I9 7960X benchmarks released on LN2

[TidaLWaveZ]

 

4 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

I also want the best....... best value, which more people should start caring for too, would turn the market better for sure.... when you're dealing with 100% price increase like the 1950x to 7980xe for 15~20% increase in performance I really find ludicrous there's people so stubborn to go like that... "BEST OR NUTHING" usually people like that are the ones that don't even use the PC to its full potential also

 

 

 

[Princess Luna]

6 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Yeah, but some people prefer maximum performance. Why did you choose Titan X's instead of 980 Tis, you paid more for a 5% max performance increase?

You already know I bought both of them second hand after Pascal released already, they were even a bit cheaper than 1080's at launch.

[Taf the Ghost]

So at high clock speeds, under LN2, the IPC has trended closer to 5%. That's not too surprising and likely still down to the Memory Bandwidth advantage that Intel still has.

 

As for the "real-world" realities, I imagine it's going to be even closer to sideways without a delid and turning off some of the Power Limiting functions of the motherboard. OC'd 7820X & 7900X both could hit the power limits. 14c, 16c & 18c will probably be hitting that at stock, even before the heat issues.

[Bouzoo]

Small typo though in the title, it's i9 and not i7. Got me confused for a second there. 

 

I would also like to see where and who was it that said TR would be faster. I don't remember seeing that.

[MageTank]

29 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

I also want the best....... best value, which more people should start caring for too, would turn the market better for sure.... when you're dealing with 100% price increase like the 1950x to 7980xe for 15~20% increase in performance I really find ludicrous there's people so stubborn to go like that... "BEST OR NUTHING" usually people like that are the ones that don't even use the PC to its full potential also

 

 

And what exactly is the best value? What does that mean? I keep seeing the word "value" used, but the context is always static, as if value is black and white. You also throw the numbers "15-20%" in regards to performance, but that number is not static across the entire board. AVX3 can do twice the bit-ops/clock as AVX2, and Ryzen's AVX performance is already crippled as is. Not only that, but Threadrippers IMC is inferior to Intel's in terms of raw bandwidth and latency. Yet another serious difference in performance that will vary depending on ones specific use case. How do these cases lineup in your "15-20%" number, and what is their intrinsic value in that context?

 

Price:Performance is an easy metric to use when gaming is the context, but gaming is not, and should never be, the context in which these CPU's are judged. Even comparing just raw core count vs clocks, you cannot just ignore the instruction set advantages and IMC differences when throwing around absolute numbers. 

 

My point is, what is good for someone else, may not be good for you. Judging these CPU's based on their price relative to one another, can only be done if you compare absolutely everything about them, and weigh that information against the types of workloads used by people that would pay for something like these. Yes, some people buy them simply because they "want the best" without really knowing what that means. Some even end up with worse performance for the things they actually do use the PC for, but people with that mentality simply cannot be helped. Those that know what they are doing, and buy based on what they NEED, tend to understand the difference in price, and understand that the performance they need, costs a premium. 

 

I guess the basic TL:DR here is, value is subjective. It will differ from person to person, even on products with formulaic information (such as price:performance). Better price:performance does not always equate to better value. 

[done12many2]

46 minutes ago, DXMember said:

HOLY SHIT....

I thought you were dead...

 

Why does this sound funny coming from you?

[Dylanc1500]

3 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

So at high clock speeds, under LN2, the IPC has trended closer to 5%. That's not too surprising and likely still down to the Memory Bandwidth advantage that Intel still has.

 

As for the "real-world" realities, I imagine it's going to be even closer to sideways without a delid and turning off some of the Power Limiting functions of the motherboard. OC'd 7820X & 7900X both could hit the power limits. 14c, 16c & 18c will probably be hitting that at stock, even before the heat issues.

It just means motherboard manufactorers are going to have to start making boards that drop the gimmicky stuff and push for true enthusiast level boards, that drop the "gamery" aesthetic for all out performance.

 

Hell, ill take green PCB If it means copper heat sinks.

[Bouzoo]

41 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

I also want the best....... best value, which more people should start caring for too, would turn the market better for sure.... when you're dealing with 100% price increase like the 1950x to 7980xe for 15~20% increase in performance I really find ludicrous there's people so stubborn to go like that... "BEST OR NUTHING" usually people like that are the ones that don't even use the PC to its full potential also

There's no reason for people to buy Porsche 918 yet all 918 of them got sold before they were released, as well as many other expensive stuff. You nor I may not be the the ones it's targeted at, but thousands will buy it for the sake of being the best, and they have every right so. Would the market be better? Who knows, many people will still go for the bang for the buck that is TR, but people who want the best will go Intel. The fact is AMD is playing a really good game imo, but Intel is still ahead in some parts, so for people who want the best... why should they settle for worse? Literally no reason if money is not an issue for them, even if it's double the price. 

Not to go how people who are the loudest also are not the targeted audience I reckon. Internet arguing and all. 

 

Also playing the devil's advocate here. 

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, Bouzoo said:

There's no reason for people to buy Porsche 918 yet all 918 of them got sold before they were released, as well as many other expensive stuff. You nor I may not be the the ones it's targeted at, but thousands will buy it for the sake of being the best, and they have every right so. Would the market be better? Who knows, many people will still go for the bang for the buck that is TR, but people who want the best will go Intel. The fact is AMD is playing a really good game imo, but Intel is still ahead in some parts, so for people who want the best... why should they settle for worse? Literally no reason if money is not an issue for them, even if it's double the price. 

Not to go how people who are the loudest also are not the targeted audience I reckon. Internet arguing and all. 

 

Also playing the devil's advocate here. 

 

It's good to see that people live outside of the LTT forums and understand how things work in real life.  

 

Just as it is in most things in life, it's the last 5 or 10% of anything that cost you the most in anything that enthusiasts are involved in.  

[DXMember]

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

I also want the best....... best value

Titan X SLI

k...

 

any how... about half a year ago we wouldn't even think we'd be arguing about 7%, so this is pretty EPYC either way

[Lays]

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

I also want the best....... best value, which more people should start caring for too, would turn the market better for sure.... when you're dealing with 100% price increase like the 1950x to 7980xe for 15~20% increase in performance I really find ludicrous there's people so stubborn to go like that... "BEST OR NUTHING" usually people like that are the ones that don't even use the PC to its full potential also

 

 

This is the EXTREME platform, for enthusiasts. If you want it to be all about value, buy the consumer grade stuff. Enthusiasts should be all about give us the best you can give us! 

 

The case has NEVER been twice the price twice the performance, at this level you don't get value, you get shit tons of performance for a lot of money. 

It's the same with cars, audio, all kinds of hobbies. When you want the little bit extra on top of the crazy extreme high end parts, you have to pony up and pay for it. 

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, Lays said:

This is the EXTREME platform, for enthusiasts. If you want it to be all about value, buy the consumer grade stuff. Enthusiasts should be all about give us the best you can give us! 

 

The case has NEVER been twice the price twice the performance, at this level you don't get value, you get shit tons of performance for a lot of money. 

It's the same with cars, audio, all kinds of hobbies. When you want the little bit extra on top of the crazy extreme high end parts, you have to pony up and pay for it. 

This is also for people that do work, and value would be a part of a purchasing decision. Saying value has no place in HEDT is ridiculous.

[Taf the Ghost]

35 minutes ago, Dylanc1500 said:

It just means motherboard manufactorers are going to have to start making boards that drop the gimmicky stuff and push for true enthusiast level boards, that drop the "gamery" aesthetic for all out performance.

 

Hell, ill take green PCB If it means copper heat sinks.

It's not that the already $600 USD boards can't handle it (well, VRMs might have issues under OC), it's the design specs that Intel released. We'll see when testing hits, but the things you'd turn off when doing LN2 testing are going to need to be turned off to probably do a light OC on the higher core parts. Though I think the heat issue is going to be far larger at 4 Ghz than people realize, which is why I expect a lot more deliding to happen even here. (It's the TIM + IHS, not the water cooling setups.)

[Lays]

2 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

This is also for people that do work, and value would be a part of a purchasing decision. Saying value has no place in HEDT is ridiculous.

I did not say value had nothing to do with it, I said it's not all about value. Some people that use these platforms to do work or run a business value the extra speed, it might mean their contracts get filled 10% faster. To some companies that makes a big difference. 

[Lays]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

It's not that the already $600 USD boards can't handle it (well, VRMs might have issues under OC), it's the design specs that Intel released. We'll see when testing hits, but the things you'd turn off when doing LN2 testing are going to need to be turned off to probably do a light OC on the higher core parts. Though I think the heat issue is going to be far larger at 4 Ghz than people realize, which is why I expect a lot more deliding to happen even here. (It's the TIM + IHS, not the water cooling setups.)

If you're talking about power and current limits, most proper motherboards have them maxed out even at stock settings. 

[Lays]

1 hour ago, MageTank said:

Where is the one person that said this? Also, did anyone even believe them? Why on earth would Intel's superior IPC and clock speeds, be slower than a CPU whose MCM design is based on two slower dies? Come on @Lays,  you are making this part up, lol.

 

Also, TR was clocked at 5370mhz when it scored 4514. This 7900X is clocked at 5600mhz scoring 4931. That is a 4.3% difference in clock speeds, but a 9.3% difference in scores. If we ignore memory impact on this benchmark, that's still a 5% difference clock for clock (again, this is ignoring ram, which is likely also having an impact here). 5% is about where we all previously mathed out the IPC difference between Skylake and Ryzen, so it adds up in my books.

 

The REAL difference between real world TR, and real world X299, is cooling requirements. I bet you any amount of money, that Intel result was delidded. You know it, I know it, let's get that out of the way. The average enthusiast will still be too afraid to delid their X299 chips. Ryzen consumers won't need to delid at all. Thermals will certainly be in Ryzen's favor (except for an apparent issue with socket thermals, i'll study that in more detail when I get the free time), but it's going to be difficult to hit 4.5ghz on X299 on these 16 core chips without a custom loop. AIO's will certainly be pushing it, unless they go for an AVX offset and have decent ambients. 

 

TL:DR? Nobody thought TR was going to be faster core for core. If they did, they must have clearly ignored Ryzen entirely, as an MCM design made it extremely easy to extrapolate TR's performance. Aside from the extremely shoddy memory implementation, we all knew roughly how strong the multi-core performance was going to be. None of us thought for a second that TR was going to beat the 7960X or 7980XE, but being priced to compete against the 7900X, it can certainly deliver under very niche conditions. 

I've seen it a few times on these forums, the topic where base clocks for 12/14/16/18 were announced and a few other times from people with low post counts. Probably just morons that don't know what they're talking about, or just straight up trolls. 

[ApolloFury]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

I think one of the Threadripper reviews mentioned that Intel released cinebench scores for their 16 core Skylake-X CPU, supposed to be about 3200 points so higher than TR. The 18 core should be 3500 ish.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/6s7g8z/sneak_peek_at_intel_core_i97960x_performance/

Isn't TR 1950X also around 3200 points too?

EDIT: Nvm, could be that the reviewers are showing overclocked results.

[Taf the Ghost]

33 minutes ago, ApolloFury said:

Isn't TR 1950X also around 3200 points too?

EDIT: Nvm, could be that the reviewers are showing overclocked results.

1950X seems to be getting ~3050 on most testing samples with 3200 memory. (Noticeably, everyone seems to be getting 3200, btw.) Steve at Hardware Unboxed/TechSpot got 3400 R15 result with a 4 Ghz all-core OC. Someone might get the money dies and get have a 4.25 Ghz OC on water at 3433 memory CPU, which would enable 3500 to 3600 R15 score.

[Dylanc1500]

Woah, am I the only one new to the realization that the x299 supports up to 512gb of ram as long as you use registered DIMMs? (Excluding 7740x and 7640x)

[jasonc_01]

7 hours ago, Lays said:

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i9_7960x/

 

The embargo on manufacturers benchmarks lifted this morning, we should see more coming soon. It beats the current fastest cinebench r15 Threadripper Ln2 score by roughly 400 points. Which looks to be about 9%.

 

http://hwbot.org/submission/3622583_sofos1990_cinebench___r15_core_i9_7960x_4931_cb/

 

 

This is a good sign for everyone that said it would be slower than TR, and an even better sign for how insane the 18 core will be.  Obviously the 16 is more expensive, but you get what ya pay for. The fact that it does 5.6 on Ln2 is a good sign as well, if it behaves like the 10 core does we should see similar clock speeds on watercooling since the 16c most likely has stronger binning behind it. 

Wow so 9% "better" (on ln2) costs 70% more........ Should probably compare this to the 1920X on ln2 and then double it, so $100 less and could be 40% faster. 

 

Or even better two 1950x's, so 90% better performance for 18% more. 

 

 

[Lays]

4 hours ago, jasonc_01 said:

Wow so 9% "better" (on ln2) costs 70% more........ Should probably compare this to the 1920X on ln2 and then double it, so $100 less and could be 40% faster. 

 

Or even better two 1950x's, so 90% better performance for 18% more. 

 

 

We already went over this, when you're on the bleeding edge, that last 10% costs a fortune.  It's the same in EVERY hobby pretty much.

[jasonc_01]

10 hours ago, Lays said:

We already went over this, when you're on the bleeding edge, that last 10% costs a fortune.  It's the same in EVERY hobby pretty much.

I don't see how a 7960x is on the "bleeding edge" of anything. Skylake x is not a magical unicorn processor that is a revelation to computing, not by a long shot. Whereas threadripper is a revelation in terms of price disruption. 

 

The performance increases is pretty in line with where ryzen is against Broadwell E.  

[WereCat]

19 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

1950X seems to be getting ~3050 on most testing samples with 3200 memory. (Noticeably, everyone seems to be getting 3200, btw.) Steve at Hardware Unboxed/TechSpot got 3400 R15 result with a 4 Ghz all-core OC. Someone might get the money dies and get have a 4.25 Ghz OC on water at 3433 memory CPU, which would enable 3500 to 3600 R15 score.

OC3D got RAM to 3433MHz and said that 3200MHz worked out of the box by using the AMD XMP (don't know the correct name) with 3333MHz being quite easy to achieve.

[done12many2]

16 minutes ago, jasonc_01 said:

I don't see how a 7960x is on the "bleeding edge" of anything. Skylake x is not a magical unicorn processor that is a revelation to computing, not by a long shot. Whereas threadripper is a revelation in terms of price disruption. 

 

The performance increases is pretty in line with where ryzen is against Broadwell E.  

 

I think you might be drinking too much of the kool-aid bud.  16 cores running at the overclocks that it can in a monolithic design is pretty bleeding edge.  No sure how you can find a way to credit one company without seeing the impressive stuff from another, but blinders will do that to all of us.  

 

There's nothing magical from either company, but both are developing impressive parts.  One chose an easier and more cost effective method resulting in higher yields with a better cost while the other continues to push the limits of what each individual core is capable of resulting in more performance from the same core count, which costs more.  

 

Nothing wrong with either approach.  It just boils down to if you prefer value to performance or vice versa.  

[VagabondWraith]

14 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

I think you might be drinking too much of the kool-aid bud.  16 cores running at the overclocks that it can in a monolithic design is pretty bleeding edge.  No sure how you can find a way to credit one company without seeing the impressive stuff from another, but blinders will do that to all of us.  

 

There's nothing magical from either company, but both are developing impressive parts.  One chose an easier and more cost effective method resulting in higher yields with a better cost while the other continues to push the limits of what each individual core is capable of resulting in more performance from the same core count, which costs more.  

 

Nothing wrong with either approach.  It just boils down to if you prefer value to performance or vice versa.  

No point explaining it. Some people are just too dense to ever understand.