Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

[eddman]

OMG that is terrible.

Higher, yes, but there is nothing "terrible" about those numbers. 6 cores at high turbo clocks will obviously consume a lot. You cannot fool a power curve.

IMO 6 cores with ~30% higher ST performance that can almost match 8 slower cores in MT tasks are better, even if the full power consumption is higher.

 

[FIVR]

They are fine all round chips, should be at that price, but the temps are still a major concern.

Wow, so they draw more power at stock and generate more heat than multi-die solutions like Threadripper? That's terrible!


I wonder what the heck that hatchet job of a graph TahoeDust posted was from? Since it obviously was fake as we can see TR draws less than the 7980XE I guess that's more evidence that this is all marketing spin.


Probably he got it from another youtube video. Personally, I like to actually read my reviews.

 

[TahoeDust]

Wow, so they draw more power at stock and generate more heat than multi-die solutions like Threadripper? That's terrible!


I wonder what the heck that hatchet job of a graph TahoeDust posted was from? Since it obviously was fake as we can see TR draws less than the 7980XE I guess that's more evidence that this is all marketing spin.


Probably he got it from another youtube video. Personally, I like to actually read my reviews.

Go home troll. You're drunk.

Better sell that AMD stock...




Trolling is not allowed here.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[epsilon84]

Move over Ivan the Terrible, we now have Intel the Terrible! Hahaha

 

[Markfw]

Well, my take on the 7980XE is that it does take more then 1950X for power, but it should with 2 more cores. However, it wins MOST benchmarks, but not all compared to the 1950X, and at twice the price it should have decimated it, Price/performance is horrible. The 7960X should also beat the 1950X at everything, but it looses quite a few at $700 more !

 

[PeterScott]

For what its worth...

http://img0.pconline.com.cn/pconline/1709/25/10017885_2_thumb.jpg

Granted this is by far the highest CB score I've seen for the 8700K, I'll wait for official reviews before making final judgement. Also something is definitely amiss with the 8600K score, there is no way a similarly clocked 6C/6T chip should lose to a 4C/8T chip in CB.

7700K is clocked quite bit higher than 8600K. 3.6/4.3 vs 4.2/4.5 and I expect all core boost is significantly higher on the 7700K.

I am most interested in seeing an 8600K review with overclocking for exactly that reason. With even a mild overclock it should smoke the 7700K at everything. And I wouldn't buy a K processor and not overclock it.

 

[Dayman1225]

I'm impressed by the 7980XE in Tom Logan's from OC3Ds review.

4.4ghz 68c max on core on a off the shelf AIO, no delid and on one of the relatively cheaper X299 boards. I guess those binned dies and larger surface area helps!

While expensive, it's niche and Intel know that, they just want the performance crown. The people ranting about how bad the value is compared to Threadripper have already made their mind up, and even then likely wont buy either.

 

[Bouowmx]

The Intel Core i9-7940X, a well-positioned processor, is no-show. 7960X is stuck in middle, no one cares; just step up to 7980XE.

If you want to quote power consumption of AMD Ryzen Threadripper, remember the context. In Tom's Hardware:

Both of AMD’s CPUs are designed for a maximum power consumption of 180W at their default settings. If the memory’s overclocked, then the CPU gets 15W less, which might affect performance in usage scenarios that employ all of the cores and, consequently, get too close to the limit.

The Asus X399 ROG Zenith Extreme motherboard limits power consumption to exactly 180W, just as it should, when using the default settings.

While almost no Intel overclocking motherboard sets power limit equal to TDP.

 

[crashtech]

OMG that is terrible. Imagine what the 9870XE draws!

To be fair, I give Intel kudos for adding 50% more cores while adding only a modest system power increase, but imagining OCed power consumption figures lends credence to the idea that socket pinout changes were necessary to feed an OCed 8700K.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

Precisely when can we purchase laptops with actual CFL and not KBL refresh? Looking for one for my family but can wait for a bit.

 

[PhonakV30]

7980xe draws less power than 1950x when both are at stock. When both are overclocked, 1950x to 4.0GHz and 7980xe to 4.5GHz, it still draws less power...

Why Is different than Anand's review?

 

[coffeeblues]

OMG that is terrible. Imagine what the 9870XE draws!

What's terrible? yellow is idle, green is cpu only load, 105w delta for 8700k idle to load, red is system (cpu+gpu) game load.

 

[Markfw]

I'm impressed by the 7980XE in Tom Logan's from OC3Ds review.

4.4ghz 68c max on core on a off the shelf AIO, no delid and on one of the relatively cheaper X299 boards. I guess those binned dies and larger surface area helps!

While expensive, it's niche and Intel know that, they just want the performance crown. The people ranting about how bad the value is compared to Threadripper have already made their mind up, and even then likely wont buy either.

Excuse me, I OWN a 1950X and did not make up my mind until after I saw Anands review. Yes it wins most benchmarks, but not all, and for twice the price, it should have decimated it.

 

[coffeeblues]

The Intel Core i9-7940X, a well-positioned processor, is no-show. 7960X is stuck in middle, no one cares; just step up to 7980XE.

7960x is trading places with 7980xe in a few of techspot's benchmark runs so software still plays a role which I thought was interesting.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1493-intel-core-i9-7980xe-and-7960x/page2.html

 

[Dayman1225]

Excuse me, I OWN a 1950X and did not make up my mind until after I saw Anands review. Yes it wins most benchmarks, but not all, and for twice the price, it should have decimated it.

Likely implies most, not all.

 

[Hans de Vries]

Competition has finally put Intel back on track again on its original road map

one motherboard vendor quoted the power consumption of the Core i9-7980XE, when overclocked to 4.4 GHz, will reach over 500W

We have reached the "Nuclear Reactor" CPU era

 

[PeterScott]

Excuse me, I OWN a 1950X and did not make up my mind until after I saw Anands review. Yes it wins most benchmarks, but not all, and for twice the price, it should have decimated it.

Intel essentially decimates the Render/Encoding benchmarks which is exactly the type of workload you by extreme core count CPUs for.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11839/intel-core-i9-7980xe-and-core-i9-7960x-review/10

 

[R0H1T]

Competition has finally put Intel back on track again on its original road map

We have reached the "Nuclear Reactor" CPU era

It's way beyond that

 

[epsilon84]

Excuse me, I OWN a 1950X and did not make up my mind until after I saw Anands review. Yes it wins most benchmarks, but not all, and for twice the price, it should have decimated it.

I think we should all know by now that high end CPUs don't follow a linear price/performance curve, especially when it comes to Intel. This has always been the case. Remember those $1000 Extreme Edition CPUs? If you expect a top end Intel CPU to provide great bang for buck you're going to be sorely disappointed. It's all about bragging rights at the very top.

 

[eddman]

Price/performance is horrible. The 7960X should also beat the 1950X at everything, but it looses quite a few at $700 more !

The chips themselves are quite good but their prices just don't make sense to me. 7960X should be $1200-$1300 and 7980XE at $1400-$1600.

 

[raghu78]

What do die sizes matter to consumers?

Metrics like die size and transistor count are necessary to evaluate the so-called Intel's superior transistor density claims of their process nodes. If they don't reveal these specs then their marketing talk about superior transistor density is just flat out lying. If you claim something back it up with actual product data so we can make real world comparisons and evaluate the truth of those claims.

Why Is different than Anand's review?

There are other reviews too showing 7980xe power draw more than 1950x.

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proce...w-Skylake-X-1999-and-18-cores/Quick-Gaming-Po

http://www.bit-tech.net/reviews/tech/cpus/intel-core-i9-7980xe-review/6/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antony...readripper-killer-has-arrived/3/#7590532c433f

 

[Bouowmx]

1000 W/484 mm^2 = 207 W/cm^2

So yes, genuinely nuclear reactor power density, if that threshold is 100 W/cm^2.

 

[eddman]

Wow, so they draw more power at stock and generate more heat than multi-die solutions like Threadripper? That's terrible!

Huh? What are you talking about? 7960X consumes less and beats 1950X in the arguably important rendering and encoding tests.

 

[tamz_msc]

Intel essentially decimates the Render/Encoding benchmarks which is exactly the type of workload you by extreme core count CPUs for.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11839/intel-core-i9-7980xe-and-core-i9-7960x-review/10

You don't have to tell people what workloads people buying these CPUs ought to run.

 

[tamz_msc]

Computerbase.de tests of the 7980XE and 7960X:

hardware.fr:

The 7960X and 7980XE are entering margin of error territory when it comes to the difference between them. They're roughly 10-15% faster than the 1950X. It's also interesting how little x265 encoding scales against the 7900X on the AnandTech review, which considering the AVX2 optimizations should be a strong point of the Skylake-X CPUs: