Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 119 posts

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

#71

Post by qb45 »

kennydude wrote: post #61
turblety wrote: post #41

But once again they have included a second "processor" on each chip with a bunch of restricted backdoors that can not be removed [1]. There have already been bugs [2] and exploits [3] found and therefore no Intel or AMD chip can be used if you care about security and/or privacy. If I think Microsoft isn't free enough for me, then I can remove Windows and install Linux (or BSD). If I think Chrome is sending my data to…

Thing is they could have implemented that in a half-open manner. Sign and hash releases, and post the code openly. So you can view the code, verify it's what is installed but for security purposes can't change it. The way this reads it seems deliberately suspicious. Having a HTTP server so low in the hardware stack feels wrong.

Well, it doesn't have to be HTTP but you do need some sort of server low in the hardware to control the machine remotely. Such things have existed for many years in servers, now Intel integrates them in chipsets for corporate PCs too.

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

#72

Post by Sorreah »

dis-sys wrote: post #67
Sorreah wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 20+ core Xeons run at 2.1 or 2.2 Ghz, while this runs at 4, with a newer architecture. I don't think it's a big stretch to call this the fastest chip, especially since we're referring to consumer chips and not server chips that cost 9000 eurodollars (as is the case for those 20 core Xeons). Also, have both of these setups run a mixed workload that isn't absolutely parallelizable and watch the Xeon struggle.

1. the Xeon I am using can Turbo to 3.1Ghz, sure, it is slower than 4G, but the sheer core count makes it much faster in the day to day development tasks many people face. consumer grade or not, it doesn't matter when there is no special requirements. you just buy components from your favourite vendors and put it together, that is all. 2. you can buy a pair of such 10-core Xeon for almost the same price of a single i…

You are comparing 2 chips to a single chip and trying to argue against the claim that the single chip is the fastest yet.

I'll humour you however.

Your Xeon turbos to 3.1 if only 1 core is stressed, but it's all core boost is 2.4 as per https://www.pugetsystems.com/blog/2015/07/09/Actual-CPU-Spee...

I don't see how your 10core part boosting to 2.4 Ghz is "much faster in the day to day development tasks" given that it's 2 CPU architectures behind and clocks at almost half the 4.0 Ghz achieved by the 7900x (all-cores boost).

But even a pair of those 10 cores is probably slower (caches are not shared, all-core boost almost half while roughly 5% slower in IPC performance due to the jump from Broadwell to Skylake).

So I don't think you're actually trying to argue that this isn't the fastest chip yet, but that it's a bad deal compared to looking around and buying some used server parts.

And yes, that's a better deal, but also a used i9-7900x is a better deal than a new i9-7900x...

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

#73

Post by majewsky »

microtonal wrote: post #47
jl6 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still on my i7 860 with nothing compelling me to upgrade. Intel's biggest competitor in 2017 is Intel from 2010.

It really depends on your applications/field. If you are in machine learning or data analysis, AVX can give a welcome performance boost. Also, a maximum of 16GB RAM is quite limiting.

If you're in ML, can't you just stick a new GPU in the PCIe slot? A GTX 1070 can be had for below 500 €, which would still be a bit less than a new motherboard, new RAM and a new i7.

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

#74

Post by majewsky »

ido wrote: post #37
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I switched from a 2012 15'' MacBook Pro to a 2017 15'' Macbook Pro and the difference is staggering. The older laptop had a regular SSD, while the newer one is using NVMe. Although it also has a considerably newer CPU, which likely plays a huge role in the performance difference. I sometimes tweak stuff on both laptops at the same time, and doing a side-by-side restart or even waking up from sleep makes the older mod…

Additionally "thin craze" matters - I remember having an old 15" laptop in the mid/late '00s that would actually give me backache after carrying it in my backpack for a while. Today I can't even tell if my 13" dell xps is in it or not.

Interestingly, I cannot really tell if the notebook is in the backpack, but a water bottle with about the same total weight can totally be felt. Probably the very beneficial weight distribution of a flat slab that's affixed in an upright position directly against my back, vs. a cylindric bottle that's either moving around in the backpack, or stuck to its side and therefore exerting a sideways torque on my back.

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

#76

Post by eloisant »

tracker1 wrote: 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…

Just curious, what do you do that will make a difference with more cores?

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

#77

Post by dsr_ »

ido wrote: post #70
Kenji wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also got Intel 2600K. Yes, it's still going very strong. No reason to switch until my motherboard breaks. Speed gains would be minimal, yet getting a new processor would be quite expensive.

i had an i5-2500k that my nephew got a couple years ago simply cause we moved to a different country and i didn't want to lug a big-ass desktop with me. I suspect most people wouldn't notice the difference between it and a brand new CPU.

I just replaced my work desktop i5-2500 with an i5-4570. Same SSDs, 16GB RAM instead of 24GB. (Not a voluntary move.)

There's no perceivable difference.

If you have enough RAM to avoid swapping and cheap SATA SSDs, all the requirements for fast/large CPUs or graphics cards are special applications of some sort. Browsers and editors and terminal windows and video playback don't count.

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

#78

Post by msimpson »

Between the Intel Core i9-7900X and AMD Ryzen 7 1800X there is a $540 price difference.

But for that extra cost you get four more threads at a higher clock rate, twenty extra PCIE lanes, a 500 MHz higher turbo clock speed, and double the memory bandwidth.

Even with the lesser Intel Core i7-7820X you will get the same thread count but with a higher clock rate, four extra PCIE lanes, still a 500 MHz higher turbo clock speed, and double the memory bandwidth for only $140 more.

Now, of course, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X comes much closer to the i9-7900X price point.

However, you will sacrifice single core performance to gain twelve more threads at a lower clock rate. But, you will receive twenty more PCIE lanes, over twice as much L3 cache, and the same memory bandwidth as the i9-7900X.

So if your plan is to build a 3D render farm, the Threadripper seems quite appropriate.

Although, if you plan to build a workstation on which to model 3D assets and to perform preview renders--the Intel i9 series seems more apt.

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

#79

Post by turblety »

qb45 wrote: post #69
turblety wrote: post #41

But once again they have included a second "processor" on each chip with a bunch of restricted backdoors that can not be removed [1]. There have already been bugs [2] and exploits [3] found and therefore no Intel or AMD chip can be used if you care about security and/or privacy. If I think Microsoft isn't free enough for me, then I can remove Windows and install Linux (or BSD). If I think Chrome is sending my data to…

Who is AMT? I thought AMT is just Intel's marketing name for certain remote management features. Also, I'm under impression that [6] refers not only to firmware blobs running on various auxiliary coprocessors but also the machine's firmware, i.e. BIOS, and in particular the CPU initialization component which had been provided only in binary form by both Intel and AMD for a few years now.

Sorry, my mistake. I should take better care of my writing. I should have written AMD instead of AMT. I cannot edit my post.

AMT is the poorly written and proprietary firmware Active Management Technology. This allows you to remotely control a computer.

AMD is a company and competitor to Intel.

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

#80

Post by alikoneko »

tracker1 wrote: 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…

I'm still running on a i5-3550k. I really don't feel compelled to upgrade because I haven't seen a performance drop in gaming yet.
Post reply on HN