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
ddriver - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link
You are living in a world of mainstream TV functional BS.Quantum computing will never replace computers as we know and use them. QC is very good at a very few tasks, which classical computers are notoriously bad at. The same goes vice versa - QC suck for regular computing tasks.
Which is OK, because we already have enough single thread performance. And all the truly demanding tasks that require more performance due to their time staking nature scale very well, often perfectly, with the addition of cores, or even nodes in a cluster mode.
There might be some wiggle room in terms of process and material, but I am not overly optimistic seeing how we are already hitting the limits on silicon and there is no actual progress made on superior alternatives. Are they like gonna wait until they hit the wall to make something happen?
At any rate, in 30 years, we'd be far more concerned with surviving war, drought and starvation than with computing. A problem that "solves itself" ;)
SharpEars - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link
You are absolutely correct regarding quantum computing and it is photonic computing that we should be looking towards.Notmyusualid - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link
@ SharpEarsYes, as alluded to by IEEE. But I've not looked at it in a couple of years or so, and I think they were still struggling with an optical DRAM of sorts.
Gothmoth - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link
and what have they done for the past 6 years?i am glad that i get more cores instead of 5-10% performance per generation.
Krysto - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link
The would if they could. Improvements in IPC have been negligible since Ivy Bridge.kuruk - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link
Can you add Monero(Cryptonight) performance? Since Cryptonight requires at least 2MB of L3 cache per core for best performance, it would be nice to see how these compare to Threadripper.evilpaul666 - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link
I'd really like it if Enthusiast ECC RAM was a thing.I used to always run ECC on Athlons back in the Pentium III/4 days.Now with 32-128x more memory that's running 30x faster it doesn't seem like it would be a bad thing to have...
someonesomewherelse - Saturday, October 14, 2017 - link
It is. Buy AMD.IGTrading - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link
I think we're being to kind on Intel.Despite the article clearly mentioning it in a proper and professional way, the calm tone of the conclusion seem to legitimize and make it acceptable that Intel basically deceives its customers and ships a CPU that consumes almost 16% more power than its stated TDP.
THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE and UNPROFESSIONAL from Intel.
I'm not "shouting" this :) , but I'm trying to underline this fact by putting it in caps.
People could burn their systems if they design workstations and use cooling solutions for 165W TDP.
If AMD would have done anything remotely similar, we would have seen titles like "AMD's CPU can fry eggs / system killer / motherboard breaker" and so on ...
On the other hand, when Intel does this, it is silently, calmly and professionally deemed acceptable.
It is my view that such a thing is not acceptable and these products should be banned from the market UNTIL Intel corrects its documentation or the power consumption.
The i7960X fits perfectly in its TDP of 165W, how come i7980X is allowed to run wild and consume 16% more ?!
This is similar with the way people accepted every crapping design and driver fail from nVIDIA, even DEAD GPUs while complaining about AMD's "bad drivers" that never destroyed a video card like nVIDIA did. See link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE-YM_3YBm0
This is not cutting Intel "some slack" this is accepting shit, lies and mockery and paing 2000 USD for it.
For 2000$ I expect the CPU to run like a Bentley for life, not like modded Mustang which will blow up if you expect it to work as reliably as a stock model.
whatevs - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link
What a load of ignorance. Intel tdp is *average* power at *base* clocks, uses more power at all core turbo clocks here. Disable turbo if that's too much power for you.