Powerful PCs with intel core i9. Intel Core i9 - a new generation processor Why do we need such powerful processors as i9

Intel strikes back. The developers' response to AMD's Ryzen Threadripper is two incredible, core-packed processors: the 18-core Core i9-7980X and the 16-core Core i9-7960X.

However, has Goliath-Intel truly recovered from its recent crushing defeat inflicted by David-AMD? Have the unflattering rumors about clock speeds and processor overheating been refuted?

One of the recognized experts in “hardcore” testing, executive editor of PCWorld magazine Gordon Ma Ung, figured this out. He also tested the performance of the new Intel Core i9 chips in real-world conditions to answer the question of whether they're worth paying THAT price for.

Since there is a lot to talk about Core i9, this time we will leave prices, bells and whistles and answers to the most obvious questions aside. In our review, we'll go over some of the internal, less obvious aspects that directly relate to performance, and then dive into benchmark comparisons.

Intel Core i9: what's hidden under the hood

Core i9 is the first new processor"Core i" released by Intel in the last 10 years. The company kept the secret so jealously that it even deliberately mislabeled the first batch of chips, signing them “Core i7”, in order to confuse the traces of leak hunters. However, our prototype 16- and 18-core samples are signed correctly.

CPU-Z thinks Core i9 is Core i7

Like most of Intel's global developments, the Core i9 family represents not just a new processor, but a completely new platform, which means a completely new chipset X299, as well as the new LGA2066 socket, which is incompatible with previous processors.

The new platform also does something that neither has done before, unifying the two processor families. Previously, if you chose a Kaby Lake chip for yourself, it required a motherboard with an LGA1151 socket. If, say, you wanted to purchase a 6-core Skylake, that is, an Intel Core i7-6800K, you had to buy a motherboard with a V3 base and an LGA2011 platform in the kit.

With X299 boards and the LGA2066 socket, you can make a choice after purchasing the motherboard, since this platform supports all new CPUs, from 4-core Core i5 Kaby Lake to 18-core Core i9 Extreme Edition, belonging to the Skylake line. To be clear, the Kaby Lake series of processors, also called Kaby Lake-X, includes the new Core i5-7640X and i7-7740X chips. The remaining Core i7 and Core i9 chips belong to the Skylake family, and are collectively called Skylake-X.

The Core X series consists of processors consisting of Skylake-X cores and Kaby Lake-X cores. The 18-core monster from this line was released in October

We await this union with some confusion and anxiety. It looks like X299 motherboards will be quite expensive. I wonder who would want to buy a $350 motherboard to install a $250 processor on it.

Intel's motives for continuing the Kaby Lake-X line may actually be a nod to those who like to overclock processors. Unlike older Kaby Lake processors for the LGA1151 socket, the new Kaby Lake-X chips do not have integrated graphics on board. In fact, they are physically devoid of integrated graphics processors. This will allow the two new Kaby Lake-X processors to overclock potentially significantly higher than the LGA1151 versions. At the recent Computex show in Taipei, Intel representatives announced that the highest overclocking record was set on the Kaby Lake processor and X299 boards.

In an ideal world, we'd all have 18-core processors, but the truth is that there really are people out there who buy relatively cheap processors to go with high-end motherboards. Kaby Lake-X is designed specifically for them.

PCI Express buses: distribution by coupons

Still, placing Kaby Lake-X and Skylake-X on the same socket is a bit of a disappointment. The most convincing argument is the distribution of PCI Express lanes. For example, with the Core i9-7900X chip you get quad-channel RAM support and 44 PCI Express Gen 3 lanes directly from the processor. If you want to install a Core i7-7740K in this slot, the motherboard will drop memory support to two channels. And perhaps even worse, the number of PCI Express lanes will be reduced to 16, since this is the maximum supported by Kaby Lake cores. It follows that some slots on the motherboard will suffer in performance or stop working altogether.

While Kaby Lake's 16-lane limit depends on the processor design, Intel intentionally reduces the number of PCI Express lanes for Skylake-X. While the 10-core version also gets 44 lanes, the 6- and 8-core Skylake-X variants already only get 28 lanes. As far as we understand, there are no technical reasons for this - there is pure “market segmentation”, which, translated from business language into ordinary language, means “so we can rip off you more money" Oops.

You may need to purchase a special dongle if you want to use the X299 VROC option to enable RAID on up to 20 NVMe drives.

Intel VROC

Even more questionable than PCI Express allocation is Intel's other option, VROC, or Virtual RAID on the processor. This is a great feature of Skylake-X, which allows you to assemble up to 20 NVMe PCIe RAID disks into a single boot segment.

What is the problem? Intel apparently intends to squeeze even more money out of users of this option. Exact details are not yet known, but sellers at Computex believed that RAID 0 would remain free, RAID 1 would cost $99, and RAID 5 and RAID 10 would cost users $299. Having paid the required amount, the user will receive a special dummy key that will unlock this option.

And even worse: VROC will only work with Intel SSD drives and more expensive CPUs from the Skylake-X line. If you buy Kaby Lake-X, you're out of the game. VROC also only applies to PCIe RAID, which can be connected directly via PCIe processor lanes. X299 continues to support RAID 0, 1, 5, 10 options through the chipset, but chipset RAID will not have any impact on the performance provided by VROC.

AVX 512 in the Skylake-X series promises greater performance - but only if the code supports it

How the Core i9 changes the Skylake series

By overcoming the confusion and disagreement about the platform, you will still reap a hefty reward. The Skylake-X processor itself is something to admire, as it's designed a little differently than previous high-end consumer processors.

Previous CPUs, whether “enthusiast” or “extreme”, were basically similar in design. For example, the 4-core Haswell Core i7-4770K is not particularly different from the 8-core Haswell-E Core i7-5960X, with the possible exception of support for 4-channel RAM.

With Skylake-X, Intel breaks this tradition by introducing extremely significant changes to the design. The most noticeable is the increase in the Mid-Level Cache (MLC), or L2 cache: Intel increased it to 1 GB per core, quadrupling it compared to 256 MB of last year's Broadwell-E models and most Intel processors. The Last-Level Cache (L3) meanwhile becomes smaller, 1.375 MB per core versus 2.5 MB of the previous Broadwell-E chip, but Intel compensates for this loss with a larger MLC cache, as well as the use of a non-inclusive cache design. Compared to Broadwell-E's inclusive design, which can continue to store data that is no longer needed, the non-inclusive cache tries to keep track of what is worth storing, so it promises to make more efficient use of available space.

Skylake is very different from the previous Skylake-X line, and this largely depends on the AVX512 cache and the new mesh architecture

Intel is also changing the ring bus architecture that has been in use for several years (including Kaby Lake and Skylake) to a new mesh architecture. Think of a 4-core processor as four houses connected by a bus line that stops at each house. This all works great as long as there are 12 to 18 houses in the area. You can run two bus routes, but it still won’t be as fast as just moving from one house to the next, which is what is implemented in the new cellular architecture.

The ring bus architecture of recent processors has been retired in favor of a mesh architecture that promises to provide better speed for a large number of cores

Intel's use of a mesh design clearly puts the company in a better position to successfully compete with Threadripper as more and more cores are added to processors. AMD's Ryzen series uses what the company calls Infinity Fabric, which is essentially a super-high-speed mesh network.

And the last feature worth mentioning is the improved Turbo Boost Max 3.0. Intel recognizes the "best" top processor cores from the factory and gives them a little extra speed. On Broadwell-E processors, only one core is selected. In the Skylake-X series, two cores are already labeled as “best” and can operate at speeds a couple of hundred megahertz faster.

Nuclear War: Episode IV (Can you find the mistake in this picture?)

18-core Core i9 performance

For performance testing, we pulled the 10-core Core i9-7900X out of its socket on the Asus Prime X299-Deluxe motherboard and placed the 18-core Core i9-7980X in there. Other components of the test kit include the video card GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition, 32 GB DDR4/2600 RAM and HyperX 240 GB Savage SATA SSD. For our Adobe Premiere CC 2017 test, we used a Plextor M8pe PCIe SSD as both the source and destination drive, in all cases except the Core i5 and Ryzen 5 processors. For these we had to make an exception due to an issue with motherboard under Ryzen 5, which flatly refused to recognize the Plextor drive. Instead, I had to use a Samsung 960 Pro NVMe SSD. AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X remains the same, which we initially used to write a review of this chip, where it was tested on the Asus ROG Zenith Extreme X399 motherboard, with a video card Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080, Samsung 960 Pro SSD and 32 GB DDR4/3200 RAM.

Due to time constraints, some tests recorded data obtained with the Core i9-7960X processor, a 16-core version of this chip. The processor was used on a pair of identical Falcon Northwest Talon systems, assembled specifically for the planned test confrontation between Threadripper and Core i9. Although these systems are equipped with completely different graphics processors, this does not affect the performance of the system processors, so the data between them can be compared.

Performance in Cinebench R15

Our first test is CineBench R15, a free 3D rendering test based on Maxon's professional Cinema4D engine. It is almost entirely tied to Computer CPU, and also reacts very sensitively to an increase in the number of cores and processes.

The winner is perhaps no surprise: it's Intel's brainchild, the 18-core Core i9-7980X, with its smaller sibling, the 16-core Core i9-7960X taking second place. AMD's Threadripper 1950X, until recently the undisputed leader among consumer CPUs, had to be content with bronze.

However, there is nothing shameful about the Threadripper 1950X in third place. Yes, AMD fans, yes, we know and remember: its cost is significantly lower. Let us immediately announce this publicly, so that you can calmly read our review to the end without the constant desire to shout: “But it’s many times cheaper!” Just repeat this phrase to yourself after you see the results of each test, okay?

Cinebench R15 gives the 18-core Core i9 a gold medal, the 16-core Core i9 a silver, and AMD's Threadripper 1950X bronze

But multi-threaded activity is far from the salt of the earth. The sad truth is that the vast majority of programs and applications simply don't use all of those cores, so we also put our chips through CineBench to measure single-threaded performance. And here a surprise awaits us: the Core i9-7980X processor again comes out on top, ahead of even the more overclocked Core i7-7700K. For the most part, we're seeing three tiers of performance here, with Kaby Lake and Skylake-X chips at the top, followed by Broadwell processors and other Zen processors.

Just to keep things in perspective, we're not looking at the huge difference between Skylake-X and Broadwell-E or Zen processors right now. But the winners in this competition are, of course, the Core i9 and the Skylake-X series.

Cinebench R15's single-threaded activity score is valuable for predicting how the processor will handle the vast majority of games and applications

Performance in POV Ray

Persistence of Vision Raytracer actually traces its history back to the days of the Commodore Amiga, and it continues to be supported by an active developer community. Like Cinebench, it also favors multi-core and high-thread chips. The test results are quite predictable; the 18-core Core i9-7980X is at the top of the list. The 16-core Ryzen Threadripper 1950X performed quite well, but a couple of extra cores pays real dividends.

Since we would still like to know how the processors behave under significantly less load, we run the POV Ray test on a single thread. And again, high-speed quadratic architecture chipsets are coming to the top, but the Skylake-X chips are almost catching up with the leader, and Zen with Broadwell-E is practically breathing down the neck. The only real lag here is the now practically obsolete Vishera-based FX processor from AMD.

POV Ray 3.7 puts the fastest chips with the highest interprocess communication at the top of the results list

Performance in Blender

Our next test is the freely available 3D modeling program Blender. This popular app, which is used to create effects in many indie independent films. Blender productivity results can vary greatly depending on the task at hand. For example, the performance of some tests conducted on 4-core Kaby Lake from Intel and Ryzen from AMD practically does not depend in any way on the number of cores. For the same task, we ran Mike Pan's popular BMW test file. Once again, the winners were Intel's two new Core i9 CPUs, followed closely by the Threadripper 1950X.

Once again, all three main processors in our study performed excellently. And again, speed indicators in Blender are very dependent both on the chip model and on what we actually do with it. In addition, we found that Blender was quite sensitive to the operating system.

The open source renderer Blender also prefers the highest processors a large number cores. Mike Pan's popular BMW test file was used here

Since these are really fancy chips, we decided to test them with something more complex, for example, a test file from Gooseberry Production. This is a reference still from the upcoming Blender Institute film "Space Laundry". While the BMW task only takes a couple of minutes to complete, the Gooseberry loads the electronic brain with frame processing work for a good 20 minutes.

The Gooseberry results on our Falcon Northwest Talon system look great for the new Core i9s and definitely paint a worse picture for the 16-core Threadripper 1950X.

Gooseberry puts forward new ones Core processors i9 Intel is far ahead of AMD Threadripper 1950X

Performance in WinRAR

We know from our original reviews of the Core i9-7900X and Threadripper 1950X that WinRAR doesn't seem particularly keen on those processors' mesh architectures. So it won’t be a surprise for us to see the same picture now, although it was quite surprising to see how much older Broadwell-E chips outperformed them. Alas, Threadripper did not show its best side here.

The popular WinRAR archiver from RARLab doesn’t particularly like the mesh architecture of the Skylake-X series, but it seems that he simply hates AMD’s Zen architecture

Performance in 7-Zip

We also used version 9.20 of another archiver, the free 7-Zip, to run its built-in multi-threaded test. The clear winners, beating out the rest of the list by a larger-than-expected margin, were the new Core i9 processors.

The free and popular 7 Zip once again moves the most multi-core chips to the top positions

Performance in Corona Renderer

Looking at the Cinebench, Blender and POV results, the performance difference between the 16-core Threadripper and the new Core i9 is visible, although small. In the results of testing using Corona Renderer, we see such a gap that is simply breathtaking. The 16-core Core i9-7960X beats its counterpart, the 16-core Threadripper 1950X, by a 25 percent margin. For the 18-core Core i9-7980X the difference is even greater.

Before anyone screams that the test programs were deliberately chosen to glorify the Intel microarchitecture, we hasten to say that this particular study was offered to us by specialists from AMD for our original Threadripper review. To be honest, this graph looks pretty mediocre.

Corona Render shows 16-core Threadripper completely blown away by 16- and 18-core Core i9 processors

Performance in Handbrake

Not every future user is involved in 3D modeling, but many people edit or convert video files, and this is precisely the area in which a multi-core processor is most useful. To evaluate the encoding performance of the new Core i9s, we used the popular and free Handbrake encoder to process a 30GB 1080p video file using the Android tablet's built-in presets.

We would like to draw your attention to one interesting aspect that we encountered when analyzing the results of this study. The more the number of processor cores increases, the more the gap between file processing times decreases. You can see for yourself how performance increased dramatically as we moved from 4-core to 10-core chips, but after this milestone the speed increase became extremely insignificant, at least not as much as we would expect on 18 cores.

Once again, both Core i9s processors are ahead, although this time Threadripper also shows very respectable speed.

The results of our tests with the Handbrake encoder also confirm that more cores lead to better performance, but still not as much as a professional 3D renderer could provide

Performance in Premiere Creative Cloud

The other half of video processing is, of course, editing. For this specific test, we chose Adobe Premiere Creative Cloud 2017 and real footage from our video department's projects, so this testing is as close to real-world conditions as possible. This footage was shot on a Sony Alpha camera at 4K and then exported with a Blu-ray preset at 1080p. We also set the visual quality to the maximum level, which helps keep high level images when changing resolution.

Although this task is primarily processor-intensive, we made some efforts to ensure that other components did not interfere with the comparison. Therefore, for all systems except Ryzen 5 and Core i5, we used a Plextor PCIe NVMe SSD drive as the data source and destination drive. As in previous Handbrake testing, file processing speed does not decrease in direct proportion depending on the number of processor cores, although the 18-core Core i9 still continues to be the champion.

However, if you're buying a powerful processor for video editing, you'll want to carefully consider how you'll benefit from paying more for the number of cores in terms of speed.

Snobs will say that CPU-based rendering is the most important and difficult task, so if you do that, you need more cores

And one more thing that we would also like to add. Many would say that in the age of GPUs being used for encoding, system chips don't really matter. To prove or disprove this claim, we reconfigured Adobe Premiere from processing through the system processor to processing through the processor GeForce video cards GTX 1080 with CUDA technology. As you can see, using a GPU immediately gives a huge speed boost, but increasing the number of CPU cores also clearly pays off. And it would be strange to think that a dual-core processor will cope better with video editing than a 10-core one.

Even if you use GPU, a larger number of cores on the system chip significantly reduces the processing time for video files

Performance in Rise of Tomb Raider

Stop. If you are buying a 16- or 18-core processor primarily for computer games, you are doing wrong. It would be much wiser to spend this money on a more advanced graphics card. But if you also do 3D modeling in addition to gaming... and are wondering which processor will give you the best performance... we suspect you already know the answer: it's the Core i9, of course.

We say this because we already know how good both chips released a little earlier are for computer games, both the 10-core Core i7-6950X and the 10-core Core i9-7900X. The new Core i9 models do not break this once established order.

The first game for research was Rise of the Tomb Raider, modified for effective use on the Ryzen and Threadripper platforms. We ran the game at 1920x1080 resolution and medium settings in DirectX 11 mode.

The 18-core Core i9-7980X was again at the top of the standings, but for the most part its results weren't too far off from the 10-core Core i9-7900X. Threadripper performs quite well in Game Mode, but even in this case it fails to overtake the Core i9.

The Intel Skylake-X series continues to deliver the best performance in most PC games, but the Threadripper 1950X isn't out of the running either.

Performance in Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege

In fact, we tested a few games on our processors, but for the most part, the 18-core Core i9-7980X was either at the top of the list or very close to the top spot. We observed a similar trend in the game Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege, launched at medium quality at a resolution of 1920x1080. We chose these settings in order to exclude the influence of limitations on the capabilities of the video card on performance testing.

Core i9 scores top marks in Rainbow Six

Performance in 3D Mark Time Spy 1.0

Our last gaming test— 3D Mark’s Time Spy 1.0 test. Only the chip share is taken into account, since nothing else interests us at the moment. Once again, the power of the Core i9-7980X remains undeniable.

3D Mark's TimeSpy again places the 18-core Core i9-7980X at the top of the list, although it is clear that the performance here is not at all directly related to the number of cores

Power consumption and speed

What else interests us about the Core i9-7900X is its power consumption, and how much more power it uses compared to AMD. This is usually not the easiest question to figure out due to the different testing equipment, but this time, as we noted earlier, Falcon Northwest sent us two almost identical Talon system units, loaded with state-of-the-art components, for testing. Both are equipped with 128 GB of DDR4/2400 RAM, Samsung 960 Pro SSD drives and Titan Xp SLI video cards, and their power units, coolers and cases are simply the same. The only difference between these system units- motherboards and processors.

This kit allows us to measure the energy consumed by the processor on various tasks directly on the socket. Since most of the test tasks do not actually load all the cores, we decided to take measurements while increasing the load from one to 32 threads. The results confirmed what everyone already knew: the Core i9 consumes more power.

Using a pair of nearly identical 16-core systems, AMD's Threadripper 1950X proved to be more power efficient than its competitor, Intel's 16-core Core i9-7960X

These power consumption measurements aren't completely accurate, but they're close enough to give us an interesting idea. It's interesting that the Threadripper 1950X's numbers seem to plateau at 20 threads, while the Core i9's numbers continue to climb.

Threadripper certainly has an advantage in power consumption, but this is not the most important factor. When multi-threaded performance is extremely important to you, it is unlikely that a couple of extra kilowatts spent will matter to you.

This is very reminiscent gaming performance Threadripper. Yes, of course, the advantage of Core i9 is undeniable, but, frankly, hardly anyone will take this into account. Obviously, a person buying a CPU of this class has slightly different priorities, and the determining factors are such productive characteristics of the processor as the ability to produce and process the necessary content.

We'll end with a summary comparison graph of the 18-core Core i9-7980X's performance under various workloads.

We originally compiled this for our review of the Threadripper chip, and we think it's a great way to visualize what you can expect from these processors in reality. When comparing just the 10-core Core i9-7900X against the 16-core Threadripper 1950X, the Core i9 pulled ahead under light loads, but AMD's processor took the lead in heavy tasks.

With the advent of the new Core i9, the situation has become completely different. Now Intel products take the lead not only with light tasks, but even under the heaviest load they do not yield to the championship. If you look at the Cinebench R15 results below, you can see that Intel's 18-core chip doesn't give up an inch to AMD's chip.

Using CineBench R15, we varied the processor load from one thread to 36 - just to clearly demonstrate the performance peaks

Intel i9 Price - If You Really Want to Know It

The question mark that looms over the Core i9 and the entire Core X series is price offer. Ever since we released our first reviews of the Core i9-7900X and Threadripper 1950X, we were pretty sure that Intel would end up being the performance leader without question.

The problem is that its products also lead in price. Trying to price based on performance leads to a slippery slope because the value of performance is relative. We've just seen that, in general, Threadripper is only slightly slower than the Core i9. Therefore, we decided to line up all Core X and Threadripper processors not by the price of the chip itself, but by the “cost of one thread.” We even included the 10-core Core i7-6950X in this list, with its retail price of under two thousand dollars - this is just for fun.

Why doesn't President Ben Franklin smile? He probably just paid $1,723 for a Core i7-6950X Broadwell-E

Stream by stream, the worst value is, of course, the Broadwell-E chip. Quite expectedly, the second from the bottom was also the Core i5-7640X from Intel. But the champion in terms of price-quality ratio, surprisingly, is AMD’s development: the 16-core and 32-thread Threadripper 1950X.

Conclusion

So, there are two ways to evaluate the Core i9. The first is from a performance point of view, where there is no question at all who is our champion here. You will have to look at the diagrams for a very long time and carefully to notice which of the multi-threaded tasks the 16- and 18-core Core i9 was able to outperform Threadripper from AMD. And if you move on to the lighter tasks that Intel's high-speed designs crack like nuts, things become even more obvious.

So for performance maniacs who absolutely, absolutely, desperately need the fastest processors for tasks of any level of complexity, both chips, Core i9-7960X and Core i9-7980X, are new speed demons, a dream processor.

The problem, of course, is the price difference. Our final table just above may give you some ideas about the value proposition of AMD. Yes, the Core i9 may be the official speed leader in every way you can measure, but it can't beat its own price.

Perhaps it depends on who is paying. If, for example, your boss asks you to find a new workhorse for editing video files, you'll probably lean towards Intel. But if you are assembling this car with your own earned pennies and trying to stretch every ruble far and wide? AMD may be a natural choice in this case.

And yet - make no mistake. Core i9 today is the clear and undisputed leader in performance.

In 2017, the global processor manufacturing giant introduced its top-end Intel processor Core i9. It is a high-performance processor that offers users unprecedented power. Computers with an intel i9 processor are an excellent solution for both an experienced gamer and a person who works on specialized software.

There are never too many nuclei

The Core i7 line boasted powerful processors, but Intel decided not to stop there and create processors that would outshine even the i7. This is how the Core i9 line appeared, the key advantages of which include:

• from 10 physical cores and 20 threads;
• high clock speed and support Turbo technology Boost 3.0;
• L3 cache level from 13.75 megabytes;
• support for four-channel memory mode;
• increased number of PCI Express 3.0 lanes.

Such processors are ready to unleash the potential of any modern Nvidia video cards GeForce GTX 10 series. This means that you can try any modern games V high resolution and stable 60 frames per second (subject to sufficient video card performance). Also, with such processors you can not only play, but also carry out parallel work. streaming, encoding or recording gameplay.

The i9 gaming computer will be useful not only for gamers. Working with graphics and video often requires multi-threading, which significantly speeds up rendering times. i9 processors are the best in this regard. You will find an extensive catalog of i9-based computers in our store.

We offer the best

The assortment includes computers in various price categories. For gamers, there are systems with top-end video cards from Nvidia. If you need an i9 computer to run specialized software, you'll find builds with more RAM and high-speed SSD storage.

One of the main features of such processors is high heat dissipation. Only first-class air cooling systems or water cooling can cope with it. Depending on your budget and preferences, you can buy an i9 computer from us with one type of cooling or another. Liquid systems can cope with the hottest rocks and also differ low level noise.

Choose professionals

Our store specializes in selling first-class gaming systems able to demonstrate maximum performance in games and other resource-intensive applications. We use modern components from famous brands. You can always change the assembly you like to suit your needs thanks to the convenient online configurator on our website. The store provides computers with pre-installed software and a guarantee for each product.

A powerful gaming PC with Core i9 is the choice of real gamers, and you can buy such a computer in the Edelweiss store. With us, clients will find competitively affordable prices, as well as free consultation.

25.01.2018 22:14

For extreme tasks - an extreme processor. Intel's Core i9 line is the real embodiment of this truth. Prior to the introduction of the Skylake-X architecture, 12, 14, 16 and 18 core CPUs were only available in server class. But Intel decided that mad power is also necessary for the mainstream segment (although the LGA 2066 platform cannot be called completely accessible), as a result, the ninth stones Core.

The model called Intel Core i9-7900X is the youngest in the line of extreme nines for LGA 2066. In fact, this is a direct successor to LGA 2011-3, which also has 10 physical cores and 20 computing threads.

A distinctive feature of all Intel Core i9s is support for 44 PCI-E lanes, which allow you to get the most from NVIDIA SLI and AMD CrossFireX multi-graphics combinations; younger Core i7 models from model range Skylake-X offers from 16 to 28 lines.

Technical features

The 14 nm Intel Core i9-7900X processor has ten physical cores and 20 computing threads (Hyper-Threading technology; support for Intel SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 and AVX-512 instructions). Its nominal clock frequency is 3300 MHz, but the most efficient core, which the system automatically selects, is capable of operating at 4500 MHz ( Intel technology Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0).

The cache size of the Intel Core i9-7900X is 13.75 MB, and the TDP level is 140 W (the actual thermal indicator during severe tests is still higher). This CPU supports the DDR4-2666 RAM standard, with a maximum capacity of 128 GB.

As we have already said, the monitored stone has 44 PCI-E lanes, and we will try to understand: does the owner of several video cards need these same lines to unlock the potential of top-end graphics accelerators. More on this below.

A few words about temperature indicators. The manufacturer recommends removing heat from the Intel Core i9-7900X using a liquid cooling system, but this is not urgently necessary if you plan to use this CPU at nominal, that is, without manually increasing the clock frequency.

Intel Core i9-7900X under load (140 W)

A powerful tower cooler with one 120-140 mm fan (for example, or) is quite enough to ensure that the temperature of the Intel Core i9-7900X does not go beyond 60-70 degrees. Obviously, overclocking requires a completely different CO. Even an additional 100-200 MHz significantly affects TDP, the temperature is growing at a breakneck pace, and here without water can't get by. It will not be possible to conquer five gigahertz without SVO.

Platform on Intel chipset The X299 is capable of operating with both dual-channel and quad-channel RAM. And we strongly recommend that you get 4 RAM modules if your plans include productive and maximum efficient use of the system with Socket LGA 2066. The difference between 2 and 4 channels is significant (the point is bandwidth), and with increasing clock frequency it increases.

DDR4-3000, 2 channels
DDR4-3000, 4 channels

Test stand:

Performance and Test Results

What can you expect from a $1000 processor that has ten physical cores? Impressive performance of course. This is exactly what the Intel Core i9-7900X demonstrated in all the benchmarks we ran.

The Intel Core i9-7900X is strong where you need to quickly render/calculate a 3D scene or process a large amount of digital content in high resolution.

Observed toy too good for household needs, which is quite obvious; and even for professional tasks, this CPU is incredibly fast. It's all about having 10 physical cores that need to be used (otherwise why would there be such a processor in the system).

Not all existing programs (including those for calculating complex operations) are optimized for 20 computational threads. And a user who is thinking about purchasing an Intel Core i9-7900X needs to study in advance points of compatibility. It is possible that for most applications that you need to work with, a 6 or 8-core CPU will be enough.

Note that the power of one core of the Intel Core i9-7900X is neither higher nor lower than, for example, that of, and this fact once again proves that for many tasks that the average user faces every day, 2 or 4 cores are sufficient processor level Core i3 or Core i5.

The Intel Core i9-7900X is strong where you need to quickly render/calculate a 3D scene or process a large amount of digital content in high resolution. This processor mainly saves time, this is its key feature.

In a professional environment, people are faced with operations that take tens of hours, and sometimes more than one day. Intel Core i9-7900X is able to reduce time costs.

Supports 44 PCI-E lanes

Perhaps the only one technical feature The Intel Core i9-7900X, which may be of interest to gamers, supports 44 PCI-E lanes. This is the current maximum. Thanks to this functionality, a pair of graphics accelerators can operate in the system at full x16 speeds (x16+x16), and three adapters can operate at x16+x16+x8. But does this make sense?

The Intel Core i9-7900X is an excellent CPU for optimized processes and core tasks, where 10 cores are really in demand.

We conducted research to find the answer to this curious question. It involved the reviewed processor, a pair of ASUS ROG Strix GTX 1080 video cards with support for 28 lines (for comparison, x16+x16 and x16+x8 formats).

The full report on the experiment was published in the corresponding article. In this article we will only say that the increase from the x16+x16 mode is noticeable only in some optimized games, of which there are not many now, for example, in Ghost Recon Wildlands, and Rainbow Six Siege.

The difference between x16+x16 and x16+x8 is minimal (several additional fps in favor of more wide channel) and, again, is noticeable only in a few gaming projects (3DMark did not react in any way to the additional PCI-E lanes).

x16+x16
x16+x8

For high-definition games, it is better to choose one powerful accelerator. It’s definitely not worth purchasing an Intel Core i9-7900X for the sake of 44 PCI-E lanes, we have personally seen this.

Overclocking

The Intel Core i9-7900X is as good a processor for extreme testing as any stone from ninth Core line. That's just on air It will not be possible to achieve a worthwhile result due to the high TDP.

It is not difficult to increase the clock frequency on this CPU (there is an open multiplier here, and the voltage is automatic throws up independently, exactly as much as is required for stable operation), it is much more difficult to remove heat.

4600 MHz
4800 MHz

By using slight dropsy we were able to overclock the Intel Core i9-7900X to 4800 MHz, but without a stable result. At a more modest 4600 MHz (all 10 cores operated at this frequency) operating temperature exceeded 90 degrees, which is not the norm, throttling occurred.

For a good and stable result, a full-format SVO is required, with its help it will be possible to conquer 5 GHz and above, and the performance in this case will be colossal (and the TDP will go far beyond 200-300 W).

Effect of Intel overclocking Core i9-7900X

Conclusion

The Intel Core i9-7900X is an excellent CPU for optimized processes and core tasks where 10 cores are really needed. This is not a toy for gamers (44 PCI-E lanes for swings NVIDIA SLI tandems are useless due to software limitations, which are non-optimized projects).

Before us stone server level with a high clock frequency, aimed at extreme desktops. The Core i9-7900X saves time and puts powerful hardware resources where you need them. We recommend.

The Core i9 lineup is something new in the list of processors Intel, intended for the mass class, because until recently its line consisted of Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, i5 and i7. Firstly, in order to highlight the new models, it was necessary to increase the digital designation. Secondly, in order to indicate changes in the kernel, it is more profitable to put new solutions in a single group with a high index.

advertising

The already introduced advanced Kaby Lake architecture does not include the Intel Core i9-7900X processor due to a step back for CPUs released by Intel for enthusiasts, we are already accustomed to this.

But in order not to gather clouds over the fast system on the X299 chipset, quad-core Kaby Lake-X was added to Skylake-X. In Skylake-X itself, and they, as before, are part of Intel's server strategy, caches have been rebalanced, the ring bus has been replaced, and other changes have occurred.

It’s worth starting with the reasons for abandoning the ring bus. Here and further we will speak on behalf of Intel, answering the question “Why?” It is no secret that the company has been increasing the number of cores in server processors for a long time, and sooner or later the ring topology would become a bottleneck. But it was difficult to take and abandon a quick “carousel” for the sake of something new. When designing, we took into account the features of other options and arrived at a matrix system.

advertising

This complicated the engineers' task and added more than one million extra transistors to the processor, all for the sake of the desire to place more cores on one chip. Moreover, if you have mentally imagined how such a system works, then for understanding, let us explain that at each stopping point there is now both an interface and a router that manages the data. In other words, the matrix will potentially allow you to increase the number of cores, and the more of them, the more profitable the use becomes new system communications.

The question of the percentage of yield of usable crystals with a constant increase in area remains behind the scenes. Wouldn't the approach with one global hub be more profitable and cheaper than using a matrix bus?

The fastest processor for enthusiasts based on the Broadwell architecture had ten cores, and the server version was equipped with as many as twenty-two. Let me remind you that it was the Broadwell core that was the fastest in terms of one megahertz frequency. Naturally, the Intel Core i7-6950X turned out to be very fast, but it did not overclock well. The average overclocking was in the range of 4.0-4.2 GHz.

In his defense, I will say that this was enough to solve a wide range of problems. At the same time, the Core i7-6950X could not be called a gluttonous or very hot processor. The second negative factor is the price. Not every wealthy user could manage to purchase a top-end Broadwell representative at a cost of $1,723. So if there was demand, it was exclusively from loyal fans.

Those who replaced Broadwell-E processors Skylake-X was not much different in terms of overall characteristics: the number of cores remained the same, the frequency increased from 3.0/3.5/4.0 GHz to 3.3/4.0/4.5 GHz. But at the same time, the volume of second-level cache memory increased from 2.5 MB to 10 MB (and it became almost twice as slow), the volume of third-level cache memory, on the contrary, decreased from 25 MB to 13.75 MB (and it itself became 40 % faster), AVX512 support has been added.

For now, only solutions with six, eight and ten cores will be available. Theoretically, in the future for the same money ($1723) we will get a sixteen-core processor, but when this will happen is unknown.

Specifications

Test bench

Test configuration No. 1 (Intel Kaby Lake-X/Skylake-X)

• Motherboard: ASUS Prime X299-Deluxe (Intel X299, LGA 2066);
• RAM:
• DDR4 Corsair Vengeance LPX, 4 x 4 GB, 2800 MHz 16-18-18-36-2T;
• DDR4 G.Skill F4-3600C17D, 2 x 4 GB, 2133 MHz 17-18-18-38-1T @ 3333 MHz 17-18-18-38-1T;
• Drives:
• SSHD Seagate Desktop 4 TB;

• Intel Core i9-7900X 3.3 GHz, Turbo Boost up to 4.5 GHz, ten cores, twenty threads;
• Intel Core i7-7740X 4.3 GHz, Turbo Boost up to 4.5 GHz, four cores, eight threads;
• Intel Core i9-7900X @ 4.0 GHz, 40 x 100 MHz, ten cores, twenty threads;
• Intel Core i9-7900X @ 4.5 GHz, 45 x 100 MHz, ten cores, twenty threads;
• Intel Core i7-7740X @ 4.5 GHz, 45 x 100 MHz, four cores, eight threads.

Test configuration No. 2 (Intel Kaby Lake/Skylake)

• Motherboard: ASUS Maximus IX Formula (Intel Z270, LGA 1151);
• Cooling system: water cooling system;
• Thermal interface: Arctic Cooling MX-2;
• RAM: DDR4 G.Skill F4-3600C17D, 2 x 4 GB, 2133 MHz 17-18-18-38-1T @ 3333 MHz 17-18-18-38-1T;
• Video card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060;
• Drives:
• SSD Samsung 840 Evo, 240 GB;
• SSHD Seagate Desktop 4 TB;
• Power supply: Corsair AX1500i, 1500 Watt;
• Operating system: Microsoft Windows 10x64.

advertising

Processors and their operating modes:

• Intel Core i7-7700K 4.2 GHz, Turbo Boost up to 4.5 GHz, four cores, eight threads;
• Intel Core i5-7600K 3.8 GHz, Turbo Boost up to 4.2 GHz, four cores, four threads;
• Intel Core i7-6700K 4.0 GHz, Turbo Boost up to 4.2 GHz, four cores, eight threads;
• Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4.5 GHz, 45 x 100 MHz, four cores, eight threads;
• Intel Core i5-7600K @ 4.5 GHz, 45 x 100 MHz, four cores, four threads;
• Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.5 GHz, 45 x 100 MHz, four cores, eight threads.

Test configuration No. 3 (Intel Broadwell-E)

• Motherboard: ASUS X99-Deluxe II (Intel X99, LGA 2011-3);
• Cooling system: water cooling system;
• Thermal interface: Arctic Cooling MX-2;
• RAM: DDR4 Corsair Vengeance LPX, 4 x 4 GB, 2800 MHz 16-18-18-36-2T;
• Video card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060;
• Drives:
• SSD Samsung 840 Evo, 240 GB;
• SSHD Seagate Desktop 4 TB;
• Power supply: Corsair AX1500i, 1500 Watt;
• Operating system: Microsoft Windows 10 x64.

Processors and their operating modes:

• Core i7-6950X 3.0 GHz, Turbo Boost up to 4.0 GHz, ten cores, twenty threads;
• Core i7-6950X @ 4.0 GHz, 40 x 100 MHz, ten cores, twenty threads.

Test configuration No. 4 (AMD Ryzen)

• Motherboard: ASUS ROG Crosshair VI Hero (AMD X370, Socket AM4);
• Cooling system: water cooling system;
• Thermal interface: Arctic Cooling MX-2;
• RAM: DDR4 Geil Evo X, 2 x 8 GB, 2133 MHz 17-18-18-38-1T @ 3200 MHz 17-18-18-38-1T;
• Video card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060;
• Drives:
• SSD Samsung 840 Evo, 240 GB;
• SSHD Seagate Desktop 4 TB;
• Power supply: Corsair AX1500i, 1500 Watt;
• Operating system: Microsoft Windows 10 x64.

advertising

• AMD Ryzen 7 1800X 3.6 GHz, Turbo Boost up to 4.0 GHz, eight cores, sixteen threads;
• AMD Ryzen 7 1800X @ 4.0 GHz, 40 x 100 MHz, eight cores, sixteen threads;
• AMD Ryzen 5 1600X 3.6 GHz, Turbo Boost up to 4.0 GHz, six cores, twelve threads;
• AMD Ryzen 5 1600X @ 4.0 GHz, 40 x 100 MHz, six cores, twelve threads;
• AMD Ryzen 5 1400 3.6 GHz, Turbo Boost up to 4.0 GHz, four cores, eight threads;
• AMD Ryzen 5 1400 @ 3.9 GHz, 39 x 100 MHz, four cores, eight threads.

Memory frequency and timings

The list of competitors has not changed over the years: you can compare the new product either with a processor of similar power from AMD, or with models from its own line.

For example, the Intel Core i9-7960X chip, although made using the same technical process and the same architecture, cannot boast the same high clock frequency, and the test results will be in favor of the hero of the review.

New Intel Core i9-7940X

What alternative can AMD offer? For example, AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, which is also aimed at gamers or professional tasks. It can offer a completely different architecture, fewer cores with the same performance. But the price tag will be 25% lower.

Power at a high level

The chip boasts 14 Skylake-X cores, which operate at a clock speed of 3.1 GHz. Not the best high frequency is due precisely to the large number of cores, but support for Turbo Boost technology eliminates this small drawback: when overclocked, the cores support a frequency of 4.3 GHz, simultaneously processing data from 28 threads at once.

The processor contains a four-channel RAM DDR4 format and a good cache size. The second level cache is 14x1024 KB, and the third level cache boasts 19 MB.

Perhaps in their own way technical specifications the hero of the review lags behind its analogues, but the Intel Core i9-7940X has a lower TDP - only 165 W versus 180 W for the same AMD.

High power consumption - like all i9s

The minimum power consumption is unpleasantly surprising - almost 85 W, although even processors from the X line consume at 80 W. At maximum load, the picture changes slightly: the hero of the review consumes 212 W, while the similar Core i9-7900X and Core i9-7960X will require 240 and 235 W, respectively.

Excellent test results

At first glance it seems that this processor suitable for solving almost any problem. Tests confirm this: the PCMark 8 benchmark estimates the work of the review hero at 3899 points, and the calculation time was only 1.6 seconds. In the Application Benchmark 2017 test, the chip's performance is rated at an excellent 316 points. In these tests, the processor confidently takes the lead, outperforming, if not its older brothers, then its AMD counterpart.

But in Cinebench R15, TrueCrypt 7.1 AES-Twofish-Serpent and PovRay 3.7 RC3 the situation changes: the Intel Core i9-7940X is slightly behind its competitors, but not critically.

In terms of scientific calculations, the hero of the review lags significantly behind other Intel models: only 260 points scored versus 280-290.

Is it worth purchasing this chip to work with content? Let's look at the results of the corresponding checks: when processing photographs in Adobe Photoshop the chip scores almost 230 points, remaining on par with its Core i9 counterparts. When it comes to video production, the i9-7960X and i9-7900X are slightly ahead (they have 236 and 223 points versus 210).

Bottom line: great option. But not for everyone

Intel engineers managed to create a good processor, which, however, is not very versatile. It seems like all the data is there, but still the Intel Core i9-7940X does not demonstrate the highest test results. Maybe it's worth paying a little extra and getting a reliable assistant in both games and calculations?