That August release date was speculated in early April. Intel has not officially said anything about it. It could be August or it could be next year. Nobody really knows for sure. That's the frustrating part about all this. I need exact dates!
Maybe I'll just go ahead and build a 16 core Ryzen Threadripper system. That's getting more and more tempting by the day.
Juicy info about Turbo clocks.
- Core i9-7900X: 4.3/4.3/4.1/4.1/4.1/4.1/4.0/4.0/4.0/4.0 (TB 2.0) / 4.5 (TB 3.0)
All core Turbo up by 600 MHz compared to Core i7-6950X, 1-2 core Turbo up by 800-1000 MHz.
That is debatable. On the official MSRP, there was a tiny price decline. Although, Intel hasn't sold at MSRP for a while.Intel did not reduced any price.
Looking at it by core only fools yourself into thinking there was a price drop. You need to look at the other features, not by core. The three bottom chips were ~$389, ~$599, and ~$999 for the last 10 years across all generations -- regardless of core counts that kept changing.? Playing semantics? How much did Broadwell-E 8 core cost?
As you for your ''Skylake-X has no AVX-512'' thread (based on dubious SiSoftware engineer sample scores), I can now confirm AVX-512 is fully enabled on Skylake-X. The chips just scale back frequency in AVX-512 mode.
We would have seen old processors with solder heating up quite regularly if that were the case.
I'm not seeing what you are seeing.wildhorse2k has got a point to take into consideration: http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/whos-buying-skylake-x.2504706/page-19#post-38919250 + higher RAM frequency support.
Yes, Intel did give better value. Intel is giving 2 more cores and a few minor tweaks.I just can't agree with this line of thinking. Clearly these chips are going to perform better and offer more cores than the previous generation. And cost less.... Without the AMD comeback I would have bet that Skylake would have been the exact same as Broadwell. So do not refer to it as a "price drop" but an increase in value. More cores/performance for the same price as before. Either way. Intel has not delivered the same old same old.
I think the delay of the 12c-18c products is proof that these skus were not originally planned to be part of this launch and were added after AMD announced Threadripper.
Yes, Intel did give better value. Intel is giving 2 more cores and a few minor tweaks.
But Intel has been giving 2 more cores every ~3 years for the last decade. You got a 2 core bump in 2006 (2007 for HEDT), 2010, 2014, and 2017 all for about the exact same price as the last chip.
So, according to your logic, the 2 more cores in Skylake-X is due to Ryzen. Then why did we get the 2 more cores the other years? Because AMD was so strong in 2014?
Juicy info about Turbo clocks.
- Core i9-7900X: 4.3/4.3/4.1/4.1/4.1/4.1/4.0/4.0/4.0/4.0 (TB 2.0) / 4.5 (TB 3.0)
All core Turbo up by 600 MHz compared to Core i7-6950X, 1-2 core Turbo up by 800-1000 MHz.
Anandtech said that Intel is still tweaking them...so they are pretty much ready to go, I think.I think the delay of the 12c-18c products is proof that these skus were not originally planned to be part of this launch and were added after AMD announced Threadripper.
It's first out of the gate, IIRC.All current information in the wild seems to surround the i9-7900X. Is there a specific reason for this that you are aware of? This needs to stop before I convince myself to buy a 10C CPU I don't need
That aside; that's some hefty clocks on a 10C part!!
So the "best core" can do 4.5, and the two "favored cores" can do 4.3 with TBM3?Juicy info about Turbo clocks.
- Core i9-7900X: 4.3/4.3/4.1/4.1/4.1/4.1/4.0/4.0/4.0/4.0 (TB 2.0) / 4.5 (TB 3.0)
All core Turbo up by 600 MHz compared to Core i7-6950X, 1-2 core Turbo up by 800-1000 MHz.
Juicy info about Turbo clocks.
- Core i9-7900X: 4.3/4.3/4.1/4.1/4.1/4.1/4.0/4.0/4.0/4.0 (TB 2.0) / 4.5 (TB 3.0)
All core Turbo up by 600 MHz compared to Core i7-6950X, 1-2 core Turbo up by 800-1000 MHz.
As I understand it, due to mechanical constraints, among other reasons, laptop CPUs do not have a heatspreader attached. The cooling systems in laptops, are direct-to-die, on both the CPU and GPU. (Usually heatpipes, linked to a heatsink and fan elsewhere in the chassis.)Intel's real customers are laptop/tablet manufacturers and datacenter operators who could not possibly care less about this drama. As for why they do not solder their "extreme" SKUs, where do you think those come from? Desktop chips are just overclocked laptop chips, and HEDT chips are just overclocked server chips. They come from the same wafers, the same dies, and in fact, likely are the exact same batch of packaged CPUs until the final SKU determination is made. There is no way Intel will create a separate assembly line for something with non-existent sales (relative to total revenue).
Tpuhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyz2gkyIoXI
7900X@4.5
cinebench R15
2419 multi
198 single
temps during cinebench - 85c on air tower cooler (tragic).
Any heavy loads would send that chip into thermal throttling. Not sure how much water would help since the heat simply can't escape the die fast enough due to crappy TIM.