Intel Core i9-7960X performance; lands a 3200 on Cinebench R15

Wow how can AMD even compete?

twitter.com/intelnews/status/894620091546873856

Other urls found in this thread:

tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092-11.html
tomshardware.com/reviews/-intel-skylake-x-overclocking-thermal-issues,5117-4.html
pcgamer.com/full-details-for-intels-core-i9-processor-lineup/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

being a thousand dollars cheaper

By not requiring delidding with a phase change cooler to avoid throttling.

>As if that matters when you are the king of Cinebench

Not shown: 2KW PSU to run the CPU and several gallons of LN2, local fire department was lead to the scene shortly after benchmark

TDP: 750W

they have an army of rabid fans but they're all poorfags

...

How much does it cost? $2000?

the TR 1950X scores 3277 in CB R15 , so it beats this thing , thats how they compete
oh and its half the price and has 64pcie lanes / quad mem

what do they mean by this?

>engadget

pure fucking trash

it's from OP's link.

I don't even care who is actually faster AT THIS VERY SECOND.

It's just so damn refreshing to witness a real race between those two again.
Reminds me of the old early 00s megahertz race.

>consumer
>$2,000

*good goyim

The 16 core is actually $700 more expensive, the 18 core is $1000 more expensive.

AMD 16 core 3050 points $1000
Intel 16 core 3200 points $1700

So you get 5% more cinebunch points for 70% more price. And if you try and OC it, it will go into terminal meltdown. Whereas the AMD 16 core can OC to 3.9-4 GHz rather easily and get a similar cinebench score anyway.

Intel has 0 traffic on it's twitter, how is this plausible?

I'd rather not think about that because it reminds me of my friends who thought the turbo button made their computers faster

$1700. With fewer pcie lanes, higher power consumption, and constant thermal throttling.
Oh, and if you want raid you need to buy dongles for it. All this and the score isn't even 5% than the 1950X's.

>damage control
>p-pls buy i9, pls

Threadripper is nearly a Ghz faster on it's base clock and won't require 600W

Threadly reminder that the i9-7900X can barely keep itself cool at stock with watercooling and the 12+ cores will have even higher temps.

no one runs p95 24/7 anyway spaz

What's the point in dropping 2000 grand on a CPU, if you can't use it to it's full potential.

Phew, good thing this isn't an enthusiast platform where overclocking is expected to work without causing a nuclear meltdown.

Oh, wait.


tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092-11.html

tomshardware.com/reviews/-intel-skylake-x-overclocking-thermal-issues,5117-4.html

> Costs 70% more
> TDP is 50% more
> Fewer PCIe lanes
> Performs only 5% better
Intel is really dead, that 18-core will be the ultimate firehouse, and it will probably perform like shit due to shitty clockspeeds

3.4 GHz all core on the 18 core apparently. It's gonna be pretty damn housefire.

I'm predicting it will get ~3380 cinebrunch points. An astonishing 10% better. But again twice the price, insane temps, less PCIe lanes.

pcgamer.com/full-details-for-intels-core-i9-processor-lineup/

>3.4 GHz all core on the 18 core apparently.

damn now if we could get the nvidia vs ati times too it would be great too bad pajeet is a fuckup in the gpu department

THAT'S NOT FAIR

Get those compressors ready, we're up for some throttling!

>For a great VR experience
>VR

FUCKING KEK
YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS SHIT UP

Unless Intel grows a brain and uses solder, this is seriously going to be worse than the current crop of X299 housefires. It almost pains me to have to wait until October 18th to see the resulting damage.

the threadripper cinebench scores go to around 2900 at stock clocks.
The i9 7960X has 2 more cores, which should mean a 12.5% increase if IPC and frequency were equal.
3200 gives the i9 just a 10% advantage, and we know that skylake has slightly higher IPC.
This is for a full thousand dollars more, on a platform with significantly worse IO support.
Intel is shitting their pants violently rn.

>the threadripper cinebench scores go to around 2900 at stock clocks.
False. That score is from Dell's shitty ram. We already know the 1950x will do ~3050 at stock clocks and ~3250 at 4.0ghz all-core overclock.

I think I have a millionaire idea.
Put a store and sell pc hardware with payment/upgrade plans for +$1k hardware.

I will add insurance and pay you half the price for your hardware so you can upgrade one year after.

If apple could I can do it too

engadget's blogcrap on the i9 is 100% marketing paid for by intel. why else would intel's twitter twit about it?

>I am retarded and will keep repeating how Raja needs to leave
You niggers know nothing.

>mfw my friend just bought that processor

found this on hwbot

actually if you oc the 1950X a little (aka locking all cores at 4ghz boost)
you get 3277 points and beat intel :P
but then again you can oc intel aswell , its just gonna run hot as hell and throttle mid CB run

Except they not only go up in performance they go up in price. This is not the 2000s i remember.

>no one runs p95 24/7 anyway spaz

It's not about running 24/7, it's the increased chances or crashing when stressed. If it's professional use it's a big fuck up, for gaymur money grabbing sure it's tippy top performance at the price of your kidney.

Intel used to be miles ahead with AMD just lagging behind.

Now Intel is getting BTFO by AMD on a scale of massive proportions.

Currently all Intel but if I will ever upgrade it will definitely be AMD for the price performance.

>How can Intel compete
>How can Amd compete
Make up your mind Sup Forums

now i know why we had a fucking blackout in north east Africa

intel tweets engadget

i wonder how much they paid them for this

there wasnt a race back then only intel paying companies not to use the clearly superior amd

why is cinebench saying the x5650 is 12c/24t when its literally half that?

>Now Intel is getting BTFO by AMD on a scale of massive proportions.
only in marketing department
wait for quarterly reports

Because you are going to need this to run an i9

dual cpu setup , says so in the details when you mouseover it

AYYMD PISSPOORFAGS ON SOEISIDE WUTCH

AYYMD POOJEETS ON DAMAGE CONTRIL

ah, makes sense. thanks

the 7700K is $100 cheaper than the 1800x and runs every game better at stock, much more at OC

you cant have it both ways

AMD is slower in everything, nobody is fucking transcoding 24/7 to care about the tertiary "benefits"

>1800X
>Not 1700
>muh gaymershit

...

>18 shintel cores = 16 ayymd cores

rly made me think

what are you trying to say with that image?

You mean that person that you mooch support off? Because you're no friend of his, after allowing him to do that.

Try even an 1600x.

...

are you trying to say a 1600 can out perform the 7700k in OC gaming

thats literally what it did

No, just that saying a 1700 is comparable to a 7700k is crap, when the 1600x exists, and still kicks its arse in price/perf. The extra two cores don't play too much into it at this point.
Only retards to say that a 7700k is worth your time are in it to meme you out of money in six months time.

Fucking stop shilling this shit on Sup Forums. You're cancer. I get that you're getting paid by Intel, but shit post in fucking moderation.

Nobody fucking cares. A thread died for this bullshit.

intel covers the spacex launch to send the machine on the vaccun of space to cool them down?

And the 1600 and 1600x are both over 100 dollars cheaper than the 7700k, on top of not being a furnaces stuck on a dead socket.

>Much more at OC
Loving every laugh.

>Tom's Shillware shitting on Intel for their bullshit and actually reporting on their glaring issues
Is this real life?

The 7700k takes the edge in gaming. If you're willing to have 80 rather than 87fps on your 60Hz monitor, then getting a much better processor overall is a better idea. For example; the 1600x.

You don't wanna be in mommy's blacklist.

It's when the cheques start bouncing

Intel has ran out of bribes money?

>reaching 90% 7700K
>memory not at or above 3200Mhz
that's damn good
are these with SMT off?

No, SMT on.

wait, kit WAS at 3200 someone should tell them to test off

7980XE is fucking "rejected" server-tier chip, overclocked.

It should have never existed. Not even workstation-types need that many threads on a single socket. 12-threads is about what most stop at before the thermals start to end way into the clockspeed/core count trade-off.

Server-fags will ignore it because it doesn't have ECC support. Any of the SP Epyc BTFO the 7980XE for about %40-50 less.

Only die-hard intel-fags with way more money then sense would get a 7980XE.

The only reason that anything above 7920X exists is because Intel marketing-fags want to keep up appearances in "core-count" game thermals and yields be damned.

oh so it's only performing 5% under despite having less cores and worse IPC.
[pant shitting intensifies]

Barely beats the 1950X.

EXCLUA

The story is not that simple.
Games DO use more than 4 threads, but only when under stress.
Basically the intel CPUs increase the maximum frame rate, but the Ryzen parts increase the minimum frame rate.

> Twice the price
I can build a complete 16c system for the price of just the i9 processor
> Less PCIE lanes
> Resorting to launching your product on a gadget website to reach normies
> Guiding b.s writeups like this :
"During a routine business meeting at the company's Santa Clara headquarters, they decided to upend their desktop CPU roadmap for 2017 to prepare something new: the beastly 18-core i9-7980XE X-series.
Yeah because clearly this had nothing to do with your competitor drop kicking your roadmap and pricing tiers...
>It's the company's most powerful consumer processor ever, and it marks the first time Intel hsd been able to cram that many cores into a desktop CPU. At $2,000, it's the sort of thing hardware fanatics will salivate over, and regular consumers can only dream about."
It's a workstation processor..suited for workstation tasks. Learn how to market your product to the people you hope to win over.
They are on par which is why Intel didn't provide a live demo of them scoring that figure... Likely because they're using Turboboost 2.0 and 3.0 and it isn't easily repeatable.

mfw memetic energy isn't behind you

Gotta love the timing of intel's announcement... Days before AMD's product launch. Have some class guys.

Performance will be all over the place.. need a 4d chart just to explain runtime performance..
kek

You caught that too? They're sending one last call to the normies to rescue their platform. Gotta love normie sites... Always on the dole spreading bullshit.

kek

>that RAM

No it didn't. Turbo button down clocked the CPU.

>nobody is fucking transcoding 24/7 to care about the tertiary "benefits"
>im not doing anything other than playing games so no one else is either!
Games are literally the worst benchmark for CPUs because it's realtime.
Cutting an hour off a 20 hour encode job is significant. Reducing the time you spend waiting on compilations is significant. Getting a few more or less fps isn't.

Threadripper is the exact same thing though, it's just an Epyc CPU with two dies disabled

>a-at least we still got MUH GAYMES
>at 1080p 144hz w/ a 1080 ti
>posting this shit in an HEDT thread in the first place

Threadripper has spacers, they're not actually dead dies. And AMD is charging $1000 not $2000 for it. Also, it has ECC support as does Ryzen.

>Threadripper has spacers, they're not actually dead dies.
That's a complete bullshit excuse though. AMD says the spacers are "needed" to prevent unequal weight distribution. Then why make the CPU so big in the first place. AMD created a solution to a problem they created. It's the same thing with the temperature reading bugs on Ryzen and even previous CPU's. They said it was for fan curve, but they design the fucking motherboard specs. They can tell mobo manufactures what defaults to include in the BIOS. AMD never seems to be completely truthful with their customers, just like Intel.

It's just cheaper to reuse the socket and slot design, stop trying to write a conspiracy theory into everything.

Only some of the Ryzen CPUs have the temp offset (X-series). It's so it can hit XFR clockspeeds.

>Then why make the CPU so big in the first place.
Probably too big to fit on the Ryzen PCB thus too big for the AM4 socket.

Are Threadripper and Epyc socket compatible? If they are then this makes perfect sense.

It's the same socket just with Threadripper half the pins don't do anything. It's a cost saving measure.

Intel BTFO

I'll never understand why Sup Forums loves arguing over products that nobody on Sup Forums can afford.

There are several anons on here already planning on buying a Threadraper system.

Those timings are so fucking loose and still BFTO intel.

Honestly expect the results to be around 3500 at 4 GHz.

>planning
yes , i to have a pcpartpicker threadripper build , unless the cryptos i own go moon or something i am on my more than enough Ryzen 5 1600 anyways

DOA
O
A