Intel Core i9-7900X Review: Meet Skylake-X
Why you can trust Tom's Hardware
VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation
Comparison Processors
VRMark & 3DMark
Futuremark's VRMark test lets you gauge your system's suitability for use with the HTC Vive or Oculus Rift, even if you don't currently own an HMD. The Orange Room test is based on the suggested system requirements for current-generation HTC Vive and Oculus Rift HMDs. Futuremark defines a passing score as anything above 109 FPS.
In spite of its higher Turbo Boost Max 3.0 frequencies and new cache hierarchy, the Core i9-7900X lags behind two Broadwell-E processors at stock settings. Even a 4.5 GHz overclock does little to rectify its position. Core i7-6950X takes the lead here.
The Core i9-7900X fares better during the DX11 and DX12 benchmarks. At its stock clock rate, it even leads the overclocked Core i7-6950X under DirectX 12. This series of benchmarks sets the tone: when Core i9-7900X can leverage its strengths, it provides impressive performance; but in some games it loses out to Broadwell-E.
Raw horsepower doesn't seem to be the problem. After all, -7900X leads in the API tests as well. This could just point back to isolated shortcomings of the mesh topology that Intel conceded to previously.
Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation
Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation became the poster child for game updates after AMD's Ryzen launch. We've endured seemingly weekly patches, which necessitate constant retesting. As a result, Ryzen 7 1800X offers much better performance now than it did at launch. In fact, the 1800X registers impressive gains in most games at stock and overclocked settings compared to our last round of testing.
Optimized game code doesn't help Intel's Core i9-7900X, though. With 10 Hyper-Threaded cores at its disposal, we expect the processor to lead in workloads optimized for threading. But again, it falls behind the overclocked Core i7-6950X in spite of its frequency advantage. The rest of the field falls in according to core count. The Core i7-7700K and Ryzen 7 processors account for a majority of frame time outliers.
MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPU Content
Current page: VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation
Prev Page The X299 Basin Falls Chipset & Test Setup Next Page Civilization VI, Battlefield 1 & Deus Ex: Mankind DividedStay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Paul Alcorn is the Managing Editor: News and Emerging Tech for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.
LG stops making Blu-ray players, marking the end of an era — limited units remain while inventory lasts
Razer's high-end Huntsman V2 Analog gaming keyboard drops to an all-time low of $79 at Woot
Valve now sells refurbished Steam Deck OLED for 20% cheaper than brand new — 512GB model for $439 and 1TB model for $519
-
Pros: 10/20 cost now $999Reply
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! -
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.Reply
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! -
James Mason So it seems like de-lidding the x299 processors is gonna be a standard thing now to replace the TIM?Reply -
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.Reply -
James Mason
The differences would be less noticeable at higher res than 1080p, so.... you'd just see less dissimilar numbers.19835717 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! -
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.Reply
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!! -
James Mason 19835862 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 availableGenerated by PCPartPicker 2017-06-19 10:47 EDT-0400
Depends on which watercooler and which ram, but not really. -
Jakko_ Wow, compared to the Ryzen 1800X, the Intel Core i9-7900X:Reply
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. -
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?Reply