add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

x299 & i9s

ZaCLoNe

32 months ago

Read here and/or here.

Pricey little suckers.

Comments

  • 32 months ago
  • 6 points

They better solder those heatsinks on as if they had problem with the 7700K's TDP of 91W, lord knows what the temperatures will be like with a TDP of 140W and Intel standard toothpaste TIM.

  • 32 months ago
  • 6 points

Its not solder, they are using toothpaste. So crazy, can see here in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCv7hF7kepU

  • 32 months ago
  • 5 points

Oh dear, however, I too like to live on the edge.

By the way, why have I been downvoted by some Intel fanboy?

  • 32 months ago
  • 3 points

Yeah not good. I had thought being soldered would have been a neat feature for the Lower core Kabylake CPU's, to act as a attractive feature over mainstream and for those wanting to clock abit further!

Dunno why you were down voted, so here is an up.

  • 32 months ago
  • 2 points

Y'all got +1's from me too

  • 32 months ago
  • 1 point

It's crazy to me how Intel used solder on Broadwell-E, which is also fabricated on a 14nm process and has a similar stacked pcb design for the chips, and yet instead they decide to go the way of the TIM toothpaste for Skylake-X and Kabylake-X. Maddening to say the least.

  • 32 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah I agree, unless something has changed fundamentally that prevents solder to be used, its a very annoying design choice. I shudder to think if its anything like the toothpaste used on mainstream, how overclocking the 18 core would fare!

[comment deleted]
  • 32 months ago
  • 1 point

could very well be the case and what I was mulling over initially, but hoping it not to be a valid reason. I would have thought that they would have applied some effort to using solder and overcome the thin PCB or requirement to have a thing PCB. I know how hard it can be on occasions cooler these 8 and 10 cores with some overclock, shudder to think how it will be to cool 18 cores, overclocked and with toothpaste.

The cynic in me does wonder if they are doing this in part so people who overclock extensively may look at delidding and therefore void the warranty and will not be able to use the Intel performance plan.

  • 32 months ago
  • 1 point

According to Der8auer lifespan with solder is much less then with "toothpaste" (theory). The reason why intel is also using this paste is because its very stable and won't get hard in the long run. But ofcourse the downside is that temps will be a bit higher.

Here is a vid from gamers nexus and Der8auer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1Bv8Mxnnlc he starts talking about it at around 6:29 .

  • 32 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah I did see that a while ago, only thing is he mentioned it possibly being an issue for smaller die's so somewhat understandable on mainstream, but the die for X99 and X299 are considerably larger so cannot really see that holding as a theory. Moreso when really there are year old CPU's such as soldered 2500k's still performing like champs and those are small dies.

But who knows, all I know is if its anything like the toothpaste I have become accustomed to when I use mainstream chips, I will be sad lol;(

  • 32 months ago
  • 1 point

I was thinking the same when I saw that power draw lol

  • 32 months ago
  • 5 points

Looks at Wallet

Looks at I9

Yeah, no...

AMD whatchu got? At least you're reasonable with your prices.

  • 32 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah definitely pricey. Hard to justify those prices with Ryzen on the scene, but the faithful will pay. The 6c/12t option (i7-7800X) is the only interesting option on that list. But when I can get an R5 1600 for like $220? Still a hard sell. That extra $170 saved is enough to upgrade your monitor or GPU, etc.

But at least Intel is responding! This is what we were waiting for.

  • 32 months ago
  • 2 points

Ive got my eyes set on that 7800X. Based off of that infographic its a little bit better (and similarly priced) compared to the 6800K, which is what Ive got my heart set on now. I wasnt really interested at all until I saw the new mobo's coming out lol Im really into the EVGA FTW K, though the Gigabyte Gaming 9 is nice too.

But of course, Im gunna wait for official benchmarks before any final decisions.

[comment deleted]
  • 32 months ago
  • 2 points

The ability to get a better overclock doesn't really justify a $1,999 price tag in my opinion...

  • 32 months ago
  • 2 points

Really, Does Everyone Know That Ryzen Doesn't OC Well? I Don't Know This To Be A Fact.

On What Paper Does It Show That The Core X Chips Will OC Better Than Ryzen? I Would Like To See This Paper.

In Any Case, We Know That Clock Speeds Do Not Make Or Break Performance. For Reference, Compare The 5GHz FX-9590 Against Virtually Anything From Intel In The Last 6 Years.

We Already Know That Skylake And Kaby Perform Better In Single-Threaded Tasks Than Ryzen. There Is No Reason To Doubt That These New CPUs Will Continue To Do So, And Now With More Cores And Threads To Match Ryzen. However, The Performance Gap Is Relatively Small And Hard To Justify Paying An Extra 50%, Or More, For These Intel Chips.

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 32 months ago
  • 1 point

From my first comment:

Yeah definitely pricey. Hard to justify those prices with Ryzen on the scene, but the faithful will pay.

I know people will pay. I was responding specifically to a claim that these chips will be good overclockers.

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 32 months ago
  • 1 point

Still no hyperthreaded i5s :(

  • 32 months ago
  • 1 point

Wouldn't that just be an i7?

  • 32 months ago
  • 1 point

Oh. I'm eyeing the i7-7820x or the i9-7900x...

that'll be a fun year!

And no, I don't care about the price that much. I'm rolling on an old i7-860 so yeah. I've been waiting a long time and my time has finally come =)

  • 32 months ago
  • 1 point

I have wonders about the i5... is it worth it and spending more money a new Motherboard as well or just go with 7600K?

  • 32 months ago
  • 1 point

I was gonna build a 7700 rig but dang looking at 18 core cpus i think a quad core is obsolete

  • 32 months ago
  • 1 point

I know a lot of people are saying the flagship i9 is over priced but I don't see why. If they didn't show the pricing I would have expected a lot higher tag. 18 cores for $2000? Not bad at all. Expensive, yes but justifiably so. That said I'm probably got to pick up the 7820X. So stoked for consumer availability

  • 32 months ago
  • 1 point

It's overpriced, if you consider the demographic that it is targeting. People who do professional work are the ones buying these chips. Why buy one of these when you could get AMD's Epyc server CPUs with ECC RAM, 128 PCIe lanes, and other features? Those are only going for around 2500, as far as we know now.

Professionals don't care about OCing their CPUs or getting better IPCs. They want more cores. Why drop $2000 on an 18 core when you can get 32 cores for the same price or a bit more?

  • 32 months ago
  • 1 point

Isn't the X platform targeting enthusiasts and not professionals? Its always been for people that are making ridiculous builds for show or just for fun. At least that's how I've viewed it. When you get to content creators and professional grade stuff they frequently turn to Xeons or server class stuff like you mentioned.

  • 32 months ago
  • 1 point

In a way its simple really, these are effectively Xeon chips anyways so it costs Intel nothing to unlock them and sell them for more. Heck I am sure if Intel had their way they would like all the chips sold as i9's rather then Xeons thanks to the better premium these likely make.

separately and more importantly, while you are right, there is a large market for those with deep pockets and who straddle the line between professional and enthusiast. Heck I know plenty of people who go X99 to just game and break records with and do 0 workstation tasks with them. Intel really know this as well as pretty much every board shown to date on x299 is catering to the enthusiast / gamer with loads of bling and overclocking capability with even some dedicated boards like the APEX revealed.

  • 32 months ago
  • 1 point

You're definitely right about the motherboards part. I don't understand why anyone would buy a high core CPU just for gaming when a 7700K does much better than any X2/99 offerings...but I digress Jay looks like he wants to kill me.

Personally I consider anything past 6c/12t "workstation grade" because I'm one of "those people" who thinks that nobody should build a PC just to game. But you have a fair point about the enthusiasts just building something to show off and doing nothing workstation-esque with them. That may be what intel's targeting - enthusiast gamers who don't care about cost and want the best gaming experience.

  • 32 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah, but Threadripper is rumored to only cost $850 for the flagship 16C/32T model, and it has more PCIE lanes, AND the IHS is soldered on, not held on with toothpaste... not very justified on Intel's side.

  • 32 months ago
  • 1 point

Key word being rumored. If that ends up being the case that's a compelling alternative but as of right now I'll be skeptical on that one.

[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube