Overclock.net banner

[eTeknix] Intel Core i9-7960X 16 cores, 32 threads Geekbench Scores Leaked

12K views 117 replies 59 participants last post by  DarkIdeals 
#1 ·
Quote:


Geekbench 3.3.2 for Windows x86 (64-bit)

  • Single-Core Score: 5804
  • Multi-Core Score: 78323


Geekbench 3.4.1 for Windows x86 (64-bit)

  • Single-Core Score: 5882
  • Multi-Core Score: 81005
The Geekbench v3 scores for Intel's Core i9-7960X processor are out and they look pretty impressive. The Core i9-7960X gained a whopping multi-core score of 78323, plus a single-core score of 5804
Source: https://www.eteknix.com/intel-core-i9-7960x-geekbench-scores-leaked/
Source 2: https://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench3/8425010
Source 3: https://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench3/8425677
 
#4 ·
So about 30% or so faster single core, 50% multi core, vs the 1950x, at stock?

If these scores are true, 16 vs 16, intel can keep their pricing higher because of the higher performance. 700$ or so more for 50% more performance? makes sense in price/performance for those who need such a beast of a chip.

Now lets see other things than geekbench.

I also wonder how the single core of 2.8ghz (boost 4.4ghz single core) is so much faster than TR 3.4ghz (4.0ghz boost) and 7900x (4.5ghz boost), since AMD are suppose to have closer IPC to intel. If those numbers are true intel really did find a way to boost performance outside of regular boost. Even compared to single core boost of the 7900x at stock (going to 4.5ghz), it is at least 15% faster at 4.4ghz boost. Unless there are some other factors that affected the numbers.
 
#5 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defoler View Post

So about 30% or so faster single core, 50% multi core, vs the 1950x, at stock?

If these scores are true, 16 vs 16, intel can keep their pricing higher because of the higher performance. 700$ or so more for 50% more performance? makes sense in price/performance for those who need such a beast of a chip.

Now lets see other things than geekbench.

I also wonder how the single core of 2.8ghz is so much faster than TR 3.4ghz, since AMD are suppose to have closer IPC to intel. If those numbers are true intel really did find a way to boost performance outside of regular boost. Even compared to single core boost of the 7900x at stock (going to 4.5ghz), it is at least 15% faster at 4.4ghz boost. Unless there are some other factors that affected the numbers.
Sweet
AMD just got murdered
biggrin.gif


Buy Intel and nothing else honestly, why bother with AMD, they have been out competed every step of the way.
 
#6 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0oMeR View Post

Sweet
AMD just got murdered
biggrin.gif


Buy Intel and nothing else honestly, why bother with AMD, they have been out competed every step of the way.
I'm not going to judge AMD or intel based on leaks. I want to see more. Especially since even the 7900x can out perform the TR in geekbench. But if this chip can be so much faster, and it keeps it across the board, it will make a lot of waves.
It is also so much faster compared to 10 core, even 10 vs 16, is feels like 4 vs 16. So I wonder how it will fair in creative programs.
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertparker View Post

Unless Intel has a super secret plan to discount Skylake X considerably (and switch to solder) that conversation is over.
I agree that intel needs to reduce the price of the mid tier of skylake-x.
The incoming top ends, if they are going to outperform TR, they will not have a lower price tag.
 
#10 ·
calling fake
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0oMeR View Post

Sweet
AMD just got murdered
biggrin.gif


Buy Intel and nothing else honestly, why bother with AMD, they have been out competed every step of the way.
Lol, your comment and mind setup is horrible.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: mrhiab
#13 ·
Yeah, looks to be Ln2 run. Still super impressive to see a 16-core clock that high.
 
#14 ·
Benchmarks like Geekbench exist entirely in the L2 cache and as we saw with the 7900X too, this kind of performance increase is NOT universal.
rolleyes.gif
I don't know why people think this is going to actually stay consistent across all platforms.

Also, I like how AMD has a TDP on their Ryzen lineup and the power draw and heat output is pretty much in-line with that reading. For Intel? It's considerably higher because I'm 99% sure that they're so used to being the "better buy" that they can put whatever they want and people will believe them... and then cook their CPUs without thinking about it.
tongue.gif
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nutty Pumpkin View Post

Yeah, looks to be Ln2 run. Still super impressive to see a 16-core clock that high.
Ln2 overclocking in never impressive on any processor ,
biggrin.gif
because is totaly usseles in normal everyday use.

Since we saw the temperature and the power consumption on i9 7900X 10/20, we now what is comming with i9-7960X/16/32 and especially i9 7980XE/18/36.

i9 7980XE will be a fiery catastrophe, for cooling that CPU on water you need a two old Fiat 1300 water cooling units.
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0oMeR View Post

It is about raw performance not price or value.
AMD is trying to cap the reigns on several key market segments and Intel is completely destroying them again.
Sheep like you are the reason Intel have been able to get away with no innovation and increase their prices.
This benchmark is not showing Intel destroying AMD; this is an Intel optimised benchmark, on a heavily overclocked chip.

Its running 5.4GHz to achieve that score. Very impressive numbers, but you have to wonder what sort of monstrous cooling system they had to use to run the tests at that speed. Nothing which will fit in your average PC case for workstation or home content creator.
 
#19 ·
We guess You like Intel and advocate for them, just a tad.
:rolleyes:
I guess I can see how "one" can say it's only about raw performance. For C4D, Unreal Engine 4, and video encoding, I need threaded work done at a respectable price/value that's not going to take away needlessly, from running my business.

And like others I've had Intel for years when AMD was not competing at all in this space and while Intel gouged for all it was worth (no surprise there as they were unopposed, and not bashing them, it was their choice, and they should live or die by their long term decisions alone, good for them).

I'm not married to either company, nor am I on a pulpit telling anyone You "SHOULD" buy AMD.
:sneaky:
Be a man and make up your own freakin mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0oMeR View Post

It is about raw performance not price or value. AMD is trying to cap the reigns on several key market segments and Intel is completely destroying them again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0oMeR View Post

Better safe than sorry IMO and buy Intel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by b0oMeR View Post

Sweet AMD just got murdered
biggrin.gif
Buy Intel and nothing else honestly, why bother with AMD, they have been out competed every step of the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0oMeR View Post

IMO you are the crowd that should get Intel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0oMeR View Post

If money is no issue then get Intel imo.
Sooo...
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asterox View Post

Ln2 overclocking in never impressive on any processor ,
biggrin.gif
because is totaly usseles in normal everyday use.

Since we saw the temperature and the power consumption on i9 7900X 10/20, we now what is comming with i9-7960X/16/32 and especially i9 7980XE/18/36.

i9 7980XE will be a fiery catastrophe, for cooling that CPU on water you need a two old Fiat 1300 water cooling units.
Ah huh...

Did I mention anything to do with this? I was literally referring to the clock speed achievement made on an Ln2 cooled 16-core processor. Is what you mentioned relevant to that fact whatsoever? I'm buying a threadripper system. I have little reservations about the ability to cool Intel's latest generation...

Does it always have to be like this for gods sake?
Edit: Fixed ah huh
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by litbringer View Post

If your a gamer, Isn't this still way overboard especially for the price?
I'm worried about this forum.
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyCamper31 View Post

This might be nice if ... it comes with ecc support and enough pci lanes to run 3 nvme drives + sli + 100gb mellanox multi port card for less than 2k... Otherwise why bother?
intel-core-i9-final-matrix-100731011-orig.jpg

Looks like 44 lanes and no ECC support. There is of course something with more lanes and ECC support.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top