• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The infamous Intel Core i9 processor... finally real?

1494618081SvFDhiSICX_1_1.png
 
Hmm... that 7900X is looking like a real contender for my $$$. As a 7700k owner that uses his desktop to surf the web, as a media server, occasional gaming and occasional encoding, do I need it? Nope. Do I want it? Yes. Yes I do.

I'd have to imagine 4.5GHz Tubro3.0 means with proper cooling at least a few ticks more will be possible. Better IPC than current Intel offerings and decent clocks... we may have a big time winner, especially if they have memory support dialed!
 
AdamK47 said:
I like how this thread was created based on a news report from another site referencing a photo from a thread in these very same forums.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That is odd, to say the least.

Something else I notice, which may mean nothing, is the Level 3 Cache as decimals. Not, for example, 14MB of cache, but rather 13.75MB. I'm not sure if it means anything, but it got my attention.
 
ultimatebob said:
Something tells me that Intel has had these processors on the drawing board for some time, just waiting for AMD to finally release something that competed with their Core i7 desktop processor line:

http://hothardware.com/news/monster-intel-12-core-i9-7920x-leaked

That 12 core/24 thread i9 7920x model looks like a Ryzen 7 slaying beast of a processor! Let's hope that AMD has something similar planned for later this year...
Click to expand...
However it will cost waaayy more then the Ryzen 7 does.
 
And then there's Whitehall or whatever the 16c/32t version of Ryzen is 🙂 The 1700 isn't intended to compete with these i9s; if anything its competition will be CFL-S.
 
Personally, I'm just happy that Intel is finally offering a desktop processor that is a worthwhile upgrade (in my mind, worthwhile means at least 2x the performance) of my now 5 year old Core i7-3770.
 
I am perfectly fine with core i9 naming scheme. In fact i am hoping they will be just as exciting as first HEDT CPU's that also had "9" in their name - Nehalem gen i7 920 and x58 platform and was first core "7".

Think about it, almost 10 years ago people had quad core capable of ~4ghz with HT and 8MB of L3 / 256KB of L2 on triple channel DDR3 system capable of 2000+ and true 16x PCIE SLI operation (even if GEN2 and from chipset). Quite some of those lasted well into Haswell reign! I have no clue to this day why it was priced $266 😀

There is quite a chance that anyone buying 8C i9 will be set for years in CPU and platform department ( not sure if 28 PCIE is a limit at all, 12 is plenty for dual M.2 and USB I/O ). So yeah, bring it on.
 
Does anyone have an idea of what the price differential would be between the 12 core and the Ryzen 12/16 core? IS there any chance the Ryzen 16 core could cost less than the intel 12 core?
 
I'd imagine that Intel has a marketing problem with uneducated consumers as well. I'll bet that there are a lot of people who think that their 5 year old Core i7 is faster than a modern day Core i5, when in reality the performance on the i5 would actually be slightly better depending on the model. Now, if they had a new Core i9 model to choose at Best Buy... well... obviously 9 is bigger than 7 so it must be faster 🙂
 
Obvcop said:
Does anyone have an idea of what the price differential would be between the 12 core and the Ryzen 12/16 core? IS there any chance the Ryzen 16 core could cost less than the intel 12 core?
Click to expand...

The 16 core Ryzen is def going to be cheaper than the 7920X, but it'll also be slower.
 
ultimatebob said:
I'd imagine that Intel has a marketing problem with uneducated consumers as well. I'll bet that there are a lot of people who think that their 5 year old Core i7 is faster than a modern day Core i5, when in reality the performance on the i5 would actually be slightly better depending on the model. Now, if they had a new Core i9 model to choose at Best Buy... well... obviously 9 is bigger than 7 so it must be faster 🙂
Click to expand...
Even so the current Core i5 still don't offer a large enough increase in performance to justify for most people to upgrade or replace their still very usable old hardware.
 
JoeRambo said:
I am perfectly fine with core i9 naming scheme. In fact i am hoping they will be just as exciting as first HEDT CPU's that also had "9" in their name - Nehalem gen i7 920 and x58 platform and was first core "7".

Think about it, almost 10 years ago people had quad core capable of ~4ghz with HT and 8MB of L3 / 256KB of L2 on triple channel DDR3 system capable of 2000+ and true 16x PCIE SLI operation (even if GEN2 and from chipset). Quite some of those lasted well into Haswell reign! I have no clue to this day why it was priced $266 😀

There is quite a chance that anyone buying 8C i9 will be set for years in CPU and platform department ( not sure if 28 PCIE is a limit at all, 12 is plenty for dual M.2 and USB I/O ). So yeah, bring it on.
Click to expand...

I like the proposed naming. 7920X is very close to i7 920 after all... 😀

I doubt it'll be as cheap though. Shame, as the 920 has been such exceptional value.

Now we just need Intel to drop Celeron/Pentium branding for Core i1, and the lineup will be consistent at last.
 
Ajay said:
33% more cores for 'threadripper' - don't think the i9-7920 will be faster (maybe in ST, but not in MT).
Click to expand...

It'll be faster in MT, but not by much... that's why it's getting released in the first place since the 10 core won't be enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top