Intel Core i9-7900X Review: Meet Skylake-X

Workstation & HPC

If you want to know more about our HPC benchmarks, check out the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X CPU Review. We didn't just copy results from that story, though. Rather, after a number of BIOS updates and software configuration changes, we retested everything. This gives us a more up-to-date picture, reflecting improvements of up to 15% that AMD worked hard to enable.

2D Benchmarks: DirectX and GDI/GDI+

Adding Intel’s new CPU doesn’t yield any surprises in our AutoCAD 2D and GDI/GDI+ graphics benchmarks. The newcomer falls in place exactly where you’d expect based on its frequency.

2D Benchmarks: Adobe Creative Cloud

The same is true in Adobe's CC apps. Again, performance comes down to clock rate. The Intel Core i9-7900X does well in workloads that challenge more than four cores. However, two of the individual scores do show some need for optimization on Intel’s part, which may be weaknesses related to the mesh topology.

3D Benchmarks: DirectX and OpenGL

The Core i9-7900X’s graphics performance across individual applications and suites is consistent with our previous findings. Turbo Boost plays a big role here, since few of the popular applications are (yet) able to utilize more than two cores. This calls for a high IPC, which the Core i9-7900X has a much easier time supplying than the Core i7-6950X.

CPU Performance: Workstation

The 3D graphics performance we just measured isn’t all that matters to professional rendering titles. Applications run many other tasks (like simulations, compute jobs, preview rendering) on the CPU simultaneously. The full picture’s only achievable by looking at both of them together.

AMD’s Ryzen CPUs look good here, which is to say that the Core i9-7900X has to go all-out, and even then has a hard time justifying its price tag.

CPU Performance: Photorealistic Rendering

Final rendering doesn’t need a jack of all trades. Instead, efficiency and fast parallel computation are key. This is why photorealistic rendering gets its own test section. Intel's Core i9-7900X does really well, beating some of the contenders by huge margins. Only the much less expensive AMD Ryzen 7 1800X can keep up every now and then, which is a nice surprise. The Core i7-6950X can’t compete.

CPU Performance: Encoding & Compression/Decompression

These types of tasks also fall into the Core i9-7900X's wheelhouse. Decompression is the only field where Intel’s new processor slows down a bit. It's in good company, though. In the end, this workload is only lightly threaded, preventing the -7900X from really shining.

High Performance Computing (HPC)

Intel’s Core i9-7900X shines once again. However, we also have to call out the Ryzen 7 1800X for its exceptional performance, particularly given a much more affordable price tag.

In most tests, Intel’s new processor does dominate the field. This makes it an interesting alternative to expensive Xeon workstations for semi-professional work.

In the end, Intel’s Core i9-7900X is a good choice for enthusiasts running well-threaded professional tasks, particularly when a Xeon-based workstation might be overkill. Thanks to Turbo Boost, the new processor also performs well when only a small number of cores are in use, emphasizing IPC and clock rate more than parallelism.

This means that the Core i9-7900X kills two birds with one stone by providing high frequencies when just a few cores are active and great multi-threaded performance when dealing with well-threaded tasks. The same certainly can’t be said for its predecessor, the Core i7-6950X.

To be fair, the significantly less expensive AMD Ryzen 7 1800X keeps up with Intel's latest in a number of places. This comes as a surprise, since the numbers we generated when Ryzen launched were markedly worse. Power users who want top performance across the board will definitely get it from Intel, but this choice won’t always result in a speed-up commensurate with Core i9's price premium.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
145 comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • Anonymous
    Pros: 10/20 cost now $999
    Cons: Everything else

    My biggest problem with this Intel lineup is that if you want 44 PCIe you have to pay $999. No, thanks. My money goes to AMD ThreadRipper.

    Good review!
    31
  • Jakko_
    Wow, compared to the Ryzen 1800X, the Intel Core i9-7900X:

    is about 25-30% faster
    costs 105% more
    uses 35-40% more power

    Ryzen looks really good here, and together with the temperature problems, Intel seems to be in some deep shit.
    30
  • HardwareExtreme
    Too little, too late. Does Intel really think that just because it has "Intel" written on it that it must be worth $200-$300 than AMD?
    18
  • Other Comments
  • Anonymous
    Pros: 10/20 cost now $999
    Cons: Everything else

    My biggest problem with this Intel lineup is that if you want 44 PCIe you have to pay $999. No, thanks. My money goes to AMD ThreadRipper.

    Good review!
    31
  • rantoc
    Doubt many who purchase such high end cpu for gaming runs at a low full hd 1080p resolution, i know its more cpu taxing to run lower res at higher fps but that's for the sake of benchmarking the cpu itself.

    I would like to see 1440p + 2160p resolutions on a suitable high end card (1080ti or equalent) benchmarked with the cpu as well as it would represent real scenarios for the peeps considering such cpu.

    Thanks for a good review!
    6
  • James Mason
    So it seems like de-lidding the x299 processors is gonna be a standard thing now to replace the TIM?
    4
  • elbert
    Meet netburst 2.0 that not only can hit 100c at only (4.7Ghz)1.2v on good water cooler but only barely beats a 7700k not overclocked in games. All this is yours for the low low price of 3X. Its slower than the old 6950x in a few tests with was odd.
    9
  • prophet001
    There's obviously a problem if the delta is that high.
    1
  • James Mason
    Anonymous said:
    Doubt many who purchase such high end cpu for gaming runs at a low full hd 1080p resolution, i know its more cpu taxing to run lower res at higher fps but that's for the sake of benchmarking the cpu itself.

    I would like to see 1440p + 2160p resolutions on a suitable high end card (1080ti or equalent) benchmarked with the cpu as well as it would represent real scenarios for the peeps considering such cpu.

    Thanks for a good review!

    The differences would be less noticeable at higher res than 1080p, so.... you'd just see less dissimilar numbers.
    1
  • Dawg__Cester
    Hmmmmm. I bought a Ryzen 1700, a water cooler, Asrock B350 MB, 16gb ram 3200Mhz for $590 plus tax. I live in New Jersey. I was very nervous about making the purchase as I knew this was coming out this week but the sale prices got me. Unless you all think I got ripped off, (DON'T TELL ME). But in all honesty I have not regretted the purchase one bit!! I even managed to save enough to get a GTX 1080 FE GPU. I did have a few bumps in the road getting the system stable (about 3 hours configuring after assembly) but I am VERY happy. I used Intel primarily and never really considered AMD other than for Video adapters and SSDs.
    After reading this along with other articles and YT videos, I have no regerts as I enjoy my Milky Way and play my games among other things.
    Just my experience. I am not seeking positive reinforcement nor advice.
    I just feel very satisfied that I did not wait and cough up 3oo more fore something I could have for less. I know, I know it makes no sense.
    But come on fellas, its the computer game!!
    10
  • James Mason
    Anonymous said:
    Hmmmmm. I bought a Ryzen 1700, a water cooler, Asrock B350 MB, 16gb ram 3200Mhz for $590 plus tax. I live in New Jersey. I was very nervous about making the purchase as I knew this was coming out this week but the sale prices got me. Unless you all think I got ripped off, (DON'T TELL ME). But in all honesty I have not regretted the purchase one bit!! I even managed to save enough to get a GTX 1080 FE GPU. I did have a few bumps in the road getting the system stable (about 3 hours configuring after assembly) but I am VERY happy. I used Intel primarily and never really considered AMD other than for Video adapters and SSDs.
    After reading this along with other articles and YT videos, I have no regerts as I enjoy my Milky Way and play my games among other things.
    Just my experience. I am not seeking positive reinforcement nor advice.
    I just feel very satisfied that I did not wait and cough up 3oo more fore something I could have for less. I know, I know it makes no sense.
    But come on fellas, its the computer game!!


    PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

    CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($299.39 @ SuperBiiz)
    Motherboard: ASRock - AB350M Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard ($65.98 @ Newegg)
    Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($124.99 @ Newegg)
    Total: $490.36
    Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
    Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-06-19 10:47 EDT-0400

    Depends on which watercooler and which ram, but not really.
    0
  • Jakko_
    Wow, compared to the Ryzen 1800X, the Intel Core i9-7900X:

    is about 25-30% faster
    costs 105% more
    uses 35-40% more power

    Ryzen looks really good here, and together with the temperature problems, Intel seems to be in some deep shit.
    30
  • HardwareExtreme
    Too little, too late. Does Intel really think that just because it has "Intel" written on it that it must be worth $200-$300 than AMD?
    18
  • vasras
    With these results and crippling by Intel, I think I can wait another 2 months for the ThreadRipper.
    Thank goodness for competition.
    11
  • logainofhades
    Still would buy a Ryzen 1700, and overclock it, over this. The 7900x might be faster, but not enough to justify the higher price tag. I personally think the i9 was a knee jerk reaction to threadripper.
    15
  • the nerd 389
    Is there any way you could investigate the performance of AVX-512 on that CPU?

    The thermal paste has me worried that they won't be able to deliver significant gains over last year's models in that department.
    2
  • MaximusOptimus
    Why are you only using DX11 and 1080P. I would like to see 1440p and 4k game paly
    -1
  • logainofhades
    Anonymous said:
    Why are you only using DX11 and 1080P. I would like to see 1440p and 4k game paly


    Lower resolutions put more of a load on the CPU.
    9
  • Dawg__Cester
    Anonymous said:
    Anonymous said:
    Hmmmmm. I bought a Ryzen 1700, a water cooler, Asrock B350 MB, 16gb ram 3200Mhz for $590 plus tax. I live in New Jersey. I was very nervous about making the purchase as I knew this was coming out this week but the sale prices got me. Unless you all think I got ripped off, (DON'T TELL ME). But in all honesty I have not regretted the purchase one bit!! I even managed to save enough to get a GTX 1080 FE GPU. I did have a few bumps in the road getting the system stable (about 3 hours configuring after assembly) but I am VERY happy. I used Intel primarily and never really considered AMD other than for Video adapters and SSDs.
    After reading this along with other articles and YT videos, I have no regerts as I enjoy my Milky Way and play my games among other things.
    Just my experience. I am not seeking positive reinforcement nor advice.
    I just feel very satisfied that I did not wait and cough up 3oo more fore something I could have for less. I know, I know it makes no sense.
    But come on fellas, its the computer game!!


    PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

    CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($299.39 @ SuperBiiz)
    Motherboard: ASRock - AB350M Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard ($65.98 @ Newegg)
    Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($124.99 @ Newegg)
    Total: $490.36
    Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
    Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-06-19 10:47 EDT-0400

    Depends on which watercooler and which ram, but not really.


    Like I said, I wasn't looking for positive reinforcement or validation as I am more than happy with my set up. But thank you for checking.
    4
  • Randall_Lind
    Why an i5? I thought this was i7 only.
    0
  • dusty13
    well ... at least for 1000 bucks you now not only get a fairly powerful cpu but also a heater for the winter / grill in the summer ... and that just with the standard 10 core model.

    imagine the potential of the obviously unplanned and hastily shoehorned in 12-18core models once they come out in 2018 ... your rig will go nova ^^
    13
  • AgentLozen
    LogainofHades said:

    Lower resolutions put more of a load on the CPU.


    I agree. Imagine if you ran Grand Theft Auto 5 in 640x480 mode. Your graphics card would barely have any work to do. All that's left is whatever the game asks from the CPU. That's when you see which CPU shines brightest.

    Regarding the 7900x, I'm glad to see that Intel responded so quickly to Ryzen. It's too late in the development cycle to make Skylake-X a Ryzen killer, so what we get to see is what Intel had planned for us before AMD made it's comeback.

    The article isn't very flattering toward Skylake-X but it's a much better deal than Broadwell was a year ago. Mostly higher performance at a lower price point. Good for Intel! Good for competition. Still, if I were building a PC right now I might go Ryzen.
    1
  • RanKing7
    "Still would buy a Ryzen 1700, and overclock it, over this. The 7900x might be faster, but not enough to justify the higher price tag. I personally think the i9 was a knee jerk reaction to threadripper."

    You're wrong. I don't even think you understand how processors are made. No company just says "they released that?! Quick make a 10 core processor".

    If 30% increase in performance isn't enough to justify the price tag -- than the processor was never for you to begin with. Neither is Threadripper. These processors are not for budget builds or for feeling the need to justify your decisions to save money. They are for a specific market that is very little of Intel's bottom line.
    -8