Intel Core i9-7960X Review: Skylake-X At 16 Cores

It's certainly been a great year for enthusiasts. The dynamics of the desktop CPU market changed radically as AMD rose up to challenge Intel's dominance for the first time in recent history. For us, that meant an almost endless stream of new processors to benchmark and compare.

AMD's attack began with mainstream and entry-level parts offering more cores at lower price points than comparable Core CPUs. Intel continued on its merry way, introducing a first round of expensive Skylake-X CPUs that, in many of our benchmarks, failed to impress. When the Ryzen Threadripper family launched shortly thereafter, wielding up to 16 cores and the ability to schedule as many as 32 threads, it became clear that AMD meant business. 

All along, we knew Intel was also preparing 12-, 14-, 16-, and 18-core processors of its own. But the company seemed to be rushing around in response to its perhaps unexpected competition. The Core i9-7900X is fast, no doubt. However, excessive thermal and power consumption, along with limited overclocking headroom, marred its debut. Although Intel took steps to drop prices, its Skylake-X models still sell for a rich premium compared to the Threadripper chips contending for enthusiast affection.

From what we understand, Intel believes it has an ace in the hole. Those 6-, 8-, and 10-core Skylake-X CPUs it already sells were a mere prelude to the big guns landing today. Moving forward, Threadripper has to contend with much more sophisticated Core i9s, led by an 18-core -7980XE.

So, Where's The Core i9-7980XE Review?

Unfortunately, our sample and test platform aren't working well together, demonstrating unexpected Turbo Boost frequencies at stock settings. Specifically, the Core i9-7980XE does not exceed 3.4 GHz on a single core. For now, the source of this issue remains unidentified, despite many combinations of components, operating system revisions, and motherboard firmware revisions. We suspect the problem traces back to our engineering sample CPU or motherboard BIOS. We are, of course, in contact with both Intel and MSI regarding our findings.

Interestingly, the 16C/32T Core i9-7960X, which goes up against Ryzen Threadripper 1950X's core count (albeit at a $1700 price point) does work correctly with our test platform. This allows us to post a review of that model with accurate results. For now, our test suite is abbreviated. But we'll update this space with our complete list of benchmarks in the days to come.


Intel's Core i9-7960X is the company's second-from-the-top Skylake-X model, selling for $300 less than the flagship -7980XE, but with two fewer cores and 4.75MB less cache. That puts it at a similar core/thread count as AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 1950X (16C/32T). Despite its discount relative to -7980XE, though, Core i9-7960X bears a massive premium compared to the top Threadripper model ($1700 vs. $1000). While we're confident that Intel gets more done per clock cycle with its Skylake architecture, the fact that AMD gives you just as many cores at such a discount is compelling in a great many workloads.

Intel hopes to offset higher pricing with superior performance and features, such as its new mesh topology. This allows the construction of a single monolithic die, as opposed to AMD's multi-die module. Skylake-X is consequently a significant retooling of the Skylake architecture, as we've covered in-depth on multiple occasions. In some applications, this can cause performance to slide the wrong way. Most tests benefit from Intel's enhancements, though. Company representatives claim that future software optimizations may help ameliorate the few cases where Skylake-X suffers, similar to what AMD went through as Ryzen came online. 

A realigned cache hierarchy promises improved application performance, while dual 256-bit FMAs work in parallel to support AVX-512. Intel's combination of greater cache throughput and AVX enablement facilitate up to 1 TFLOP compute performance from a single processor. That's a first on the desktop. 

Clock rates generally drop as core counts increase. Intel does, however, offset a low-sounding 2.8 GHz base frequency with significantly improved Turbo Boost bins. Core i9-7960X delivers a 4.2 GHz Turbo Boost 2.0 bin with two cores active, and up to 4.4 GHz with Turbo Boost Max 3.0, targeting lightly-threaded workloads across two "favored" cores. The feature is supported natively in the latest Windows 10 Creators Update. However, you still need Intel's driver if your motherboard firmware doesn't implement the feature correctly.

Active Cores
Intel Core i9-7960X (GHz) Turbo Boost 2.04.2

Intel's sophisticated Turbo Boost algorithms provide accelerated clock rates based upon the number of active cores. These higher frequencies even kick in when 16 cores are active, nudging Core i9-7960X as high as 3.6 GHz so long as power, thermals, and current fall below certain thresholds. While Intel only guarantees -7960X's base frequency, we found the Turbo Boost bins to be consistently aggressive during our testing.

Intel's Skylake-X series is repurposed data center silicon from the Xeon line-up, so the processors share the same LCC (Low core Count) and HCC (High Core Count) die that power up to 10- or 18-core processors, respectively. Previously, Core i9-7900X weighed in as Intel's largest LCC-based desktop processor, but Intel employs its HCC die for the chips launching today. That means the -7960X has a much larger die area for dissipating heat. We're hoping this improves its thermal performance compared to Core i9-7900X. 

As we know, Skylake-X could certainly use some help in that department. The -7960X's 165W TDP is 25W higher than the -7900X we've already had problems with. And unfortunately, Intel is still using thermal paste between its die and heat-spreader. Even the beefiest custom loops won't be able to overcome this limitation, barring direct-die cooling. Notably, this isn't an issue AMD has with Threadripper thanks to its use of solder.

Similar to the other Skylake-X CPUs, the -7960X supports up to DDR4-2666 memory. It's also used with the same X299 Basin Falls chipset, which boasts improved DMI throughput and 30 HSIO (High Speed Input/Output) lanes that motherboard vendors can allocate to expanded connectivity options. Core i9-7960X also enables the full complement of Skylake-X's 44 PCIe 3.0 lanes, though it trails Threadripper. All of AMD's high-end desktop processors wield 64 lanes of third-gen PCIe. Of course, finding a use for that many lanes might be challenging, but it's certainly nice to have them available.


MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

This thread is closed for comments
    Your comment
  • lxd170
    Intel is the fastest when $ is no object, BUT AMD 1950 is a win for a average Joe.
  • mdd1963
    Please add yet another $500 for exotic liquid cooling....; well done, intel...
  • David_693
    I think there is something missing here: 'Similar to the other Skylake-X CPUs, the -7960X supports up to DDR4-2666 memory.'
  • David_693
    Also noted that one of the test systems uses an i5-7500k not i7
  • David_693
    Well, for now, my i7-7700k is no slouch, can't wait to see what the i7-8700K's will be able to do. No rush to upgrade yet as I've only had the 7700k since March. Thanks to AMD for pushing Intel to produce better options.
  • klipschkiller
    Really, Intel, is this a joke? Why release a chip that requires water cooling, have bad thermals and power consumption to previous AMD's bulldozer.
  • hannibal
    Well, it is good for competition that AMD have cooler and better behaving product this time compared to Intel. It forces Intel to do better next time!
    Go AMD go! And keep Intel in its toes! Better products, better prices (?) to the customers. I hope that Intel is forced to reduce the pricing...
  • zippyzion
    That is a supremely powerful chip... but, man... at what cost? I give a nod to the speed and power, but it is anything but practical. It isn't even that much faster than the competition in most tests, and a good deal of that competition comes from Intel themselves. It is really a case of, "why bother?". I'd suggest just getting the 7900 or the 1950 if you are looking at this segment. Why spend so much more for so little extra?
  • berezini.2013
    "Hail to the king baby"
  • phobicsq
    Intel needs to stop using paste and do it right. It's beyond comprehension that they charge a lot more and and yet AMD charges less and does it right.
  • redgarl
    Hey Intel... solder your chips next time. The monolithic die is not commercially viable and provide really few advantages.

    You even acknowledged that modular design is the way of the future... EMBID anyone!?
  • scannall
    No ECC for a workstation class chip? No go.
  • mapesdhs
    "Of course, finding a use for that many lanes might be challenging, but it's certainly nice to have them available."

    Heh,no challenge at all: solo pro setups, multi GPU rendering, extra NVMe SSDs for workflow, digvid cards, etc.

    "... but we shied away from that because we want to test this processor in the future. "

    IMO this perfectly reflects how users will regard these expensive chips, ie. too costly to risk pushing that much at all. At least for those who want to use them for productive work.

    "... Be sure to bring a custom loop if you plan to overclock."

    Aka significant hidden extra cost. GN did a great video on this:

    Btw, for CPUs of this class, why the focus so much on gaming? IMO such reviews should present productivity, rendering, transcoding and scientific bench data first.

  • WyomingKnott
    663669 said:
    That is a supremely powerful chip... but, man... at what cost? I give a nod to the speed and power, but it is anything but practical. It isn't even that much faster than the competition in most tests, and a good deal of that competition comes from Intel themselves. It is really a case of, "why bother?". I'd suggest just getting the 7900 or the 1950 if you are looking at this segment. Why spend so much more for so little extra?

    From your point of view and mine that's perfectly true. Intel is probably either aiming at a small segment of the market or selling the results of their research for a more affordable next generation. No reason to hold it against them, just don't buy one.
  • timtimothy1
    Wait why is there a 'gaming price efficiency chart' instead of an 'applications/workstation price efficiency chart'. Aren't these High core count CPU's geared towards that market?

    Why is gaming put as a priority here please. I do like toms hardware ariticles but I think you guys have fallen of a bit.
  • mapesdhs
    51219 said:
    ... No reason to hold it against them, just don't buy one.

    In the end I suppose that will be the most telling thing, just how well they sell.

  • caustin582
    In the Cinebench R15 chart, Threadripper is highlighted in red instead of the Intel chip. At a glance, makes it look like chip being reviewed didn't score as highly as it did.
  • AnimeMania
    Required 5 different incompatible motherboards to test all those recently released CPUs.
  • Glock24
    I don't see the anything about power consumption and temperatures, is that still pending?
  • Puiucs
    No ECC support and RAID is blocked behind a paywall? sorry but this is just stupid.
  • Rob Burns
    None of the result images in the rendering / encoding section load on either my home or work computer, both up to date browsers. Is it a TH issue? Really interested to see the results!
  • CaptainTom
    So who is this CPU for?

    -If you are a semi-professional who works from home: Threadripper offers the same performance with SUBSTANTIALLY lower cost, ECC support, and 64 PCIE lanes. You would have to be nuts to choose Skylake-X.

    -If you are a business where money is no object: Skylake-X isn't an option. It requires incredibly exotic cooling solutions, and no company is buying custom watercooling builds in bulk lol. Oh and again lack of ECC makes this a complete no-go for a business.

    So who would buy this? In what situation could this ever be better than Threadripper?

    P.S. Gaming is not relevant. The benchmarks show all of these top end CPU's get above 100Hz anyways, and if you are a real gamer the 1600 or 7700K are better.

    Moderator edited for politeness to other members
  • Altherix
    No surprise, it's not worth it.

    For $700 more or 70% more than it's competitor, (Not including needing to buy a water cooling solution, add more money) you're not getting 70% more performance.

    Also, why is gaming performance pushed to the forefront with this chip? You're not going to buy this chip to play games exclusively and it's insulting to present that as a pro for the chip. If you want to game, buy a gaming CPU that puts this to shame and is much cheaper, this is a workstation chip.

    I'd also have to say with the price you have to pay, it's bragging rights or if you absolutely must have the fastest hardware for your work load and even then I'd argue there's better things to spend money on that'll give you more performance. (Motherboard, RAM, SSDs...etc)
  • rpjkw11
    In the past, I'd entertained serious thoughts about buying an i9 7980XE, but reading about AMD's Threadripper 1950X, I felt buying Intel's latest ripoff was a sucker's move. I couldn't be happier with my TR 1950X! What a nice piece of technology!