Gadgetory

fractal design cases have inspired modders all over the world who have built some amazing systems like this Darkseid themed case by George priscilla's showcasing the spacious internals in the define s or metallic acid a mini ITX system by Justin Olson featuring a white black and red color scheme and a super clean layout in they define Nano s there are a ton more awesome builds like these on fractal designs modding series page so check it out via the sponsor link in this video's description and get inspired for your next project well guys it's been a crazy year for high-end desktop PCs we've gone from 10 cores per CPU maximum last year in 2016 to now as many as 18 with today's launch of the highest end fastest most Core County and most expensive CPUs Intel has ever suggested a mere home enthusiast purchase the core I 979 ATX e XE Mini Extreme Edition is what I'll be taking a look at today and sharing some introductory benchmarks I'm also going to be taking a look at the 16 cores 79 60 X which will retail for $1,700 currently installed in my test bed right now the 79 80 XE goes for two large $2,000 so neither of these CPUs are meant for those with limited disposable income but since when has limited disposable income stopped a hardcore PC enthusiasts specs have been disclosed already but I'm going to run down them really quickly all of Intel's current CPUs are manufactured using 14 nanometer processes technology so it's kind of nice to have that parity between their mainstream and high-end parts and for the enthusiast platform the motherboards use the X 299 chipset and LGA 2066 socket six core and up CPUs on this platform which are the only ones worth discussing are based on skylake X architecture and prior to today the top version was the 10 core 20 thread I 970 900 X Intel is adding 12 14 16 and 18 core CPUs to the lineup now and they'll cost twelve hundred fourteen hundred seventeen hundred and two thousand dollars at retail respectively now all turbo boost up over four gigahertz when they're only running on a few course to improve single core performance and turbo boost max 3.0 allows a couple cores per CPU to run at 4.4 or 4.5 gigahertz when running tasks that use only one or two threads you get one megabyte of l2 cache or basically so 18 Meg's for the 18 core and so on down the line and the 14 core entire CPUs have a 165 watt TDP finally there's 44 PCI Express 3.0 lanes directly connected to the CPU as long as you spend $1,000 or more on this ten core 7900 X or better and you can also game on this platform I should mention but practically speaking it's really made for processing intensive workstation tasks such as 4k video editing 3d design or physics simulations all that said let's dive into the benchmarks so I have a new testbed set up and I need to say big thank you to both Intel for sending these CPUs over as well as Asus who coincidentally sent over their rampage 6 extreme just in time for this lunch so I of course installed that and got it set up apart from that motherboard I'm using the g.skill trident z RGB memory it's a 3200 speed kit running at casa latency 14 I have an Asus GTX 1080 Ti Strix Edition running at the out-of-the-box overclocked speeds for storage I have a Toshiba ocz Rd 400 512 gig nvme SSD and for cooling on the cpu I have the NZXT kraken X 62 it's a 280 mm meter closed-loop cooler it's been doing an excellent job so far and powering everything as a Rosewill tachyon 1,000 watt 8 plus Platinum rated power supply our first test is Cinebench and the multi-threaded tests here I have a range of CPUs to compare it to even some mainstream CPUs and here you can see the big difference in raw compute performance when using all the threads 79-80 x key with the 3400 score biggest score I have seen on this platform with a mainstream consumer level processor that's pretty insane just about 200 points less on the 79 60 X 19 50 X coming in just shy of 3,000 and then on down the line next up is Cinebench single threaded and here we can see the single core performance deficit for the Rison based processors the 1950 X and 1800 X granted all these processors are running at stock speeds so yes you can get a little bit more performance out of those if you do run them overclocked at 4 or 4.1 gigahertz but overall the cab you lake or skylake depending on which architecture you want to call it performance of both the 7700 K as well as the x-series CPUs from Intel are pulling with scores all above the 190 mark next up a CPU mark in the overall test again a synthetic test but shows you the performance you can get out of using all of your cores at the same time and here the 1950 X came in with twenty four thousand four hundred which was a bit behind the 79 60 X so here again with 16 cores versus 16 cores getting better performance out of the 79 60 X granted it does cost more as well then of course again the 79 80 XC coming in with the massive 28 thousand 200 and CPU mark single-threaded we see scores that are roughly similar to what we saw with Cinebench single-threaded we have the risin be CPUs coming in with scores around 2050 and our Intel skylake X CPUs coming in with scores more in the 2500 range 7700 K is still proving it is the single core Beast coming in with a score of 26 51 that is due to its high frequency I think by and large next up is blender a very popular rendering utility for 3d artwork and otherwise and here I have updated my tests thanks to some feedback that I got last time around so there you go the numbers should speak for themselves here again the 79 80 XE is pretty dominant when it comes to performance next up is pov-ray 3.7 a very popular ray tracing utility this is just time and seconds so lower is better on the scores here and again the 79 80 X II comes out ahead with a 39 second score 79 60 X coming up just behind and then a few seconds behind that is the 1950 X we've got two Adobe Premiere Pro rendering a 4k video at 48 megabits per second this is time in seconds once again soloist is better and lowest here is actually the 79 60 X so here is an indication where 18 cores is maybe a little bit too much for the software to deal with this was kind of my assumption here I mean we've gone from like I said 20 threads or so last year to applications dealing with 36 or more threads this year so this may be a situation where Premiere Pro just didn't exactly know what to do with that extra horsepower allowing the 79 60 X with its higher clock speed to come in with a slightly better score that said the 1950 X is a little bit slower here but they're all still sort of well within the range of each other only about a 15 second difference moving over to some game test starting with 3dmark firestrike ultra I have the overall and graphics scores here but I want to mainly focus on the physics score because that is where you're gonna see the most difference when it comes to actual CPU performance here we saw again a bit of an anomaly with the 79 60 X coming out with the highest score of about 28,500 whereas the 1950 X and 79 80 X e came in with scores around 26,000 a little closer to 27 so here again as a situation where I believe the software is not able to take advantage of all the cores and threads that are available to 79 80 X e therefore you're seeing better performance out of the higher clock speeds of the 79 60 X so here's a situation where maybe the top-end CPU isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be maybe maybe the 16 core is a little bit more practical of course software updates might change this in the future moving on to 3d mark x by again we can see the CPU score is the main gonna be the main focus and here we saw a very similar CPU score I think again this is a situation where you're not seeing the software scale with the number of threads that's available because we saw a very similar scores not just between the 79 80 extreme edition and 79 60 X with the 79 60 X winning but also very comparable to the 1950 X and 70 900 X indicating the maybe 3d mark times by at least doesn't like more than 10 cores that's that's what I'm going with here not only a quick game test of GTA 5 running at 1080 and this is a great way of seeing if your CPU is holding back a high end GPU at all I'm with a 1080 Ti in there this does show some performance differences depending on what you're using so the 1950 X and Rison has been known to not give quite the maximum performance with GPUs again and depending on which situation you're in a 1920 by 1080 is a resolution that teases out more of a difference there however we can see a score of 134 frames per second on average for the 1950 X whereas the 79 60 X actually topped out here about 156 79 80 xD coming in at 148 so they're all within a relatively same range of each other so I think that's just showing that single core once again is a bit more important when it comes strictly to gaming I was measuring power draw as well since these are high-end desktops and efficiency might be a concern of yours just measuring the power drawn from the wall and measuring peak power as well as idle power idle power was a little bit higher than you get on the mainstream side in fact hitting close 220 watts with the 79 ATX he installed dropped down by about 15 watts to about 102 with the 79 and 60 X peak power job for the 79 80 XC was about 457 watts and for the 79 60 X was 446 when I was just running the 3dmark mix test and looking at power drop for that it was actually pulling about 410 watts on average it's actually very similar power draw numbers here when you look at the 79 80 X e compared to the 1950 X but given that these are high in to workstation type systems your expectation is it gonna gonna be that they're gonna pull more power probably than a typical gaming PC anyway when it comes to temperatures is where I was probably the most impressed when it comes to these CPUs we had heard that vrm temps can get pretty hot with X 19 X 299 that's mainly if you're overclocking which I'm gonna dive into in another video but with all those cores in there and the limited amount of space to disperse the heats I only saw a maximum of about 62 to 63 degrees Celsius this is under an 8 s 64 stress test for 15 to 20 minutes with the 79 80 XE and went to 79 60 X didn't get above 60 degrees and and that's under a stress test or a decent chunk of time again I'm using the NZXT d kraken X 62 for this which is a pretty high-end closed-loop cooler but not necessarily like a full closed-loop system or all copper anything like that so it's nice to know that you can keep the temps down on these processors still get that range of turbo boost max 3.0 but not have to worry necessarily about setting up the custom loop or crazy overheating or anything like that I found that the out-of-the-box performance of both of these CPUs especially when relative compared relative to their temperatures was was quite good actually so so that's nice but anyway though let's do some closing thoughts here clearly the Intel 79 60 X and 79 80 XE CPUs can outperform AMD's threader for 1950 X but price must also be considered $1000 for the 1950 X versus 1700 or two thousand dollars for Intel's options and here's an example look at cinnamon scores to compare if you can score three thousand points for $1000 with the 1950 X that's three points per dollar Intel 79 60 X would only give you about 1.9 points per dollar and the 1980 X II a bit less at one point seven points per dollar so the bang for the buck option here is definitely at the 1950 X in conclusion though I have to say that the 79 80 XE actually works pretty well as a halo product for Intel massive performance across 36 threads stayed remarkably cool at stock settings and the turbo boost max 3.0 provides a great solution to squeeze out more performance in situations where fewer cores are being used I regularly saw a four to four point four gigahertz frequencies on one or two cores at a time and sometimes it hit even higher than that although I'm not sure if that was a reporting bug or not this supposed to max at four point four or four point five now the 79 60 X is three hundred dollars cheaper but it also runs at slightly higher clock speeds giving it an edge and tasks where single core performance and frequency are favored or with software that just doesn't make use of more than 16 cores or 32 threads also it's a slightly better value than the Extreme Edition depending on your work look so Intel has definitely recaptured the fastest consumer CPU crown that AMD stole from them unexpectedly for about a month or two but who knows what's next it would actually be kind of cool to see maybe AMD answer back with more than 16 core thread Ripper CPUs they can fit up to 32 cores into the thread Ripper package as they do with the epic server CPUs that use the same socket ultimately though whether you lean towards the Intel x-series CPUs and their price premium for maximum performance or AMD's thread Ripper line up for more bang for your buck there's never been a better time to build a high-end desktop PC with as many options as there are right now from both team red and team blue and that makes me happy I hope it makes you guys happy too if it did and if this video made you happy then definitely hit thumbs up on your way out I have links to these products in the video's description down below I have more contact coming soon as well as the continuation and hopefully soon to be completed arctic panther build thanks to all of you for you guys feedback on that one I am going to go take a nap thanks again for watching and we'll see you next time