Netgear Nighthawk AX12 Wi-Fi 6 router review
Corsair HS60 PRO Surround Headset Review
MSI Radeon RX 5700 Gaming X review
Team Group Cardea II NVMe 1 TB SSD Review
ASRock X570 Phantom Gaming ITX/TB3 review
Promo: URCDKey Autumn Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Patriot P200 1TB SATA3 SSD Review
ASRock Radeon RX 5700 XT Taichi OC+ review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - September 2019
KFA2 GeForce RTX 2070 Super EX Gamer Black review
Computex 2017: Intel To Release 18 core Core i9-7980XE Skylake-X CPU
Many expect Intel to answer AMDs 16-core processors with 12 maybe 14 core processors. Certainly not as they will be releasing an 18-core Skylake-X CPU, you better grab your life-savings in money. The processor would be called the Core i9-7980XE.
So that brings Skylake-X processor on 6-core, 8-core, 10-core, 12-core, 14-core, 16-core and 18-core models. Really, the 12-core and higher models are not expected to launch with X299 next month maybe even August as intel is not yet ready for mass volume sales. The slides demo X299 support, quad channel DDR4 2666 MHz memory, a new version of Intel Turbo Boost 3.0 technology plus a different cache structure opposed towards Haswell-E and Broadwell-E series. I stated it before, there's a bit of a panic reaction from Intel towards Ryzen 16-core parts, hence the 18-core models seem just that, a reaction to offer something more opposed to AMD Threadripper. These are HUGE steps for Intel, something we have not seen in years. Yep, they are bringing in the big guns.
Mind you that these are leaked slides and as such still are to be considered a rumor and unconfirmed.
| Archtecture | Cores/ Threads |
L3 Cache | PCIe Lanes | Base Clock | Boost 2.0 | Boost 3.0 | Launch | |
| i9 7980XE | Skylake-X | 18/36 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| i9 7960X | Skylake-X | 16/32 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| i9 7940X | Skylake-X | 14/24 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| i9 7920X | Skylake-X | 12/24 | 16.5MB | 44 | - | - | - | August |
| i9 7900X | Skylake-X | 10/20 | 13.75MB | 44 | 3.3GHz | 4.3GHz | 4.5GHz | June |
| i9 7820X | Skylake-X | 8/16 | 11MB | 28 | 3.6GHz | 4.3GHz | 4.5GHz | June |
| i9 7800X | Skylake-X | 6/12 | 8.25MB | 28 | 3.5GHz | 4.0GHz | - | June |
| i7 7740K | Kaby Lake-X |
4/8 | 8MB | 16 | 4.3GHz | 4.5GHz | - | June |
| i7 7640K | Kaby Lake-X |
4/4 | 8MB | 16 | 4.0GHz | 4.2Ghz | - | June |
Source: Videocardz and OC3D
Tagged as:
Computex 2017
Computex 2017 Scoop: MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Lightning Z - 05/29/2017 01:50 PM
It is time for a couple of pre-computex scoops. First stop, check out the new MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Lightning Z. Indeed, a Z editiion. The card will get high clocks, a Mystic LED treatement and qua...
Computex 2017: ASUS Main Press Conference New Zen And Vivobooks - 05/29/2017 11:25 AM
As stated Computex isn’t starting today, but there is a press conference to attend. Which would be ASUS with a generic series of announcements. In this topic their all new Zen and VivoBooks ...
Computex 2017: First Pre-show impressions - 05/29/2017 10:48 AM
Hey now and welcome to the first, well semi-official report delivered to you all the way from Computex in Taiwan. As you have been able to read earlier our plane touched down yesterday, I teamed up wi...
Computex 2017: Coverage @ Guru3D - 05/29/2017 04:38 AM
We're in Taiwan once again, this week starting tomorrow we’ll be attending one of the bigger technology exhibitions on this globe, the yearly Computex This year we’ll be reporti...
Computex: Powercolor Shows External Thunderbolt 3 GPU Gaming Box - 05/29/2017 04:16 AM
Okay, so like if you have a flashback to last year, possible. It is a new model though. PowerColor will display a new external graphics card solution on Computex. The new Devil Box based on AMD XConn...
nhlkoho
Senior Member
Posts: 7708
Joined: 2005-12-06
Senior Member
Posts: 7708
Joined: 2005-12-06
#5437059 Posted on: 05/29/2017 02:20 PM
I know the higher core count versions are going to be expensive, but if the lower end i9 is more than $500 than it better wipe the floor with AMD's CPU or this won't sell at all.
I know the higher core count versions are going to be expensive, but if the lower end i9 is more than $500 than it better wipe the floor with AMD's CPU or this won't sell at all.
BangTail
Senior Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 2006-10-15
Senior Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 2006-10-15
#5437062 Posted on: 05/29/2017 02:29 PM
It doesn't appear that the 14, 16 and 18 cores are releasing on the 26th of June, so I suspect that Threadripper's 16 core CPU will touchdown first.
AMD has quite clearly shaken Intel pretty vigorously with Ryzen/TR.
It doesn't appear that the 14, 16 and 18 cores are releasing on the 26th of June, so I suspect that Threadripper's 16 core CPU will touchdown first.
AMD has quite clearly shaken Intel pretty vigorously with Ryzen/TR.
SirDremor
Senior Member
Posts: 586
Joined: 2008-06-20
Senior Member
Posts: 586
Joined: 2008-06-20
#5437069 Posted on: 05/29/2017 02:42 PM
These talks about "panic" are just nonsense, really.
True - Intel is reacting to AMD's new CPUs, but this is not a panic. Intel had years of total domination and as such had little incentives for any huge steps in core count, premformance and price.
Now they have a genuine competition, so they react accordingly.
I can't see a "panic" in this.
If someone expected Intel NOT to react, then they were mistaken.
These talks about "panic" are just nonsense, really.
True - Intel is reacting to AMD's new CPUs, but this is not a panic. Intel had years of total domination and as such had little incentives for any huge steps in core count, premformance and price.
Now they have a genuine competition, so they react accordingly.
I can't see a "panic" in this.
If someone expected Intel NOT to react, then they were mistaken.
BangTail
Senior Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 2006-10-15
Senior Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 2006-10-15
#5437074 Posted on: 05/29/2017 02:52 PM
These talks about "panic" are just nonsense, really.
True - Intel is reacting to AMD's new CPUs, but this is not a panic. Intel had years of total domination and as such had little incentives for any huge steps in core count, premformance and price.
Now they have a genuine competition, so they react accordingly.
I can't see a "panic" in this.
If someone expected Intel NOT to react, then they were mistaken.
If you are replying to me, please show me where I used the word 'panic'
They moved their release schedule up and added SKUs because there is viable competition, I don't think they are panicking, I think they are reacting 'hastily' which shows that AMDs products are cause for concern, a specter Intel have not had to deal with for some time.
I'll be interested to see if Intel adopt a competitive pricing structure or simply try to pretend that they don't have any competition.
These talks about "panic" are just nonsense, really.
True - Intel is reacting to AMD's new CPUs, but this is not a panic. Intel had years of total domination and as such had little incentives for any huge steps in core count, premformance and price.
Now they have a genuine competition, so they react accordingly.
I can't see a "panic" in this.
If someone expected Intel NOT to react, then they were mistaken.
If you are replying to me, please show me where I used the word 'panic'
They moved their release schedule up and added SKUs because there is viable competition, I don't think they are panicking, I think they are reacting 'hastily' which shows that AMDs products are cause for concern, a specter Intel have not had to deal with for some time.
I'll be interested to see if Intel adopt a competitive pricing structure or simply try to pretend that they don't have any competition.
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7616
Joined: 2008-07-31
Senior Member
Posts: 7616
Joined: 2008-07-31
#5437082 Posted on: 05/29/2017 03:33 PM
These talks about "panic" are just nonsense, really.
True - Intel is reacting to AMD's new CPUs, but this is not a panic. Intel had years of total domination and as such had little incentives for any huge steps in core count, premformance and price.
Now they have a genuine competition, so they react accordingly.
I can't see a "panic" in this.
If someone expected Intel NOT to react, then they were mistaken.
Could you please show where you read panic? It certainly wasnt on this thread.
These talks about "panic" are just nonsense, really.
True - Intel is reacting to AMD's new CPUs, but this is not a panic. Intel had years of total domination and as such had little incentives for any huge steps in core count, premformance and price.
Now they have a genuine competition, so they react accordingly.
I can't see a "panic" in this.
If someone expected Intel NOT to react, then they were mistaken.
Could you please show where you read panic? It certainly wasnt on this thread.
sverek
Senior Member
Posts: 5294
Joined: 2011-01-02
Senior Member
Posts: 5294
Joined: 2011-01-02
#5437083 Posted on: 05/29/2017 03:38 PM
i9 7820X for <$500 please! (A man can dream!)
Looks like ultimatum gaming CPU to keep for several years.
i9 7820X for <$500 please! (A man can dream!)
Looks like ultimatum gaming CPU to keep for several years.
slyphnier
Senior Member
Posts: 644
Joined: 2009-11-30
Senior Member
Posts: 644
Joined: 2009-11-30
#5437086 Posted on: 05/29/2017 03:46 PM
my pricing guesses
i9 7800x ~$500 ... guessing it around $400mark to be "most popular" mainstream cpu... afterall if we thinking that this is the low-quality chip (that have some cores disabled) intel should keep the pricing as low as possible
also with consideration that AMD will have aggressive pricing on their hi-end cpu
i9 7820x $650-$700
i9 7900x ~$850 ... why not $1000? because the 7920x that be "$1000" cpu
i9 7920x ~$1000
i9 7940x ~$1200
i9 7960x ~$1500
i9 7980xe $1800-$2000 ... it intel set price above $2000, then they are crazy and literaly make a product just for keeping/marking their cpu still hold the "king" of performance
my pricing guesses
i9 7800x ~$500 ... guessing it around $400mark to be "most popular" mainstream cpu... afterall if we thinking that this is the low-quality chip (that have some cores disabled) intel should keep the pricing as low as possible
also with consideration that AMD will have aggressive pricing on their hi-end cpu
i9 7820x $650-$700
i9 7900x ~$850 ... why not $1000? because the 7920x that be "$1000" cpu
i9 7920x ~$1000
i9 7940x ~$1200
i9 7960x ~$1500
i9 7980xe $1800-$2000 ... it intel set price above $2000, then they are crazy and literaly make a product just for keeping/marking their cpu still hold the "king" of performance
jortego128
Senior Member
Posts: 101
Joined: 2017-04-30
Senior Member
Posts: 101
Joined: 2017-04-30
#5437089 Posted on: 05/29/2017 03:49 PM
Technically theres nothing stopping AMD from countering with a 20+ core Threadripper if they want to solidify the performance crown. I think they will actually have the crown when Threadripper releases, I think it will be a while before the Intel 18 core becomes available.
AMD could easily take some binned 32c EPYC processors and release them as 20 or 24 core Threadrippers just to say they have the performance crown (biggest e-peen
)-- they could also price them accordingly.
Will that even be necessary, I don't know-- if Ryzen 1800x spars nicely with 6950x, Threadripper may do the same even with Intels 18 core.
All I know is that anyone with half a brain needs to seriously be applauding (and supporting with their wallets) AMD for this heroic challenge to Intel.
Technically theres nothing stopping AMD from countering with a 20+ core Threadripper if they want to solidify the performance crown. I think they will actually have the crown when Threadripper releases, I think it will be a while before the Intel 18 core becomes available.
AMD could easily take some binned 32c EPYC processors and release them as 20 or 24 core Threadrippers just to say they have the performance crown (biggest e-peen
)-- they could also price them accordingly.
Will that even be necessary, I don't know-- if Ryzen 1800x spars nicely with 6950x, Threadripper may do the same even with Intels 18 core.
All I know is that anyone with half a brain needs to seriously be applauding (and supporting with their wallets) AMD for this heroic challenge to Intel.
Evildead666
Senior Member
Posts: 1228
Joined: 2003-09-14
Senior Member
Posts: 1228
Joined: 2003-09-14
#5437090 Posted on: 05/29/2017 03:49 PM
If you are replying to me, please show me where I used the word 'panic'
They moved their release schedule up and added SKUs because there is viable competition, I don't think they are panicking, I think they are reacting 'hastily' which shows that AMDs products are cause for concern, a specter Intel have not had to deal with for some time.
I'll be interested to see if Intel adopt a competitive pricing structure or simply try to pretend that they don't have any competition.
Could you please show where you read panic? It certainly wasnt on this thread.
Its in the Article, and it was stated by Hilbert: "..a bit of a panic reaction...".
I suspect AMD could release a 32 core chip if they felt like it, just not with all of the bells and whistles (yet). It would stay quad channel memory, due to the motherboards layout.....
If you are replying to me, please show me where I used the word 'panic'
They moved their release schedule up and added SKUs because there is viable competition, I don't think they are panicking, I think they are reacting 'hastily' which shows that AMDs products are cause for concern, a specter Intel have not had to deal with for some time.
I'll be interested to see if Intel adopt a competitive pricing structure or simply try to pretend that they don't have any competition.
Could you please show where you read panic? It certainly wasnt on this thread.
Its in the Article, and it was stated by Hilbert: "..a bit of a panic reaction...".
I suspect AMD could release a 32 core chip if they felt like it, just not with all of the bells and whistles (yet). It would stay quad channel memory, due to the motherboards layout.....
EL1TE
Senior Member
Posts: 416
Joined: 2007-11-18
Senior Member
Posts: 416
Joined: 2007-11-18
#5437093 Posted on: 05/29/2017 04:00 PM
As much as i want AMD to be successful for the sake of competition and better prices, i'm affraid Intel will be ahead once again, the core clocks on all those cores is crazy compared to AMD clocks. :/
4.5GHZ 8 and 10 cores, i guess i did the right thing of not upgrading to Ryzen 1700.
The problem however is how AMD will price their CPUs as well as Intel, if Intel is going to keep ripoff people, good luck with that.
I know the higher core count versions are going to be expensive, but if the lower end i9 is more than than it better wipe the floor with AMD's CPU or this won't sell at all.
As much as i want AMD to be successful for the sake of competition and better prices, i'm affraid Intel will be ahead once again, the core clocks on all those cores is crazy compared to AMD clocks. :/
4.5GHZ 8 and 10 cores, i guess i did the right thing of not upgrading to Ryzen 1700.
The problem however is how AMD will price their CPUs as well as Intel, if Intel is going to keep ripoff people, good luck with that.
rsouzadk
Junior Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 2016-09-25
Junior Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 2016-09-25
#5437095 Posted on: 05/29/2017 04:09 PM
If the i9 7800/20X are priced affordably, they will win the crown.
But i really do expect AMD TR to come and to be price unbeatable with all the 44 pcie lanes. I am not expecting performance better on ipc though. That core frequencies on intel 8 cores are insane.
If the i9 7800/20X are priced affordably, they will win the crown.
But i really do expect AMD TR to come and to be price unbeatable with all the 44 pcie lanes. I am not expecting performance better on ipc though. That core frequencies on intel 8 cores are insane.
BangTail
Senior Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 2006-10-15
Senior Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 2006-10-15
#5437099 Posted on: 05/29/2017 04:15 PM
Fair play
Its in the Article, and it was stated by Hilbert: "..a bit of a panic reaction...".
Fair play
Asgardi
Senior Member
Posts: 229
Joined: 2010-11-13
Senior Member
Posts: 229
Joined: 2010-11-13
#5437104 Posted on: 05/29/2017 04:32 PM
The amount of cores in these numbers probably wont bring the performance crown. Most stuff run on 1 core anyway, multi-core support being optimized for 2 or 4 cores in games. So the performance of a single core (or small bunch of cores) is going to award the performance crown for quite some time.
Technically theres nothing stopping AMD from countering with a 20+ core Threadripper if they want to solidify the performance crown.
The amount of cores in these numbers probably wont bring the performance crown. Most stuff run on 1 core anyway, multi-core support being optimized for 2 or 4 cores in games. So the performance of a single core (or small bunch of cores) is going to award the performance crown for quite some time.
EL1TE
Senior Member
Posts: 416
Joined: 2007-11-18
Senior Member
Posts: 416
Joined: 2007-11-18
#5437107 Posted on: 05/29/2017 04:42 PM
People said the same about Dual Cores, from this point onward, Devs will take advantage of more cores due to the simple reason that they're becoming more common.
Intel will also now release more than just 4 cores for the mid-high end range market, whereas more was only available for Enthusiast market and extremely expensive.
The only reason Devs won't optimize for 8+ cores if the Engine they're using just doesn't support it.
As for Encoding, Image/Video Editing, Rendering etc All these cores are very good.
Even MMOs that are famous for not using more than one thread properly are already using various threads, it's just a matter of time before 8 cores becomes the mainstream, and the amount of time it will take will depend on how manufacturers price their 8+ cores.
Not to mention that even a 7700k (stock) might be close or even Bottleneck next gen GPUs like Volta or SLI on it.
Even if a 5GHZ 7700k would fix that, 5Ghz is out of reach for a lot of 7700k owners anyway.
But time will tell.
The amount of cores in these numbers probably wont bring the performance crown. Most stuff run on 1 core anyway, multi-core support being optimized for 2 or 4 cores in games. So the performance of a single core (or small bunch of cores) is going to award the performance crown for quite some time.
People said the same about Dual Cores, from this point onward, Devs will take advantage of more cores due to the simple reason that they're becoming more common.
Intel will also now release more than just 4 cores for the mid-high end range market, whereas more was only available for Enthusiast market and extremely expensive.
The only reason Devs won't optimize for 8+ cores if the Engine they're using just doesn't support it.
As for Encoding, Image/Video Editing, Rendering etc All these cores are very good.
Even MMOs that are famous for not using more than one thread properly are already using various threads, it's just a matter of time before 8 cores becomes the mainstream, and the amount of time it will take will depend on how manufacturers price their 8+ cores.
Not to mention that even a 7700k (stock) might be close or even Bottleneck next gen GPUs like Volta or SLI on it.
Even if a 5GHZ 7700k would fix that, 5Ghz is out of reach for a lot of 7700k owners anyway.
But time will tell.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 13966
Joined: 2004-11-19
Available soon for the small price of all your transplantable organs.