12-core Intel Core i9 7920X will get a 400 MHz slower base-clock
Click here to post a comment for 12-core Intel Core i9 7920X will get a 400 MHz slower base-clock on our message forum
Kaill
going to be interesting to see the performance of those 2 compared side by side at stock and over clocked.
D3M1G0D
400 MHz is a pretty big drop, but it's not completely surprising. Judging by the thermals and power draw on the 7900X, it was very doubtful that they would be able to clock the 12 - 18 core parts anywhere near the 10-core one.
Fox2232
Even worse than I thought. And I already re-drawn bad image into pretty bad image.
Worst case scenario:
10 * 3.3GHz = 33GHz of relative performance
12 * 2.9GHz = 34.8GHz of relative performance
That's 5.5% increase of performance for 20.2% increase of price ($200).
What's left for 14 core chips and more? Or is this chip just place holder, so intel can say 12C are available and then there will be properly clocked 14C with huge price bump?
Considering how close this is in IPC to Ryzen and 12C TR having 20% base clock advantage... This is yet another weird chip I would like intel to explain.
wavetrex
This will be really fun after AMD releases Threadripper and reviews start to pop up showing it beats Intel's 12 and 10 cores soundly, while being cheaper than both.
I think of this when I imagine Intel's board of directors:
http://dl.wavetrex.eu/2017/myhairisonfire.gif
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghzEd4WLUz4
Aura89
So...
20% more cores - 13% per core performance = 20% more expensive.
Or, in other words, if linear, 7% more performance for 20% more cost.
Robbo9999
nizzen
12 core and 4500mhz easy on custom water. Confirmed 😀
Agent-A01
wavetrex
Robbo9999
Denial
Robbo9999
https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2017/3/213818-the-future-of-semiconductors/fulltext
Wow, sounds like even in the next 6 years that silicon has effectively come to the end of the road - that's like us today looking back to 2011, not far!
Very interesting read, yeah it does seem that with Moore's Law slowing down and the silicon chip beginning to reach the smallest possible nanometer scales, that a new technology is required beyond silicon. I'd agree, those are gonna be the next big massive step changes in performance & potential. If it happens in the next 10 yrs that would be super interesting & not long to wait, although I'm thinking that while there is still room to shrink silicon they're still gonna do that. How many more shrinkage nodes have they got left, and let's say they shrink once every 3 yrs as it becomes more & more difficult to shrink: 14nm-7nm-4nm-2nm-1nm (4 more nodes?) - 3yrs per node = 12 years of future silicon? By the way I don't know what the future pipeline is for shrinkage, so those nodes above I made up!
EDIT: and after doing a bit of research I found this quote: "In fact, industry groups such as the IEEE International Roadmap of Devices and Systems (IRDS) initiative have reported it will be nearly impossible to shrink transistors further by 2023."
from this article, which is an interesting read on the subject (March 2017): H83
GhostXL
I understand Intel's rush to match AMD's cores. I honestly think this lowering Ghz on this particular chip to almost nothing is not a good way to do it.
Intel is fine. I refuse to budge from my i7 5775c as it still eats up 4K with the rest of my current rig in specs.
If someone is fully focused on gaming they are gong to buy Intel still. I think Intel shoulda left this generation alone and put full focus into the next and i7 9700 etc to match AMD's cores.
This core war means nothing for the regular consumer and even gamer when more than 4 cores come into play.
We need more games to even utilize this stuff.
Although I don't blame a single person for jumping on Ryzen for gaming, Intel still has the lead there. Ryzen seems to be a great all-rounder though. If you want a bit of everything, and price-perf.
But I think Intel is trying to do what they can with current chips to push. I don't see this as necessary, but because they can.
I would not be quick to judge Intel saying that they don't know what they are doing. They are just doing something rather than nothing. The i7 8700K seems like a sweet spot to me. Six cores 12 Threads, I personally like that idea.
I personally don't know why it even started, when the real war is in cache size, chip size, memory, and power consumption. Also OC potential. More cores....is more heat. I really think in order for Intel and AMD to make more money on their chips they need to get with game devs A LOT more on how to properly code for CPU's to utilize all cores on PC. Or at least push for it. Ton's of ways to unload different parts of a game on cores and use them.
Only when more games and apps take advantage of more than 4 cores on a regular basis is this "core war" even worth fighting imho.
There has to be a way to use these cores in games that don't. Even if the GPU eats most of the game up these days. What can the extra cores do to help the games? Off-load tons of background tasks to the extra cores not used while in game??
Why not I say? Use those cores to do things in the background. If Intel and or AMD need to write a specific driver for it...do it I say. Then these cores will be worth upgrading for, and people like me even, would way to say okay...6 cores is actually better than 4 etc. Less interference in the game through unloading even most if not all background tasks to unused cores and threads while not interrupting the game sounds great to me.
Exascale
We have had a bunch of interesting, useful, and BETTER technologies for years already. However, they have not been widely used in consumer or even commercial products because its been too easy to stay with x86 with DIMM RAM.
The last few years have gotten interesting. 2015 saw HMC used for the first time on a CPU(Fujitsu SPARC XIfx), then AMD Fury with HBM, GP100 with HBM2 and now V100.
The trend now is fixing the rest of the system. Doing math(a FLOP) is cheap in terms of energy. Moving data is expensive. Reducing that cost is what everyone is trying to do now.
You will see 2.5D ICs become more common first, like we have seen with HMC, HBMand 3DS DIMMS. RAM of all kinds will be integrated in new ways and exotic(but not really new) memory technologies like XPoint(PCM), Re-RAM, nanotube RAM, and STT-MRAM will actually be used in things.
Essentially everything but the cores has become the bottleneck in many cases. Since cores are often starved for memory bandwidth, with very low byte/FLOP ratios, you can expect more memory focused architectural enhancements. Eventually architectures will have specialized built in accelerators, like Intels FPGA Xeons. Then true 3D mixed process ICs with pretty much everything integrated into a single semiconductor brick that includes logic and memory with photonic interconnects.
b101uk
Fox2232
Amx85
http://m.hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/107947-intel-core-i7-7820x-14nm-skylake-x
Just wait ThreadTripper...
user1
Adding more logs to the fire I see...:backfire:
nevcairiel
Base Clock doesn't really mean anything. At the very least the "stock" turbos are an interesting indicator, and if you want to be more complete - the actual operating clocks for typical setups (ie. on "average" cooling).
If you can turbo a 7900X to 4.5GHz on an AIO, you can be sure to get the 12-core to over 4GHz on the same setup.