> fastest chip in the world
Impressive for a x86 as this is, some POWER and SPARC users may disagree with this assessment. In fact, some Xeon users will doubtlessly scratch their heads too.
Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world
51–60 of 119 posts
Re: Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world
#52I'm all for double the memory bandwidth (and more importantly double the memory channels) as long as it's not too expensive. But I'm holding off on buying a new desktop till the AMD Threadripper hits in a few weeks. I suspect that benchmarks do a really poor job of measuring worst case performance... which is what users notice. Things like UI lag and audio skipping. I suspect double the memory bandwidth (assuming a n…
UI lag and stuttering audio is still mostly caused by bad IO scheduling.
Re: Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world
#53> fastest chip in the world
what a huge load of biased non-sense! I have a machine pretty similar to the one mentioned in the article below, it is using Intel processors released ages ago, in fact they were from decommissioned servers from some random data centres. I'd willing to bet that machine with "the fastest chip in the world" is significantly slower/more expensive than mine when it comes to my long list of day to day development tasks.
Oh, don't forget to mention the fact that the "fastest chip in the world" can reach >100 degrees when fully loaded. Maybe Intel should pay some review sites to claim it to be the processor most suitable for cooking a meal.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1218-affordable-40-thread-xe...
In case you want to argue that my machine has two Xeon - you can actually order one single Xeon from newegg.com which is more recent, put it into a consumer motherboard and beat the xxx out of i9-7900x. There is no way a 10-core Intel processor could possibly be the "fastest chip in the world".
Re: Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world
#54The 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 al…
I bought my Ryzen chip on its release day, I don't need some X370 board, I got myself a B350M board which doesn't affect me anything for my applications. It cost me $100 delivered.
There is no such alternative for Skylake-X - Intel charge you an arm and leg for its half decent products.
Re: Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world
#55Am i the only person to read that and think "a couple of reasons to buy and a whole bunch to not"?
Re: Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was mostly only true in the 90s tho, when we saw the hockey stick part of the S curve: between 1981 and 1987 your comparable choice would have been upgrading a 5mhz 8088 to a 10mhz 286. a 386 machine would be ~$10k (in 80s $s!) and more like a high end multichip Xeon system or something today - they actually had a compaq 386 of that vintage in my first job and it was still in active service in 2001.
In that case I guess my problem is we bought our first computer in '95, so my kind of baseline experience is that super fast world.
Try and imagine since 1980. Kind of hard to explain to my boy actually. He has my old computer from about 7 years ago. At least i think it was 7. Intel 2600k? Still works a treat. It's almost as old as he is.
Re: Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the desktop level I don't get why people care that much about power consumption? It means you have to dissipate more heat, okay, that means you can't use a cheap cooler. But it AFAIK even an extra 100w is cheap in the most expensive areas, especially when contrasted against productivity or cigarette breaks, or people sometimes being 20 minutes late to work...
I fully agree, and what's more Intel has the performance to back it up. This chip pulls a lot but it's wicked fast, it's a massive step forward in framerates. It combines the minimum-framerate improvements of HEDT/Ryzen with the single-threaded performance of Kaby Lake. Oh yeah and AVX512 too. For a sense of perspective here, going from a circa-2012 2600K to a current 7700K is a 40% jump in performance, so it's rough…
it's more like 20-25% (depending on what you use it for)
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/01/13/kaby_lake_7700k_v...
Re: Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 lit…
Reading the text I think they talked about the chips with a core count larger than 10, which were never on any roadmap until AMD released Ryzen (12 core Skylake appeared on the Roadmap) and then announced Threadripper (14, 16 and 18 core Skylake X paper launched).
Re: Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 s…
> NVMe While NVMe benchmarks are stunning I really am curious whether in an ordinary setting the difference to SATA can be felt at all. Not measured -- felt. When the era of swap ended because CPUs / chipsets finally could handle enough RAM and when we went from HDD to SDD, those could be felt for sure. > This is marginally different for laptops In laptop world, the problem is that with the spread of thin craze most…
Last year I went from a Corsair Neutron 240GB to a Samsung 950 Pro.
Not much difference in daily usage under Windows 7.
Re: Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world
#60The 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 al…
> 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.
Yeah, absolutely agree. What's sad is there are fanboys defending this and saying this makes direct die cooling easier through delidding, which saves 1-2 C° over solder, and is the beast idea Intel had in recent years.