"Hardware that [I]clearly[/I] wasn't created for gaming isn't worth it for gamers - more news at 11"
Seriously, I never understood why people insist on saying "It's not gonna be good for games". Like, duh? Isn't that pretty self-explanatory for something of this caliber? Did Intel market it as a gaming-processor or something? This stuff is made for heavy-duty work-tasks. Feels a bit like holding an orange and saying "This won't be useful in an apple pie".
Most PC hardware centred websites/channels are focused on gaming, you rarely hear about error correcting RAM, server tech. There are some exceptions or course, like that series of videos Linus's channel did about their Adobe render farm -but that's mostly it
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/5WzjCdv.png[/IMG]
:speechless:
Are they serious? Especially the last point...
This processor is actually quite amazing in its own still. It just made news with achieving a whooping 6.1GHz on [B]all[/B] cores with hyperthreading.
Paired with a Titan Xp it broke a ton of single card bechmarks and it broke single CPU benchmarks as well.
Probably also broke a power consumption record where at a point in the testing it ate over 70amp on the 12V rail which means it ate over 840W and that was at 5.8GHz, which probably over 1kW at the max 6.1GHz.
I probably shouldn't be expecting more from a site like PC Gamer, but still it's weird that so many people seem to think the only use for a powerful PC is gaming.
Dwarf Fortress?
Apart from some people who want to boast about a slightly higher cinebench score than a CPU half the price while not getting the full speeds out of their M.2 SSDs, who is this CPU for? Workstations use Xeons, gamer's use i7s, who's it for?
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52718914]Apart from some people who want to boast about a slightly higher cinebench score than a CPU half the price while not getting the full speeds out of their M.2 SSDs, who is this CPU for? Workstations use Xeons, gamer's use i7s, who's it for?[/QUOTE]
Mostly people who just love to dick wave.
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52718914]Workstations use Xeons, gamer's use i7s, who's it for?[/QUOTE]
I bet this will be a pretty sweet CPU for video production and the like. It's more cost effective than a Xeon, and should be suitable for 4K content creation for quite some time...
[QUOTE=Warship;52721730]I bet this will be a pretty sweet CPU for video production and the like. It's more cost effective than a Xeon, and should be suitable for 4K content creation for quite some time...[/QUOTE]So intel have under cut themselves.
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52721754]So intel have under cut themselves.[/QUOTE]
Kind of.
I'm pretty sure the i9 wouldn't exist if AMD's Ryzen wasn't as competitive as it is.
[QUOTE=Mitsuma;52717835]Probably also broke a power consumption record where at a point in the testing it ate over 70amp on the 12V rail which means it ate over 840W and that was at 5.8GHz, which probably over 1kW at the max 6.1GHz.[/QUOTE]
What. A CPU will never reach these power figures, you must be talking about the entire system.
It has a TDP of 165 watts, compared to the Threadripper at 180 watts (although these may vary a bit in practice)
[editline]27th September 2017[/editline]
[I][/I][QUOTE=RoboChimp;52718914]Apart from some people who want to boast about a slightly higher cinebench score than a CPU half the price while not getting the full speeds out of their M.2 SSDs, who is this CPU for? Workstations use Xeons, gamer's use i7s, who's it for?[/QUOTE]
It's not like you [I]have[/I] to use Xeons for workstation stuff.
I don't see why you'd buy a Xeon for rendering if this or the threadripper gives you more processing power for less money.
[editline]o[/editline]
I am wrong about TDP, read below
[QUOTE=Atlascore;52722538]You have no idea what you're talking about.
First of all, TDP =/= power consumption, CPU power consumption exceeds the listed TDP all the time, especially on these HEDT CPUs.
Second, power consumption on the 7980X absolutely does hit nearly 1kw when overclocked. [url]http://www.legitreviews.com/intel-core-i9-7980xe-18-core-processor-review_197903/10[/url][/QUOTE]
Why are they measuring at wall instead of through something like HWMonitor? Like I said, they're measuring the entire system.
My CPU even when overclocked and pushed to its absolute limits never goes far beyond the TDP (a bit, sure) - so it seems exceedingly unrealistic that a CPU with a 165W TDP would somehow draw nearly 5 times that.
What sort of cooler is even rated for 800W?
[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52722560]Why are they measuring at wall instead of through something like HWMonitor? Like I said, they're measuring the entire system.[/QUOTE]
That's not a problem so long as you're comparing it to a 100% stock system and only changing the CPU overclock which appears to be the case.
Plus don't you want to know how much your whole computer is sucking from the wall when, y'know, you have to pay for electricity?
[QUOTE=Protocol7;52722569]That's not a problem so long as you're comparing it to a 100% stock system and only changing the CPU overclock which appears to be the case.[/QUOTE]
I guess, unless there's other factors involved somehow. Seems easier to just measure the CPU directly.
According to Anandtech it draws about 190 watts at stock settings, which is well above TDP (something that concerns the writer)
Apparently it will reach absolutely ridiculous values when overclocked, but I just don't understand how you'd be able to cool that when you'd be hard pressed to find a CPU cooler even rated for 200 watts.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;52722569]Plus don't you want to know how much your whole computer is sucking from the wall when, y'know, you have to pay for electricity?[/QUOTE]
What, no. That's not what I'm interesting in knowing about.
I just wanted to know about the CPU power draw. I don't care about these random reviewers' power bills :v:
[editline]27th September 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Atlascore;52722585]Again, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. [B][I][U]TDP =/= power consumption.[/U][/I][/B] TDP = heat output
We're talking about an [B]18 core[/B] CPU here, so of course power consumption goes through the roof when you overclock it, it literally has nearly five times the cores of your dinky little consumer grade quad core. The stock clock speeds on the 7980X are low for a reason.[/QUOTE]
Why are you so aggressive? I have no problems with being wrong, but jeez dude.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;52722613]I apologize, I just got out of a heated political debate. Still a little worked up.. sorry. :([/QUOTE]
Lol that's fine. Ok so TDP is not power draw but heat output - I'll remember that next time around.
Still can't really wrap my head around the power figures of this though. Seems completely insane.
Does there exist any commercial cooler that would be able to deal with an overclocked 7980XE or would you have to use a [del]retrofitted engine radiator[/del] large custom water cooling system?
[QUOTE=Adarrek;52718765]Dwarf Fortress?[/QUOTE]
I know this is a meme, but DF uses a single thread for all the game calculations and a single thread for the rendering. You'd have most of the cores idle all the time. RAM timings are probably more beneficial for stopping FPS death than a powerful CPU at the moment.
[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52722514]What. A CPU will never reach these power figures, you must be talking about the entire system.
It has a TDP of 165 watts, compared to the Threadripper at 180 watts (although these may vary a bit in practice)
[editline]27th September 2017[/editline]
[I][/I]
It's not like you [I]have[/I] to use Xeons for workstation stuff.
I don't see why you'd buy a Xeon for rendering if this or the threadripper gives you more processing power for less money.[/QUOTE]ok, I only bought Xeons in 2013 because the 3960x was really underpowered in terms of rendering power, going from the i7 970 to the 3960X wouldn't have even given me close to double the power.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
