The Intel Core i9-7980XE and Core i9-7960X CPU Review Part 1: Workstation
by Ian Cutress on September 25, 2017 3:01 AM ESTBenchmark Overview
2017 CPU
For our review, we are implementing our fresh CPU testing benchmark suite, using new scripts developed specifically for this testing. This means that with a fresh OS install, we can configure the OS to be more consistent, install the new benchmarks, maintain software version consistency without random updates and start running the tests in under 5 minutes. After that it's a one button press to start an 8-10hr test (with a high-performance core) with nearly 100 relevant data points in the benchmarks given below. The tests cover a wide range of segments, some of which will be familiar but some of the tests are new to benchmarking in general, but still highly relevant for the markets they come from.
Our new CPU tests go through six main areas. We cover the Web (we've got an un-updateable version of Chrome 56), general system tests (opening tricky PDFs, emulation, brain simulation, AI, 2D image to 3D model conversion), rendering (ray tracing, modeling), encoding (compression, AES, h264 and HEVC), office based tests (PCMark and others), and our legacy tests, throwbacks from another generation of bad code but interesting to compare.
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
A side note on OS preparation. As we're using Windows 10, there's a large opportunity for something to come in and disrupt our testing. So our default strategy is multiple: disable the ability to update as much as possible, disable Windows Defender, uninstall OneDrive, disable Cortana as much as possible, implement the high performance mode in the power options, and disable the internal platform clock which can drift away from being accurate if the base frequency drifts (and thus the timing ends up inaccurate).
New Tests
SpecWPC v2.1 – A lot of the industry turn to SPEC to produce standard benchmarks suitable for various markets. The latest version of the workstation focused benchmark suite was released this year, and tackles six main areas with over 30 different benchmarks. These include compute, visualization, medical, oil and gas, finance, and typical workstation areas. For consistency we run all the tests (except IOMeter) on Windows 10, using an RX 460 graphics card at 1080p resolution with an MX200 SSD.
PCMark10 – We had several requests to include PCMark10 in our new testing suite. Normally we wait until a new benchmark has most of the problems ironed out, however our initial performance scaling metrics show that PCMark10 is basically there already. The extended suite covers ‘Essential, Productivity and Creativity’ benchmarks such as GIMP, Blender, video editing, conferencing, complex spreadsheets and other tests. We use the subtest values as well as the gaming physics result.
Agisoft PhotoScan 1.3.3 – Again, requests to use a more updated version of Photoscan were also coming through the inbox. Over the older version, Photoscan includes various throughput enhancements to each of the core points of the algorithm. Agisoft also gave us a new larger set of more detailed test images to generate our 3D models, giving a longer benchmark (but results are not comparable to the old data). We’ve run this benchmark on about a dozen CPUs ready for this review.
Office / Professional Tests
PCMark8
Chromium Compile (v56)
Rendering Tests
Corona 1.3
Blender 2.78
LuxMark v3.1 CPU C++
LuxMark v3.1 CPU OpenCL
POV-Ray 3.7.1b4
Cinebench R15 ST
Cinebench R15 MT
Encoding Tests
7-Zip 9.2
WinRAR 5.40
AES Encoding (TrueCrypt 7.2)
HandBrake v1.0.2 x264 LQ
HandBrake v1.0.2 x264-HQ
HandBrake v1.0.2 HEVC-4K
System Tests
PDF Opening
FCAT
3DPM v2.1
Dolphin v5.0
DigiCortex v1.20
Agisoft PhotoScan v1.0
Legacy Tests
3DPM v1 ST / MT
x264 HD 3 Pass 1, Pass 2
Cinebench R11.5 ST / MT
Cinebench R10 ST / MT
A Note on CPU Gaming Tests (Repeat from Page 1)
I know a lot of our readers are gamers, and are interested in seeing how well (or poorly) these massive multi-core chips perform in the latest titles at the highest resolutions. Apologies to disappoint, but I am going to tackle the more traditional consumer tasks in a second review, and which will mean that gaming will be left for that review. For the users that have followed my reviews (and Twitter) of late, I am still having substantial issues with my X299 test beds on the gaming results, with Skylake-X massively underperforming where I would expect a much higher result.
After having to dedicate recent time to business trips (Hot Chips, IFA) as well as other releases (Threadripper), I managed to sit down in the two weeks between trips to figure what exactly what was going on. I ended up throwing out the two X299 pre-launch engineering samples I was using for the Skylake-X testing, and I received a new retail motherboard only a few days before this review. This still has some issues that I spent time trying to debug, which I think are related to how turbo is implemented, which could either be Intel related or BIOS specific.
To cause insult to injury to everyone who wants to see this data, I have jumped on a plane to travel half-way around the world for a business trip during the week of this launch, which leaves the current results inconclusive. I have reached out to the two other motherboard vendors that I haven’t received boards from; just in case the issue I seem to be having is vendor specific. If I ever find out what this issue is, then I will write it up, along with a full Skylake-X gaming suite. It will have to wait to mid-late October, due to other content (and more pre-booked event travel).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
152 Comments
View All Comments
mapesdhs - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link
Ian, thanks for the great review! Very much appreciate the initial focus on productivity tasks, encoding, rendering, etc., instead of games. One thing though, something that's almost always missing from reviews like this (ditto here), how do these CPUs behave for platform stability with max RAM, especially when oc'd?When I started building oc'd X79 systems for prosumers on a budget, they often wanted the max 64GB. This turned out to be more complicated than I'd expected, as reviews and certainly most oc forum "clubs" achieved their wonderful results with only modest amounts of RAM, in the case of X79 typically 16GB. Mbd vendors told me published expectations were never with max RAM in mind, and it was "normal" for a mbd to launch without stable BIOS support for a max RAM config at all (blimey). With 64GB installed (I used two GSkill TridentX/2400 4x8GB kits), it was much harder to achieve what was normally considered a typical oc for a 3930K (mab was the ASUS P9X79 WS, basically an R4E but with PLEX chips and some pro features), especially if one wanted the RAM running at 2133 or 2400. Talking to ASUS, they were very helpful and advised on some BIOS tweaks not mentioned in their usual oc guides to specifically help in cases where all RAM slots were occupied and the density was high, especially a max RAM config. Eventually I was able to get 4.8GHz with 64GB @ 2133. However, with the help of an AE expert (this relates to the lack of ECC I reckon), I was also able to determine that although the system could pass every benchmark I could throw at it (all of toms' CPU tests for that era, all 3DMark, CB, etc.), a large AE render (gobbles 40GB RAM) would result in pixel artefacts in the final render which someone like myself (not an AE user) would never notice, but the AE guy spotted them instantly. This was very interesting to me and not something I've ever seen mentioned in any article, ie. an oc'd consumer PC can be "stable" (benchmarks, Prime95 and all the rest of it), but not correct, ie. the memory is sending back incorrect data, but not in a manner that causes a crash. Dropping the clock to 4.7 resolved the issue. Tests like P95 and 3DMark only test parts of a system; a large AE render hammered the whole lot (storage, CPU, RAM and three GTX 580s).
Thus, could you or will you be able at some point to test how these CPUs/mbds behave with the max 128GB fitted? I suspect you'd find it a very different experience compared to just having 32GB installed, especially under oc'd conditions. It stresses the IMCs so much more.
I note the Gigabyte specs page says the mbd supports up to 512GB with Registered DIMMs; any chance a memory corp could help you test that? Mind you, I suspect that without ECC, the kind of user who would want that much RAM would probably not be interested in such a system anyway (XEON or EPYC much more sensible).
Ian.
peevee - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link
"256 KB per core to 1 MB per core. To compensate for the increase in die area, Intel reduced the size of the size of the L3 from 2.5 MB per core to 1.375 MB per core, keeping the overall L2+L3 constant"You might want to check your calculator.
tygrus - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link
Maybe Intel saw the AMD TR numbers and had to add 10-15% to their expected freqs. Sure, there is some power that goes to the CPU which ends up in RAM et. al. but these are expensive room heaters. Intel marketing bunnies thought 165w looked better thn 180w to fool the customers.eddieobscurant - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link
Wow! Another intel pro review. I was expecting this but having graphs displaying intels perf/$ advantage, just wow , you've really outdone yourselves this time.Of course i wanted to see how long are you gonna keep delaying the gaming benchmarks of intel's core i9 due to mess rearrangement horrid performance. I guess you're expecting game developers to fix what can be fixed. It's been already several months, but on ryzen you were displaying a few issues since day 1.
You tested amd with 2400mhz ram , when you know that performance is affected with anything below 3200mhz.
Several different intel cpus come and go into your graphs only to show that a different intel cpu is better when core i9 lacks in performance and an amd cpu is better.
Didn't even mention the negligent performance difference bettween the 7960x and 7980xe. Just take a look at phoronix review.
Can this site even get any lower? Anands name is the only thing keeping it afloat.
mkaibear - Tuesday, September 26, 2017 - link
Erm, there are five graphs on the performance/$ page, and three of them show AMD with a clear price/$ advantage in everything except the very top end and the very bottom end (and one of the other two is pretty much a tie)....how can you possibly call that a pro-Intel review?
wolfemane - Tuesday, September 26, 2017 - link
And why the heck would you want game reviews on these CPUs anyways? By now we KNOW what the results are gonna be and they won't be astonishing. And more than likely will be under a 7700k. Game benchmarks are utterly worthless for these CPUs and any kind of s surprise by the reader in their lack of overall performance in game is the readers fault for not paying attention to previous reviews.Notmyusualid - Tuesday, September 26, 2017 - link
Sorry to distract gents (and ladies?), and even though I am not a fan of liquid nitrogen, here:http://www.pcgamer.com/overclocked-core-i9-7980xe-...
gagegfg - Tuesday, September 26, 2017 - link
EPYC 7551P vs core i9 790XEThat is the true comparison, or not?
$2000 vs $2000
gagegfg - Tuesday, September 26, 2017 - link
EPYC 7551P vs core i9 7980XEThat is the true comparison, or not?
$2000 vs $2000
IGTrading - Tuesday, September 26, 2017 - link
That's a perfectly valid comparison with the exception of the fact that Intel's X299 platform will look completely handicapped next to AMD's EPYC based solution and it will have just half of the computational power.