given the size of the internet/number of various tech sites/youtubers, i would think at least one of them is going to find some time/money to look into it. For next 4 weeks, its going to be fastest Intel CPU after all :)

But maybe not, we shall see.

@Arachnotronic> Getting 7900x feels like a waste to me, when you can get 1950x for the same price and have like 1/3 higher multi-core performance. 7940x is where its at :-D
 
Last edited:
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
1,999
126
Haha, i plan to do so, 7940x over 7920x, since i saw their specs including those turbo bins. Still, i would be interested in 7920x review and given the size of the internet/number of various tech sites/youtubers, i would think at least one of them is going to find some time/money to look into it. For next 4 weeks, its going to be fastest Intel CPU after all :)

But maybe not, we shall see.

@Arachnotronic> Getting 7900x feels like a waste to me, when you can get 1950x for the same price and have like 1/3 higher multi-core performance. 7940x is where its at :-D
I run my 7900X at a tasty 4.6GHz, so ST perf should be higher than 1950X's :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcp7

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,208
626
121
And that is why the 7920x exists.

Some products sole existence isn't to get sold but to up-sell the customer.
Very true. A good business strategy is to have a very profitable product that you want to sell lots of. Then bracket it with good products with bad prices to guide the consumer to buy the profitable product that you want to sell.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,208
626
121
Haha, i plan to do so, 7940x over 7920x, since i saw their specs including those turbo bins. Still, i would be interested in 7920x review and given the size of the internet/number of various tech sites/youtubers, i would think at least one of them is going to find some time/money to look into it. For next 4 weeks, its going to be fastest Intel CPU after all :)
I'm sure someone will review it soon. But I think we might have to wait until Sept 25 for a thorough review when the bigger players do all the rest of the Skylake-X lineup.
 

Timmah!

Senior member
Jul 24, 2010
734
62
91
I run my 7900X at a tasty 4.6GHz, so ST perf should be higher than 1950X's :)
Yeah, but MT is still way lower and that difference is very likely bigger than between your ST performance and 1950x ST performance. Not to mention, you could have got 7700k, run it at even tastier 5GHz and your ST perf would be even higher :-D

That said, i would prefer i9 over TR too, so i kinda understand, even if its not the most rational choice.
Still, i maintain opinion, 7940x is goinf to be better choice, cause you are going to be pretty much on par with TR in MT performance and beat it in ST performance. You will get pretty much the same stock ST performance as 7900x too and possibly you will be able to run it at those 4,6GHz - remains to be seen. Granted, for 400 more than 7900x, but since you would be hypothetically willing to shell for 7980xe, i guess money is not the deciding factor here...
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
1,999
126
Its laughable that all you can brag about with a USD 1000 HEDT CPU is ST performance. 8700k users will have much better ST performance (especially max OC) than you at 1/3rd the price. MT performance should be very respectable too. ;)
Not bragging, just explaining why I'd rather have a 7900X over a 1950X in direct response to somebody asking why I'd pick a 7900X over a 1950X.

I like the balance that my 7900X brings -- very solid MT performance while also giving very nice per core performance.

Yes, the 8700K is going to be a great CPU that will offer better per core performance than my 7900X as well as very solid MT performance. But I've had my 7900X for a couple of months now and it'll still be about a month before 8700K is out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sweepr

Asterox

Senior member
May 15, 2012
280
230
116
Shouldn't the 8700k score a little higher than the 7700k on the single-thread CBR15 test since it's been mentioned that it does 4.7GHz on single-core turbo and 4.6GHz on dual-core turbo if the specs are going to be true? I know Windows sometimes has light background tasks going on that are transparent to the user but then at worst shouldn't it drop to 4.6GHz on the 8700k and 4.4GHz on the 7700k if the same background tasks were happening during the test (if there were background tasks during testing)?
Yes it should, but obviously i7 8700K/Intel TurboCore 3.0 hits 4.7ghz only on "marketing paper".:cool:
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
1,999
126
Yes it should, but obviously i7 8700K/Intel TurboCore 3.0 hits 4.7ghz only on "marketing paper".:cool:
It's Turbo Boost 2.0, not 3.0, so all the cores on the CPU should be capable of 4.7GHz, not just the "favored core". Most motherboards come with multi-core enhancement or some similar tech, so running all six cores at 4.7GHz should be a breeze with decent cooling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sweepr

hnizdo

Member
Aug 11, 2017
33
16
41
Yes it should, but obviously i7 8700K/Intel TurboCore 3.0 hits 4.7ghz only on "marketing paper".:cool:
There is no reason for that. Kabylake on 14nm can easily achieve this freq on all cores. There is no magic in one core on 4.7, actually its a litlle bit boring. And dont forget we are working with leaked probably-benchmark on early alpha platform, god knows about memory freq/timings.
 

elhefegaming

Member
Aug 23, 2017
154
69
71
I'm almost certain that there's going to be at least 1 more 'gen' of cpus for this new Chipset so I'm gonna get an i5 this time with a 370 board, and when the new processors are out next year will get a i7 as most likely the new i7s 10nm will definitely be really good. (and I save 125$ this time)

I do mostly games, so having more than 6 threads is not really gonna make a diff
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,565
126
I'm almost certain that there's going to be at least 1 more 'gen' of cpus for this new Chipset so I'm gonna get an i5 this time with a 370 board, and when the new processors are out next year will get a i7 as most likely the new i7s 10nm will definitely be really good. (and I save 125$ this time)

I do mostly games, so having more than 6 threads is not really gonna make a diff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc4IFIXcDcs
 

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,184
1,878
136
I'm almost certain that there's going to be at least 1 more 'gen' of cpus for this new Chipset so I'm gonna get an i5 this time with a 370 board, and when the new processors are out next year will get a i7 as most likely the new i7s 10nm will definitely be really good. (and I save 125$ this time)

I do mostly games, so having more than 6 threads is not really gonna make a diff
As the z370 is essentially a z270, I would tend not to trust that it will support latter CPUs. In January the Z390 will come out with the Cannon Lake PCH - that is much more likely be supported across both Coffee Lake and Ice lake - though we do not know this for sure.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
1,999
126
As the z370 is essentially a z270, I would tend not to trust that it will support latter CPUs. In January the Z390 will come out with the Cannon Lake PCH - that is much more likely be supported across both Coffee Lake and Ice lake - though we do not know this for sure.
I also wonder if Ice Lake will bring PCIe 4.0, so even if the Z370 or Z390 boards support it, it might not be fully featured.
 

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,184
1,878
136
I also wonder if Ice Lake will bring PCIe 4.0, so even if the Z370 or Z390 boards support it, it might not be fully featured.
24 Lanes of PCIe 4.0 would make for a terrific consumer processor, especially if DMI morphs to support a PCIe 4.0 phy as well. One can hope - though we know so little about Ice Lake :(
 

elhefegaming

Member
Aug 23, 2017
154
69
71
As the z370 is essentially a z270, I would tend not to trust that it will support latter CPUs. In January the Z390 will come out with the Cannon Lake PCH - that is much more likely be supported across both Coffee Lake and Ice lake - though we do not know this for sure.
I doubt the will release yet another chipset gen for the same socket again making it the 4th chipset gen for the same socket, that'd be definitely weird.

Icelake uses chipset 400 so we are talking 3 cpu gens in a row that force you to switch mobos? that'd be also weird.

If it is essentially a z270, are you implying that the 370 is a money grab and there's no actual technical reasons?
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
1,999
126
I doubt the will release yet another chipset gen for the same socket again making it the 4th chipset gen for the same socket, that'd be definitely weird.

Icelake uses chipset 400 so we are talking 3 cpu gens in a row that force you to switch mobos? that'd be also weird.

If it is essentially a z270, are you implying that the 370 is a money grab and there's no actual technical reasons?
Z370 is just a relabeled Z270, there is no functional difference between them.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS