Intel Skylake-X Conclusion

For Skylake-X, and by virtue the Skylake-SP core we will see in upcoming Skylake-SP Xeons, Intel decided to make a few changes this time around. The biggest microarchitecture change comes in three stages: the addition of an AVX-512 unit, the adjustment in the L2/L3 cache structure, and the transition to a mesh-based topology. For the consumer and the prosumer, the biggest wins come two-fold: Intel’s 10-core processors are now set to be around $999, undercutting the previous generation by a sizable amount, but also the introduction of the new X299 chipset based motherboards that act like big PCIe switches and should offer a sizeable amount of attached functionality though additional PCIe controllers.

Microarchitecture

For the AVX-512, part of the mantra is that it should be easier for compilers to vectorize more elements of regular code bases and achieve acceleration, but for the most part it is still an enterprise feature with a focus on cryptography, compute, and the financial services industry. In silicon the unit itself is sizable, and we are told it could almost fit an Atom core inside. This is a big change to make for Intel, as it would noticeably increase the size of the full Skylake-SP core and the full die size, which has a knock-on effect. That being said, this core is targeted towards the enterprise market, which should find plenty of uses for it. It is also worth noting that not all CPUs are equal: the 6 and 8 core parts only have one FMA to play with on AVX-512, whereas the 10-core and above have two FMAs as part of Intel’s feature segmentation strategy.

The L2/L3 cache arrangement adjustments are just as nuanced, moving from a 256KB/core L2 cache to a 1MB/core L2 cache with a slightly higher latency should help with data streams being fed into the core, especially for heavy compute workloads and keeping those AVX512 units fed. The victim, in this case, is the L3 cache, being demoted to a 1.375MB/core non-inclusive victim cache, which will have limited functionality on a number of workloads, most notably compile tests. The overall cache adjustments just about balance each other out, and on average favor the new core by ~1% in our IPC tests, although the edge cases such as compilation, Handbrake (non-AVX512), and Corona can swing as much as -17%, -8% and +17% respectively.

The new mesh topology for the Skylake-SP core was perhaps more of a requirement for consistency than an option over the older ring bus system, which starts to outgrow its usefulness as more cores are added. Intel has already had success with mesh architectures with the Xeon Phi chips, so this isn’t entirely new, but essentially makes the chip a big 2D-node array for driving data around the core. As with the ring bus, core-to-core latency will vary based on the locality of the cores, and those nearest the DRAM controllers will get the best benefit for memory accesses. As Intel grows its core-count, it will be interesting to see how the mesh scales.

Parts and Performance

The three Skylake-X cores launched today are the Core i9-7900X, the Core i7-7820X, and the Core i7-7800X: 10, 8 and 6 core parts respectively using the updated Skylake-SP core, the new cache topology, and the new mesh. With some of the tests benefitting from the new features and others taking a backseat, we had a wide range of results. The most poignant of which should be when we pit this generation 10-core over last generations 10-core. The Core i9-7900X has a frequency advantage, an IPC advantage, and a significant price advantage, which should make for an easy steamrolling.

Rendering: CineBench 15 MultiThreaded

Rendering: Blender 2.78

Encoding: WinRAR 5.40

Total Package Power

In the end, this is what we get: aside from some tests that are L3 memory sensitive such as DigiCortex, WinRAR, and some of the PCMark8 tests, the Core i9-7900X wins every CPU test. For anyone who was unsure about getting the 10-core on the last generation on a compute basis, this new one seems to be the one to get.

The gaming story is unfortunately not quite as rosy. We had last minute BIOS updates to a number of our boards because some of the gaming tests were super underperforming on the new Skylake-X parts. We are told that these early BIOSes are having power issues to do with turboing, as well as Intel’s Speed Shift technology when the GPU is active.

While these newer BIOSes have improved things, there are still some remaining performance issues to be resolved. Our GTX1080 seems to be hit the hardest out of our four GPUs, as well as Civilization 6, the second Rise of the Tomb Raider test, and Rocket League on all GPUs. As a result, we only posted a minor selection of results, most of which show good parity at 4K. The good news is that most of the issues seem to happen at 1080p, when the CPU is more at fault. The bad news is that when the CPU is pushed into a corner, the current BIOS situation is handicapping Skylake-SP in gaming.

I'm going to hold off on making a final recommendation for gaming for the moment, as right now there are clear platform problems. I have no doubt Intel and the motherboard vendors can fix them – this isn't the first time that we've seen a new platform struggle at launch (nor will it be the last). But with pre-orders opening up today, if you're a gamer you should probably wait for the platform to mature a bit more and for the remaining gaming issues to be fixed before ordering anything.

Itching for 18 Cores?

While today is the launch for Skylake-X CPUs up to 10-cores, a lot of talk will be around the 18-core Core i9-7980XE part due later this year, coming out at $1999. Double the price of the 10-core will unlikely equal double the performance, as we would expect lower frequencies to compensate. But users who need 18 lots of AVX-512 support will be rubbing their hands with glee. It will also be an interesting one to overclock, and I suspect that certain companies are already planning ahead to break some world records with it. We’ll try and get a sample in.

Should I wait for the 12-core? For ThreadRipper? Or Just Go Ryzen?

Both the 12-core Core i9-7920X and AMD’s ThreadRipper parts are set to launch this summer, with the Intel part confirmed in the August timeframe. By this time the X299 ecosystem should be settling down, while AMD will have to navigate a new X399 ecosystem, which I’m getting mixed messages about (some motherboard vendors say they are almost ready, others say they’re not even close). Both of these CPUs will be exchanging more cores for frequency, and the cost is a big factor – we don’t know for how much ThreadRipper or the X399 motherboards will retail for.

Ultimately a user can decide the following:

  • To play it safe, invest in the Core i9-7900X today.
  • To play it safe and get a big GPU, save $400 and invest in the Core i7-7820X today.
  • To play it cheaper but competitive, invest in Ryzen 7 today.
  • To invest in PCIe connectivity, wait for ThreadRipper. 60 PCIe lanes are hard to ignore.
  • To invest in AVX512, wait for the next Intel CPUs.

So What’s the Takeaway Here?

From an engineering perspective, Intel is doing new things. The cache, the mesh, and AVX512 are interesting changes from several years of iterative enhancements on the prosumer side, but it will take time to see how relevant they will become. For some enterprise applications, they will make perfect sense.

From a consumer/prosumer perspective, it breaks the mold by offering some CPUs now and some CPUs later. The hardware itself won’t feel too much different, aside from having all the Intel cores and software slowly taking advantage. But Intel’s 10-core, at $999, suddenly got easier to recommend for users in that price bracket. At $599 though, the 8-core saves several hundred dollars for other upgrades if you don’t need AVX-512 or 44 PCIe lanes.

Comparing Skylake-S and Skylake-X/SP Performance Clock-for-Clock
Comments Locked

264 Comments

View All Comments

  • AnandTechReader2017 - Tuesday, June 20, 2017 - link

    The Chill feature for AMD would probably be amazing for a mini-ITX build. Still waiting on AMD to launch dedicated graphics cards for laptops with it, would be amazing.

    I hope Nvidia comes up with a similar feature, would make gaming on laptops a lot nicer/quieter.
  • rocky12345 - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    "As the first new serious entry into the HEDT space for AMD in almost five years, along with a new x86 core, AMD offered similar-ish performance to Broadwell-E in many aspects (within a few percent), but at half the price or better."

    Half right it was AMD's first serious entry into High end Mainstream Desktop in five years. We have not seem AMD's HEDT platform in action yet since it has not been released yet. With that said I was surprised how AMD's current Mainstream R7's were able to compete with Intels new HEDT platform so well. If this is what we are to expect from AMD's actual HEDT platform Intel will have a fight on their hands for sure.

    I hope when AMD releases their Threadripper platform we get just as an extensive review for that as well. To me it is a lot more exciting to see x399 and threadripper in action than the x299 since Intel has been doing their HEDT platform for many years now and this will be the first time AMD has entered into the same Extreme high end space as Intel at the consumer level hardware.
  • Manch - Tuesday, June 20, 2017 - link

    HEMD? LOL

    Ryzen is a great chip no doubt. AMD is once again pushing Intel to iterate vs stagnate. AMD offers a great price/perf proc. But, AMD brought the comparison on themselves. Most previews were not against a 6700K or 7700K but against Intel's HEDT procs which AMD was clearly targeting with the pre-release benchmark comparos. It is not unfair to compare them.
  • Braincruser - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    Any particular reason the mainstream intel processors are not in the benchmarks? One of the more important measurements for me is the difference between the mainstream and high end platforms.
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    While we technically have infinite space, we try not to overload the graphs with too many products, focusing on new products and certain generational comparisons. For specific comparisons you'd like to see that aren't in a graph, you can find all of that over in Bench.

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/
  • AnandTechReader2017 - Tuesday, June 20, 2017 - link

    Thanks for the link, I didn't know you guys had that.
  • none12345 - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    Small correction for your article, ryzen 7 has 20 pci lanes not 16. I am NOT counting 4 more for the chipset, if you count those its 24. Youve got 16 to the gpu, and 4 to a direct connected m.2(or 2 sata ports, but usually its a m.2)

    Tho thats not the whole story. Since technically you dont need the chipset, so you could connect something else instead on those 4 lanes. In the real world tho almost every motherboard will have a chipset there.

    And then there are the usb ports which have direct connections on the chip as well. Thats could be counted as more pci lanes if one wanted to. They dont share the chipset link.

    So depending on how you count it, its 20, 24, or 28 lanes. I would call it 20 and not count the usb or the chipset ones, but id definitly count the direct connected m.2
  • Nintendo Maniac 64 - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    Uhhh, where's the results for Dolphin? It's on the "clock-for-clock" page but not on the "CPU system tests" page...
  • Ro_Ja - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    It's nice to see the Ryzen Chips keeping up with i9s.
  • Hurr Durr - Tuesday, June 20, 2017 - link

    Except they don`t, hence the price difference.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now