Intel Core i9-7900X, i7-7820X and i7-7800X Review

[Julio Franco]

Intel recently announced their new Core X CPU series, comprising of not just three or four processors, but nine of them, making it the biggest range of high-end desktop CPUs Intel has ever announced. Today we'll finally be checking some of them out.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1433-intel-core-i9-core-i7-skylake-x/

 

[tomkaten]

And the winner is the R5 1600x The price/performance ratio for that CPU is just insane, even more so if you go for the non-X and OC it.

Also, as stated in the conclusion, $420 for the R7 1700 + mobo vs double the price for 7820x + mobo, for a 20% performance advantage and 12 extra PCI-X lanes, is just nuts.

 

[dirtyferret]

And the winner is the R5 1600x The price/performance ratio for that CPU is just insane, even more so if you go for the non-X and OC it.

Also, as stated in the conclusion, $420 for the R7 1700 + mobo vs double the price for 7820x + mobo, for a 20% performance advantage and 12 extra PCI-X lanes, is just nuts.

Unless you are gaming at 1080p, at the local microcenter the 7600k and 1600 are the same price.

Anyone else a bit disappointed in the single core performance of these new Intel chips?

 

[amstech]

Pretty impressive performance, Ryzen is getting dusted everywhere.
However its obvious Ryzen is the better bargain.

 

[merikafyeah]

The biggest weakness of these chips are the operating temperatures, but most reviews only mention it as a small side note, if at all. Seriously these chips give Nvidia's Fermi cards a run for their money in the grilling department.

 

[frostyshield]

They just milking it whilst waiting for whatever AMD has lol normal market strategy here

 

[OcelotRex]

Pretty impressive performance, Ryzen is getting dusted everywhere.
However its obvious Ryzen is the better bargain.

A mustang is also a good performance value. That doesn't mean it can compete with a Ferrari.

ETA: And nor should it. AMD is smart to focus on a "winnable" segment to increase market-share.

 

[andy06shake]

And the winner is the R5 1600x The price/performance ratio for that CPU is just insane, even more so if you go for the non-X and OC it.

Also, as stated in the conclusion, $420 for the R7 1700 + mobo vs double the price for 7820x + mobo, for a 20% performance advantage and 12 extra PCI-X lanes, is just nuts.

Unless you are gaming at 1080p, at the local microcenter the 7600k and 1600 are the same price.

Anyone else a bit disappointed in the single core performance of these new Intel chips?

Any half decent GPU like the 1070 will let you pretty much game at 60fps at 1080p, combined with a 1600X, christ my old i52500K could even do the job combined with a 1070.

End of the day its the GPU that's doing the heavy lifting.

 

[misor]

Pretty impressive performance, Ryzen is getting dusted everywhere.
However its obvious Ryzen is the better bargain.

A mustang is also a good performance value. That doesn't mean it can compete with a Ferrari.

ETA: And nor should it. AMD is smart to focus on a "winnable" segment to increase market-share.

Perhaps intel will retire i3 branding and sell these chips as unlocked Pentiums to counter AMD's moves...

 

[andy06shake]

Pretty impressive performance, Ryzen is getting dusted everywhere.
However its obvious Ryzen is the better bargain.

Because of the bang for buck really.

 

[dirtyferret]

Any half decent GPU like the 1070 will let you pretty much game at 60fps at 1080p, combined with a 1600X, christ my old i52500K could even do the job combined with a 1070.

End of the day its the GPU that's doing the heavy lifting.

which is probably why so few people have moved on from their 2500k, 3570k, 4670k, etc, etc., My 2500k handles every game tossed at it with ease.

 

[hahahanoobs]

And the winner is the R5 1600x The price/performance ratio for that CPU is just insane, even more so if you go for the non-X and OC it.

Also, as stated in the conclusion, $420 for the R7 1700 + mobo vs double the price for 7820x + mobo, for a 20% performance advantage and 12 extra PCI-X lanes, is just nuts.

Unless you are gaming at 1080p, at the local microcenter the 7600k and 1600 are the same price.

Anyone else a bit disappointed in the single core performance of these new Intel chips?

Any half decent GPU like the 1070 will let you pretty much game at 60fps at 1080p, combined with a 1600X, christ my old i52500K could even do the job combined with a 1070.

End of the day its the GPU that's doing the heavy lifting.

60fps sure, now add high refresh monitor and a way to get those lost frames you would have had if you bought the 7600K.

60fps is playable, but for most people, they're not going to accept that bottleneck. I know I don't with Ryzen falling more than 20fps at times. Ryzen can be a tough sell to any gamer with one GPU.

 

[wiyosaya]

I am not presently considering new hardware, but at this moment in time, these Intel chips would be a hard sell for me. I agree with the above comment that Intel is just milking the market while it still can. IMO, even the new price on the 6950 is insane at this point.

 

[andy06shake]

which is probably why so few people have moved on from their 2500k, 3570k, 4670k, etc, etc., My 2500k handles every game tossed at it with ease.

So does my i5-2500K, but combined with my 1070 obviously the Ryzen 1600X gets the most out of the card. First thing I noticed really after upgrading to the 1600X. Over clocked funnily enough I can get just about the same stable frequency regarding both chips, 1600X 4.1-4.2Ghz and my old i52500K around the same, used to take her higher, upto 4.5Ghz(on air mind you) but shes getting old these days.

 

[andy06shake]

which is probably why so few people have moved on from their 2500k, 3570k, 4670k, etc, etc., My 2500k handles every game tossed at it with ease.

My i5 syatem was getting old

60fps sure, now add high refresh monitor and a way to get those lost frames you would have had if you bought the 7600K.

60fps is playable, but for most people, they're not going to accept that bottleneck. I know I don't with Ryzen falling more than 20fps at times. Ryzen can be a tough sell to any gamer with one GPU.

Seemed like the perfect choice for me, given the cost, like I said I quite like this new 1600X, does what it says on the tin really.

 

[Nandiman]

And the winner is the R5 1600x The price/performance ratio for that CPU is just insane, even more so if you go for the non-X and OC it.

Also, as stated in the conclusion, $420 for the R7 1700 + mobo vs double the price for 7820x + mobo, for a 20% performance advantage and 12 extra PCI-X lanes, is just nuts.

Unless you are gaming at 1080p, at the local microcenter the 7600k and 1600 are the same price.

Anyone else a bit disappointed in the single core performance of these new Intel chips?

Clock for Clock, Skylake and Kaby Lake are practically identical so I'm not surprised the new CPU are pretty much the same as the old ones save for more cores. I think these CPU are more of a reaction to AMD's cheap yet high core count cpus.

 

[OcelotRex]

Clock for Clock, Skylake and Kaby Lake are practically identical so I'm not surprised the new CPU are pretty much the same as the old ones save for more cores. I think these CPU are more of a reaction to AMD's cheap yet high core count cpus.

These CPUs have been in development for years and have nothing to do with Ryzen. The price...perhaps.

 

[Puiu]

And the winner is the R5 1600x The price/performance ratio for that CPU is just insane, even more so if you go for the non-X and OC it.

Also, as stated in the conclusion, $420 for the R7 1700 + mobo vs double the price for 7820x + mobo, for a 20% performance advantage and 12 extra PCI-X lanes, is just nuts.

Unless you are gaming at 1080p, at the local microcenter the 7600k and 1600 are the same price.

Anyone else a bit disappointed in the single core performance of these new Intel chips?

I'm sorry but how is the 7600k the same price? unless you found a super deal or the 1600 is woefully more expensive (by an average of 20$), everywhere else the 7600k is more expensive and it also lacks a cooler. are you talking about the 1600x?

 

[dirtyferret]

And the winner is the R5 1600x The price/performance ratio for that CPU is just insane, even more so if you go for the non-X and OC it.

Also, as stated in the conclusion, $420 for the R7 1700 + mobo vs double the price for 7820x + mobo, for a 20% performance advantage and 12 extra PCI-X lanes, is just nuts.

Unless you are gaming at 1080p, at the local microcenter the 7600k and 1600 are the same price.

Anyone else a bit disappointed in the single core performance of these new Intel chips?

I'm sorry but how is the 7600k the same price? unless you found a super deal or the 1600 is woefully more expensive, everywhere else the 7600k is more expensive and it also lacks a cooler.

It's really easy, you see you go to the microcenter web site and enter the nearest store location to you. You then click on on Intel 7600k and AMD 1600 and you will see a number under each CPU. That number represents a dollar amount. Dollars are a type of Money. Money can be used to purchase goods or services, in this case goods. The dollar amount for both CPUs is $199 at this current time. Let me know if you have any difficulty understand that process.

 

[richcz3]

The biggest weakness of these chips are the operating temperatures, but most reviews only mention it as a small side note, if at all. Seriously these chips give Nvidia's Fermi cards a run for their money in the grilling department.

Right, I remember those Fermi fans winding up like jet engines with - crazy loud. All these latest Intel CPU's suck way too much juice and don't OC at all. I'm quite happy with my water cooled I&-7700k at 5Ghz.

 

[andy06shake]

I'm sorry but how is the 7600k the same price? unless you found a super deal or the 1600 is woefully more expensive (by an average of 20$), everywhere else the 7600k is more expensive and it also lacks a cooler. are you talking about the 1600x?

1600X also lack a cooler but lets face it most people are going to go with an after market cooling solution if they are willing to shell out for the CPU in the firstplace.

 

[Puiu]

It's really easy, you see you go to the microcenter web site and enter the nearest store location to you. You then click on on Intel 7600k and AMD 1600 and you will see a number under each CPU. That number represents a dollar amount. Dollars are a type of Money. Money can be used to purchase goods or services, in this case goods. The dollar amount for both CPUs is $199 at this current time. Let me know if you have any difficulty understand that process.

I did check microcenter and it turns out that it's exactly like I said. there is a huge sale for the 7600k at 200$ (-70$ from it's regular price) and the 1600 is also at 200$ (-20$).
instead of being sarcastic, next time try actually proving me wrong with some real facts.

here's a lovely fact: even at 200$ it's still more expensive since you need to buy a cooler.
here's a second fact: where I live I can't use microcenter and the 7600k is much more expensive (it's 270$)
here's the third fact: deals change on a day by day basis (hell, some last only a few minutes because the stocks run out).
here's the 4th fact: sarcasm is hard to do right and you failed

 

[Puiu]

1600X also lack a cooler but lets face it most people are going to go with an after market cooling solution if they are willing to shell out for the CPU in the firstplace.

yeah, that's correct.

 

[Pit1209]

here's a lovely fact: even at 200$ it's still more expensive since you need to buy a cooler.

Ryzen 1600 comes bundled with the 95-watt 'Wraith Spire' cooler, thats pretty good for stock in fact.]

 

[Puiu]

Ryzen 1600 comes bundled with the 95-watt 'Wraith Spire' cooler, thats pretty good for stock in fact.]

I think you misread/misunderstood that. I was talking about the 7600k there. the 1600's cooler is indeed very good for a stock one.