7980xe Early Benchmarks

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

We'll see soon enough, but I don't think everyone is consistently faking it in the same range. Which strikes me that these repurposed Xeons have something else going for them beyond the 10c & below Skylake-X CPUs.

Aren't the 10c/7900X not based on the mesh architecture but the older ring? I can't remember, the higher 14c+ ones are mesh I know that for sure. That could be the difference, ring/dual ring didn't really work all that well in such high core counts.

[TahoeDust]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Aren't the 10c/7900X not based on the mesh architecture but the older ring? I can't remember, the higher 14c+ ones are mesh I know that for sure. That could be the difference, ring/dual ring didn't really work all that well in such high core counts.

Nah.  All of the Sky-X skus use mesh. 

[Taf the Ghost]

10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Aren't the 10c/7900X not based on the mesh architecture but the older ring? I can't remember, the higher 14c+ ones are mesh I know that for sure. That could be the difference, ring/dual ring didn't really work all that well in such high core counts.

They're all Mesh, except the two 4c parts that shouldn't exist.

 

At some level, the improvements since Haswell has mostly been the ability to drive more power through the cores, so it's possible there's simply some actual differences between the Skylake cores on the 10c and 18c designs that let it do Cinebench better. There's a bunch of areas that could have improvements over the mainstream version of the core that would take some significant technical study to figure out.  

 

Or the Mesh is more efficient or better optimized. Could be a lot of things. These are actually on a different CPU design, so it's not just a case of "drag & drop" in CAD.

[Carclis]

The 7980XE is performing a bit better than I expected on both the performance and thermals front. Despite not presenting a good deal with regards to price/performance it's actually decent for Intel with an 80% increase in core count for a 100% increase in price compared to what we saw between the 6900k and 6950x last generation. I think this might be the best selling chip in the lineup after the 7820x.

[Klovnious]

10 hours ago, TahoeDust said:

 

RIP Youtube video. Seems it got taken down

[Flavio hc 16]

7 hours ago, TahoeDust said:

Oh how I wished the top end of performance scaled with price anywhere but in Rainbow Land.  If it did I would have a 8-second car, sub .5 MOA rifle, and a 100" 4k TV.  I mean 100" 4k TVs only cost twice as much as those sub $400 50" ones right?

actually not

a 100" tv is 4 times bigger than a 50" tv, and a car to make half the acceleration time of another need 8 times more power/weight ratio, and to this last one i can give you my very own example: i own a Ford galaxy with an engine with 168hp, you know how many of them do i use really when cruising at 100 km/h? 21hp, yep, you read it right, 21 hp, to go 200 km/h you need 8 times that much power, and the max speed for that car with that engine is?....you guessed it 201km/h ( even though on Spain i managed 209).

[Bananasplit_00]

picture and video seem to be no more  

[Taf the Ghost]

3 hours ago, Carclis said:

The 7980XE is performing a bit better than I expected on both the performance and thermals front. Despite not presenting a good deal with regards to price/performance it's actually decent for Intel with an 80% increase in core count for a 100% increase in price compared to what we saw between the 6900k and 6950x last generation. I think this might be the best selling chip in the lineup after the 7820x.

The top SKU will always sell to those that want to max out at a given platform. Especially for something that's Business related. Plus all of those that want to buy the cutting edge, which is why you charge a premium for the top SKU of everything.

 

As to this benchmarking, it's real but something still seems wonky. The first is I think there's an OC on that processor, though maybe not a huge one. (Though that could be a reporting issue.) The second is that I think the test run fast enough that it's not running into thermal issues before it finishes the test pass. 

 

It's also possible, after I've had some time to think about it, that the IMC is just significantly improved over the rest of the Skylake-X line. It would explain single core performance being identical while also showing multi-core improving. If the Mesh + Uncore latency is running better than the 10c design, it would explain the oddity of the benchmarks we've seen. (Minus the clearly faked ones. This isn't going to run 95% of games better. But you could probably run 3 of them at the exact same time without issue.)

[Carclis]

12 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

As to this benchmarking, it's real but something still seems wonky. The first is I think there's an OC on that processor, though maybe not a huge one. (Though that could be a reporting issue.) The second is that I think the test run fast enough that it's not running into thermal issues before it finishes the test pass. 

 

It's also possible, after I've had some time to think about it, that the IMC is just significantly improved over the rest of the Skylake-X line. It would explain single core performance being identical while also showing multi-core improving. If the Mesh + Uncore latency is running better than the 10c design, it would explain the oddity of the benchmarks we've seen. (Minus the clearly faked ones. This isn't going to run 95% of games better. But you could probably run 3 of them at the exact same time without issue.)

It's running at 4.2Ghz across all cores which may or may not be exclusive to the Apex board it was tested on and I think the good thermals are a result of having a large CPU die and greater area over which to dissipate the heat. Given that the two core boost goes up to 4.4Ghz and the RAM is set at 3600Mhz C15 in this test it makes perfect sense that the single core score is on par with the 7900x.

[DildorTheDecent]

I bet some pleb puts this in a MSI RAIDER, complains when the board explodes and it's evil Intel all over again

[snortingfrogs]

Cinebench is as useful as a benchmark as a t-bone steak at a PETA-party.

[TahoeDust]

1 hour ago, snortingfrogs said:

Cinebench is as useful as a benchmark as a t-bone steak at a PETA-party.

I reposted the rest of the benchmarks in the OP...maybe you will find those more useful. 

[mynameisjuan]

6 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

I reposted the rest of the benchmarks in the OP...maybe you will find those more useful. 

Thanks for the update.

 

God this is a beast of a chip

[AnonymousGuy]

So looking at the refreshed OP with benchmarks the summary is that it rips TR a new asshole and that's without the full overclocking potential in play...

[mynameisjuan]

Just now, AnonymousGuy said:

So looking at the refreshed OP with benchmarks the summary is that it rips TR a new asshole and that's without the full overclocking potential in play...

In before: "But price to performance...."

[AnonymousGuy]

3 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

In before: "But price to performance...."

Every product at the high end of the SKU stack has a poor price / performance.  The 7980XE is looking to fall in the category of being so good that the people with wallets for a $1000 TR chip would just stretch up to the 7980XE instead.

 

And the gravy of not having to have retarded "distributed" and "local" domains.

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

And the gravy of not having to have retarded "distributed" and "local" domains.

Technically Skylake-X and Skylake-SP has this too but no one talks about it, the cores are grouped internally to a memory controller that is closest (there is one on the left and right of the die). Threadripper is just easier to point it out due to multiple dies and same for EYPC, performance wise it doesn't make much difference other than in gaming or single thread workloads but that NUMA stuff actually has nothing to do with that, Intel's cores are just better.

 

Edit:

Also with Intel you don't have mode switching either but with TR run distributed or don't buy the CPU.

[TahoeDust]

6 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

So looking at the refreshed OP with benchmarks the summary is that it rips TR a new asshole and that's without the full overclocking potential in play...

Yup.  That is pretty much what I saw.

[Taf the Ghost]

13 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

So looking at the refreshed OP with benchmarks the summary is that it rips TR a new asshole and that's without the full overclocking potential in play...

These results are under some combination of: a decent OC, there's some sizable technical differences between the 10c & 18c CPU designs from Intel or the tests run so fast that thermal issues don't crop up. (Comparisons are also to stock Threadripper, not OC'd.)

 

Handling the heat should be far easier with the 18c design branch, so it should be easier to keep higher clocks than the 10c branch. (But, seriously, shell out for a great board. We're going to get a run of melted boards from this.) I thus expect we'll see some interesting builds with 4.7 Ghz around. However, they are still Skylake cores, which means ~650w if you pinned all of the cores at that.

[AnonymousGuy]

9 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

These results are under some combination of: a decent OC, there's some sizable technical differences between the 10c & 18c CPU designs from Intel or the tests run so fast that thermal issues don't crop up. (Comparisons are also to stock Threadripper, not OC'd.)

 

Handling the heat should be far easier with the 18c design branch, so it should be easier to keep higher clocks than the 10c branch. (But, seriously, shell out for a great board. We're going to get a run of melted boards from this.) I thus expect we'll see some interesting builds with 4.7 Ghz around. However, they are still Skylake cores, which means ~650w if you pinned all of the cores at that.

If direct die is an option (I don't know if anyone has attempted it with the 7900X) we'll see 1000W+ probably and shooting for 5Ghz.  ASRock claims their X299 OC Formula is good to handle beyond that, but yeah we'll see.

[Taf the Ghost]

12 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

If direct die is an option (I don't know if anyone has attempted it with the 7900X) we'll see 1000W+ probably and shooting for 5Ghz.  ASRock claims their X299 OC Formula is good to handle beyond that, but yeah we'll see.

The 7900X was doing somewhere in the 350-400w range on 10c at ~4.5 Ghz. A 7980XE at 4.5 Ghz is going to melt a good chunk of X299 boards.

 

Honestly, I kind of want to see it happen because those videos are hilarious.

 

But, the 18c design branch should be able to do 4.9 to 5 Ghz with a delid. There's nothing functional that'll prevent it. Just that you're going to need the ability to dissipate a massive amount of heat.

[Rezalis]

On 9/19/2017 at 7:50 PM, AnonymousGuy said:

It's the big dick CPU.  Oh you have 6 cores at 4.8Ghz, that's cute....well here's 18 cores at 4.5.

Which CPU has 6 cores at 4.8?

[OriAr]

25 minutes ago, Rezalis said:

Which CPU has 6 cores at 4.8?

The 7800X.

Pretty sure other hexa cores could do it too.

[dexT]

A processor with 2 more cores and a higher turbo clock is faster? Good to know these aren't basically Intel FX CPUs.

[AnonymousGuy]

50 minutes ago, Rezalis said:

Which CPU has 6 cores at 4.8?

Looking ahead to the 8700K 6 core CFL.