Last week we already reported that Intels 12-core Intel Core i9 7920X will get a 400 MHz slower base-clock compared to the 10-core 7900X, that information is now confirmed with a leaked CPU-Z screens... 12 Core Core i9-7920X CPU-Z Screenshot Surfaces and Shows Specs
So basically this will be slower than the 12 core Ryzen Threadripper because the IPC are the almost the same on Ryzen architecture, but with some price difference in AMD favour. Next let see the 16 core I9 how much will the base clock will be lowered vs 16 core Rysen. If that applies to the 18 core I9 too, as usually does, I wont be surprised if its slower than the 16 core Ryzen, X2 the price. Can`t wait for some real world testing.
No. There's not a single Threadripper true benchmark result available, no one knows for sure how it will function, throttle and so on. So...
and that was the same for ryzen. i say the chance that amd is releasing what everyone expects (performance wise), is pretty good. for intel, not so much, as most pro-consumer are not willing to spend more and get less (vs amd) unless they drink blue koolaid..
How do you fit a 12 core processor on a socket for a 10 core processor? You lower the base frequency at 2.9GHz. How do you fit an 18 core processor on a socket for a 10 core processor? You don't want to know.
Intel CPUs basically never run on their base clock (unless you tell them to), so the obsession with that seems a bit unfounded. Having real hardware at hand will tell what usual clocks it can achieve in normal operation.
Agree, especially this generation where there is multiple boost types. I will wait for reviews of each to see what they can do, no need to speculate. I am pulling for Threadripper though.
CPU with higher base clock will perform better even if have the same turbo clock, it is because on base speed is all cache, bus and many things, if you lower base clock it is like give more room to throotling, cores have often no data to process and when heat then can lower speed, it solve heat problem and looks good on paper but criple performance on most workloads.. Intel have big problem with heat and you not see it just because they have many throttle mechanism...
The only thing else tied to base clock is cache frequency.. Which is known that cache frequency matters little for 90% of workloads.
@nevcairiel define "normal" operation. all decent gaming/higher end boards will allow (intel) cpus to clock higher on all cores. my 3770k clocks to 3.9 on all cores under full load (all bios settings on auto). as soon as i set everything fixed to normal/reg/100%, it doesn't anymore and iirc, max 2 cores should boost to 3.9.. i now have 6 cores running 400Mhz faster than paper specs say. not fair to compare, unless we know clocks of all cores under full load. even that i think intel is "out of the race" for now (maybe besides 1080p and ST perf on 7700k)..
Looks like the specs on the full Core i9 lineup was leaked: https://hothardware.com/news/intel-core-x-series-specs-leak-core-i9-7980xe-18-core-cpu-26ghz 7920X: 2.9 GHz base, 4.3 GHz boost, 140W 7940X: 3.1 GHz base, 4.3 GHz boost, 165W 7960X: 2.8 GHz base, 4.2 GHz boost, 165W 7980XE: 2.6 GHz base, 4.2 GHz boost, 165W So looks like they've bumped up the TDP in order to run at a higher clock. I guess they had no other choice, although a higher TDP will require even better cooling than the already problematic 7900X. It'll be interesting to see how they turn out.
Noticed this too my board has setting that clocks all cores to same turbo speed, thought these 4 cores might be runing same boost speed by defualt i not sure
