Der8auer hits 5.0GHz on i9-7900X with AIO water cooling

[TahoeDust]

2 hours ago, OriAr said:

I am going for the EVGA dark myself.

 

https://www.evga.com/articles/01114/evga-x299-series-motherboards/

Damn that looks nice.  I bet that thing is going to be pricey.  I very ready to start getting pricing on this stuff.

[VagabondWraith]

2 hours ago, OriAr said:

I am going for the EVGA dark myself.

 

https://www.evga.com/articles/01114/evga-x299-series-motherboards/

That gives me a good idea. I had totally forgotten about EVGA. ? I love their customer service. That's important to me. Will be reading up on their X299 motherboards and start deciding what I can compare ASUS to.

[leadeater]

8 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

I just read through the whole thread...

 

I'm seeing a bunch of "cherry picked", "price to performance sucks", and "Ryzen is better value"... That's a lot of speculation for such a small crowd, in my opinion.

 

Also, this is X299. None of those guys care if their builds cost a few hundred more dollars as long as they get the best of the best. They don't really care if AMD's Ryzen can deliver the same amount of cores for half the cost. They don't care as long as they get the most out of the chips. 

 

Half the people commenting here are probably just gamers trading their single-threaded power for more cores in the hopes that sequential calculations can somehow be split in pieces for their extra cores or they're confusing a single-threaded program that uses multiple cores as multi-threaded performance, in general. 

Well as a X79 user who went for the 4930K and not the 4960X I care about sensible value even when I'm spending far more than the average person, everyone should care otherwise we end up with $2000 CPUs .

[othertomperson]

4 hours ago, Atmos said:

I wasn't saying threadripper is going to be mainstream, its price will likely bring it out of that market. 

What we've been asking for is 6-8 cores on the mainstream, without having to spend $1,000. And that's exactly what they delivered with Ryzen. 

 

We have a chip on our shoulder because intel has been pissing on us and calling it rain for the last nearly decade now. Minuscule gains to IPC for the sake of power efficiency. Inflating prices. Locking down the mainstream to a maximum of 4 cores. Intel has been holding back the cpu market all because there was no pressure for them to make real advancements, to make real change. We've been angry about this for years, and now that we can have the choice to go to AMD again without sacrificing so much, of course we're going to be happy.

4 cores is all the vast majority need. The need for more is incredibly niche, so it makes sense to give it a niche platform. Not only that but more cores comes at the detriment of single core performance. Doing what you demand could end up reducing performance for the vast majority of people. AMD only got around this by either the process or infinity fabric providing a hard limit of 4 GHz regardless.

 

 Intel does increase IPC by a small amount, but they also release CPUs relatively often. for most people Sandy Bridge is still enough, so it makes sense to focus on power efficiency. Both for mobile devices, where they really are starved for CPU performance under their heat and power constraints, and in the interests of not heating the room they're too much.

 

idk I find this "THEYRE LITERALLY PISSING ON US" rhetoric absurd.

[Atmos]

28 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

4 cores is all the vast majority need. The need for more is incredibly niche, so it makes sense to give it a niche platform. Not only that but more cores comes at the detriment of single core performance. Doing what you demand could end up reducing performance for the vast majority of people. AMD only got around this by either the process or infinity fabric providing a hard limit of 4 GHz regardless.

 

 Intel does increase IPC by a small amount, but they also release CPUs relatively often. for most people Sandy Bridge is still enough, so it makes sense to focus on power efficiency. Both for mobile devices, where they really are starved for CPU performance under their heat and power constraints, and in the interests of not heating the room they're too much.

 

idk I find this "THEYRE LITERALLY PISSING ON US" rhetoric absurd.

This is the same conundrum that linux faces.

People won't use linux because software doesnt support it,

developers won't make software for linux because people don't use it.

 

People don't need more than 4 cores because software doesn't utilize it efficiently,

Developers won't build around more than 4 cores because they dont represent a profitable percentage of the market.

 

For things to progress in cpu computation now that we're hitting the nm wall, we have to increase cores and/or clock-speed. Intel refuses to do both of those things though because there's been no market pressure for them to invest in that hefty RND cost. It's vastly more profitable for them to sit back, give us the barest minimum, and still move units like no ones business because you have a near complete  effective monopoly of the market. If you think I'm wrong, then look at generational GPU improvement in calculation side-by-side with cpu improvement these handful of years. Healthy competition keeps progress climbing, as soon as it stagnates you go from 15-20%/generation and more power efficient... to 3-5%/generation and a bit more power efficient... To not be upset with Intel after all these years for stagnating the market and digging us into this 4 core trough, makes it seem like you don't have a complete grasp for the situation.

[cj09beira]

54 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

4 cores is all the vast majority need. The need for more is incredibly niche, so it makes sense to give it a niche platform. Not only that but more cores comes at the detriment of single core performance. Doing what you demand could end up reducing performance for the vast majority of people. AMD only got around this by either the process or infinity fabric providing a hard limit of 4 GHz regardless.

 

 Intel does increase IPC by a small amount, but they also release CPUs relatively often. for most people Sandy Bridge is still enough, so it makes sense to focus on power efficiency. Both for mobile devices, where they really are starved for CPU performance under their heat and power constraints, and in the interests of not heating the room they're too much.

 

idk I find this "THEYRE LITERALLY PISSING ON US" rhetoric absurd.

Except if what der8uer said is true then there is almost no single core advantage to the 4 core chips

[othertomperson]

14 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

Except if what der8uer said is true then there is almost no single core advantage to the 4 core chips

In one specific sample, yes. The probability of getting four cores to a high frequency at acceptable energy consumption is much higher than doing it with 8.

 

45 minutes ago, Atmos said:

This is the same conundrum that linux faces.

People won't use linux because software doesnt support it,

developers won't make software for linux because people don't use it.

 

People don't need more than 4 cores because software doesn't utilize it efficiently,

Developers won't build around more than 4 cores because they dont represent a profitable percentage of the market.

 

For things to progress in cpu computation now that we're hitting the nm wall, we have to increase cores and/or clock-speed. Intel refuses to do both of those things though because there's been no market pressure for them to invest in that hefty RND cost. It's vastly more profitable for them to sit back, give us the barest minimum, and still move units like no ones business because you have a near complete  effective monopoly of the market. If you think I'm wrong, then look at generational GPU improvement in calculation side-by-side with cpu improvement these handful of years. Healthy competition keeps progress climbing, as soon as it stagnates you go from 15-20%/generation and more power efficient... to 3-5%/generation and a bit more power efficient... To not be upset with Intel after all these years for stagnating the market and digging us into this 4 core trough, makes it seem like you don't have a complete grasp for the situation.

Most people aren't running anything intensive enough to warrant lots of cores. Whether they're parallel or serial won't make any difference. When it comes to games specifically there's a limit to how much you can use a lot of cores. There are too many dependencies, both on other tasks and on user input. I have a grasp on the situation, I just don't care. 

[Mr_Troll]

In my opinion as long as threadripper offers 80 % the performance of Skylake X for cheap + extra pcie lanes... its going to be a way better value than Skylake... period

[ARikozuM]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

Well as a X79 user who went for the 4930K and not the 4960X I care about sensible value even when I'm spending far more than the average person, everyone should care otherwise we end up with $2000 CPUs .

I'm not just talking about the $2000 CPU's, though. There's the $400 hexa-core at 3.5Ghz and, if an i5 (with stock RAM speeds) can match the performance of a Ryzen hexa-core (with overclocked RAM speeds), this thing should do much more than just laze about in nearly any task from gaming to large-scale CAD drawings to rendering.

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, Mr_Troll said:

In my opinion as long as threadripper offers 80 % the performance of Skylake X for cheap + extra pcie lanes... its going to be a way better value than Skylake... period

 

We know.  

 

AMD = value

 

Intel = all out performance

[PCGuy_5960]

1 hour ago, Mr_Troll said:

In my opinion as long as threadripper offers 80 % the performance of Skylake X for cheap + extra pcie lanes... its going to be a way better value than Skylake... period

NO ONE  WHO WANTS TO BUY AN X299 CPU CARES ABOUT VALUE

[cj09beira]

4 hours ago, othertomperson said:

In one specific sample, yes. The probability of getting four cores to a high frequency at acceptable energy consumption is much higher than doing it with 8.

 

Most people aren't running anything intensive enough to warrant lots of cores. Whether they're parallel or serial won't make any difference. When it comes to games specifically there's a limit to how much you can use a lot of cores. There are too many dependencies, both on other tasks and on user input. I have a grasp on the situation, I just don't care. 

Dont forget that you can have multipleirs for each core. So you can probably have a single core going higher  (or more)

[othertomperson]

10 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

Dont forget that you can have multipleirs for each core. So you can probably have a single core going higher  (or more)

Pain in the arse to stress test and ensure stability doing that though.

[juri-han]

Value wise With how cut down the 6 and 8 core skylake-x are better off waiting for coffee lake not only will you get the extra performance from a new gen but for cost of a normal i7 with 6 cores

 

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, juri-han said:

not only will you get the extra performance from a new gen but for cost of a normal i7 with 6 cores

I am sorry, but I wouldn't call the 7800X overpriced.....

[cj09beira]

50 minutes ago, Sampsy said:

I get where you're coming from but that simply isn't true. Just because absolute performance is the priority doesn't mean a potential x299 buyer doesn't care about value at all. Furthermore if a user is upgrading and already has a system which has similar performance to what Ryzen has to offer then x299 may actually offer better value for money. I think people forget that many people will be upgrading rather than buying their first PC and thus it's the performance difference to what they have already which matters.  

except you forget about threadripper ;-P 

(i agree with you waht you said before that)

[Dackzy]

I think it is outright wrong to say that people buying HEDT platforms don't care about value, plus looking at the pure performance of a CPU would be wrong. You need to think about the features, with Intel you need to spend 1000$ to get 44 lanes, anything less and you get 28 or 16 lanes. This might do so you can't make your system as you want it to be, you might need to give up an NVMe drive or two. 

 

Just because a person is making a PC with a HEDT platform, doesn't mean that the given person can spend let's say 1000$ on the CPU, but his workload might be able to use all of the cores it can get, he might "only" have 600$ for the CPU, which would allow him to either get a i9 7820X with 8 cores and 28 lanes or probably the 1955 10 cores and 64 lanes. The i9 would have to be quite a bit better in single core performance to make you for the 2 cores and 4 extra threads that TR has, plus 28 lanes are not really that many and can easily be used very fast.

If the person games quite a bit and does not have a need for more than 28 lanes, then the  i9 7820x would probably be the better value, but if all the intensive things the person does is with programs that can use 10 cores, then TR 1955 would probably be the better value and buy.

 

I care about the value and I am going to get a HEDT platform.

The thing that pulls me the most away from Intel's Skylake X is that nasty low number of PCIe lanes on their sub 1000$ CPUs. I mean FFS last gen we could pay a bit extra on top of the 6800k and get a 6850k with all the lanes, now we have to pay 400$  to go from 8 to 10 cores and from 28 to 44 lanes, I would probably have been all over skylake X if they made a 8 core with all the lanes for maybe a 60-80$ premium and ofc the IPC + clocks would have to make up for the fewer threads and cores.

[PCGuy_5960]

7 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

The i9 would have to be quite a bit better in single core performance to make you for the 2 cores and 4 extra threads that TR has, plus 28 lanes are not really that many and can easily be used very fast.

Oh, you mean like the 7700K (At 5GHz) can match or even outperform the 6800K? I am pretty sure that the 7820X at 5GHz will be able to do the same (vs the Threadripper 10 core) 

[TahoeDust]

It is Monday (6/12) in China....let's see those reviews! 

[Dackzy]

3 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Oh, you mean like the 7700K (At 5GHz) can match or even outperform the 6800K? I am pretty sure that the 7820X at 5GHz will be able to do the same (vs the Threadripper 10 core) 

we don't know how high a 7820x can OC, the guy in the video said to expect what was it 4.6GHz on your own 7900x, plus 28 lanes is just not a lot. We are starting to see GPUs being able to use up PCIe 3.0 8x, so the need for 16 lanes is going to be there for top end cards, that leaves you with 12 lanes. I for one can easily use more than those 12 lanes.

Also the temps in the video were damn high, too high for my own personal liking.

[AnonymousGuy]

I'm just here to drop in the "official" acronym list for products:

 

Haswell = HSW

Haswell Server = HSX

Broadwell = BDW

Skylake = SKL

Kaby Lake = KBL

Skylake Server = SKX

Broadwell Server = BDX-ML and BDX-DE (mainline and -D SoC).  Most people just call BDX-ML BDX because no one cares about the SoC.

Cannonlake = CNL

Cannonlake Server = CNX (cancelled?)

Icelake = ICL

Icelake Server = ICX

 

 

There, stop using weird shit like SLX or typing out Skylake-X

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, Dackzy said:

we don't know how high a 7820x can OC, the guy in the video said to expect what was it 4.6GHz on your own 7900x, plus 28 lanes is just not a lot. We are starting to see GPUs being able to use up PCIe 3.0 8x, so the need for 16 lanes is going to be there for top end cards, that leaves you with 12 lanes. I for one can easily use more than those 12 lanes.

Also the temps in the video were damn high, too high for my own personal liking.

Remember tho, the CPU in the video was the 10 core 7900X, the 7820X has fewer cores, so it will run cooler, which means that 5GHz should be possible with slightly higher voltages

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Icelake Server = ICX

?

[TahoeDust]

7 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

?

That card is super sexy.

[AnonymousGuy]

8 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

?

Yup.  A collision was bound to happen.