What's new
  • Please do not post any links until you have 3 posts as they will automatically be rejected to prevent SPAM. Many words are also blocked due to being used in SPAM Messages. Thanks!

Intel i9-7980XE & i9-7960X Performance Review Comment Thread

FreeKnight

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
2,441
Location
Edmonton, AB
Your $2000 USD still gets you tim interface. Yikes...

Intel Warranty Dept; 'We're losing too much money in warranties'
Intel Accountant: ' Use TIM it's cheaper and it'll reduce cost'
Intel Technical Rep: 'But that's worse for users, it'll just make them want to delid'
Intel Accountant: ' That voids their warranty. EXTRA SAVINGS for intel!'

:ph34r:
 

FreeKnight

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
2,441
Location
Edmonton, AB
Review sums it up nicely. Great performance for power-content creators. Grotesquely overpriced for anyone else (IMO).

It's a shame intel can't get their PCIe lane shit together in the Z series where more gamers are interested in multi-gpu setups with a possible PCIe SSD.

And like AkG said, there's still an issue of core/thread usage with gaming that doesn't benefit too many cores. I don't expect this will change in the next 5+ years. With development being very console orientated for most games, they're just not going to build the software for 6, 8, 12 cores to be useful when a PS4/Xbox One will never take advantage of it.

Apparently there's 40 lanes for the 8600k and 8700k now. I stand corrected :shok:
 
D

Dark Knight

Guest
Your $2000 USD still gets you tim interface. Yikes...

I was waiting for someone to mention this. Their still keeping TIM even on their flagship processors and that's months in between. I'm sure their Xeon-W versions also have TIM for LGA2066.
 

Vittra

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Ontario
How much does a application crash - or worse - system crash factor into people whose workstation is their life?

This will be a difficult processor for almost anyone to justify. It's more of an academic achievement and less a realistic option. I think if they had at least provided ECC support instead of fusing it off, and getting at least one manufacturer to produce a "niche" ECC supported board, you could somewhat justify it.. but I just can't see the value here.

I'd imagine most people at this level of money are going to be wanting ECC if they are serious about protecting their source of income, and that means that all i9's are removed from the equation in favour of a Xeon W vs TR vs Epyc argument. Maybe the Xeon scalables as well, maybe not.

Yeah I would agree with that AkG. I was kind of jazzed up about TR when it was on the horizon but in the end the utilization of the cores isn't there, as you said, and isn't likely coming for a couple years if I was being opptomistic. If the underlying architecture, i.e. the motherboard/chipset/features, weren't changing so quickly too then maybe there would be an argument for attempting to future proofing some. But if the CPUs keep requiring us to change motherboards every few years (or less) then you're absolutely right; why plunk down that much on something only to feel the itch to upgrade again in two years anyway?

This is kind of me talking through my next move. Part of me really wanted to enter the HEDT world but the reality is the next few sets of CPUs that aren't technically HEDT in the normal sense will be more than enough for the majority of what I do. Moving to one that is 6-8 physical cores will be upgrade enough, especially considering the 4790K is still no slouch.

You guys are always so responsible! You never talk me into spending more money! lol

Interestingly though I do believe both of those consoles are 8 core systems (two quad-core modules)... So your statement might actually support us having 6 or 8 in the PC world. Hyperthreading aside of course.

While none of us can predict the future, there's a few things we can consider specifically that suggests a higher core count computer won't prove any benefit in the short term.

1) We have not seen significant improvement in PC ports or quick DX12 implementation due to AMD hardware being used in consoles. Developers are slow to implement new technologies, and are rarely given the extra time and resources to ensure features make it to PC versions.

2) Consoles are no longer lasting as long as they use to. It seems we are in a period where they are shifting to a "refresh --> next gen" cycle. In this shift, perhaps the addition of cores may have more to do with marketing than considering longevity of the platform. Depending on how you interpret this point, you could see it as a contradiction with 1), or further proof that developers won't necessarily care about the extra resources afforded to them - not yet anyway.

3) There are legacy and current games that do no like processors with high core counts. This will mean you will have to set processor affinity, or use alternative methods like the TR "Gaming" mode which halves the usable core count. I don't consider this a huge issue, in fact it may not affect you at all - but it's something that may come up for you, and you'll have to decide if this additional hassle is worth having a computer that may not ever have it's full core count used in games before seeing replacement.

From my own perspective, the major advantage of these rigs outside of the obvious workstation scenarios is consolidation of separate rigs into one. You could potentially setup a hypervisor with a VM specific to gaming, and VMs for other uses (HTPC, servers of various sorts, etc). Is it worth the trouble and loss of flexibility over seperate rigs? No :haha:
 

turtletrax

Banned
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
949
Location
Edmonton(ish)
One thing I found interesting is Der8auers extreme overclocking results. 6.1Ghz all cores and using 1000w for cpu only. - 120c pot temp was seeing above zero temps on the core. That is just rediculous amounts of heat.

It is just silliness to have a Tim interface, and I think FreeKnight hit the nail on the head as to why. I just hope AMD can pressure Intel enough for them to have at least some respect for enthusiasts and professionals alike.
 
D

Dark Knight

Guest
One thing I found interesting is Der8auers extreme overclocking results. 6.1Ghz all cores and using 1000w for cpu only. - 120c pot temp was seeing above zero temps on the core. That is just rediculous amounts of heat.

It is just silliness to have a Tim interface, and I think FreeKnight hit the nail on the head as to why. I just hope AMD can pressure Intel enough for them to have at least some respect for enthusiasts and professionals alike.

Well another reason is they can sell their Intel performance tuning plan as it covers delidding with the plan. Therefore they are making an additional $50+ for each plan sold.
 

turtletrax

Banned
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
949
Location
Edmonton(ish)
Well another reason is they can sell their Intel performance tuning plan as it covers delidding with the plan. Therefore they are making an additional $50+ for each plan sold.


It covers delidding????? Wow, that I didn't know!

That makes it at least semi palatable.
 

FreeKnight

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
2,441
Location
Edmonton, AB
It covers delidding????? Wow, that I didn't know!

That makes it at least semi palatable.

https://click.intel.com/tuningplan/purchase-a-plan

Looks like the price varies considerably. Considering you've already paid a premium for an 'unlocked' CPU and have to pay again to get an overclocking warranty, it still rubs me the wrong way.

Semi-palatable, like you said, but I still don't like it. Now if there wasn't a price premium for 'K's to begin with.

That price on th i9s though. Oooof (though it's a fraction of processor price).
 

sf101

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
499
My opinion on that is simple. Game makers have been promising to fully utilize multiple cores and yet here we are with only a few games that can max out 6C/12T. Most its 4 threads at best. As such I would recommend buying whatever is best for your needs now... as by the time these or AMD versions can take advantage of 12C/24T or better... a couple generations will have past. :ph34r:

Basically future proofing is all well and fine, but 'all things in moderation' is how I view it. Why spend a ton of money on a CPU you may never fully utilize when you can get a less expensive one you can use right now? YMMV :thumb:

And even with those games that utilize those 12c/24t its better yes but not huge amounts better.

Much of a game's performance comes down to videocards in the end although its preferable in the end to have no bottle necks.

Then you also have max core speed when overclocked to take into account unless you run your gaming rigs stock.

I feel like the last year or two are good steps that needed to be taken in the CPU world.

Now they need to lower the power usage / heat and purchase costs, and things will begin to really fly.

Next gens should be quite amazing imho.
 

turtletrax

Banned
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
949
Location
Edmonton(ish)
https://click.intel.com/tuningplan/purchase-a-plan

Looks like the price varies considerably. Considering you've already paid a premium for an 'unlocked' CPU and have to pay again to get an overclocking warranty, it still rubs me the wrong way.

Semi-palatable, like you said, but I still don't like it. Now if there wasn't a price premium for 'K's to begin with.

That price on th i9s though. Oooof (though it's a fraction of processor price).

Completely agree it is still quite vomitous, but at least if you are out to wring a processor for all its worth and actually have to delid to even be able to use the thing for what you bought it for, the tuning plan would make allot of sense if it covers delidding. I was under the assumption that you can delid and have the mem controller croak from no fault if your own and be out a couple grand.

I probably would have waited to see what the 8700k was really like if I had known that tuning plan covered delidding. Instead grabbed a 1700x.
 

Latest posts

Twitter

Top