ASUS TUF Gaming B760-PLUS WIFI D4 review
Netac NV7000 2 TB NVMe SSD Review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4080 Noctua OC Edition review
MSI Clutch GM51 Wireless mouse review
ASUS ROG STRIX B760-F Gaming WIFI review
Asus ROG Harpe Ace Aim Lab Edition mouse review
SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Headset review
Ryzen 7800X3D preview - 7950X3D One CCD Disabled
MSI VIGOR GK71 SONIC Blue keyboard review
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D processor review
Core i9-7980XE 18-core Benchmarks
It's has been quiet with X299 and the Skylake-X platform processors. We've seen the 10-core review, the 12-core parts in stores but other then that it remains silent. However in Asia a website leaked performance benchmarks on the 18-core part, the 2000 USD Core i9-7980XE.
It was website Coolenjoy who got their hands on a sample, which is rare as Intel will not be sending them to reviewers. But there has been some pro-oc activities with that part. The benchmarks originate from Coolenjoy and have been performed on an ASUS APEX motherboard. It looks like the proc indeed boosts up to 4.2 GHz on the cores during Cinebench.
| Processor | Cores/Threads | PCIe lanes | Base Clock | Turbo 2.0 | Turbo 3.0 | TDP | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core i9 7980XE | 18 / 36 | 44 | 2.6 GHz | 4.2 GHz | 4.4 GHz | 165 W | $1999 |
| Core i9 7960X | 16 / 32 | 44 | 2.8 GHz | 4.2 GHz | 4.4 GHz | 165 W | $1699 |
| Core i9 7940X | 14 / 28 | 44 | 3.1 GHz | 4.3 GHz | 4.4 GHz | 165 W | $1399 |
| Core i9 7920X | 12 / 24 | 44 | 2.9 GHz | 4.3 GHz | 4.4 GHz | 140 W | $1199 |
| Core i9 7900X | 10 / 20 | 44 | 3.3 GHz | 4.3 GHz | 4.5 GHz | 140 W | $999 |
| Core i7 7820X | 8 / 16 | 28 | 3.6 GHz | 4.3 GHz | 4.5 GHz | 140 W | $599 |
| Core i7 7800X | 6 / 12 | 28 | 3.5 GHz | 4.0 GHz | na | 140 W | $389 |
| Core i7 7740X | 4 / 8 | 16 | 4.3 GHz | 4.5 GHz | na | 112 W | $369 |
| Core i5 7640X | 4 / 4 | 16 | 4.0 GHz | 4.2 GHz | na | 112 W | $242 |
The i9-7980X should boost up to 4.4 GHz on two cores in Turbo Boost Max 3.0 and up to 4.2 GHz in Turbo Max 2.0. The 2000 USD 165 Watt part should be available soon. Below the tests, courtesy of Coolenjoy.
Please read: The 7980XE scores are listed above the chart only with the scores and no bar plot (totally weird when you look at it but yeah, it is what it is).
Review: ASUS TUF X299 Mark I Motherboard with Core i9 7900X - 09/15/2017 09:41 AM
We grab a Core i9 7900X processor and review the €289,- ASUS TUF X299 Mark 1 motherboard with it, yes the Sabertooth series is back. A nice looking motherboard in dark theme offering nice fea...
Acer Predator Orion 9000 To Get Core i9 18C/36T processor - 09/01/2017 06:58 PM
Acer has been a busy bee showing off gaming mice, headsets, that delayed G-Sync HDR screen, and also an 18-core processor PC. The Orion 9000 holds four GPUs, two carry-grips, and carbon fibre pattern...
Overclockers Get Core i9 7960X for a bit of viral hype - 08/18/2017 09:19 AM
Intel at the moment is trying to create a bit of a viral, they do not talk to media about their Skylake-X series mega-core processors, they did however seed pro-overclockers with 16-core samples. ...
Intel Core i9 7980 XE Available Starting September 25th - 08/09/2017 04:08 PM
Yesterday Intel released the last specs for their Core X-series Processor Family Specs 14- to 18-Core. Earlier indication for the Core i9-7980XE would be a release in October. It now seems that the ...
Intel X-series processors Specs leaked incl Core i9 7980 XE - 07/29/2017 02:41 AM
Yesterday a new slide surfaced on the web, detailing the entire Core X lineup from Intel, the interesting thing here is that the specs shown include the full line-up, up-to the 14, 16 and 18-core part...
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 7237
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 7237
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5473737 Posted on: 09/20/2017 07:02 PM
I don't think so, TR will not have all the futures of EPYC, like i7 and XEON, it's more like who has bigger and for such a small company like AMD (relative) they made stronger High End CPU that is Called the TreadRipper for a reason.
I think this 32C TR could boost ~3.6GHz @255W easy and up to 3.8GHz via OC. remember that they are separate 8 core Dies, they are not "limited" like in Intel.
But what distinct advantage would a 32c Epyc have over an overclockable 32c TR? As stated before, 64 PCIe lanes is still plenty for most server tasks (most enterprise hardware uses x8 lanes). You still get plenty of memory channels. I find it really hard to believe you'd be able to get to 3.8GHz under extended use without a very expensive cooling system. If AMD released a 32c TR, the only reason you'd get an Epyc would be to get a dual-socket motherboard or very niche cases where you actually need 128 PCIe lanes.
As for the Intel side, Xeons tend to have a lot more advantages over their i7 counterparts. They usually have more cache, more PCIe lanes (where i7s don't tend to have enough), better RAID support, ECC RAM support, etc. AMD really blurred the lines between each product tier, which is great for anyone who wants lower-tier stuff, but it makes you question why you should ever buy the more expensive models.
These CPUs aren't meant for gamers. So, whether they suit your everyday tasks depends solely on what your everyday tasks are. If you compile, render, encode, etc. every day, then why wouldn't this or the full TR suit your purposes?
I completely agree, but the fact of the matter is, a lot of people buy these with the intent of primarily running tasks that a quad core (with or without HT/SMT) would accomplish smoothly. A lot of people have this mentality that more is better. Of course, this isn't universal - there are plenty of people who would buy these platforms (or the Xeons with 32+ threads made years ago) and have a practical or sensible reason for their purchase. But when I see people who glom over the idea of more cores on TR, I really don't feel they are aware of the big picture. Just an opinion - if the average hobbyist wants to spend all this cash to cater to their impatience or ego, go ahead. But as of right now, I think it would be a mistake on AMD's part to add more cores to their TR product line. For future generations, my opinion is likely to change.
I don't think so, TR will not have all the futures of EPYC, like i7 and XEON, it's more like who has bigger and for such a small company like AMD (relative) they made stronger High End CPU that is Called the TreadRipper for a reason.
I think this 32C TR could boost ~3.6GHz @255W easy and up to 3.8GHz via OC. remember that they are separate 8 core Dies, they are not "limited" like in Intel.
But what distinct advantage would a 32c Epyc have over an overclockable 32c TR? As stated before, 64 PCIe lanes is still plenty for most server tasks (most enterprise hardware uses x8 lanes). You still get plenty of memory channels. I find it really hard to believe you'd be able to get to 3.8GHz under extended use without a very expensive cooling system. If AMD released a 32c TR, the only reason you'd get an Epyc would be to get a dual-socket motherboard or very niche cases where you actually need 128 PCIe lanes.
As for the Intel side, Xeons tend to have a lot more advantages over their i7 counterparts. They usually have more cache, more PCIe lanes (where i7s don't tend to have enough), better RAID support, ECC RAM support, etc. AMD really blurred the lines between each product tier, which is great for anyone who wants lower-tier stuff, but it makes you question why you should ever buy the more expensive models.
These CPUs aren't meant for gamers. So, whether they suit your everyday tasks depends solely on what your everyday tasks are. If you compile, render, encode, etc. every day, then why wouldn't this or the full TR suit your purposes?
I completely agree, but the fact of the matter is, a lot of people buy these with the intent of primarily running tasks that a quad core (with or without HT/SMT) would accomplish smoothly. A lot of people have this mentality that more is better. Of course, this isn't universal - there are plenty of people who would buy these platforms (or the Xeons with 32+ threads made years ago) and have a practical or sensible reason for their purchase. But when I see people who glom over the idea of more cores on TR, I really don't feel they are aware of the big picture. Just an opinion - if the average hobbyist wants to spend all this cash to cater to their impatience or ego, go ahead. But as of right now, I think it would be a mistake on AMD's part to add more cores to their TR product line. For future generations, my opinion is likely to change.
sdamaged99
Senior Member
Posts: 2037
Joined: 2006-12-12
Senior Member
Posts: 2037
Joined: 2006-12-12
#5473741 Posted on: 09/20/2017 07:12 PM
$2000 CPU in "Faster than $1000 CPU" shocker
$2000 CPU in "Faster than $1000 CPU" shocker
TLD LARS
Senior Member
Posts: 516
Joined: 2017-03-01
Senior Member
Posts: 516
Joined: 2017-03-01
#5473748 Posted on: 09/20/2017 07:53 PM
4.2GHz cant be the correct all core boost.
Der8auer needed to modify a MSI X299 Gaming pro carbon to keep his 7900X 10 core from burning the VRM at 4500MHz
A 18 core at 4200MHz must be at least the same power as the 10 core at 4500MHz so i dont see that happening as a daily driver.
4.2GHz cant be the correct all core boost.
Der8auer needed to modify a MSI X299 Gaming pro carbon to keep his 7900X 10 core from burning the VRM at 4500MHz
A 18 core at 4200MHz must be at least the same power as the 10 core at 4500MHz so i dont see that happening as a daily driver.
D3M1G0D
Senior Member
Posts: 2068
Joined: 2017-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 2068
Joined: 2017-03-10
#5473752 Posted on: 09/20/2017 08:09 PM
I don't think that's the default boost, but they may have used enhanced turbo, or manually overclocked.
Considering that the 1950X can do 4 GHz on all cores, a 7980XE doing 4.2 isn't that far-fetched, but the thermals would be pretty crazy. I'm guessing some specialized setup was used here, and possibly delidded.
4.2GHz cant be the correct all core boost.
I don't think that's the default boost, but they may have used enhanced turbo, or manually overclocked.
Considering that the 1950X can do 4 GHz on all cores, a 7980XE doing 4.2 isn't that far-fetched, but the thermals would be pretty crazy. I'm guessing some specialized setup was used here, and possibly delidded.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 3366
Joined: 2013-03-10
These CPUs aren't meant for gamers. So, whether they suit your everyday tasks depends solely on what your everyday tasks are. If you compile, render, encode, etc. every day, then why wouldn't this or the full TR suit your purposes?