Corsair RM1200X SHIFT 1200W PSU Review
Intel NUC 13 Pro (Arena Canyon) review
Endorfy Arx 700 Air chassis review
Beelink SER5 Pro (Ryzen 7 5800H) mini PC review
Crucial T700 PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD Review - 12GB/s
Sapphire Radeon RX 7600 PULSE review
Gainward GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GHOST review
Radeon RX 7600 review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4060 Ti TUF Gaming review
MSI GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X TRIO review
Socket 2066 (Core i9-7960X) Processor with 16 cores surfaces in GeekBench
In the GeekBench ranking list a new 16-core processor with 32-threads has surfaced. The unit is tagged as Socket 2066 and thus is the recently announced (yet not available) Core i9-7960X. The results reveal a few interesting things.
The $1699 Core i9-7960X Skylake-E processor is identified as having 16 cores and 32 threads. The base clock frequency is 2.51 GHz, indicative for an engineering sample and perhaps with this many cores, it might even be the final base-clock. The chip has 1MB L2-cache per core and 22 MB of shared L3 cache in-between the cores as you can see in the screenshot.
The twp scores are as follows:
- Single score results: 5238 points
- Multi-threaded score: 33672 points
So when you compare a little back and forth with the ranking lists then that single threaded score brings the processor at the level of a i5-7600 perf wise, and the multi-threaded score actually brings it close to the 10-core Core i9 7900X. That processor obviously has a base clock of 3.3 GHz. With a little Turbo tweaking we do expect the final performance to be better though.
| Clock | Turbo 2.0/3.0 | Cores / threads | L3-cache | PCIe 3.0 | Mem Channels | TDP | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core i9 7980XE | TBA | TBA | 18/36 | TBA | TBA | Quad-channel DDR4-2666 | TBA | $1999 |
| Core i9 7960X | 2.5 GHz | TBA | 16/32 | 22MB | TBA | Quad-channel DDR4-2666 | TBA | $1699 |
| Core i9 7940X | TBA | TBA | 14/28 | TBA | TBA | Quad-channel DDR4-2666 | TBA | $1399 |
| Core i9 7920X | TBA. | TBA | 12/24 | TBA | TBA | Quad-channel DDR4-2666 | TBA | $1199 |
| Core i9 7900X | 3.3 GHz | 4.3/4.5 GHz | 10/20 | 13,75 MB | 44 | Quad-channel DDR4-2666 | 140 W | $999 |
| Core i7 7820X | 3.6 GHz | 4.3/4.5 GHz | 8/16 | 11 MB | 28 | Quad-channel DDR4-2666 | 140 W | $599 |
| Core i7 7800X | 3.5 GHz | 4.0 GHz | 6/12 | 8,25 MB | 28 | Quad-channel DDR4-2666 | 140 W | $389 |
| Core i7 7740X | 4.3 GHz | 4.5 GHz | 4/8 | 8 MB | 16 | Dual-channel DDR4-2666 | 112 W | $339 |
| Core i5 7640X | 4.0 GHz | 4.2 GHz | 4/4 | 6 MB | 16 | Dual-channel DDR4-2666 | 112 W | $242 |
ASUS's Dual Socket 2011 Workstation - 02/24/2012 01:09 PM
With the pending launch of the Sandy Bridge-EP Xeon E5 platform,
ASUS shows Z9PE-D8 WS dual-socket 2011 mobo - 01/10/2012 01:25 PM
Performance zealots will remember the ASUS Z7S WS which went head on with then Intel 'Skulltrail' D5400XS Xeon luxury gaming platform (using dual unlocked QX9775 chips), but since then ASUS has done n...
Reardan
Senior Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 2014-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 2014-09-21
#5455157 Posted on: 07/24/2017 09:20 PM
schmidtbag is completely right.
for intel it would make sense (marketing/sales wise), as product appears to be "faster" as lots of ppl still compare clocks, and go with the higher one.
and its not ocing, as max limits are given by intel already (e,g, thermal throttling), and just need to be "adjusted" for each chip.
same way i can buy a Golf with the same 2.0 TSFI doing between 180-300HP, yet Audi selling the same engine with 340HP. still doesnt mean it was aftermarket tuned (vs the stock one).
But in your analogy, you've still given a base HP, 180.
I mean this whole point is easily dismissed by pointing out that a car with no oil has zero HP, but I don't expect my manufacturer to advertise an "undefined" gas mileage estimate just because the engine can seize up. Any horsepowers below 180, in this case, should be considered varying levels of component failure.
If your CPU is throttling below the base clock, something has ****ed up. That's the intent. The base clock is there so you know, even in kind of bad situations, even pushed up to the limit, this is what you should expect. Below that, you have a problem.
schmidtbag is completely right.
for intel it would make sense (marketing/sales wise), as product appears to be "faster" as lots of ppl still compare clocks, and go with the higher one.
and its not ocing, as max limits are given by intel already (e,g, thermal throttling), and just need to be "adjusted" for each chip.
same way i can buy a Golf with the same 2.0 TSFI doing between 180-300HP, yet Audi selling the same engine with 340HP. still doesnt mean it was aftermarket tuned (vs the stock one).
But in your analogy, you've still given a base HP, 180.
I mean this whole point is easily dismissed by pointing out that a car with no oil has zero HP, but I don't expect my manufacturer to advertise an "undefined" gas mileage estimate just because the engine can seize up. Any horsepowers below 180, in this case, should be considered varying levels of component failure.
If your CPU is throttling below the base clock, something has ****ed up. That's the intent. The base clock is there so you know, even in kind of bad situations, even pushed up to the limit, this is what you should expect. Below that, you have a problem.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 7432
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 7432
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5455160 Posted on: 07/24/2017 09:28 PM
Fair point, but how often do people know that? Most people don't check their current frequency, let alone remember what the base clock is. Most people dismiss a thermal-throttled CPU as "this PC is junk" and some think it's legitimately dying, when really all they need is the HSF cleaned. If your HSF is that clogged, it doesn't matter what the base clock is and how far off you are from reaching it - you have a problem that needs to be addressed. In other words, on a CPU with turbo support, the base clock is still ultimately meaningless.
If your CPU is throttling below the base clock, something has ****ed up. That's the intent. The base clock is there so you know, even in kind of bad situations, even pushed up to the limit, this is what you should expect. Below that, you have a problem.
Fair point, but how often do people know that? Most people don't check their current frequency, let alone remember what the base clock is. Most people dismiss a thermal-throttled CPU as "this PC is junk" and some think it's legitimately dying, when really all they need is the HSF cleaned. If your HSF is that clogged, it doesn't matter what the base clock is and how far off you are from reaching it - you have a problem that needs to be addressed. In other words, on a CPU with turbo support, the base clock is still ultimately meaningless.
Reardan
Senior Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 2014-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 2014-09-21
#5455161 Posted on: 07/24/2017 09:37 PM
I don't disagree on the whole, but there's no alternative. The alternative definitely is not to just advertise the highest number, almost no one will ever hit it.
Like for example, I'm ordering a server right now basically,
32 cores, 2.6Ghz. If I get that server and all the cores are at 1.8, we have a problem, the minimums I need aren't met, and my bosses aren't going to be content with "Well the package says 4ghz". If they're all at 3.4, we're good. If they all hit 2.6, we're good.
Consumers and businesses need to know what they're guaranteed. If I have nothing misconfigured, this is what I get. Guaranteed. If there's headroom above that, great, I'll take it. If not, then that's fine, I paid for 2.6.
Fair point, but how often do people know that? Most people don't check their current frequency, let alone remember what the base clock is. Most people dismiss a thermal-throttled CPU as "this PC is junk" and some think it's legitimately dying, when really all they need is the HSF cleaned. If your HSF is that clogged, it doesn't matter what the base clock is and how far off you are from reaching it - you have a problem that needs to be addressed. In other words, on a CPU with turbo support, the base clock is still ultimately meaningless.
I don't disagree on the whole, but there's no alternative. The alternative definitely is not to just advertise the highest number, almost no one will ever hit it.
Like for example, I'm ordering a server right now basically,
32 cores, 2.6Ghz. If I get that server and all the cores are at 1.8, we have a problem, the minimums I need aren't met, and my bosses aren't going to be content with "Well the package says 4ghz". If they're all at 3.4, we're good. If they all hit 2.6, we're good.
Consumers and businesses need to know what they're guaranteed. If I have nothing misconfigured, this is what I get. Guaranteed. If there's headroom above that, great, I'll take it. If not, then that's fine, I paid for 2.6.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 7432
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 7432
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5455166 Posted on: 07/24/2017 09:59 PM
Like for example, I'm ordering a server right now basically,
32 cores, 2.6Ghz. If I get that server and all the cores are at 1.8, we have a problem, the minimums I need aren't met, and my bosses aren't going to be content with "Well the package says 4ghz". If they're all at 3.4, we're good. If they all hit 2.6, we're good.
I completely get what you're saying there, though I wasn't really thinking Intel would do this for all of their products, and absolutely not for servers. It is very important to have guaranteed consistency in servers (particularly mainframes) as they are heavily dependent upon thermal control and predictability. This is why server chips (to my knowledge) don't have boost clocks, and make a BIG deal about thermal throttling.
Consumers and businesses need to know what they're guaranteed. If I have nothing misconfigured, this is what I get. Guaranteed. If there's headroom above that, great, I'll take it. If not, then that's fine, I paid for 2.6.
Businesses yes, but not so much the average consumer. Keep in mind even for turbo'd CPUs, the stock heatsink Intel ships is what's supposed to guarantee your performance. Basically what Intel could do is drop base clock and say "this heatsink will guarantee you up to 2.6GHz
Like for example, I'm ordering a server right now basically,
32 cores, 2.6Ghz. If I get that server and all the cores are at 1.8, we have a problem, the minimums I need aren't met, and my bosses aren't going to be content with "Well the package says 4ghz". If they're all at 3.4, we're good. If they all hit 2.6, we're good.
I completely get what you're saying there, though I wasn't really thinking Intel would do this for all of their products, and absolutely not for servers. It is very important to have guaranteed consistency in servers (particularly mainframes) as they are heavily dependent upon thermal control and predictability. This is why server chips (to my knowledge) don't have boost clocks, and make a BIG deal about thermal throttling.
Consumers and businesses need to know what they're guaranteed. If I have nothing misconfigured, this is what I get. Guaranteed. If there's headroom above that, great, I'll take it. If not, then that's fine, I paid for 2.6.
Businesses yes, but not so much the average consumer. Keep in mind even for turbo'd CPUs, the stock heatsink Intel ships is what's supposed to guarantee your performance. Basically what Intel could do is drop base clock and say "this heatsink will guarantee you up to 2.6GHz
in ideal conditions
". Again - they're pretty much already doing what I'm saying, they're just advertising it differently.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 1949
Joined: 2012-04-30
schmidtbag is completely right.
for intel it would make sense (marketing/sales wise), as product appears to be "faster" as lots of ppl still compare clocks, and go with the higher one.
and its not ocing, as max limits are given by intel already (e,g, thermal throttling), and just need to be "adjusted" for each chip.
same way i can buy a Golf with the same 2.0 TSFI doing between 180-300HP, yet Audi selling the same engine with 340HP. still doesnt mean it was aftermarket tuned (vs the stock one).