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
FSP Hydro G Pro 1000W (ATX 3.0, 1000W PSU) review
Addlink S90 Lite 2TB NVMe SSD review
ASUS ROG Rapture GT-AXE16000 WIFI6E router 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...
Agent-A01
Senior Member
Posts: 11619
Joined: 2010-12-27
Senior Member
Posts: 11619
Joined: 2010-12-27
#5474239 Posted on: 09/21/2017 09:41 PM
The boost clock is limited by the TDP, not the cooling performance. And I'm not sure where you get the idea that the base frequency is irrelevant - my 1950X almost always runs at or near the base clock of 3.4 GHz when it's computing (it shows roughly 180W at full load so can't really clock much higher). Considering that the 7980XE has a lower TDP (165W) and two more cores, I'm willing to bet that it will run nowhere near the all-core turbo when put through the same workload.
The article mentioned that the CPU ran at 4.2 GHz during Cinebench. Considering that Cinebench utilizes all cores it is extremely unlikely that it turboed to that speed, even on one core (there is simply no room in the TDP). Like I said before, it's probably using enhanced turbo or was overclocked to 4.2 GHz.
All core turbo is pretty much implemented on every high-end motherboard and enabled by default.
The only time intel CPUs really run at base clock is under very high temps or AVX loads(mainly 256/512 loads), which causes a ton of heat.
The boost clock is limited by the TDP, not the cooling performance. And I'm not sure where you get the idea that the base frequency is irrelevant - my 1950X almost always runs at or near the base clock of 3.4 GHz when it's computing (it shows roughly 180W at full load so can't really clock much higher). Considering that the 7980XE has a lower TDP (165W) and two more cores, I'm willing to bet that it will run nowhere near the all-core turbo when put through the same workload.
The article mentioned that the CPU ran at 4.2 GHz during Cinebench. Considering that Cinebench utilizes all cores it is extremely unlikely that it turboed to that speed, even on one core (there is simply no room in the TDP). Like I said before, it's probably using enhanced turbo or was overclocked to 4.2 GHz.
All core turbo is pretty much implemented on every high-end motherboard and enabled by default.
The only time intel CPUs really run at base clock is under very high temps or AVX loads(mainly 256/512 loads), which causes a ton of heat.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 7229
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 7229
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5474240 Posted on: 09/21/2017 09:42 PM
In my experience, Intel CPUs readily utilize the maximum boost clock per core configuration where possible. Meanwhile, AMD's TDP sensor tends to be inaccurate (in the case of your CPU, maybe your power profile has something to do with it?). As I said before, the clock speeds can be anywhere between the base and turbo freqs, and Intel's got a much farther range. In the event TDP became an issue to sustain the 7980XE's 3.4GHz all-core turbo, it likely could've dropped to around 3.0. An additional 2 cores would still give it a performance lead. I think it is safe to assume it wouldn't have exceeded wattage (or thermal) limits during the single-threaded tests.
And sure, both of these CPUs are newer generations than the ones I am referring to and have MANY more cores, but ultimately the same point remains: the results aren't surprising. They're not better-than-expected, they're not worse. They're right where they should be. I feel we're all getting a little too carried away with speculations and suspicions. I think we can all agree to take these results with a grain of salt, and that the 1950X is obviously a more sensible product to buy.
The boost clock is limited by the TDP, not the cooling performance. And I'm not sure where you get the idea that the base frequency is irrelevant - my 1950X almost always runs at or near the base clock of 3.4 GHz when it's computing (it shows roughly 180W at full load so can't really clock much higher). Considering that the 7980XE has a lower TDP (165W) and two more cores, I'm willing to bet that it will run nowhere near the all-core turbo when put through the same workload.
In my experience, Intel CPUs readily utilize the maximum boost clock per core configuration where possible. Meanwhile, AMD's TDP sensor tends to be inaccurate (in the case of your CPU, maybe your power profile has something to do with it?). As I said before, the clock speeds can be anywhere between the base and turbo freqs, and Intel's got a much farther range. In the event TDP became an issue to sustain the 7980XE's 3.4GHz all-core turbo, it likely could've dropped to around 3.0. An additional 2 cores would still give it a performance lead. I think it is safe to assume it wouldn't have exceeded wattage (or thermal) limits during the single-threaded tests.
And sure, both of these CPUs are newer generations than the ones I am referring to and have MANY more cores, but ultimately the same point remains: the results aren't surprising. They're not better-than-expected, they're not worse. They're right where they should be. I feel we're all getting a little too carried away with speculations and suspicions. I think we can all agree to take these results with a grain of salt, and that the 1950X is obviously a more sensible product to buy.
D3M1G0D
Senior Member
Posts: 2068
Joined: 2017-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 2068
Joined: 2017-03-10
#5474331 Posted on: 09/22/2017 03:04 AM
In my experience, Intel CPUs readily utilize the maximum boost clock per core configuration where possible. Meanwhile, AMD's TDP sensor tends to be inaccurate (in the case of your CPU, maybe your power profile has something to do with it?). As I said before, the clock speeds can be anywhere between the base and turbo freqs, and Intel's got a much farther range. In the event TDP became an issue to sustain the 7980XE's 3.4GHz all-core turbo, it likely could've dropped to around 3.0. An additional 2 cores would still give it a performance lead. I think it is safe to assume it wouldn't have exceeded wattage (or thermal) limits during the single-threaded tests.
And sure, both of these CPUs are newer generations than the ones I am referring to and have MANY more cores, but ultimately the same point remains: the results aren't surprising. They're not better-than-expected, they're not worse. They're right where they should be. I feel we're all getting a little too carried away with speculations and suspicions. I think we can all agree to take these results with a grain of salt, and that the 1950X is obviously a more sensible product to buy.
I'm just trying to square the math here. Having two extra cores @ 3 GHz would just about cancel out the 1950X's higher clock speed. However, the Cinebench score was about 37% higher than the 1950X, which is not possible with just two additional cores. This is why I suspect that the CPU was running with enhanced turbo or was overclocked - to force 4.2 GHz on all cores.
Doing some basic math:
3.4 x 16 = 54.5
4.2 x 18 = 75.6
(75.6 - 54.5) / 54.5 = 0.3871 = 38.7%
This almost exactly matches the performance difference in Cinebench between the 1950X and the 7980XE, meaning that the latter was likely overclocked. Not that there's anything wrong with using overclocked results, just that it isn't representative of the stock performance (and I doubt many HEDT customers would overclock - I run my 1950X at stock since I run it full load at all times and need it to be stable).
In my experience, Intel CPUs readily utilize the maximum boost clock per core configuration where possible. Meanwhile, AMD's TDP sensor tends to be inaccurate (in the case of your CPU, maybe your power profile has something to do with it?). As I said before, the clock speeds can be anywhere between the base and turbo freqs, and Intel's got a much farther range. In the event TDP became an issue to sustain the 7980XE's 3.4GHz all-core turbo, it likely could've dropped to around 3.0. An additional 2 cores would still give it a performance lead. I think it is safe to assume it wouldn't have exceeded wattage (or thermal) limits during the single-threaded tests.
And sure, both of these CPUs are newer generations than the ones I am referring to and have MANY more cores, but ultimately the same point remains: the results aren't surprising. They're not better-than-expected, they're not worse. They're right where they should be. I feel we're all getting a little too carried away with speculations and suspicions. I think we can all agree to take these results with a grain of salt, and that the 1950X is obviously a more sensible product to buy.
I'm just trying to square the math here. Having two extra cores @ 3 GHz would just about cancel out the 1950X's higher clock speed. However, the Cinebench score was about 37% higher than the 1950X, which is not possible with just two additional cores. This is why I suspect that the CPU was running with enhanced turbo or was overclocked - to force 4.2 GHz on all cores.
Doing some basic math:
3.4 x 16 = 54.5
4.2 x 18 = 75.6
(75.6 - 54.5) / 54.5 = 0.3871 = 38.7%
This almost exactly matches the performance difference in Cinebench between the 1950X and the 7980XE, meaning that the latter was likely overclocked. Not that there's anything wrong with using overclocked results, just that it isn't representative of the stock performance (and I doubt many HEDT customers would overclock - I run my 1950X at stock since I run it full load at all times and need it to be stable).
Agent-A01
Senior Member
Posts: 11619
Joined: 2010-12-27
Senior Member
Posts: 11619
Joined: 2010-12-27
#5474557 Posted on: 09/22/2017 04:26 PM
I'm just trying to square the math here. Having two extra cores @ 3 GHz would just about cancel out the 1950X's higher clock speed. However, the Cinebench score was about 37% higher than the 1950X, which is not possible with just two additional cores. This is why I suspect that the CPU was running with enhanced turbo or was overclocked - to force 4.2 GHz on all cores.
Doing some basic math:
3.4 x 16 = 54.5
4.2 x 18 = 75.6
(75.6 - 54.5) / 54.5 = 0.3871 = 38.7%
This almost exactly matches the performance difference in Cinebench between the 1950X and the 7980XE, meaning that the latter was likely overclocked. Not that there's anything wrong with using overclocked results, just that it isn't representative of the stock performance (and I doubt many HEDT customers would overclock - I run my 1950X at stock since I run it full load at all times and need it to be stable).
That 'basic' math is only applicable to similar CPUs.
1950x architecture is not at all similar to intel
I'm just trying to square the math here. Having two extra cores @ 3 GHz would just about cancel out the 1950X's higher clock speed. However, the Cinebench score was about 37% higher than the 1950X, which is not possible with just two additional cores. This is why I suspect that the CPU was running with enhanced turbo or was overclocked - to force 4.2 GHz on all cores.
Doing some basic math:
3.4 x 16 = 54.5
4.2 x 18 = 75.6
(75.6 - 54.5) / 54.5 = 0.3871 = 38.7%
This almost exactly matches the performance difference in Cinebench between the 1950X and the 7980XE, meaning that the latter was likely overclocked. Not that there's anything wrong with using overclocked results, just that it isn't representative of the stock performance (and I doubt many HEDT customers would overclock - I run my 1950X at stock since I run it full load at all times and need it to be stable).
That 'basic' math is only applicable to similar CPUs.
1950x architecture is not at all similar to intel
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 2068
Joined: 2017-03-10
The boost clock is limited by the TDP, not the cooling performance. And I'm not sure where you get the idea that the base frequency is irrelevant - my 1950X almost always runs at or near the base clock of 3.4 GHz when it's computing (it shows roughly 180W at full load so can't really clock much higher). Considering that the 7980XE has a lower TDP (165W) and two more cores, I'm willing to bet that it will run nowhere near the all-core turbo when put through the same workload.
The article mentioned that the CPU ran at 4.2 GHz during Cinebench. Considering that Cinebench utilizes all cores it is extremely unlikely that it turboed to that speed, even on one core (there is simply no room in the TDP). Like I said before, it's probably using enhanced turbo or was overclocked to 4.2 GHz.