Review: Intel Core i9 7900X processor

Completely agree.

Wait, what? using your (overpriced) hardware to it's full potential is stupid????

This is a workstation platform, if I wanted to run.. idk... some kind of genetic CAD algorithm to design gas pipes configurations for a new factory over an entire week I should tell my software to use less cores or just disable AVX because... u know, the hard is there but is just for looking at, not using it. :bang:

Sorry for the sarcasm but u are making very little sense :infinity:

 

Definitely a slapped together response to AMD. I have always loved Intel but this is pretty weak. I bet they ditch the whole platform pretty quick and come out with a proper platform to compete with. I feel sorry for anyone that buys into this lazy platform and ill be sure to talk people away from it. Tsk Tsk Intel

 

An EPYC instead of a TR? super weird... and really low clock.
Might be targeting some kind of data storage / backup servers.

 

Small corporate router with 6x 10G cards on. ECC and the rest enabled, and everything at full speed with NVMe storage :nerd:

 

AMD 486 SX50, i remember, because it sucked, it was too old in that time.

 

You´re mixing things. Using a torture software like P95 is not using hardware to it´s full potential!!! It´s just placing a cpu to an extremely unrealistic load to see if it remains stable even on an worse case scenario that is never going to happen on real life!!!

If you want to use this cpu to run some CAD algorithm to design gas pipes configurations for a new factory over an entire week you can do it withou any problem. Only if you overclock the cpu to a certain extent is that you can run into thermal issues caused by AVX usage and in that case you can use the AVX offset ratio to reduce the speed of the AVX. For example Hilbert managed to overclock the 7900X to 4.8Ghz and because of that the cpu reached very high temps, in this case it´s better to reduce the AVX speed to something between 4.0 and 4.4 Ghz. This way you can have the cpu overclocked for every software without any problem, i think.
There is only a problem if the cpu can´t run AVX at stock speeds but so far i haven´t seen anything like that.

Intel has already explained very well the AVX potential and quirks so you can look at them if you have any doubt.

 

That's a good possibility. It'd also be good for Apache servers, as this is where ARM-based servers have really got a lot of attention. Though, think these Epycs have a more specific purpose.

Assuming all Epycs (including these "lesser" models) include 64 PCIe lanes, I think a low-clocked 8-core has a lot of purposes. In particular, GPGPU farms. For many such systems, CPU power isn't that important. Sure, 7 GPUs in a single server is nice, but considering how little bandwidth you actually need for such tasks, you could get something like this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Supermicro-...555308?hash=item2cc0f09cec:g:7NcAAOSwVJhZPwLX
and seriously increase your output.

 

I'm not saying the CPU isn't functional (well, having a CPU with quirks is really bothersome but might be acceptable).

But I don't agree with this "extremely unrealistic" thing. Any possible workload is important, this is a workstation platform. P95 torture test runs the same algorithms used for normal operation of the software, it just lets u change things and strips some unnecessary elements. In the same fashion, any number crunching software (like this hypothetical genetic CAD algorithm) will seek to maximize use of the chip and (ab)use the best instruction set it can.

Let me try with an analogy, if the CPU was a truck, Intel certifies a max speed with a max load (by setting clocks and physically allowing CPU units to be active simultaneously). But then saying "hey, going at that max speed with max load is unrealistic and shouldn't be a testing scenario".

Again, the whole problem was created by a combination of Intel going too far, board partners turning off / tweaking P-states for "gaming" and some OC. The chip does work, but there's no such thing as an "unrealistic workload" for a workstation platform.

 

I'm 99% sure my next cpu+mobo will be AMD, second generation Ryzen or whatever they will call it. My last AMD cpu was an Athlon 64 3500+ (I still have the box lol!). I'm glad Intel is finally getting a trashing, but it really, really surprises me that they have been THIS unprepared. I guess dominating for like 10 years didn't help... they got too lazy/greedy and it's now more evident than ever.

 

Sucked? The 486 was a beast
Quite an upgrade coming from a Commodore PC30-III

 

Unless there´s any other software were the cpu reaches extremely high temps when running AVX on stock speeds, then the cpu works fine as it´s supposed to do. And so far the only reported problem regarding high temps while running AVX only happened using P95... So for me P95 creates an unrealistic load that no other software seems to replicate on a normal usage.

This is my opinion, dosn´t mean i´m correct and you´re wrong but so far everything i´ve read points out to the fact that the cpu works properly when executing AVX at stock speeds. In case you find anything stating the contrary, feel free to tell me.

 

@H83

Regarding P95 not being realistic in real world scenarios, that statement was aiming at mainstream home users for the majority (and really worked for most commercial programs too honestly)

The thing to bear in mind is that once you start talking about scientific analysis where code is quite likely refined for extracting best possible performance from hardware due to their hugely complex long running calculations then in a lot of cases I think the CPU strain will be very similar to P95. Don't forget that some people use P95 for things other than "Just Stress Testing" too ~_^

Some of the work units I used to get for folding@home were sometime Very intensive on my PC, while most were lighter work.

These systems really need to be capable of being used to their potential by the end user, not just some approximated % of that potential that is not even defined !

 

486 what? My next DX4 100 was a beast for sure, but not that gimped SX.
http://www.vogons.org/download/file.php?id=9130&sid=877d7c708b4aa64e571dbf4adb0793ab

 

I understand but so far every review i read shows the 7900X running AVX instructions at normal speed! I´m still to see the cpu having any problems running AVX at stock speeds with professional software that uses it extensively. So far the only problem that occurred was in Toms review when they used P95 on an overclocked cpu!!! Please remember that some sites overclocked the 7700K to 5Ghz and found out that the cpu would overheat when using AVX!!! Solution? Use the AVX offset ratio to lower the speed of the cpu when executing AVX.

This doesn´t mean that AVX works perfectly with every software but so far i´m still looking for the first problem/failure with real world usage. If you know cases of the 7900X failing to perform when running AVX at stock speeds, please show me.

Like i said before i could be wrong because i only read stuff like AVX for curiosity since i don´t have any use for them and my knowledge is limited to what i read in sites like Guru3d, Anandtech and others. If that´s the case just show me were i´m wrong please.

 

LOL p95 not realistic in a gaming world,but i do 3D rendering and trust me a cpu can come as hot as an p95 test temp..Most 3D render use AVX and AVX2.:infinity:

 

Yup agree, most of new renderers are using AVX or AVX2 as most of them started to use Intel Embree which really punish CPU very similar like P95 or OCCT

Hope this helps

Thanks, Jura

 

With a 7Gb HDD and a GPU with 8mb memory!
Windows 98/Me were a pain in the butt!

Holly $hit!
I feel like a kid now

Me too.
I'm in trouble now without a GPU to buy (stupid miners) but next year I'll probably pull the trigger on a new system.

 

Haha and I always thought I was young here. I am a little curious what the age demographic is of these forums. Personally, I'm 27. I figure most people here are in their late 20s to mid 30s.

I was around 4 years old at the time of my first PC, and even then it wasn't mine, it was the family PC. This PC had a Turbo button (which for those of you too young to know, would actually slow down the PC when toggled - it varied depending on the brand). I think the first PC that was actually mine was some used Compaq, also with a Pentium Pro, a defective CD-ROM 4x drive, and no sound card. I was around 14 for the first PC I built myself, and involved a Pentium 4.

The Vega release could be an interesting one. If it ends up being a somewhat crappy value for miners, it'll be pretty much the only option for gamers and will likely sell better than AMD anticipated. If it ends up being a really good value for miners, many of the current miners may sell their 480s,560s, 570s, or 580s, where people could buy these mostly new for a very low price.

 

I would think it would be the opposite, if it's good for miners it will sell way more than if it was just good for gamers. 480/580 are both out of stock months/years after launch due to miners - IIRC that's only happened twice and both times were due to miners.

Now whether or not that hurts AMD's future marketshare I guess is left to be seen. There are like dozens of posts on /r/nvidia of people looking to buy AMD cards but can't and thus switching to Nvidia. I think that hurts AMD in the long run, but I'm sure the money they are making on selling a trillion cards to miners probably offsets that.

 

I don't see any compelling reason to blow $1K and $200-300 for a mobo. Ryzen shines here.