Intel 10-Core Skylake-X Core i9 7900X Leak Suggests 4GHz Base Clock And 4.5GHz Turbo

>yyyou can't reach 4.2 GHz on a 8 core chip!!111

um no sweetie, you actually can get 4.5 stable with 1 0 C O R E S.

(daily AMDead thread).

Other urls found in this thread:

amd.com/system/files/2017-05/TIRIAS-AMD-Single-Socket-Server.pdf
hexus.net/tech/news/laptop/105937-asus-rog-teases-amd-ryzen-powered-gaming-laptop/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Intel doesn't publicly talk about their Turbo function and how many cores are allowed full turbo speeds, and I highly doubt all 10 cores can go to 4.5Ghz at the same time.


However, if you're gaming and only 4-8 cores are being used, all of those could probably turbo up to 4.5GHz without heat or power draw going over spec.

And according to the same benchmark Raven Ridge iGPU at 800MHz has the same performance as a Rx 460

>4.2 on all cores (amd can do this)
>4.5 on one core
WOW IM SO IMPRESSED

Why Intel cares about integrated gpus so much? No matter how good they are people will always buy real gpu

...

What the fuck am I going to do with 10 cores? Most software and game engines are awful when it comes to parallel processing.

makes 20 virtual machines

what are people supposed to do if their graphics card is dead on arrival? Or if their power supply isn't good enough for the graphics card?

I mean, i'm sure it can do more than 1 core at 4.5GHz, but I doubt it can do all 10. Probably 6-8 cores can be at 4.5GHz.

Custom motherboard function to force all cores?

There's such a thing as laptops.
But that wasn't the point, the point is that sisoft sandra has benchmark results of the same hardware all over the fucking place.

>what are people supposed to do if their graphics card is dead on arrival?

Blame shitty gpu makers?

>Or if their power supply isn't good enough for the graphics card?

Blame themselves

True that. I wonder how much of an impact on battery these new iGpus make

Intel's own slides put the 10 core at like 3.3 base clock, either that's overclocked or Intel told power consumption to fuck itself with a top SKU aka AMD's Centurion.

gamers do.

>1 7 5 W
>7
>5
>W

>175W
EPYC doesn't go that high and it's a fucking 32-core server chip.

if amd is dead then why do you keep making these threads.

the only reason to do so would be if you felt nervous for some reason.

do you have any reason to be nervous user?

Yea and it runs at 1 ghz

>>yyyou can't reach 4.2 GHz on a 8 core chip!!111

said no one ever. stop shilling intel. also this crap is gonna be priced at 800 usd at least. no thanks.
+AMD

>14mb cache.
Yeah no.

Intel wasted billions R&D making shitty igpus because they own the fagtop market.
They should just rip the band-aid off and throw the igpu portion in the trash

Not everyone is a poor indian

>doesn't go that

maybe because intel is honest with their power ratigns and AMD is not?

Holy shit. Is intel finished?
Sauce on that?

>this much damage control
Last time I checked they were around 2.6GHz which is higher than a comparable Broadwell Xeon.
But feel free to correct me if you have better sources.

Are all of you retarded? 5960x can OC quite well, it's Ryzen that has a clock limit, but that's not even that bad when its IPC can compete with Intel. You know you're fucked when 4GHz can compete with almost 5GHz on gaymes and an 8 core can compete against your 10 cores at everything else.
I went with a 1600 since it's at a great price and can eventually give me room for Zen+ on 7nm.

>4.1ghz amd can compete with 4.5ghz intel

Lul no
Sorry to break it to you, but your newly purchased chip is a piece of poo

other way around

>yyyou can't reach 4.2 GHz on a 8 core chip!!111
That's what Jewtel has been saying for quite some time now... suddenly it's possible...

Competition is important

1. no one is honest with TDP ratings
2. Intel is never honest
3. TDP ratings are very approximate and their main function is to give you an idea what cooling solution to buy

That being said, if your 10-core CPU has a TDP within range of a competitor's offering that has three times the number of cores, you have a fucking problem.

>IMG_2558
kek

That's because Zen sweet spot is around ~3 GHz. It uses very little power to reach it. Ryzen has shown us it can reach 4 GHz under acceptable power usage, but anything above it has terrible efficiency.

Don't respond to him, it'll only encourage him more.

This. You need nuclear voltages to go past 4.0ghz on any ryzen

That's because of the voltage wall and, as it was explained to me, that has a lot to do with their current manufacturing process. I expect Zen+ or whatever it's called to rectify this problem.

>intel riding off having higher IPC for years
>Desktop chips are just rejects cut down to quad cores
>AMD finally releases a product that forces intel's hand
>8 core desktop chips that we could have had 5 years ago are now on there way
>"AMD is finished and bankrupt fuck AMD die die die"

Retards I swear.

Amd still has lower ipc

This seems to just be a factor of the process technology used. The nm might be the same for the two processors but completely different fabbing techniques are at work- intel is better at fabbing.
If you threw ryzen onto intel's fabs you'd probably end up with a 4.8GHz Ryzen part.
You know, if tooling up was actually easy and not a hundred million dollar pain in the ass.

So?

And this test is done with 1T timing on the Zen part.

Intel is better at fabs but that's not what's happening here, GloFo's process is optimized for low voltages, and it scales better than Intel's at lower voltages, aka server clockspeeds

dedicated gpu is useless for me personally.
i want as much CPU power as I can get, and I don't game. I don't want to waste money on a gpu when I can have the basics built into the cpu for my desktop usage.

>sweetie
is this some new Reddit meme or something?

Can you answer this important question:
Who gives a single fat orge fuck about power consumption or heat generated when you're going to put a good cooler on it and desktops don't have batteries?
Electricity is so cheap you won't even notice the difference on your utility bill.

literally unironically delete this

they're 1.4Ghz
>zen and kaby lake are the same colour
What a dumb graph

How much does the entire server blade operating cost? 60mm San Ace fans at 2.7A * 12V?

You're missing the point here.
It wouldn't be a problem if that was the single 10-core chip on the market, but that's not the case. AMD has Threadripper which is more efficient and has 6 more cores which kind of makes this Intel "offering" pointless.

>they're 1.4Ghz
Do you have a source? The best I found is this paper: amd.com/system/files/2017-05/TIRIAS-AMD-Single-Socket-Server.pdf

Also the 1.4 GHz clocks look like the lowest frequency achievable by power management and not the base frequency.

I agree with that. Threadripper will completely BTFO Skylake-X this generation (so long as they keep the price below $800 for the 16core)
But that's because Intel doesn't innovate and because they're overpriced, it has nothing to do with something as irrelevant and stupid as power consumption and heat production.
How much does a consumer who will buy exactly one of these care? People who buy tons of them buy 8P Xeons or Naples, not HEDT.

This TDP meme is holding us back. I would gladly take a 6GHz threadripper with 16 cores and an iGPU with 400W TDP. Who cares?

I might be wrong. It was on wccftech when they were announced, but they've since revised the article. Sorry about that.

How about some perspective people? Their 4 core is 115W TDP at 4.4GHz.

These aren't base clocks unless it's 200W, no jesus in hell.

Don't you mean 4.1-4.2? That's what the 1800X is capped at.

Koolance liquid cooled server racks up to 10 racks?

>6 GHz at 400W
You know power usage doesn't scale linearly with clocks, right? At 16 C @ 6 GHz, you'd be easily going over the 1000W mark (and that's being way conservative, assuming it could be reached).

Literally nothing would manage to cool down this thing.

It's most likely overclocked.
Intel likes to put the base clock low as shit on these higher core versions and there's a lot of room to oc.
5820k and 5960x base clocks are set at a bit over 3Ghz and turbo to 3.5Ghz or something, yet I've seen those 6-8 cores at a stable 4.7Ghz on this board.

>TDP 175 WATT
Top kek, that's a completely unprecedented level of housefire.
Prescot can't touch this.

>yet I've seen those 6-8 cores at a stable 4.7Ghz on this board.
Silicon lottery winner?

realtime encoding ten streams of yourself sucking dicks

i use my shit for compiling, vms, video capture and encoding so i want all the fast cores i can get

Threadly reminder that Intel sold so few i7-6900K's that 1800X's supplanted them in marketshare immediately after it was released. And that wasn't even their HEDT platform.

>talking about Hz counts after the year 2010

>175W
You can't make this shit up. It's 2005 all over again.

>Probably 6-8 cores can be at 4.5GHz.
Not only would that cause a nuclear meltdown, but nobody buys into HEDT just to run half the cores at high clockspeed. Especially at Intel prices.

>You know power usage doesn't scale linearly with clocks, right?
It does. Increasing the voltage results in a quadratic increase of power usage, but as long as that's not required the increase is linear. That's why undervolting power-limited GPUs works so well.

Well, it's kinda implied that you'd need nuclear amounts of voltage to reach 6 GHz, but yeah, you're right.

Yes those are on the better end, but every single one of those chips should be able to reach around 4.5Ghz
That generation was a beast at overclocking.

It's a miracle that Intel sold as many as they did.
6900k is retarded expensive compared to the models with two less cores.
Costs nearly 1k more than the 6 core model. Their price scaling is retarded and not sustainable against any kind of reasonably priced competition.
They better unfuck themselves with these new cpus, or they're going to sell only a handful of them.

>cause a nuclear meltdown
uhhh are you retarded?

A 22nm 5820k can hit 4.4-4.6GHz on all 6 cores and still be under 180w TDP.

Are you completely retarded?

Only the FIRST core can it reach 4.5 Ghz, the others will run at stock 4.0.

Almost all the chips that are i7 or i9 have only the first 1-2 cores reaching that ammount of boost. Even the 7700K reaches that ammount on the first 2 cores only and then it drops by .1 GHz per next core.

Yeah well, second part of the post is still true.

Plenty of people do. Anyone with mixed workloads would be happy to have 4ghz on all cores and 4.5Ghz on 6+ cores.

If you regularly do work of varying parallelization, then having cores that can adjust their frequency depending on load would be great to have.


The majority of the HEDT market is not consumer, it's enterprise, business, government, and education.

How much 2.5k is it gonna cost?

>Anyone with mixed workloads would be happy to have 4ghz on all cores and 4.5Ghz on 6+ cores.
It's going to be hard to argue losing several cores compared to threadripper is worth higher clockspeed in some workloads. And especially at Intel's usual pricing.

>it's enterprise, business, government, and education
Aren't they using actual server shit? Not binned Xeon rejects?

>Aren't they using actual server shit? Not binned Xeon rejects?
Depends, for servers yes, for workstations? Depends if they need ECC.

There are plenty of people who don't need the features of the Xeons and just need more cores with a good number of PCIe lanes for GPUs doing compute or some such.


tldr; it's gonna depend

are you getting a 30 year mortgage to afford it?

Is this the start of a glorious competition age? Will Intel finally stop half-assing everything and finally do the first worthwhile change since sandy bridge? Will they finally lower their prices? Or will AMD eat them alive with 80% of the performance and 50% the price?

>you actually can get 4.5 stable with 1 0 C O R E S.
Tech illiterate retard.
Why have you not deleted this after embarrassing yourself so much? You really have no self respect. You'd eat shit if you got (You)s for it, wouldn't you?

The 4.5GHz is only what it boosts to on one or 2 cores.
It's only 4GHz on all cores.
Ryzen overclocks to 4.1-4.25 on all cores for the same 155w TDP.

fucking kid

They like to push some work to it like quick sync. Not sure of more examples though, or if it's even worth it. A little "nice to have" that most people don't give a shit about.

Oh honeybunch, did you just stumble upon this site for the first time today?

>175W TDP
literal housefire

Meanwhile most real world IPC comparisons look like this ..

>400W TDP
literally no way to cool that unless you drastically increase the size of the CPU die. We're already struggling to dissipate 100W (often more than that because of overclocking) of heat through a 170mm^2 die, let alone 4x that much.

of course bigger die would also mean higher cost

>175w
Ebin

>of course bigger die would also mean higher cost
Just go full retard like NVidia did. Consumers are willing to pay $18k for a CPU, right?

Imagine if AMD and Intel merged. We'd have like 60 core CPU's running at 6Ghz for $10 next year, right?

AMD is tiny compared to Intel. It would be a buyout. A bad one, that would resort in Intel sitting on their ass again while ARM munches their marketshare even more.

Powerful iGPUs help consume the budget market. If you don't need to spend an extra $100-200 on a GPU, save your money there instead of on your processor. Also, business markets who have no interest in dGPUs.

So what's the price? And that isn't 4.5ghz on all cores, its 4.5ghz on a single core

Also its nearly a 200W CPU at stock

The leaked slides show it as 3.3ghz base, 4.3ghz turbo 2 and 4.5ghz turbo 3, not the mad up fake bullshit in the OP.

As usual, this is a bait thread.

No, I use an iGPU as I don't play games.

>This TDP meme is holding us back. I would gladly take a 6GHz threadripper with 16 cores and an iGPU with 400W TDP. Who cares?
This is why you belong to the kitchen

Let's see how much it costs, but it looks like a solid product

(You)

>Absolute IPC
LMAO

>turbo
>on a server chip

I thought they basically never used that shit

>(amd can do this)

Yeah but it's still beaten to bits by old 4 cores

Gr8 b8 m8 I r8 it 8/8.

An APU with the same performance as a Ryzen CPU and a RX 460 sounds like a really, really sweet deal for Low Budget Systems. If they can put them at less than what a G4560+RX460 costs, it'll surely sell like hotcakes.

They've already teased laptops using it. hexus.net/tech/news/laptop/105937-asus-rog-teases-amd-ryzen-powered-gaming-laptop/

Yeah, but it's unlikely to be 460 performance.
If it is though, AMD just handily took over the entire low and low-midrange laptop market.

>A videogame
>A CPU Intensive one at that
>Even though it's been demonstrated over, and over, and over again that Single Core Performance is the only negative part of the Ryzen CPUs
(You) should leave.