Intel Core i9-7980XE & 7960X, 16-cores is Old News!

[@Hardwareunboxed]

Sorry guys I messed up the order of the price vs. performance scatter plots at the end of the video, the titles are correct, I've just shown them in the wrong order :(

[@TechShowdown]

Good thing you have me to point them out 8-]

[@Godlyhank]

Don't worry about it, im sure we are smart enough to figure it out. Great work as usual. Did you have to turn off everything else in the house when you overclocked the I9s? Im sure it was a strain on your houses power delivery ;)

[@jacoblowe1771]

dw bout it

[@aniketbhagat2425]

Businesses are about profit. No sane organisation or business will pay double for 20% better performance.

[@abigailpatridge2948]

Especially when they can just pay double for literally double performance and go Epyc.

[@JarrodsTech]

Good to see the 1950X puts up a good fight, especially for the lower price.

[@David_Quinn1995]

Jarrod'sTech yep

[@asleeperj]

put up a fight is one way of putting it. Price for performance, destroyed Intel. Who pays 100% more for 6-12% performance?

[@asleeperj]

I forgot that ECC was available for Threadripper. Intel has that locked down for Xeon. If I'm not mistaken Threadripper has more PCIE lanes too. I think intel dropped a dookie on us, not a diamond

[@erlienfrommars]

ECC ram, Thermals, PCIe Lanes and NVMe Raid support this isn't even a fight, TR platform is clearly superior hands down plus for relatively similar price point, the Epyc 7551p annihilates 7980XE if you care about serious workstation performance

[@asleeperj]

what was intel thinking with this price point. the 18 core should have been 999.00 to be competitive, if not. HEY INTEL here is a suggestion. Try a competitive price point. You know when AMD releases a new architecture its hard for you to compete, so bring out the SCYTH, and cut prices.

[@Methos_101]

Nice Stargate reference with the ZPM mention :D .

[@TimmyJoePCTech]

Thank you for posting overclock performance. Once again you are the benchmark king

[@Hardwareunboxed]

Hey Timmy Joe, appreciate ya stopping by!

[@TimmyJoePCTech]

My 4.25 Ghz OC Threadripper chip was beating all those stock 7980xe scores. I needed to know how bad my Cinebench score was beat... Near 4000 vs my 3530 means I have no chance :) Seriously though, you are my favorite Comp Tech youtuber, you always deliver, even if Vega gets lost in the mail :) Good on ya!

[@Hardwareunboxed]

wow thanks mate. I recently watched your "AMD A12-9800 - Why does it exist?!?" video and loved it! :D I recommended a few check it out. The Q6600 testing was so good!

[@TimmyJoePCTech]

Aweee shucks! - If you like that check my extreme overclocking Threadripper video, I got on the Firestrike Hall Of Fame ! hehe

[@Hardwareunboxed]

Will do! :D I might have to see if mines got anymore in the tank!

[@paulshardware]

Awesome video Steve! I liked the part with all the benchmarks 😄

[@Hardwareunboxed]

Thanks mate! I agree that was the best bit, I'll focus more on that in the future ;)

[@nonames9]

We all call him now "so let's jump into the Benchmarks"

[@mojondro]

You guys see Adore TV was right when he says in one of his videos that Intel has to increase tdp to beat threadriper

[@Gussy311]

Automatically earned a like for the ZPM module reference

[@naweedkhan8682]

Bench marking applications for Steve is like breathing

[@piers389]

As a long-time Intel user, this video appears to show the 1950X as the best value for money (in my opinion). The performance increase for US$400 or US$1000 extra is simply not worth it. Lack of ECC support is also a deal breaker.

[@Nick_Kearney]

Yeah an extra $1000 for not much performance benefit over Threadripper seems like a bad deal.

[@oscarbanana6159]

I'd definitely agree if I was buying it. Some professionals however may not give a damn about the price as long as they get maximum performance. How many? No idea.

[@leotolosky7904]

Oscar Banana why spend $2000 for the 18 core i9 when you can spend $2oo more and get a 32core Epyc processor?

[@gbc9053]

$700 for i9-7960x

[@asleeperj]

fucking good point, Intel shot themselves in the foot with pricing. I think they really just put this out for fan boys.

[@hashbrownz1999]

Nobody who isn't given this CPU or isn't swimming in cash will be buying this when the 1950X offers very similar performance for half the cost.

[@Luredreier]

Intel got one thing going for it. It's a better *d* measuring contest chip... Some people just want the best there is regardless of money. Even if they're not swimming in the stuff. That said, as a AMD fan there's no way I'm not going Ryzen this gen...

[@Greyghostvol1]

I mean, Intel still has a more stable ecosystem than AMD's new platform. Imo, it's not worth the price premium, but some people and organizations have deep enough pockets to where the current stability and name recognition is enough for them to consider Intel's solution even with AMD's solution being a sensible option.

[@tarelsun4025]

And thats the Problem... as long as some PPL are paying this Money, Intel won´t Change their Price Policy... it´s the same with Apple...

[@hashbrownz1999]

The ONLY thing going for Intel is its name with this platform. Stability is actually better on AMD's not rushed platform, and to be honest anybody keeping up with recent tech news would see the name "Intel" as more of a reason *not* to buy.

[@Ali-bd6kb]

Luredreier epyc kicks intels ass so there's literally no point

[@Raditram]

This video made me really impressed with the 1950x even more! Insane performance for the money.

[@BeamMonsterZeus]

Same here. AMD CPUs over the last 6 months have beaten Intel's releases on almost every front. Thank goodness for their R&D - now we can see some real competition in the market!

[@OzHuski]

Still searching for those ZPM's... none in this galaxy! Might have to buy a Threadripper to help me plot a course to the Pegasus galaxy before I can consider the I9's..

[@coldfire5384]

So did you notice Vega 64 got significantly higher frame rates then a 1080 Ti in a lot of the games on the Threadripper? BF1 (1950X) on the 1080 Ti was 108 min 117 max on Vega it was 123 min 139 max. This is way different then we saw at launch where Vega 64 was basically a 1080 non Ti. Time to revisit Vega 64 performance vs GTX on Threadripper?

[@issaciams]

Cold Fire true but it was the water cooled Vega 64 card. Still I know Vega will keep improving.

[@SuperJosteen]

This isnt new, adoredtv have found out about it since before vega was even launched, because nvidia graphic cards somehow always sit in 60% ish utilization on RoTR when used with ryzen, even an oced 1800X have this prob. They may want to retest TR's gaming with Vega now that they have it.

[@viktors_anfimovs]

Like a midget in grocery store, you all are reaching.

[@coldfire5384]

SuperJosteen From every review I never saw a Vega64 come even close to a 1080Ti and here it's beating it by a large margin. It's either a fluke or something changed (drivers, optimization something). I'd love to see a retest of it on a 1950X. It's definitely got me curious. I just finished my TR build but kept my GPUs (1080's originals) been thinking of getting a 1080Ti but this gave me pause. It might be worth looking at Vega 64

[@RipinHimself]

You have to remember that BF1 is better optimized for AMD GPU's than it is for Nvidia GPU's. Vega 64 LC beating the 1080ti in DirectX 12 isn't a huge deal.

[@HopTzop]

So looking at price/performance, AMD is still the best pick.

[@adoredtv]

Best review bar none mate, great job.

[@Hardwareunboxed]

Damn! Thanks mate, that actually means a lot!

[@dycedargselderbrother5353]

I skipped most of these but watched yours. Was not disappointed. Really like the value graphs at the end.

[@hypershadow5g]

Here's what you do with that 2000 bucks you would use to buy a 7980XE: Build 2 different 1920x builds, OC them to 4ghz, end up with more power. If you're a business owner, what looks more appealing?

[@Hardwareunboxed]

Yeah I had thought about that, for many situations that would make more sense.

[@lakshyasingh8931]

hypershadow5g or buy 4 1700 run them on stock *RGB* cooler goodness and use them as a clustered system.

[@blackwidow7804]

For 2000 bucks you can make one pure gaming system and other as workstation.

[@Najvalsa]

You couldn't build two 1920X systems for $2000, but you could a single full fledged one.

[@MrEvans1]

Or buy Epyc....

[@GuilleGhemi]

up to 100% more expensive than the 1950x, but only up to 15% faster. Nice try intel. Nice try.

[@blackknight50277621]

90% perf for 50% cost 'nuff said

[@NANOTECHYT]

Why is no one in the comments talking about the great value the 1950X is, it's pretty clear that Threadripper is the better value option here. 7980XE is really only for people who need multi-threaded tasks to be as fast as possible. Finally good to see some competition in the industry again! AMD is on a roll here, I'm so proud :)

[@propotato4633]

Only one thing matters: better price to performance, better CPU

[@OscarRobbing]

What I find funny (and awesome) about the current CPU market, is that if I were given the free choice between an Intel $2000 and an AMD $1000 CPU, I'd take the $1000 option.

[@meppie1922]

AMD threadripper vs Intel walletripper :D

[@bartiz12]

Gotta love how AMD cpus linearly scale on price vs performance graphs.

[@mduckernz]

Yeah, it's clearly an artifact of how they're built. All Zen cores within a particular family (e.g. R3/5/7, TR) are alike - you buy a SKU with more of them, then you get X more Zen core perf, more or less. The binning they're doing is clearly superb - that and the performance of that Infinity Fabric tech. It's astonishing, really, just how good it's proving to be - incredible scalability! The engineers who worked on IF better have been given some damn good - and very well deserved - raises, and accolades/recognition from those within their field. Yes, the CCX latency does make it _slightly_ non-linear, but it's barely perceptible vs the non-linearity introduced by Intel's cores with their different clock speeds, and the non-homogeneity of those cores due to its mono-die design, vs. AMD's MCM (multi-chip-module) design, which can have each die binned to match others (for context, in this I am referring to SKU-vs-SKU from each manufacturer). Intel's cores are clearly of superior manufacture (better performance due to IPC & clock speed), but AMD has the better design (better economics and scalability due to MCM w/ IF). Which one will catch up to the other first? What an exciting battle we are witnessing - and implicitly participating in! The most interesting the CPU market has been in almost a decade IMHO!

[@razvandamian3286]

Always picking your Channel first for reviews and never regretting it, great job

[@David-mj7gz]

Seriously, best benchmarking channel. Excited for the Vega 28 and 32 reviews in the future!

[@FeTiProductions]

If I didn't see these vid notifications, I would've completely forgotten about Intel's 16 and 18 core lineup. Now that I've watched the video, it's back to forgetting about them. Congratulations AMD for winning the hearts of many. Just work on IPC as the years go on and you'll have nothing to fear

[@hardware64]

Man i'm laughing. What is this, 10% improvement for double the price

[@nazdhillon994]

Andrea Piras That too with 25% & 16% more power draw !

[@cannonacesw2236]

ZPM´s are the best :) Strange that some games are very weak when amd cpu´s are paired with nvidia gpu´s... I might think there is something in the bush^^

[@sushobhanmanna3950]

1950x is the best cpu for its price.. Great job AMD... ❤️❤️❤️

[@Najvalsa]

Depending on your needs.

[@kurosumomo]

I was expecting something like this, Intel kept the performance and gouging crown, luckily for us we have AMD in the mix this time around so we can pick a bit less performance for a lot less money, where the years before we really didn't have this option and as Steve said, AMD is the only one with ECC support and I really don't understand what Intel was thinking with that one. All in all, I'm happy AMD is back in the game and not very far behind at all, thanks for the review Steve.

[@TheFNProductionz]

Well they needed to keep the Xeon processors alive, though it's still a stupid decision nonetheless.

[@clansome]

Who can say on their Personal Gaming Computer they really need ECC support though and don't forget the extra you have to pay for it ?

[@kurosumomo]

Who would buy Threadripper or Skylake-X for gaming?

[@Godlyhank]

I am calling it. AMDs 2 dud core clusters in the 16 core will soon be filled for a 24 and 32 core unit at 7980XE price...perhaps. Gotta love competition though, looks what amd being back in the game has done. :)

[@OscarRobbing]

Nah no way - you can get the legit Epyc 32 core at the price, and the Epyc mobos have double the everything else. There's no reason for AMD to do it - not that they definitely won't, but if I was them I wouldn't: the 1950x wrecks Intel anyway (especially in value and efficiency)

[@Godlyhank]

Your right about no reason tbh, AMD have still won on price effectiveness and power effectiveness, i think unless you a millionaire or juse a hardcore intel fan, TR is still the king of professional CPU work, as price is a important factor especially for businesses.

[@Demon09-_-]

O.O how would we cool that thing the normal 1950x is allready pretty toasty

[@smokeydops]

And that business is going to specify ECC memory. And then Intel workstations will not even be considered. Or maybe they specify X number of PCI-E devices, and realize that number can be accommodated with less TR systems than Intel systems.

[@Godlyhank]

Damien well they already have epyc 32 core units that can cool. So I guess they would drop the frequency a bit. And for the price of Intel top i9 you are stepping in epyc territory tbh

[@ΘΑΦΑΣΤΣΟΥΡΙΕΣ]

100% up price for 15% better performance..that is HILARIOUS...OMG INTEL..I think that is a prouf that AMD is the KING at high end

[@Kris_M]

12:45 TR 275 watts -> 257 watts

[@Siflo]

that's were you see how powerfull infinty fabric is. Im pretty sure AMD wouldn't have achieved that price perf ratio without that technology who allow them to produce only one type of die for all of their processor, and so to pull down the prices. Big shoutout to the engineers behind it.

[@JhustineProvido]

damn. AMD rekt intel with Threadripper. the price difference is too much

[@BrianH1988]

You guys are fast becoming my go-to for this sort of information. It's hard to argue you guys do anything other than genuine benchmarks and you keep a level head explaining what it all means succinctly. Professional to your core, and hard not to appreciate the results and the ethos backed with commitment that made them happen.

[@husseindaher4680]

64>44 pcie lanes

[@abigailpatridge2948]

And ECC > no ECC.

[@winfieldk6692]

And AMD>Intel.

[@SWEbear021]

free RAID>pay for RAID support

[@anujgupta3397]

Hussein Daher low temp>higher temp

[@anujgupta3397]

Hussein Daher 4 glued processors>shitty single piece of hotcake

[@d370ur]

This was a damn good video man. Your videos are longer, but packed with so much in depth information. Keep it up

[@kevinshen]

Intel employee here (don't kill me I work on Intel's data center group I don't make the prices for these processors). AMD Threadripper is just so appealing on price... until you consider the 50% Intel Employee Discount. 500 dollar 7900X is just too value.

[@Hardwareunboxed]

ROFL

[@kevinshen]

Still haven't gotten one... thermals still have me nervous lol. Keep up the great work with the insane number and thoroughness of the tests you do!

[@mdd1963]

Now we know how much typical markup is, eh? :)

[@kevinshen]

Processor cost for intel is probably similar to Apple for their products...

[@winfieldk6692]

ke shen Even the intel employee recommends AMD...

[@AwesomePossum510]

I think that for regular users who would use a normal AIO liquid cooler in a closed case, the Intel chips won't boost as high as in this test while such cooling would be sufficient for the 1950X. The real life performance of the Intel chips might even be worse than the AMD part!

[@SKRlTY]

inb4 32-core threadripper 6k CB points!

[@BigHeadClan]

Nice work Steve, I enjoyed your Star Gate reference at the end. :)

[@seanmurtagh7145]

15:08 Was that a Stargate reference?

[@KanokYT]

Indeed

[@quantumdot7393]

i am feeling less confident now about the 12 core intel matching the 16 core amd maybe u were right steve about the 14 core still interested in seeing those benchmarks. also the 18 core really hit the point of diminishing return hard i don't see the point of it over the 16 core.

[@L0rd_0f_War]

A very thorough (and good) review as always. I am yet to see a more thorough review of hardware on any other tech channel lately (except sometimes Gamers Nexus gets even more technical with some stuff). I like how you tested various Graphics Cards to give a better picture of how the CPUs perform when certain hardware is changed.

[@alexalcalaortiz368]

my fx 8350 is crying

[@ProStateExaminer]

Mine is crying with yours

[@TheRanscat]

Really? Mine is holding up pretty well as an space heater.

[@alexalcalaortiz368]

thats weird mine does not get to 50c unless i overclock it to 5Ghz

[@TheRanscat]

alex alcala ortiz don't show off your silicon lottery, I lost mine big time.

[@thewaytoneverify]

My 8320 is weeping as well. But I have to stick it out with the old girl for one more year.

[@andrebachmann1475]

Thanks for the review! I giggled on the Stargate reference. :D

[@abigailpatridge2948]

Heehee. I wasn't the only one to notice it! Though he said it wrong. Zed PM. Not Zed PM Module. The latter is equiv to saying "Zed Point Module Module". Of course, it's actually Zero Point Module, but yeah. The characters on the show when shortening it always just said "Zed PM". They didn't tag an extra Module to the end!

[@andrebachmann1475]

That is correct, and Steve's commentary on the price-performance ratio at the end about Handbrake and Premiere Pro is exactly the other way around to the graphs (he speaks about Handbrake and we see the Premiere Pro graph, then he speaks about Premiere Pro and we see the Handbrake graph). But hey, he is only a single man! I don't think he has a giant editor personal to throw at his videos.

[@MaTtRoSiTy]

Great to see your sub count has risen by 60k since I started watching not that long ago. This channel is arguably in the top 5 of all tech YT channels. I watch EVERY vid, which I don't tend to do with 99% of my subs (RandomGaminginHD is probably the only other that I watch every vid)

[@emdea]

The ZPM bit got my brain to freeze for a couple of seconds then i remembered stargate ^^

[@westyk52sparky]

overclocked benchmarks too. you really put the work in.

[@vamrick]

This channel is always my first watch of all the techers i follow due to your deep dive for benchmarks!

[@AjrAlves]

Wow, RX Vega 64 LC is closer to GTX 1080Ti than before or it is just my impression?

[@andrewh4350]

The performance of that 7980XE in video games was pretty terrible... Like Steve said, it lacks the ECC memory support useful for productive tasks. On top of that it seriously lacks performance when it comes to video gaming. What exactly is the purpose of this CPU? The 8700k looks like it'll be Intel's real flagship, I guess?

[@abigailpatridge2948]

It's entire purpose in existing is so Intel has the fastest multithreaded desktop processor... No matter the cost or impracticality of product placement. Having the fastest, but completely impractical processor, moves all the lower shit that's at least a little less impractical due to the network effect it has on the entire brand.

[@DeadAimKillah]

I mean, look at when they announced all the Titan cards, people ate it up and bought Nvidia based on this very princable without realizing it doesn't directly affect them since they can't afford it and most game devs might use it sure, but consoles first pc second.

[@Najvalsa]

The 8700K at best will match the 7700K in gaming, but will lose out overall since some games don't like more than 4 cores, and R7 will beat it in production both in terms of price/performance and performance in general.

[@NoahNasi]

I mean, probably streaming 4K 144hz games? Everything it can do that isn't ultra extreme, the 7920X and 1950X do it for a $1,000 less.

[@N0N0111]

16:53 i7-7820X is the underdog good overclock performer, it hits THE perfect match for Gaming and productivity! And coupled with very fast DDR4 4000 it gives killer performance!

[@tuhin619]

Superb review Steve. this is how benchmarks are done, covering all aspects unlike other tech youtube channels with selective benchmarks.

[@emilsjogren4920]

1950X and AMD the true winner this year. Too bad they still can't get their revenue in check to keep the growth.

[@AntiZippo]

Steve, you should do a CUDA VS SP comparison, take a 1080 TI and a Vega 56 and clock them to the same speed, and try to achieve the same memory bandwidth to see which one performs the best. Also is it possible to SLI the old Titan XP and the new Titan Xp, can't seem to find any answers online.

[@magottyk]

Looking at your setup, it looks like you've got the intel CPU's in the best light with the cooling being a custom loop and 360 radiator. Which of course begs the question given that cooling now affects stock performance, will the stock scores for the CPU's be maintained when using a lesser cooling solution which could affect the operating frequency of all cores at stock via turbo 2. The stock 7980XE scores lower than the 1950X per core by the cinebench score, and the 7960X actually looks to be the top performer out of these 3 on a per core basis with that benchmark. With 184/189/196 cb per core respectively at stock. I'd very much like to see how these chips do perform with a 240AIO and while it can be argued that people buying these chips will look for more adequate cooling, a 240AIO would probably be the lowest common denominator for water cooled solutions, especially on Threadripper. Given that noctua make the NH-U14S for both platforms, an air cooled test will be most interesting with this cooler. Getting 4.1GHz on the 7980XE was more than I expected and looking at the power draw, it's probably getting towards throttling with a custom loop at that frequency and is this a 24/7 recommended overclock?

[@akaltar]

Gotta love the ZPM Stargate reference! :D

[@Afroduck91]

I really wouldn't be able to justify an extra 1000usd for those performance gains. All of my systems have always been bang for buck but always slightly higher on pricing. When I eventually replace my 3930k, it'll be with Threadripper.

[@123etgwbvgdcfawsfr]

The fade in at 1:28 was very nicely done

[@Hardwareunboxed]

Thanks mate. Took a bit of messing around ;)

[@xos]

I didn't expect any of the high end CPUs to fall directly on the price vs. performance lines. Quite impressive on AMD's part, in my opinion.

[@jdtechgear]

I absolutely love your thorough analysis, highly appreciated Steve. Great work!

[@daveninjaneuro7089]

so @4.1, the 7980xe was around 77 degrees with the custom cooling? Pulling over 500 watts. Yikes. Do you have an article detailing your custom water cooling?

[@Hardwareunboxed]

+Dave Ninjaneuro same setup from the 7900X overclocking video. More details there.

[@daveninjaneuro7089]

Hardware Unboxed awesome thanks!

[@skitballesnorapa]

"A fuck it, lets release the 32 core Threadfucker!" - Lisa Su

[@bassbatterer]

Also just a bit of feedback for you to think about, when doing the gaming benchmarks you ought to be running 4k, this is a workstation where the person who uses this system is very likely doing something like 4k video editing and so they're not guna downscale their game res from their monitors native res.

[@Hardwareunboxed]

I want to be taken seriously when it comes to benchmarking :) But thanks for the feedback.

[@jacob9hawkes]

Those performance per dollar charts are fantastic, so useful! Excellent review as always.

[@klontjespap]

yeah, these don't doesn't seem to be really worth the price premium over TR 1950x :D

[@MadGamin]

WOW! Nice to have you back AMD! GG. and thank you Hardware Unboxed for the plots, and review.

[@807800]

Well, 1950X is quite impressive there, in performance and power draw. all AMD need are better AVX and higher clock speed, hopefully ZEN 2 would deliver that!.

[@suiton20]

I wonder what is more cost effective and productive, having 2 ryzen 1700 clocked at 3.8-4ghz PCs for multiple workloads or a single threadripper 1950x at 3.8-4 ghz pc.

[@abigailpatridge2948]

Depends what you're trying to do.

[@suiton20]

Abigail Patridge I did a pcpartpicker test and threadripper ended up being cheaper than 2 ryzen systems with similar parts by roughly $300

[@RodrigoSantos-qh7se]

Here I am watching videos of stuff I'll never buy anyway. Still, amazing job, Steve!

[@Hon2838]

15:13,Star Gate!

[@emp.splash]

Definitely a mixed bag of results for these Skylake-X CPUs. Not the slam-dunk victory some rags claimed it was. Threadripper won here and there, was better at gaming (at least in the set of games mentioned here) and delivered lower power consumption. Not even going to mention the price. Honestly, Skylake-X only makes Threadripper look better.

[@ChristianSamsel]

X299 bad? Bought a 7820X for Photo editing and gaming and this video shows I made the right choice.

[@WASWERTYU]

what would the power consumption with two vega 64's and the XE be over 1000 watts?

[@Hardwareunboxed]

Yeah easily over 1000 watts if you loaded them all up.

[@Trinescity]

i thank amd for blessing me with threadripper when i was planning my build.

[@GglSux]

I'm still wondering what was up with the "massive changes" in performance that occurred in some of the game benchmarks when You switched to the "VEGA". Did You change any settings from running with the 1080Ti?? Best regards.

[@eddieneedsboost]

Hypothetically if games were 100% optimized for these higher core count CPUs how much of a performance increase would a 16 core CPU have over an 8 core CPU at the same clockspeeds ?

[@PixelTwitch]

While I understand that OC numbers vary massively due to a range of factors. It is important to note that you appear to have the worst OC numbers from all the reviews so far that have included OC numbers. I would have been interested in seeing the price - performance results with decent OC numbers included. Apart from that I found the review fairly useful so thanks.

[@Hardwareunboxed]

I didn't focus on overclocking and I said I didn't pushed the CPU has hard as I could have. I overclocked the 7980XE to 4.1 GHz, noted the temps and power consumption and thought given the setup I have there is no way many people will run these things higher for 24/7 usage. I mean come on look at the power consumption. I made the mistake of pushing the 7900X to 4.7 GHz and it was horrible. I wish I showed consumption and thermals at 4.5 GHz with less voltage for that review.

[@PixelTwitch]

I appreciate that and I also appreciate the limited time that reviews had with the product. However, from someone that is "using" these reviews, I have been very frustrated with the industry as a whole when it comes to these processors in particular. To be fair, maybe its because I am sat here with the money trying to work out what to buy, its just no one has covered even a fraction of the information I as someone looking to get one of these chips is actually interested in. Like now I have to compare a 4.1 OC to a 4.3 OC on both chips... Some reviews point to problems in adobe at above 4.2. Not a single person has done SLI scaling tests, Usage scenario tests or clock to clock tests with 7700k. Sorry, Just ranting at this point. EDIT: If it was me personally doing these sorts of videos, I would aim all OC to be 10degrees below a cpus TJ Max

[@TheFNProductionz]

So basically, for overall performance: Threadripper > i9 R7 > i7 R5 > i5 R3 > i3 AMD is winning big time this year, and I doubt coffee lake will change the situation much unless Intel drops their current business tactics.

[@andrewbenson6316]

For the the extra grand, you'd be able to upgrade a gpu or throw another gpu in most of these systems for actual productivity

[@MrMr-of1ql]

I could never be an enthusiast, not because of the price, but more for that power draw. Is the slight increase in performance truly worth it when the power consumption is so high? Great video by the way!

[@LimitIsIllusion]

Well if you aren't an enthusiast, then these CPUs won't be drawing all that power. None of them will

[@sebacorp]

What is the WinRAR benchmark score of 7960x and 7980XE ???

[@andrecostin1288]

7820x still seems decent value, but hard to get enthusiastic vs threadripper with its ridiculous socket just way more cool factor.

[@lancebasler1435]

At around the 13 minute mark you state the 1950X total draw was 275, but the chart shows 257. Could you tell me which one is correct?

[@Hardwareunboxed]

The graph is correct.

[@GundamTech]

Stargate Universe!

[@cannonacesw2236]

SG1 and Atlantis

[@abigailpatridge2948]

SG1 was the best. Atlantis was okay. Universe was when they had run out of ideas but still wanted to keep it going because it had a cult following by then. Nobody actually watched more than a few episodes of Universe, which is why it got cancelled early.

[@cannonacesw2236]

Universe season1 is crap. I think in the second it is getting far better. Would´ve liked to see season 3 ;)

[@GundamTech]

You have to use zpm (zero power module) to power the chevron

[@bilko5769]

SG-1 was where ZPMs were first mentioned, Atlantis was were they were popularised.

[@NoahNasi]

What happened to the 7940X?

[@metamancer2775]

Wow, seems like the 1950X is a much better purchase.

[@WJK2397]

im not being bias but if money is the issue, i would take amd and spend the extra money on gpu or ssd..u save a lot.rather than buy the 7960 or 7980x, better buy the 7900x, same as 1950x tr and save ur money too.its just that the vrm on the x299 mobo still have problm when oc..hopefully they rectify the problem ASAP. nice review as always.

[@beardninja5029]

And now we wait for Threadripper 1980X.

[@tehdave192]

hey Steve, can you share that sheet for the monte carlo simulation?

[@chefgeraldm3]

Double the power draw of Threadripper and these cpu's have to be delidded and the TIM replaced with liquid metal if you plan on 24/7 overclocking otherwise you will hit thermal throttling.

[@flaviosalatino8192]

Great video as always Steve, you are a tank with the benchmarks! I would love to see in the followings video: 1) those monsters overclocked higher, to see what kind of power draw, temperature and performance you get. 2) amd 1950x with vega and the 1080ti, cause those results are very interesting

[@Nabekukka]

ZPM modules? Did you just make a Stargate reference? If you know where I could get myself one, do me a favor and yank my sleeve, because I WANT ONE.

[@tarkett8529]

I would like to see temps done with the nh 14 considering the 1950x cools remarkably well on air. Again if the i9's need water that's another + price-performance for threadripper.

[@Zoranurai13]

So basically the 7960X and 7980XE overclocked will turn your mobo on fire?

[@technologu]

excel 2016 uses more than 4 gb of ram in these tests?

[@channel20122012]

1950x is still the best.

[@mdd1963]

WHo'd have thought a $1000 cpu would win a 'best bang for the buck/value' award? :)

[@hdshovelhead6419]

Ahh my benchmark fix .I really like the price to performance chart ,cool idea . Gadzooks some of these cpu's are just out of my reach price wise.Thanks Steve