Intel Core i9-10980XE Cascade Lake-X Benchmarks
Click here to post a comment for Intel Core i9-10980XE Cascade Lake-X Benchmarks on our message forum
nizzen
Testet Cinebench R20 now with 7980xe @ 4700mhz, it got 10910points.
10980xe is going to be a bit faster than this when overclocked.
7980xe overclocked has 25% lower latency than overclocked 3900x, so 3950x don't stand a chance in pure performance. But if running Cinebench R20 @ stock clock is all you are doing, then 3950x is a good choice 😀
nevcairiel
You do know that higher clocks and higher IPC are two parts to the same goal, more speed per core, right?
If you increase IPC by 50% but reduce clocks by the same amount, then your CPU isn't actually faster, its just the same. Why not increase both, or at least maintain the high clocks we have now, for an actual proper increase in performance.
What one should care about is actual final performance, it ultimately doesn't matter as much how its being achieved.
For consumers at least, the core wars might as well be over. It'll take years, possibly a decade, for consumer software to catch up and fully and properly utilize 12-16 cores.
nizzen
Thank you 🙂
I love poor noobs to 🙂
Kaarme
How many are going to delid 1000+ euros CPUs, though, when even Der8auer, the maker of delidding tools, can break a CPU when delidding it using his own tool? That being said, I'm sure the 10980xe will overclock decently even without risking breaking it, unless Intel again used toothpaste as TIM. Nonetheless, your example will definitely not be the average example. In fact I'd agree with the other guy who said most buyers won't even overclock. They will just want to get to work. This is why I think good reviews are made using stock values and then there could be an overclocking section separately like Guru3D tends to have. Individual CPUs will overclock differently anyway, so what you read in a review might not reflect your particular reality, in good or bad. If you only review using a good overclock, what are you going to do when people come to you complaining they can't achieve anywhere near those clocks and your review is thus nonsense?
TLD LARS
On the 7980xe and 9980xe 18 core, 4.4 Ghz will put you in the 400-500W power range, that is not something you just setup if you are bored during 1 or 2 hours.
You need a serous PSU, motherboard and Watercooler to reach those numbers and on top of that some people needed to delid, sand down IHS and mount cooling fans on VRM, to keep the pc alive for more then 10 minuttes of load at the time.
It does not look like there is much difference between 9980xe and 10980xe on paper, so in my head the 10980xe only exists to not piss off 9980xe owners too much because the price is now lowered.
N0Name
I see a loot of people say that Intel can OC but reminder here not all of them do OC. My i9-7900X delid with copper IHS can't hit 4.5GHz on all cores (only 4 can do that).
Keep in mind that these new CPUs will have in hardware mitigations for some of the many issues that plague Intel platform so IMHO they will run slower compared to previous gen running same clock.
Platform cost is something that is missing in talk here. AMD can probably run nicely on AIO or air (level of NH-D15 cooling) vs Intel + custom liquid (for these 4.7/4.8 GHz on 18 cores). So platform cost is much higher on Intel platform. And yes I do understand that top of the line performance cost premium.
If those benchmarks are mixture of stock and OC CPUs, are not representative. I do like this kind of tests but only when each setup is described with I don't see here.
I'm on x299 platform and with all these 2x performance per $ increase on Intel side I still consider TR platform. AMD did great job with Zen and, at least as MT is concerned, Intel has nothing to combat against high end AMD offerings.
MegaFalloutFan
Actually x299 is cheaper then x570 when you compare same type of motehrboard, take MSI creation and compare on both chipsets, x299 is cheaper.
Also, based on THIS review if you check their web site, the 18 core beats both 3900x and 9900K in temps under load and beats 9900K in watts under load, its OVERCLOCKING MONSTER! [dont forget its 18 core and runs cooler then 12 core and 8 core and uses lets power then 8 core]
67 vs 83 for 3900x vs 94 for 9900
266W vs 252 for 3900x vs 300W for 9900K
MegaFalloutFan
Here is some hard info for AMD fanboys and just people that missed it
Based on this review if you check their web site, the 18 core beats both 3900x and 9900K in temps under load and beats 9900K in watts under load!
its OVERCLOCKING MONSTER! [dont forget its 18 core and runs cooler then 12 core and 8 core and uses less power then 8 core]
67c vs 83c for 3900x vs 94c for 9900
266w vs 252w for 3900x vs 300w for 9900K
rl66
I agree with the fact that it shine in OC,
BUT to be tested versus another CPU it has to be within the frequency it is sold for, and so STOCK.
and you might ask why: it's because a CPU compared to the same one wouln't give the same result, i remember my G3258 and the one from a friend, both from the same serie, mine were around 4.5 stock fan capable, his were 4.3 with water cooling and voltage up with the same ram and motherboard.
The only comparable thing were the stock speed, i was lucky, he wasn't.
Funny things my Athlon GE can't OC good (i am at GE 240 speed) and his seem to have no limit... the wheel of luck lol
By the way in Guru3D you always found a Stock and OC test, but the OC is only to be taken as a "where can it might go", not as exact science.
rl66
It depend what is the objective...
On track some spend insane money to get around 20 HP more over existing engine tuning, and some (as i am) have fun on track but put money in the hollyday pot too.
Same with computer some will pay some XXXX Euro more to have the best of the best even if the 2nd better choise is only few points in bench front the 1st.
If they are happy with their choise then it is good 🙂
I don't see anything bad about it.
rl66
Sorry but if you read objective test it isn't as clear as you said... even more in game...
Read the review in Guru3D of the 3800X (8c/16t) there is the I9 7960x in the list of CPU compared with this CPU.
N0Name
Is this price difference so big that I can purchase custom liquid cooling?
Dunno why it's priced that, maybe x570 is more popular then x299 (well it is no question about that).
Temps - That's why I did talked about TR and didn't mentioned desktop platform. Reason is simple - different package size for HEDT vs Desktop.
For example package size:
i9-9980X : 52.5x45mm Tj 84*C
i9-9900K : 37.5x37.5 mm Tj 100*C
So temp comparison is not really a thing here.
Power consumption - Intel HEDT tops out @ 500W mark when OCed. This rises very fast when OCed and is non linear to frequency so that's why i9K draw more then i9X (higher frequency).
I do get what You saying and In general IF one want to have FUN and OC then yeah Intel is the way and go for it. I personally look for CPU for work and if I can stable 24/7 OC it with reasonable thermals with NH-D15 then I will do it. The only problem with this OC business is that it's lottery. According to siliconlottery 90-95% i9-7900X did hit for them 4.5 on all cores one that I got don't do that so it's not 100% guarantee that when purchasing CPU I will hit those frequencies so I don't take that into account when comparing CPUs.
FlyBy
From my customer experience, Pro's that really buy such a monster machine with such an expensive CPU, lots of RAM >32GB and multiple expensive drives do not overclock, they actually spend their time working on projects trying to avoid deadlines. I estimate less than 1 in 10 would even know how to do that.
If I had to suggest such a rig as of today, I'd say wait for Threadripper or 3950X, depending on how much money one can spend and what the needs are.
Tbh, I have only recommended and sold AMD lately and none doesnt like what they got.
In my World Intel has lost faith and credibility for some time to come, but that is only my world. YEMV
I personally run a highly overclocked 8700K with a big fat DIY loop, for gaming DCS. If I had to buy new, I'd go 3700X without any hesitation.
Borys
This is the Intel... double the price to offer 15% more performance than a 3900... great job... what dumb will buy it?!?!?!
AMD FOREVER!!!
Carfax
I don't know why everyone is jumping on nizzen. The X299 platform is quite robust and flexible for the prosumer crowd, and if you use applications that can take advantage of AVX-512, it's practically unbeatable. With some overclocking, it also becomes a very capable gaming rig. I was thinking about getting the 14 core version myself, but I'm primarily a gamer so it wouldn't make much sense to get such a big CPU with a moderate IPC gain for gaming workloads. I'll just wait on the Sunny/Willow Cove version.
It's good that Intel cut the prices by such a large margin though, because that's the best way to compete when AMD is on 7nm and they're still stuck on 14.
Kaarme
Because he suggested the review doesn't give a proper image of the CPU because it wasn't delidded and overclocked to the max. Kind of like if you local newspaper writes a review of a pickup truck, before the test drive they must take it to a shop to have it heavily customised for at least 50-100 extra HP, otherwise it won't represent what the truck is really capable of (apparently fuel consumption doesn't matter). Because of course every new car buyer is going to have extensive work done on the car before they start to use it.
Denial
King at what? being overpriced? Thing is barely outperforming a 3900x for significantly more money. It's actually losing in some of these benchmarks. You sure you're looking at the same article?
Kaarme
If it is, then it is, but not until we see the numbers in other reviews. Just saying it's an engineering sample doesn't mean much. An engineering sample could be just as good as the finished CPU if nothing much is changed anymore. Also, it should be a whole lot faster than a CPU with 33% less cores. It would embarrassing if it wasn't.
Denial
Yeah, I don't buy that at all.
fry178
Just amazed that someone doing a product review, cant even keep the colors with brand/product.
If you already waste the time to show graphs in different colors (than uniform black etc), why not keep it thru the different screenshot,
so its easier to compare without having to read each "line".
