facebook rss twitter

Intel Core i9-7920X 12C/24T cache size and base clock revealed

by Mark Tyson on 20 July 2017, 10:01

Tags: Intel (NASDAQ:INTC)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qadjsn

Add to My Vault: x

A couple of days ago HEXUS reviewed Intel's Core i7-7820X (14nm Skylake-X). At the time we showed it tabulated among other processors in the family including the, yet to be released or detailed on Intel Ark, Core i9-7920X. However, this 12C/24T processor has now appeared on the Intel CPU price list (via VideoCardz) which divulges some significant specifications.

As you can see above, the 14nm X-Series Intel Core i9-7920X processor possesses 12 cores and can run 24 threads via Hyperthreading. It packs 16.5MB of L3 cache to help speed processing operations, and runs at a base clock of 2.9GHz.

You can clearly see a trend of lower baseclocks as Intel increases the core count in the Core X-Series. The Core i7-7820X with 8C / 16T as we reviewed on Tuesday offers 3.6GHz Base / 4.3GHz Turbo Boost 2.0, the Core i9-7900X with 10C / 20T offers 3.3GHz Base / 4.3GHz Boost, and our new information from the price list shows the 12C/24T Core i9-7920X offers 2.9GHz Base / unknown Boost clocks.

As well as the unknown Boost clocks (TB2, TB2 all core, and TB3), we are also awaiting the publication by Intel Ark of further details such as PCIe lanes, memory support info and TDP.

On the price list you can see that the Core i9-7920X 12C/24T processor costs $200 more than the Core i9-7900X, at $1,189, for its two more physical cores. However it runs at 400MHz slower than its nearest relative in base clock terms. While on the topic of value, we must compare Intel's 12C/24T X-Series CPU price to an AMD Ryzen Threadripper 12C/24T model, the 3.5GHz base clock Threadripper 1920X which is listed at just $799. In a ddition to this clear price gap there are rumours that AMD will be bundling all-in-one liquid CPU coolers with the 12C/24T 1920X, and the 16C/32T 1950X.

Of course it's hard to understand the true value of these respective CPUs until some comparative benchmarking and testing is done.

HEXUS Forums :: 16 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
+$200 for an extra 1.8Ghz of theoretical speed increase (core count x clock speed), extra heat output and energy usage.

Or to put it another way a maximum performance boost of 5.4% under theoretical optimum conditions, and probably worse most of the time due to lack of multithreaded optimisation.

One for Intel e-peen fanboys.
I will humbly wait to see the comparative benchmarks because AMD EPYC and the Intel Xeon-SP processors going head to head were pretty close to the balls with each other in low-mid/high, it was only in high/extreme that AMD slipped off the table (which isn't their target market). So if these are just *cough* re-branded Xeons then Threadripper is in a very good position, clock for clock the Instruction Count is looking very good and the fact that Threadripper can have a higher clock consistently across all cores is very promising indeed.

We shall see but these are very tumultous times.

Edit: However I am very interested in how the L3 cache sizes up between the two architectures, it's quite interesting!
Priced out of reach for most people in my opinion

Tom G Scotland
I'll wait six years as I'll then be able to grab one at a great price.

Damian J Wales
I was worried that threadripper would struggle vs monolithic 12-18 core X299, but if this is the clock speed penalty for a large chip (or for cheapening out on the TIM) then AMD is in a pretty good position.