Live data from Hacker News

Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world

arstechnica.com

11–20 of 119 posts

Re: Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world

#11
post #6
post #2

What I really wonder is when this chip would have been released if AMD didn't come out with Ryzen line up in 2017.

I'll answer your subtle comment quite explicitly: never. Intel clearly rushed this out to prevent AMD from having the perception of leading the space, at least in terms of the largest core count. The article even references this. I just hope that it stays competitive, as this is clearly a win for consumers.

Well, no. A 10-core HEDT Skylake follow up to the 10-core Broadwell was basically a given, and would have shipped right about now regardless. Maybe Ryzen caused them to push the default clocks up, but probably not since it's unlocked anyway. Most likely only thing that Ryzen changed about this chip is knocking $800 off the price (and maybe the i9 marketing name.)

The rest of the i9 lineup, thus far unreleased with only the core count actually known, is Intel's rushed response to Ryzen. Not this chip.

Re: Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world

#12
post #9

Out of the loop when it comes to the latest processor technology. How does this chip maintain the same TDP as a 6850K but with 4 more core? Same size (lithography), roughly the same freq, memory size/types.

TDP numbers from Intel don't tend to mean much. They group a wide range of CPUs under the same TDP.

The CPUs will generally use far less power than the TDP might suggest.

Re: Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world

#13
post #9

Out of the loop when it comes to the latest processor technology. How does this chip maintain the same TDP as a 6850K but with 4 more core? Same size (lithography), roughly the same freq, memory size/types.

No integrated GPU.

Er, neither has a GPU. The i9-7900X has the benefit of generation of tuning and runs at a slower base clock (3.3 vs 3.6 GHz for the 6850K). Slightly smaller l3, and a much larger but also higher latency L2 helps as well.

I suspect moving from a ring bus to a mesh helps as well.

Re: Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world

#15
post #6
post #2

What I really wonder is when this chip would have been released if AMD didn't come out with Ryzen line up in 2017.

I'll answer your subtle comment quite explicitly: never. Intel clearly rushed this out to prevent AMD from having the perception of leading the space, at least in terms of the largest core count. The article even references this. I just hope that it stays competitive, as this is clearly a win for consumers.

Skylake-X certainly would have existed regardless of Ryzen, Intel wants to sell these chips to Google/Amazon/Facebook as Xeons. The idea that this uarch is a reaction to AMD is absurd, this uarch has been on the roadmap for years and at most was pulled forward a few months.

People will attribute anything one of AMD's competitors does to fear of AMD - 780 Ti, 980 Ti, 1080 Ti, Skylake-X, you name it. It's frankly a little comical given the actual amount of competition AMD put up with Bulldozer and Fiji/Polaris/Vega against Haswell/Skylake and Maxwell/Pascal - which is to say, hardly any. NVIDIA and Intel both have their own yield strategies and release schedules that are largely independent of what AMD does. Intel and NVIDIA are tweaking prices and specific launch dates - that's about the extent of AMD's impact on their competitors so far.

(although Intel is definitely paying attention to Threadripper/Epyc now, and will be pushing core count up on consumer chipsets starting with Coffee Lake and presumably Cannonlake as well)

The real problems with Skylake-X are chipset cost, power consumption, shitty partner boards with insulators on the VRMs, and TIM. None of those have anything to do with a "rushed launch", all of those are issues that have been slow-boiling for years now.

Re: Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world

#16
post #2

What I really wonder is when this chip would have been released if AMD didn't come out with Ryzen line up in 2017.

I'm ignorantly guessing Intel always keep something in their back pocket ever since AMD's Athlons bested Intel's P4, just in case AMD ever tried to wrest the frown back. Or, I would, anyway.

Re: Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world

#17
post #16
post #2

What I really wonder is when this chip would have been released if AMD didn't come out with Ryzen line up in 2017.

I'm ignorantly guessing Intel always keep something in their back pocket ever since AMD's Athlons bested Intel's P4, just in case AMD ever tried to wrest the frown back. Or, I would, anyway.

> just in case AMD ever tried to wrest the frown back.

Intel: "why so serious!?"

Re: Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world

#18
post #5

Another issue beyond the fact that the X299 boards are problematic in terms of how many, and/or what slots you can and can't use seems to be excessive heat and stability in some of the reviews I've seen. I'm still running a i7-4790K at home, and though I'd like something with more cores... nothing is compelling enough to bring me to switch given the costs involved. If I were building new, would most likely go with an…

CPU gains for the last few gens have mainly been in perf/watt and, now, core count in lower-class chips thanks to AMD. The biggest benefit of a system upgrade for the last few gens, from a user perspective, has been for the chipset's gains - NVMe, USB3, USB-C, etc. more than raw performance. That's slowly trickled up but the real-world gains in many tasks haven't been enough to really justify it.

I know many people still sitting on anywhere from a 2xxx gen to a 5xxx gen and just don't feel compelled to upgrade from a CPU perspective. Those that eventually do, do so for the motherboard features more than the CPU - that's just a necessary cost for a small benefit.

This is marginally different for laptops where perf/watt becomes more important, of course. However for desktops, I certainly wouldn't be troubled by a 4xxx gen. I upgraded last year and it was from a 920 to a 6600K. Even the 920 did much of what I wanted, honestly, it was more a luxury upgrade.

Re: Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world

#19
post #17
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm ignorantly guessing Intel always keep something in their back pocket ever since AMD's Athlons bested Intel's P4, just in case AMD ever tried to wrest the frown back. Or, I would, anyway.

> just in case AMD ever tried to wrest the frown back. Intel: "why so serious!?"

Lol. Autocomplete. "performance, performance /watt" _crown_.

Re: Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world

#20
The real problems with Skylake-X are chipset cost, power consumption, shitty partner boards, and TIM. All of these are forgivable given the performance - except the TIM.

Chipset cost will come down in 6-12 months after launch like it always does. This is part for the course, at launch X370 boards for Ryzen were going for well over $250 as well.

Power consumption is a consequence of AVX512 and the mesh interconnect along with raw core count. Everyone wants higher clocks, more cores, and more functional units. There are no easy efficiency gains anymore, and this is the price - power consumption. This is the "everything and the kitchen sink" processor and it runs hot as a result - but it absolutely crushes everything else on the market. This is no Bulldozer.

Board partners with insulators on top of their VRMs was going to come to a head sooner or later. This is the natural outgrowth of form over function, RGB LEDs on everything and stylized heatsink designs that insulate the board instead of actual cooling. The terrible reviews on those boards will sort this problem right out, they will be unusable in their current form.

Intel has been cruising for issues with their TIM for years (since Ivy Bridge), this time they finally have a chip that puts out enough heat they can't ignore it. Intel can get away with making you delid a $200 i5 or a $300 i7, it's not acceptable on a $1000 processor.

There is still a market for a 6-12C HEDT chip that can hit 5 GHz overclocked. This thing absolutely smokes Ryzen in gaming at stock clocks let alone OC'd - single-thread performance is still a dominant factor in good gaming performance and this chip delivers in spades. Combining its leads in IPC and clocks, it's fully 33% faster than Ryzen in single-thread performance. This is just a brutal amount of performance for gaming. Unfortunately without delidding you're not going to hit good OC clocks given the current TIM. And delidding is a dealbreaker on a $1000 CPU.

TIM is the actual core problem with Skylake-X - everything else will sort itself out. Skylake-X with solder would be a winner and Intel would be wise to turn the ship as fast as possible. The 6C and 8C version are priced much more reasonably and will sell great as long as they fix the TIM problem.

Intel claims they have problems with dies cracking, but AMD manages to solder much smaller dies, so IMO Intel just doesn't have a leg to stand on here. This is not something that should be pushed onto the customer with a $1000 processor - you're Chipzilla, figure something out.

Post reply on HN