Linus i9 7900X review... Opinions?

[TheNaitsyrk]

The 1000$ chip with 10 cores obviously beats the current best offering from Ryzen. 2200 Cinebench on i9 VS 1750-1800 on Ryzen. Other benchmarks look slightly better too and gaming is basically same even though single core of i9 is around 200 and Ryzen is 165 if playing at 1440p+.

Ryzen 1800X with Asus Crosshair VI Hero is about $650 whereas the 7900X with a motherboard will cost hefty 1300$+.

 

Opinions?

[iRileyx]

Unless ~20% extra performance is worth double the price to someone, i can't see many buying this.

 

Except the obvious fan boys who'll buy it just because "its Intel"

[Moress]

I think that the 1800x and 7900x are in vastly different skews and we should really wait for Threadripper before making serious comparisons.

[TheNaitsyrk]

Just now, Moress said:

I think that the 1800x and 7900x are in vastly different skews and we should really wait for Threadripper before making serious comparisons.

That is true. Especially when Threadripper will cost around 850$. However, a comparison is good, seeing that 1800X is kind of a mainstream CPU now, and it gets awfully close. It's like the difference between 6800K OC to 4.3Ghz and 1800X OC to 4.0Ghz. Interesting.

[Billy_Mays]

I think Linus did the appropriate thing to do and say that Intel dun fucked up and they know that too they pannicked because AMD has kicked their ass so hard that they cant even think strait so I think AMD will let Intel get back on their feet but not for long

[Morgan MLGman]

The worst part are 4K gaming benchmarks... I mean, what's the point if the FPS differences are so small that they need to show them in XX.X0 format? What does this help an average customer in, that he's gonna know that with 7900X he's gonna have 0.5FPS more at 4K than with another CPU that's for instance 3x cheaper? ;-;

[Guest]

I mean, what is there to say? It's good at what it's good at. It should hit the target market just fine. People who want a beastly editing/rendering/etc machine with the highest-end components and aren't afraid to pay a pretty penny will likely buy it, considering the 18 cores over Threadripper's 16, but I don't think it'll be popular among gamers, as we just don't need that many cores.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Moress said:

I think that the 1800x and 7900x are in vastly different skews and we should really wait for Threadripper before making serious comparisons.

Fair. The only advantage I can see it having over the i9s in terms of editing/rendering/etc is the 64 PCIe lanes, for MOAR GRAFIX, but I guess we'll see.

[TheNaitsyrk]

1 minute ago, LeinadTM said:

Fair. The only advantage I can see it having over the i9s in terms of editing/rendering/etc is the 64 PCIe lanes, for MOAR GRAFIX, but I guess we'll see.

However only SLI is now supported and 8X is just as fast as 16X so there'll be like no difference anyway tho.

[Orangeator]

1 minute ago, Morgan MLGman said:

The worst part are 4K gaming benchmarks... I mean, what's the point if the FPS differences are so small that they need to show them in XX.X0 format? What does this help an average customer in, that he's gonna know that with 7900X he's gonna have 0.5FPS more at 4K than with another CPU that's for instance 3x cheaper? ;-;

Well this is because right now 4k is still more bottle-necked by GPU's rather than CPU's.

[TheNaitsyrk]

1 minute ago, Orangeator said:

Well this is because right now 4k is still more bottle-necked by GPU's rather than CPU's.

Also, people who buy such equipment will most likely have 4K screens by now.

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, Orangeator said:

Well this is because right now 4k is still more bottle-necked by GPU's rather than CPU's.

Ummmm, yeah, I am fully aware of that, it's the reason I posted that reply at all The point is, why 4K if it has very little to do with the CPU at the moment?

[Princess Luna]

Well whatever it is, Ryzen is still the best cost-to-performance to whoever needs a workstation.

 

Intel is still the best "enthusiastic you pay premium for premium" for those who rather wants a workstation.

 

Buying HEDT just for Gaming still is pointless as the i7 7700k is still enough for any gaming with moderate multi-tasking you need and personally I still think that pairing a locked i7 7700 with a cheap motherboard is the best high end solution for who wants a great computer for day-to-day usage and gaming, also worth remembering many content creation application such as Adobe softwares do run better on Kaby Lake despite the reduced multi-tasking capacity.

 

Ryzen 1600 and 1700 coming right behind as the best for heavier multi-taskers.

 

x299 did not make me excited and I believe that's true for the most people, gotta wait for Canon Lake 10nm processors so Intel is Intel again.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

8 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

The worst part are 4K gaming benchmarks... I mean, what's the point if the FPS differences are so small that they need to show them in XX.X0 format? What does this help an average customer in, that he's gonna know that with 7900X he's gonna have 0.5FPS more at 4K than with another CPU that's for instance 3x cheaper? ;-;

I agree with you. But I also think that any gaming benchmark is kind of pointless in a 10-core CPU review. I know there is demand for it, so LInus has to do it to some extent, but it still fells like testing a tank by racing a few laps at Indianapolis.

[manikyath]

15 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

The worst part are 4K gaming benchmarks... I mean, what's the point if the FPS differences are so small that they need to show them in XX.X0 format? What does this help an average customer in, that he's gonna know that with 7900X he's gonna have 0.5FPS more at 4K than with another CPU that's for instance 3x cheaper? ;-;

the point is that someone tossing this kind of money on a rig would most likely game at such a resolution, which is why its included, and then followed up by 1080p benchmarks, which are more cpu bound.

 

but quite honestly.. doing gaming benchmarks at 640x480 with everything set to minimum is so meaningless for actual gaming scenarios that you may as well cinebench the damn thing and dont bother with the setup.

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, manikyath said:

the point is that someone tossing this kind of money on a rig would most likely game at such a resolution, which is why its included, and then followed up by 1080p benchmarks, which are more cpu bound.

 

but quite honestly.. doing gaming benchmarks at 640x480 with everything set to minimum is so meaningless for actual gaming scenarios that you may as well cinebench the damn thing and dont bother with the setup.

Yeah, but they essentially might have used a GTX 1050Ti instead of 1080Ti for those 4K benchmarks, the results would be just as meaningless and useless...

[manikyath]

Just now, Morgan MLGman said:

Yeah, but they essentially might have used a GTX 1050Ti instead of 1080Ti for those 4K benchmarks, the results would be just as meaningless and useless...

thats exactly the point of putting those benchmarks in there;

at this level of CPU, it doesnt have an impact for gaming

[Morgan MLGman]

1 hour ago, manikyath said:

thats exactly the point of putting those benchmarks in there;

at this level of CPU, it doesnt have an impact for gaming

Or they could have mentioned it before benchmarks, put one or two as an example and move along to 1080p benchmarks which seem to be a good, fairly realistic balance between GPU and CPU loads...

[StealthArsenal]

Looks like my 5820K will live another life cycle.  Sure the 7900X is better, but without threadripper to really see how good both performance and cost wise, it seems like a no one should jump into the pool right this second with skylake x.  Maybe threadripper will be a dud, but I highly doubt it.  AMD seems to have everything going for it right about now.

 

 

[othertomperson]

This is the best news R5 and R7 owners could have asked for.

 

 

Now AMD and Intel both suffer from the same core-to-core latency problem. Game devs are going to have no choice but to optimise for it

[SoloDolo]

Ryzen 1800x is $500(on sale on Newegg for $460) Intel offers a 20% increase for double the price? That is not worth it at all. Also, the entire X299 mobos dont really make that much sense. 

 

I can only see the Intel die hards buying this. The I7 7800x is the only processor I can see that looks to be a solid choice for high end gaming and productivity. 

[manikyath]

37 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Or they could have mentioned it before benchmarks, put one or two as an example and move along to 1080p benchmarks which seem to be a good, fairly realistic balance between GPU and CPU loads...

but mentioning isnt a review, a review is showing numbers.

[done12many2]

3 hours ago, othertomperson said:

Now AMD and Intel both suffer from the same core-to-core latency problem. Game devs are going to have no choice but to optimise for it

 

The latency your are referring to only happens with the 12 - 18 HCC Intel parts.  The 10 core and lower do not incur the core to core latency spike problem found with AMD Zen or Intel HCC. 

 

With that said, the jury is still out on whether the latency will be as dramatic even with the 12 - 18 core HCC parts.  

 

 

[othertomperson]

16 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

The latency your are referring to only happens with the 12 - 18 HCC Intel parts.  The 10 core and lower do not incur the core to core latency spike problem found with AMD Zen or Intel HCC. 

 

With that said, the jury is still out on whether the latency will be as dramatic even with the 12 - 18 core HCC parts.  

 

 

If you're going to post a graph you should at least look at it before saying rubbish like that. The pcper source we both posted demonstrate it with the 10 core 7900X

[done12many2]

Just now, othertomperson said:

If you're going to post a graph you should at least look at it before saying rubbish like that.

 

What do you want me to look at?  No need to suck in so much air bud.