Intel 7900x and Gigabyte X299 AORUS Gaming 7 leaked in benchmark

[3DOSH]

6 hours ago, done12many2 said:

I think it's funny that anyone would think that power savings is high on the priority list for folks who use HEDT.  

AMD ryzen is built on inferior node compared to Intel's , new design, new platform and it still consumes less power. AMD did some serious engineering here. 

Plus power consumption and heat output go hand in hand, so less power, less powerful power supply andno need to cool it with expensive CPU cooler. 

 

[Taf the Ghost]

Turbo Boost 3.0 is going to cause people to argue that the 10c or 12c is the "best gaming CPU on the market!" because they can put a triple rad on it and OC it up to 7700k speeds.  And it's going to be like 2% faster, haha.

 

There's value in selling to the "more money than sense" category. That's pretty much the entire F2P model, actually.

[Taf the Ghost]

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_run.php?q=c2ffcee889e8d5e3dbe2d3e7def88ab787a1c4a19cac8af9c4f4&l=en

 

Most recent Ryzen 1800X I could find that did this exact test.

 

This is kind of an interesting Benchmark, as I don't know what it's testing.  Though I do know that Intel chips do it really well.

 

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_run.php?q=c2ffcee889e8d5e3d5e7d2e1d1f785b888aecbae93a385f6cbfb&l=en  This is a i7-6950X.  

 

Looks to be about a 46% increase, in this test, over the previous 10c20t.  However, is the base-clock 4.0 Ghz? 33% base clock increase + the IPC improvements would make sense.  Though most of the increase is in "Single-float" and "Double-float" calculations, which points to some sort of optimizations.

[Drak3]

4 hours ago, 3DOSH said:

AMD ryzen is built on inferior node compared to Intel's , new design, new platform and it still consumes less power.

Except for AVX workloads and at idle, that's false. A ryzen chip and an Intel chip with the same # of cores, at stock speeds and OC'd with similar voltages, consume the same amount of power.

AMD has the power advantage in AVX because it has an extreme performance disadvantage. They intentionally cut back AVX in consumer chips to claim lower vastly TDP.

Now, what is true, is that Ryzen throws out less heat while consuming the same amount of power as the Intel equivalent, meaning that Ryzen is more efficient by a good stretch.

[PCGuy_5960]

43 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Turbo Boost 3.0 is going to cause people to argue that the 10c or 12c is the "best gaming CPU on the market!" because they can put a triple rad on it and OC it up to 7700k speeds.  And it's going to be like 2% faster, haha.

No one will buy those CPUs for a pure gaming PC and no one will recommend them for a "just gaming" system. Most people who will buy X299 CPUs will buy them because they need more cores or because they are enthusiasts and want the latest and greatest. 

46 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

There's value in selling to the "more money than sense" category. That's pretty much the entire F2P model, actually.

Sure, Ryzen is cheaper but there are reasons to buy an X299 CPU:

1. You need more PCIe lanes
2. You need very good multicore performance but you also need very good single core performance
3. You need good AVX performance

[PCGuy_5960]

28 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Looks to be about a 46% increase, in this test, over the previous 10c20t.  However, is the base-clock 4.0 Ghz? 33% base clock increase + the IPC improvements would make sense.

Skylake-X also has a 4x larger L2 cache than Broadwell-E tho..... Which does boost performance.

[PCGuy_5960]

5 hours ago, 3DOSH said:

AMD ryzen is built on inferior node compared to Intel's , new design, new platform and it still consumes less power. AMD did some serious engineering here. 

But Ryzen doesn't have quad channel DDR4 and 40 PCIe lanes. And X99 CPUs weren't designed with power efficiency in mind....

[JediFragger]

6 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

1. You need good AVX performance

Is this essential for gaming? Either now or in the future?

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, JediFragger said:

Is this essential for gaming? Either now or in the future?

Who buys HEDT CPUs and only plays games? 

[JediFragger]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Who buys HEDT CPUs and only plays games? 

True, I've been waiting on Coffeelake news tbh but this interested me.

[The Benjamins]

12 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

No one will buy those CPUs for a pure gaming PC and no one will recommend them for a "just gaming" system. Most people who will buy X299 CPUs will buy them because they need more cores or because they are enthusiasts and want the latest and greatest. 

Sure, Ryzen is cheaper but there are reasons to buy an X299 CPU:

1. You need more PCIe lanes
2. You need very good multicore performance but you also need very good single core performance
3. You need good AVX performance

 

6 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

But Ryzen doesn't have quad channel DDR4 and 40 PCIe lanes. And X99 CPUs weren't designed with power efficiency in mind....

Well isn't Threadripper the product that competes with x299.

It has 44 PCIe lanes and quad channel DDR4 while having more cores.

[PCGuy_5960]

5 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Well isn't Threadripper the product that competes with x299.

It has 44 PCIe lanes and quad channel DDR4 while having more cores.

More *weaker* cores. And X299 actually has 68 PCIe lanes (44 CPU+24 chipset) and Threadripper has dual IMCs, so higher memory clocks won't be very easy to achieve... And Threadripper's AVX performance will still be quite a bit worse than Intel's

[The Benjamins]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

More *weaker* cores. And X299 actually has 68 PCIe lanes (44 CPU+24 chipset) and Threadripper has dual IMCs, so high memory clocks won't be very easy to achieve... And Threadripper's AVX performance will still be quite a bit worse than Intel's

true.

The cores are not that much weaker (besides AVX) do you know how many PCIe lanes RT chipset gets?

 

for the 12 core intel part (assuming that is coning out) to be the same "speed" as 16 RT it would need to be 33% faster per core (clock and IPC)

[PCGuy_5960]

13 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

true.

The cores are not that much weaker (besides AVX) do you know how many PCIe lanes RT chipset gets?

 

for the 12 core intel part (assuming that is coning out) to be the same "speed" as 16 RT it would need to be 33% faster per core (clock and IPC)

Skylake's IPC is 8-10% higher than Ryzen so if Skylake-X can clock high enough, the 12 core may be on par with a 4GHz Threadripper 16 core

[The Benjamins]

8 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Skylake's IPC is 8-10% higher than Ryzen so if Skylake-X can clock high enough, the 12 core may be on par with a 4GHz Threadripper 16 core

We will see, It is awesome to see some competition in this space. It defiantly is going to come down to price. hope we get a lot more info on both at computex.

 

Eypc has 128 PCIe so half of that is 64, so at best we can see 64 but some do need to be allocated for the chipset. all of this is really cool stuff.

[Senzelian]

14 hours ago, done12many2 said:

I think it's funny that anyone would think that power savings is high on the priority list for folks who use HEDT.  

Was just about to say that too. When I was talking about the power savings of a 960 compared to a R9 380,everyone laughed at me and now suddenly it matters for HEDT? Yeaaah... Sure... 

[Senzelian]

Sorry, double post. 

[Taf the Ghost]

2 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Who buys HEDT CPUs and only plays games? 

There are people with 1080 Tis & Titan Xp and mostly play LoL & Minecraft. Which is why I said "There's value in selling to the "more money than sense" category."   Most HEDT are going to be bought by people that need the threads, but that won't preclude someone making the argument.

 

As for the 7900x itself, I'm still curious what the multi-media test is, as Intel does that one really well.  I'm also impressed if the base clock is going to be 4.0 Ghz, as that's pretty impressive for a 10c part.

[Drak3]

3 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Threadripper has dual IMCs, so higher memory clocks won't be very easy to achieve.

False. It has quad IMCs. Each CCX uses a single IMC, with Ryzen having 2 total, allowing it dual channel RAM.

 

2 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Skylake's IPC is 8-10% higher than Ryzen

Asides for AVX, Ryzen is hitting between Broadwell and Haswell. Skylake is only around 5% better than Haswell in terms of IPC.

 

3 hours ago, JediFragger said:

Is this essential for gaming? Either now or in the future?

As the needs of software, namely games, grows, whilst we're hitting an IPC wall and clock gains are minimal, we only have 2 options to get more performance.

1) Develop to support more cores. This is a short term, and not very good option. Certain tasks cannot be parallized, or scale extremely poorly. Many aspects of gaming is like this, as most tasks of a game are sequential and rely on user input.

2) Develop to take advantage of more powerful instruction sets. It does have some limitation, but it's a viable route for the longer term.

3 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Who buys HEDT CPUs and only plays games? 

Depends on the HEDT part. I wager that the 5820K, with a decent OC, is a great option for gaming, moving forward. I wouldn't say that about the 5960X.

[The Benjamins]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Depends on the HEDT part. I wager that the 5820K, with a decent OC, is a great option for gaming, moving forward. I wouldn't say that about the 5960X.

One big reason x99 had a place in gaming was the extra PCIe so you had enough for 3-4 GPU's and NVME drives. (not that 3-4 GPU's is a great investment)

[PCGuy_5960]

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

False. It has quad IMCs. Each CCX uses a single IMC, with Ryzen having 2 total, allowing it dual channel RAM.

Then RAM speeds and RAM compatibility will be even worse

5 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Asides for AVX, Ryzen is hitting between Broadwell and Haswell. Skylake is only around 5% better than Haswell in terms of IPC.

I think that AMD said it themselves, Ryzen is 7-8% slower than Kabylake in terms of IPC 

5 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Depends on the HEDT part. I wager that the 5820K, with a decent OC, is a great option for gaming, moving forward. I wouldn't say that about the 5960X.

True, I agree with you on that

[Valentyn]

3 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

No one will buy those CPUs for a pure gaming PC and no one will recommend them for a "just gaming" system. Most people who will buy X299 CPUs will buy them because they need more cores or because they are enthusiasts and want the latest and greatest. 

 

Oh man. You haven't been on OcUK have you? Loads of crazy bastards with 6950Xs just for gaming. It's absolutely mental really. 

 

I already know one that jump to the highest core x299 they have on offer. 

 

Chap just plays games as well, mental all round. 

 

I do a lot video and productivity work and I'd be hard pressed to bother going to 8 cores any time soon. 

 

I just hope Intel x299 8 core is going to be similar in price to RyZen, if it's 999 again I shudder to think what the rest will cost. 

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, Valentyn said:

Oh man. You haven't been on OcUK have you? Loads is crazy bastards with 6950Xs just for gaming. It's absolutely mental really. 

What a waste of money....

2 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

I just hope Intel x299 8 core is going to be similar in price to RyZen, if it's 999 again I shudder to think what the rest will cost. 

It probably won't cost $1099. It has 28 lanes and 4 cores cut off, which makes me think that it will cost $400-500... 

[Valentyn]

15 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

What a waste of money....

It probably won't cost $1099. It has 28 lanes and 4 cores cut off, which makes me think that it will cost $400-500... 

One can hope, because at that price it'll finally be worth it. Just a shame about the 28 PCIe lanes. 

 

[done12many2]

30 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Asides for AVX, Ryzen is hitting between Broadwell and Haswell. Skylake is only around 5% better than Haswell in terms of IPC.

 

To put that in a bit more of a direct Skylake IPC to Ryzen IPC comparison, it's a 7% IPC advantage per AMD themselves (Skylake and Kaby Lake) and a 12% clockspeed advantage for Kaby Lake.  Add them together and it's obviously pretty nice.

 

It those two factors play a role in Skylake X, one can expect some nice performance especially when combined with the advantages of quad channel memory and quadrupled L2 cache.  

 

 

Quote

1) Develop to support more cores. This is a short term, and not very good option. Certain tasks cannot be parallized, or scale extremely poorly. Many aspects of gaming is like this, as most tasks of a game are sequential and rely on user input.

2) Develop to take advantage of more powerful instruction sets. It does have some limitation, but it's a viable route for the longer term.

 

Agreed!

 

Quote

Depends on the HEDT part. I wager that the 5820K, with a decent OC, is a great option for gaming, moving forward. I wouldn't say that about the 5960X.

 

I'd argue that the 5960x is equally as good for gaming as the 5820k if not better.  

 

Binning has a lot to do with the decent OC that you mentioned and 5960x CPUs are the top binned Haswell-E.  Then there's the increased cache.  While not tremendously important in everything, it does help with with games.  One of the best kept secrets with regards to gaming chips is the Broadwell 5775c/5675c with their ridiculous 128MB of eDRAM, which effectively serves as a massive cache.  Those chips at low clock speeds easily outpaced Skylake chips at much higher speeds with the cache alone.