i7-7820X Reviews

[tom_w141]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Meh, 4.7GHz at 1.2V is more than enough for me

Good luck  A voltage is never guaranteed and there has been a large variance so far

[PCGuy_5960]

2 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

So does H.264...

Yes, but H.265 uses AVX way more than H.264 does. Ryzen's AVX performance depends on a lot of things, if you use AVX2 performance is similar (but still worse) if you use AVX1, it's much worse.

[Dabombinable]

2 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

ladies stop arguing over stupid things .-.

You do realise that its kind of difficult not to do. This is a CPU on the X299 platform after all.

[tom_w141]

6 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Yes, but H.265 uses AVX way more than H.264 does. Ryzen's AVX performance depends on a lot of things, if you use AVX2 performance is similar (but still worse) if you use AVX1, it's much worse.

Benchmarks and use case will tell I guess  But if your primary use case is gaming then you are selling yourself a lie that you need X299 (that's a general your, not you)

[Drak3]

16 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

LOL Intel boys love this one. They won't ever use AVX512 (because its largely found in enterprise) but they love being able to say they have it for some reason.

AVX and AVX2 are used in the prosumer world rather frequently, just not the mainstream consumer world, yet. @done12many2uses programs that use AVX, and so does anyone who uses Blender or Linux software RAID. Tasks that some enthusiasts actually do. Anything using H.265 will also benefit from any of Intel's HEDT that is Haswell-E+, more so is SLX consistantly clocks better on the higher core count skus.

And as it stands, we've got 2 realistic means of increasing performance on silicon: more cores, and using instruction sets that enable better performance. Tasks can only be parallelized so much, and you're dealing with heat and power draw constraints with the first one, so we can't go far on it. So, we'll eventually have to go with the second one for tasks that could benefit a good deal from better performance. Gaming comes to mind. That'll happen before these processors are at the end of their usable lives, especially when first gen i7 is still viable having come as far as we have.

6 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

But Ryzen supports those... Don't see your point there? It's only AVX512 that is missing.

Ryzen's support for AVX is lacking. A 4GHz R7 will just about match a stock 6700K/7700K in a pure AVX workload. AVX 2 should be on part with Intel, core for core and clock for clock, on Haswell's level. But AVX performance also relies on RAM performance, which is still a key issue on Ryzen.

[leadeater]

 

4 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

You do realise that its kind of difficult not to do. This is a CPU on the X299 platform after all.

Sometimes I like arguing for the sake of arguing, I like a good argument

[pas008]

7 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

ladies stop arguing over stupid things .-.

agreed

funny there is finally competition in cpu world and everyone still bitches

5 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

You do realise that its kind of difficult not to do. This is a CPU on the X299 platform after all.

does intel perform better in single threaded programs? which does matter to many that want the best atm

 

many saying $1000 for 10core is rip off

no its release price and nothing else is available better than it

this has been very common practice from all companies

I'm sure it will drop to 699-799 area after threadripper or even lower
 

[Drak3]

Just now, pas008 said:

I'm sure it will drop to 699-799 area after threadripper or even lower

It won't. Single core performance is better than anything AMD can offer with the first version of Zen, and for certain tasks, like AVX1, it takes twice as many 'high' OC Ryzen cores to match a stock 6700K/7700K core.

Also, Intel's platform is still attractive enough to justify paying that price for it. And with the value proposition of Ryzen, Intel hasn't dropped prices on any current offerings. Microcenter has, but they've always short sold CPUs be a smallish margin. SLX being rushed was only for one reason, to not leave a void in the market, because Threadripper is only a big threat if Intel doesn't have an up to date HEDT platform.

 

[79wjd]

29 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

The 7820X is at around 400W and yes OC results are valid because the 1800X was oc'd too.

The results are valid.....kind of. Tthe 7820x was running at 4.8ghz (@1.22v) while I assume the 1800x was at 4ghz~ (I didn't watch the video, I just looked for the OC speeds and didn't see the 1800x). So, you have a 30% increase in power consumption for about 25% more performance (20% clockspeed + 7%~ IPC advantage). So the results are fully valid in the sense that that is how people will be running these chips, but it's not valid in the sense that there is also a large performance gap. 

 

The stock results are the more interesting ones as there is still an 80w gap there, however stock results are almost always less straight forward as you don't know what speeds each core was running at whereas when overclocked it's very straightforward. 

[pas008]

8 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

It won't. Single core performance is better than anything AMD can offer with the first version of Zen, and for certain tasks, like AVX1, it takes twice as many 'high' OC Ryzen cores to match a stock 6700K/7700K core.

Also, Intel's platform is still attractive enough to justify paying that price for it. And with the value proposition of Ryzen, Intel hasn't dropped prices on any current offerings. Microcenter has, but they've always short sold CPUs be a smallish margin. SLX being rushed was only for one reason, to not leave a void in the market, because Threadripper is only a big threat if Intel doesn't have an up to date HEDT platform.

 

so intel is charging 400 for 2 more cores isnt playing the market?

and only releases another 10 core? and for the others says wait because they want to see what tr performance is like?

 

[tom_w141]

16 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

AVX 2 should be on part with Intel, core for core and clock for clock, on Haswell's level. But AVX performance also relies on RAM performance, which is still a key issue on Ryzen.

I would say if you are up to date Ryzen RAM performance is there now. Personally I never had an issue but I'm only running 3000, 3200+ Used to require advanced tinkering sometimes to no avail but AGESA update 1006 fixed this and now the BIOS has straps for 3600+ so even the inexperienced can get their rated speeds. It is also no longer Samsung B die dependant though mine is a Hynix kit yet I never encountered the issue personally.

[Drak3]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

I would say if you are up to date Ryzen RAM performance is there now.

No, it isn't. It's been improved greatly, but still falls short.

 

3 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Personally I never had an issue but I'm only running 3000

MHz speed isn't the only issue, latency is also a factor. Something that requires a bit of tinkering with more than just the primary timings.

 

4 minutes ago, pas008 said:

so intel is charging 400 for 2 more cores isnt playing the market?

and only releases another 10 core? and for the others says wait because they want to see what tr performance is like?

Intel doesn't need to drop prices more than they have. They've got the best performers, and they'll get the money of everyone that values the absolute performance over price/perf of the entire CPU. They've also got the money of anyone that wants/needs Intel exclusive features, and most enthusiasts will still look towards Intel until Ryzen's successor.

[DXMember]

2 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

FYI, it's not just AVX3, but AVX1 and AVX2 as well  AVX1 and 2 are used by programs like CAD and Handbrake, so it's not as uncommon as you think

the interesting thing is that CPU-Z shows AVX and AVX2 instruction sets available on Ryzen chips, are those just poorly implemented or what?

[PCGuy_5960]

3 minutes ago, DXMember said:

the interesting thing is that CPU-Z shows AVX and AVX2 instruction sets available on Ryzen chips, are those just poorly implemented or what?

Yep, it's intentionally crippled.

[tom_w141]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

No, it isn't. It's been improved greatly, but still falls short.

 

MHz speed isn't the only issue, latency is also a factor. Something that requires a bit of tinkering with more than just the primary timings.

 

Intel doesn't need to drop prices more than they have. They've got the best performers, and they'll get the money of everyone that values the absolute performance over price/perf of the entire CPU. They've also got the money of anyone that wants/needs Intel exclusive features, and most enthusiasts will still look towards Intel until Ryzen's successor.

Im running at my RAM's XMP profile so it would be same timings for either system...

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Im running at my RAM's XMP profile so it would be same timings for either system...

The primaries might be, but those aren't the only timings and some timings that are rock solid on Intel are completely unstable with Ryzen.

[tom_w141]

 

5 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The primaries might be, but those aren't the only timings and some timings that are rock solid on Intel are completely unstable with Ryzen.

All other timings are set manually by me. Trust me its to spec.

[79wjd]

6 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

 

All other timings are set manually by me. Trust me its to spec.

Within spec doesn't mean equally good. @MageTank has been having a terrible time with Ryzen's IMC. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

8 hours ago, TahoeDust said:

Did people really expect intel to come out with a "cost efficient" X-series line of processors?  

Not really, but there is a whole range between "cost efficient" and "insanely priced". Somewhere in between there were plausible alternatives for Intel, like "20% higher performance for 25% higher price" sort fo thing, which would be worse price/performance, but better absolute performance, and if it's not that much overpriced... that kind of thing, We charge you extra for the performance, but we are not that far off from the price-performance line.

 

 

9 hours ago, David89 said:

But, Performance wise...nearly 180 Watt more Power Draw, than the R7 1800X and it has not obliterated Ryzen. 

I think the advantage of Skylake over Zen lies more on the single threaded performance and clocks than in scalability. In fact, we saw Ryzen scaling better than Broadwell-E, but since Skylake-X is different from Broadwell-E in a number of ways, that didn't need to apply here.

If you take that into account, and you see that base clocks in the 7820 aren't higher than in the 1800, you are left with the IPC advantage, and the unknown about multithreaded workloads. All in all, what we are seeing suggests there was no magic wand when it comes to scaling, and that the IPC/clock advantage won't shine in the HCC chips as much as it does in 1151. I guess you could run a CS:GO benchmark abd obtain a much higher lead in favor of the 7820, but that's kind of irrelevant for the kind of CPUs we are discussing.

So, I'd say it's not that surprising, although there was room for surprising results based on what we didn't know.

[TahoeDust]

2 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Not really, but there is a whole range between "cost efficient" and "insanely priced". Somewhere in between there were plausible alternatives for Intel, like "20% higher performance for 25% higher price" sort fo thing, which would be worse price/performance, but better absolute performance, and if it's not that much overpriced... that kind of thing, We charge you extra for the performance, but we are not that far off from the price-performance line.

Comparing 1800x to 7820x (both 8-core) the price difference is only 30%...

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

Comparing 1800x to 7820x (both 8-core) the price difference is only 30%...

That could be both too little or too much depending on the performance difference.

I must also add that the 1800X itself is dubiously priced within the Ryzen 7 lineup.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Yo. Take a look at the difference between using a lot of power for a little bit and using a slightly less power for far longer... the energy usage of BW-E/SL-X And Ryzen are all basically identical.

From

http://techreport.com/review/32111/intel-core-i9-7900x-cpu-reviewed-part-one/8

 

Also gaming power consumption is no different, so it's not like SK-X is going to suck there as well...

 

http://m.hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/107017-intel-core-i9-7900x-14nm-skylake-x/?page=7

 

Literally a 10W maximum difference while gaming between a 1600x and a 1800x with the 7900x being between them. 

 

Nothing to see here folks. Nothing to see.

 

Not a value buy, but arguably a very powerful one. And for cheaper than a 1800x, the 7800x looks to be a much better single threaded chip, and often beating it in heavily threaded loads. Still, not going to replaced my 5820k.

 

[goodtofufriday]

8 hours ago, laminutederire said:

Well when Adnantech says "has a cost advantage"... yes... they're so used to damn overpriced parts that an 1000$ 10 cores is for them a reeally good price because it used to be 1700$, while not considering we could have 14-16 cores from amd at the same price. 

(I won't trust them anymore with that kind of ridiculous reviews... you can say anything but cost advantage, and seeing the performance difference between the 1800X and the 7820X is quite similar, they cannot seriously advise to not wait a month for Threadripper to see what happens, since it could offer not that far performance for quite less with more complete platform in a small time-frame. But they seem to advise a cash grab.)

 

I havent relied on their reviews since one reviewer complained about the power draw of the 580, saying its too much to be an itx card.

When the Fury Nano had higher power draw, and is marketed as an itx card...

[Curufinwe_wins]

9 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

I havent relied on their reviews since one reviewer complained about the power draw of the 580, saying its too much to be an itx card.

When the Fury Nano had higher power draw, and is marketed as an itx card...

But should it be? The card is rather well known for shitting the bed in small itx enclosures... 

 

I mean it really doesn't matter either way, but it isn't like Anandtech recommended the nano either...

[VagabondWraith]

16 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Yo. Take a look at the difference between using a lot of power for a little bit and using a slightly less power for far longer... the energy usage of BW-E/SL-X And Ryzen are all basically identical.

From

http://techreport.com/review/32111/intel-core-i9-7900x-cpu-reviewed-part-one/8

 

Also gaming power consumption is no different, so it's not like SK-X is going to suck there as well...

 

http://m.hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/107017-intel-core-i9-7900x-14nm-skylake-x/?page=7

 

Literally a 10W maximum difference while gaming between a 1600x and a 1800x with the 7900x being between them. 

 

Nothing to see here folks. Nothing to see.

 

Not a value buy, but arguably a very powerful one. And for cheaper than a 1800x, the 7800x looks to be a much better single threaded chip, and often beating it in heavily threaded loads. Still, not going to replaced my 5820k.

 

I think once bios updates start coming out, and users start getting their hands on them, we'll get a clearer picture of the platform as a whole. 

 

Like Ryzen, it's a downside to day 1 reviews. It never shows the whole complete picture of a new platform.