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

41–50 of 119 posts

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

#41

Post by turblety »

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 Google, then I can remove it and install Firefox.

But if don't like that Intel can take over my PC at any time, watch my screen, log my keystrokes, prevent me from installing another operating system, manipulate what I see on the screen, and much much more, then there is nothing I can do. I can not remove the second chip or remove the code. I must have a proprietary blob [4] (of who's source code no one can see to audit) running on my Intel PC.

But the worst thing has to be Intel and AMT's complete refusal to provide a clean chip to companies that are trying to provide backdoor free computers. Look at http://puri.sm [5] for example. They are trying to provide a PC that does not restrict what operating system or BIOS you run, and have repeatedly contacted Intel to ask them to provide a batch of chips with no ME or AMT installed. Even Google, which sells millions of chromebooks (coreboot preinstalled) have been unable to persuade them. [6]

As Intel and AMT are the biggest players and arguably a monopoly of the microprocessor market, they have a responsibility to provide safe and clean processors that customers can truly own. Please try your best not to buy these products until they resolve these issues.

[1] https://libreboot.org/faq.html#intelme

[2] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/01/intel_amt_me_vulner...

[3] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-tec...

[4] http://boingboing.net/2016/06/15/intel-x86-processors-ship-w...

[5] https://puri.sm/learn/intel-me/

[6] https://libreboot.org/faq.html#intel-is-uncooperative

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

#43

Post by ido »

Nition wrote: post #36
ido wrote: post #34

Earlier 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.

Oh it's a common (& valid) comparison :)

Just wanted to add a little historical context.

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

#44

Post by cyphar »

throwaway209402 wrote: post #35
cyphar wrote: post #31

... until ThreadRipper. I'm not a fan of either megacorp (though I prefer Intel because their stuff works much better historically on GNU/Linux), but it should be painfully obvious that "i9" is just a reaction to the threat of ThreadRipper from AMD (which is still going to be more powerful and far more affordable than i9 when it launches). EDIT: To be fair, they do mention this in TFA: > That these chips are currentl…

> it should be painfully obvious that "i9" is just a reaction to the threat of ThreadRipper from AMD This is incorrect. As Ryan Shrout from PcPer notes,[1] > In some circles of the Internet, the Core i9 release and the parts that were announced last month from Intel seem as obvious a reaction to AMD’s Ryzen processor and Threadripper as could be shown. In truth, it’s hard to see the likes of the Core i9-7900X as reac…

I was not referring to the R&D, rather the way it was announced and is being marketed. I would be surprised if they didn't rush development and went straight to marketing as a reaction to AMD. Intel have been resting on their lorels due to the lack of serious competition, ARM is struggling from what I've seen.

I probably should've been clearer, but I assumed it was obvious you can't do R&D on new silicon in 60 days and already have an announcement for it.

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

#45

Post by vith »

chx wrote: post #32

Careful with these benchmarks. The 6700K and the 6700T shows the same Cinebench R15 on https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-6700T-Processor-... -- click on Show comparison chart below Cinebench R15 - CPU Multi 64Bit. I do not think anyone believes those two CPUs are performing the same -- they are the same Skylake architecture but one is 4-4.2GHz w/ a 91W TDP while the other is 2.8-3.6GHz w/ a 35W TDP. The dif…

I think you may have some model numbers and/or benchmark numbers mixed up. I don't see the 6700K or 6700T in the charts in this Ars article.

I see a 7600K with the 637 score, but that lacks hyperthreading and has 25% less L3 cache compared to the 6700T, so it makes sense that the 17% frequency advantage is mostly balanced out (there's little IPC difference between Kaby Lake and Skylake).

You don't have notebookcheck's numbers matched up with the right CPUs either: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmark-Li...

To be fair, Ars has the i5-7600K listed as an i7, and Notebookcheck has the cache sizes wrong: http://ark.intel.com/compare/88200,97129,97144,88195

So there is plenty of confusion to go around.

Edit: Actually the frequency difference may be a bit off from 17%, that was based off the max single core turbo frequencies. I don't know what the all core turbos are.

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

#46

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

throwaway209402 wrote: post #35
cyphar wrote: post #31

... until ThreadRipper. I'm not a fan of either megacorp (though I prefer Intel because their stuff works much better historically on GNU/Linux), but it should be painfully obvious that "i9" is just a reaction to the threat of ThreadRipper from AMD (which is still going to be more powerful and far more affordable than i9 when it launches). EDIT: To be fair, they do mention this in TFA: > That these chips are currentl…

> it should be painfully obvious that "i9" is just a reaction to the threat of ThreadRipper from AMD This is incorrect. As Ryan Shrout from PcPer notes,[1] > In some circles of the Internet, the Core i9 release and the parts that were announced last month from Intel seem as obvious a reaction to AMD’s Ryzen processor and Threadripper as could be shown. In truth, it’s hard to see the likes of the Core i9-7900X as reac…

The ≤10-core stuff was planned already, yes, aside from perhaps the pricing.

But it's the new, very-high-core-count CPUs Intel hastily announced with no real details and without even warning their partners first that look like a reaction to Ryzen, specifically Threadripper.

Those CPUs might be a problem for Intel. They can only make so many high-core-count Xeons and now some of the best chips will be headed to the HEDT market rather than servers. Also, thrusting chips with almost twice as many cores as originally planned onto motherboards which aren't designed for them and which already have seen overheating problems might not end well.

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

#47

Post by microtonal »

jl6 wrote: post #38
Nition wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similarly, I only just upgraded from an i7 860 (2009) to a 6700K at the end of last year. In performance benchmarks, it's only twice as fast as my old one, and that's over seven years. Big difference to how things felt in the past. Imagine if your 66Mhz Pentium still ran well enough that you weren't sure it was worth upgrading to a 500Mhz Pentium III. Same time span.

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.

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

#48

Post by NamTaf »

chx wrote: post #30
NamTaf wrote: post #18

Earlier 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…

As you say, the thinness craze was enabled by lower-power CPUs that performed no worse than previous gens. They need smaller batteries and less extreme cooling which means smaller sizes. Alternatively, keep the same size and you can enlarge the battery. Either way, perf/watt gains have enabled that in a way that's visible to consumers. With a plugged in PC, that's not visible.

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

#49

Post by dom0 »

vosper wrote: post #25
paulmd wrote: post #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 al…

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...

> that means you can't use a cheap cooler.

Actually, air-cooling is marginal with these CPUs, even at stock frequencies. There is no air-cooler which allows them to sustain their frequencies under load.

Water-cooling is pretty much required, and an AIO does not cut it. Still, even with water-cooling you can't really overclock these. They are pretty much at their limit out of the factory.

This could conceivably solved by Intel switching away from silicon TIM to e.g. solder, since the Rth(jc) of the CPUs is much worse at ~0.3 K/W than the thermal resistance of a big CPU air cooler (~0.1 K/W).

The overclocking problems wouldn't be fixed though; there is no easy fix for a CPU that jumps to 400+ watts.

-

An entirely separate issue is that you need to get the heat out of your office. A human dissipates around 50-100 W; you can imagine that a small office crowded with half a dozen people is not pleasant in the summer.

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

#50

Post by kough »

jitl wrote: post #22

The HN title feels like an editorial by admission. The full title is > Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world, but too darn expensive > When eight-core Ryzen costs £300, do any of these new Intel chips make sense?

s/admission/omission ?
Post reply on HN