Tech preview: Intel Core i9 Skylake-X processors
Click here to post a comment for Tech preview: Intel Core i9 Skylake-X processors on our message forum
Aura89
No USB 3.1 (without third party chips) on the x299? Well can't say i didn't predict that i guess. Wonder if Intel knows its 2017.
Also, i love intels randomness(sarcasm). I mean, from 8 core to 10 core, they are charging you 400 extra dollars for those 2 cores. Yet from 10 core to 12 core, they are charging you 200 extra dollars for those 2 cores. Then its another 200, then 300, then 300, down the line, per 2 cores extra. Now i know you could say "well there's more to it then that, there's extra PCI-Express lanes between the 8 and 10 core". Ok sure, but that's just a cop out to charge us more......
labidas
Have you seen Linus's video on X299/Kaby-Lake X? He basically explains how it's all a mess from intels part. An actually good video from him over a long time.
Intel is in major panic mode and are shooting themselves in the foot.
BlueRay
This platform was a result of some things.
One of them was the need for rush to release something to compete with Threadripper.
The other is Intel's pricing politics.
For such a price this platform is half baked at least.
The good news is that this year the CPU market will finally see some competition after almost a decade of stagnation.
Kaarme
There's a logic conflict in this statement. You can't increase IPC by raising clocks when the IPC is performance measure per clock-cycle. In reality Intel has tried to avoid revealing its CPU generations hardly increase the IPC by raising the clocks. A frequency increase is free performance if the processor can handle it, so it's the best for the manufacturer.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Administrator
Correct, I have just rewritten that paragraph.
nevcairiel
The really bad part is basically only that Kaby Lake X is a thing. Its an odd thing to have and unclear who would really want to buy it. If it wouldn't exist, the tone would be entirely different.
So.. why not just ignore it exists and move on? 🙂
The i9s and the x299 platform are still good despite this, even if the religious following of Linus would have you believe otherwise. ThreadRipper is not the ultimate answer to everything, it has its own challenges, but noone is talking about those yet. Competition is always good.
rl66
and very disapointed by the 2066 line:
-you have the same CPU than in 2011 v3
-the same number of core (including Xeon to pair i9)
-the same price + 400 Euro
so... Why change from X99 , C2** to this one???
I guess Intel have get the old AMD's communication service 🙂
let's see at release and let a year to mature.
LunerK9
Is it just me or is it odd that you now have to buy a 7900x 10 core cpu to get 44 gen3 pcie lanes
But in 2013 with a 4930k 6 core you got 40 gen3 pcie lanes
This seems a little backwards to me you now pay $1000 for what you used to get for $600
If the chart is correct
MadGizmo
This lineup appears like chaos dreamed up by a confused marketing department.
If Intel abandoned the EU press then chances are AMD will get more coverage there. If that press needs to rely on e-shops to get review samples then Intel shouldn't be surprised when they get less attention.
Kaarme
They dropped the ball because they could afford it and because digging deeper into the Intel Core CPUs reveals how little they change from generation to generation. So, because they sell anyway and have a good reputation (aside from the price), it's beneficial for Intel if really expert reviews don't appear at all.
The Skylake-X 10C/20T is significantly cheaper compared to the old flagship, yet should also be somewhat faster. Still, it wouldn't make much sense to switch those, but if somebody has now for example a 6C X99, the 10C X299 would definitely rock hard. Not to mention if you have a pesky 4C mainstream Intel, these Skylake-Xs would be an excellent upgrade.
All in all the worth of these depends on what you are coming from. Of course they also allow lolptane, should one find it worth the money.
BangTail
The other wildly annoying thing I have no doubt Intel will persist in doing is not lowering X99 prices (at least not much), the more I read about X299, the more disinterested I become.
Koniakki
This is kinda ridiculous. I too was wondering that nothing mostly is changed?
And Intel is just making "noise" to try and "hide" and make us(consumers) not notice that they are actually running in circles.
I put up my 6700k@4.6@1.31v with my lovely ASUS M8H for sale.
For the R5 1600X@$249! Sweet processor and I will even pocket around $100. lol
Or the 1700X(only small price diff vs 1700) but 6c/12t(1600X) would do fine too. :thumbup:
Fixed. 😀
H83
Until Intel starts to see a serious decline in their sales from consumer CPUs, they are not going to change anything! They want profit, like all other companies, and if they can get it without changing anything, then they will continue to do it.
Yes, i know it´s a sad thing for consumers but that´s how things work...
Loophole35
As much as I don't like the hearsay on the OC headroom it doesn't hold a candle to how stupid at this point the artificial PCIe limits Intel decided to place on the 6 and 8 core parts.
BigMaMaInHouse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1rXqD6M614
Denial
Idk, the only chip that interested me out of the entire X299 line is the 8 core. The Kabylake X stuff doesn't make any sense and the 10+ core parts I think are a waste of cores for me and obviously know that I know the pricing, money.
99.9% of the activities I do don't scale beyond 8 cores - so I don't see a reason for going above it. I'd rather have higher IPC/Clockspeed at 8 cores then extra cores, even if the extra cores come at the same price. Like if threadripper launches and I can either get a 12 core TR and OC it 4.0Ghz or a 8 core Intel at OC 4.4Ghz, I'd rather have the Intel part, given that IPC between the two archs are the same, obviously.
As far as PCI-E lanes go, I don't ever plan on going SLI/Xfire ever again, baring some major improvement to them. So as long as I can run 2x M.2 and a GPU at 16x, I'll be happy.
But yeah, aside from the 8 core the rest of the line up is really wonky. Not quite sure what Intel was thinking. Maybe they figured that the majority of people going above 8 cores are workstation users and thus will pay the extra $$ given that most of those sales are through OEM channels. As far as Kabylake X though, I don't get that one at all.
JamesSneed
EDIT: Figured out how to PM Hilbert 🙂
JamesSneed
You nailed it. 🙂 Exactly what I was thinking. Intel wont be Xerox but they are heading down that path a bit. AMD's competition will wake them up, once stock does a bit worse, someone will get fired. You will see a focus back to engineering instead of marketing once again.
Amx85
I have so many observations for this "new" processors...
Now Quad Core has 112w TDP but they did´nt increased clocks and does´nt have GPU (WTF?)
If you divide CB "record" score between core count between clocks you gets lower performance per clock per core than RYZEN lol
They changed Cache amounts but IPC does´nt increased, they just boosts clocks again...
RYZEN score was when did´nt had AGESA 1.0.0.6 and DDR4 (4.00GHz) support, again IPC will up when we use RAM over 3.20GHz
They can´t claim 140w, maybe 155 and up to 165w since its process is´nt efficent at these clocks, if they limits up to 140w they can´t maintain over 4.00GHz on +8 Core models
conclusion for me:
16-Core ThreadRipper will be superior than 18-Core Skylake "X"
Sorry Intel you so OVERPRICED and OVERHEATED lol
nevcairiel
All your points are flawed though:
- Skylake is faster the Broadwell, especially with the redesigned cache in Skylake-X, so its hardly "the same CPU" (not to mention they clock higher out of the box)
- High-Core Xeons are vastly more expensive, so including those in the comparison is just flawed - the cheapest Broadwell-EP 18-core Xeon is easily $600 more expensive, and probably clocks far lower (clocks have not been revealed, so its hard to tell for sure, but i'm sure it goes over 2.1Ghz base as that Xeon). Did those even work in X99 boards? Hard to find anything conclusive.
- Comparable CPUs have actually gotten cheaper. 8-core BDW-E: $1089 -> SKL-X: $599, 10-core BDW-E: $1700 -> SKL-X: $999
The lineup may not be what everyone dreams it should be, but its definitely much better then Broadwell-E, and if only much cheaper for comparable CPUs, even if you don't buy into the super high-end.
For ThreadRipper, we basically know nothing of the CPU yet. Over-hyping has killed products before, so lets just see what it offers.
