Core i9 7920X / 7900X & Core i7 78xx series Specs Hit The Web

So it seems that no CPU above 4 cores for "normal" platforms. Want above 4 cores, go to HEDT on 299

 

I remember back when Intel was first rumored to release a 6c/12t CPU and people called it the "i9". Turned out to just be called "i7", and I think Sandy Bridge started it. They had 8c/16t Haswell-E CPUs that they also called i7. There are 10c/20t Broadwell-Es also called i7.

Meanwhile, AMD release a 4c/8t Ryzen 5, and now, 5 years later, Intel decides to cram their 6-core models under the i9 name, and they're creating a 4c/4t CPU under i7. This doesn't make sense - all this is doing is making AMD's mid-range stuff look better.

It's all just so backwards. Pentium is slowly replacing i3 and now i7 is slowly replacing i5. To me, the logical approach for Intel would've been:
Atom - 1c/2t
Celeron - 2c/2t
Pentium - 2c/4t
i3 - 4c/4t
i5 - 4c/8t or 6c/6t (IIRC, the latter seems to be a reality)
i7 - 6c/12t or 8c/8t
i9 - 8c/16t or better, or 4c/8t or better with quad channel memory

 

With Intel's pricing scheme, the Core i9 7920X might reach close to 2000 dollars.

 

So, it will not be earlier than 2018/2019 to see 6 and/or 8 mainstream cores from Intel Corp. 4 cores is their best bet for simple everyday peasants?

AMD is gonna love Intel's greed. I can see more and more people going red. Blue is getting away from our hearts every minute since Ryzen's launch.

 

That sounds cheap for such a proc from Intel lol


Still the speeds on the 7900X boost clocks look mighty fine!

 

Lol, GG... i7 = 4C/4T.
Intel is out of their mind. Same as those mobile chips...
2C/4T Intel Core i3-7100U 2.4GHz, 3MB Cache, $281
2C/4T Intel Core i5-7300U 2.6GHz ~ 3.5GHz, 3MB Cache, $281
2C/4T Intel Core i7-7500U 2.7GHz ~ 3.5GHz, 4MB Cache, $393
Yes, difference between i5 and i7 is 100MHz in base clock.

Practical difference after 10minutes of heavy load is:
i3 ~ 2.4GHz; i5 ~ 2.6GHz; i7 ~ 2.7GHz

Btw. if anyone wonders how can there be notebooks with mentioned i3 when better i5 chip costs same...
Yes, same good old intel: "Wanna i5, get this number of i3s."

 

Intel haters, can you just not comment these nice news?
Really, you like AMD, then stick to AMD.
There's nothing Intel can do, which will please you. You will still call Intel evil and the destroyer of your dreams.

For others - I think news are great. Of course they mean Intel is not going anywhere from the top, which hugely irritates AMD fans, but they also mean we can finally expect some nice performance bumps from Intel, not another tock-tock-tock minor increases.
Also I don't believe Intel will go crazy with prices. They indeed have some competition this time, so probably won't be happy to lose out just because of price difference.

 

Great news, 8/16 most likely will be the sweet spot.

 

Just think, if not amd you would never see i9

 

Two observations.

Why is the 4c/4t 7640 called an i7?

Why would they not make a 8c/16t with 44 lanes?

 

I like that Core i9 7820X, it all depens on price, 500€ would be great but if its still in 900€+ then they can keep it...

Better just wait for total x86 refresh with IceLake.

 

Yup, they are going AMD route. Seems like 8/16 is where its at.

Btw, looking at all this makes current Intel quad-core lineup outdated already.

 

I see lots of people saying this and i don´t understand why. Only 10 or 20% of consumers needs more than a quad or a dual core! For most people having a quicker cpu or one with more cores is totally useless because they don´t need it!!!

It´s amazing the quantity of people falling for the "more cores" marketing started by Ryzen... Or by cell phone chip makers to be more accurate.
I just hope that at least AMD can make profit of this...

 

that is the truth to the matter really... But lets hope this core i9 thing is true

 

News like this is good, but, it's all in the pricing.

As for Ryzen, amongst my friends, I don't know anyone who's bought it. Almost everyone has i5 and i7.

 

This is Guru3D, an enthusiast site. Maybe you are preaching at a wrong place? I would be really surprised if the majority here wouldn't have got a better CPU if they could have reasonably afforded one (of course we also have those who already have the best one available for them, as the selection is quite limited, in the end, with only two manufacturers). Saying here that you don't need the power is like going to a sports car forum and telling the people there nobody needs anything better than an ordinary Ford family car.

 

Can anyone explain the difference between Turbo 2.0 and turbo 3.0 if any?

 

You´re right about the fact that Guru3d is an enthusiast site but even for guys like us more than a certain number of cores is overkill! In my case 4 cores are more than enough unless tomorrow all new games require 8 cores, something i don´t see happening so soon. Only users that use professional software heavily multi threaded really need lots of cores.
I just think people need to calm down when it comes to the number of cores someone really needs...

 

The turbo frequencies on those i9s definitely look nice. I run a 6 core HEDT system right now (mostly for work), and while I can OC some to get close to consumer-line gaming performance, it will be nice to get high core counts and high boost clocks out of the box for both stellar MT and ST performance on one chip.

Although I do agree that not having a 8c/16t with 44 lanes seems a bit odd (of course the known SKL-X models have one). But maybe pricing of the 10c/20t will be in such a place that I can just get that!

To everyone asking for more cores on consumer-lineups, the next generation has that covered. Expanding the Skylake-X series with refreshes to fight AMD makes sense for those people that really want more cores and now. They can release those with lower prices more easily then drastically cutting prices of existing models.

Turbo Boost 3.0 (or Turbo Boost Max how its sometimes called) basically has a bit more flexibility to boost only a single core, and it works in conjunction with a software app running in your OS to determine which core this is, and to instruct the OS scheduler to keep the app running on this core, to boost single-threaded applications.

AnandTech had a bit of a write-up in the Broadwell-E review:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337...6900k-6850k-and-6800k-tested-up-to-10-cores/2