Intel "Cascade Lake-X" HEDT CPU Lineup Starts at 10-core, Core i9-10900X Geekbenched

[thesmokingman]

I dont know that side or how reliable it is. But a test with I7 980X oc to 4.4 ghz done by techspot. Shows it is not slow as hell compared to New cpu's but neither is it the top dog Any more. Well it shows that i will not get a 3600 now.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.techspot.com/amp/article/1666-old-1000-cpu-vs-budget-ryzen/

Hmm, I'm not sure what you saw, but the 980x at 4.4 even is at the bottom of the those charts on almost all the test. A Ryzen 3 2200 is an 85 dollar bottom barrel chip. It's not even a current gen chip anymore at that. A current Ryzen 5 3600x will be such a massive upgrade. Hell anything currently new will be a massive upgrade, including Intel.

 

[Manoa]

It's 14nm. While 10nm clocks are expected to be lower (due to it being a less mature process, and less optimized for high frequencies than the n'th iteration of 14nm they're currently using)

so whay did they make it on 14 ? if lower clocks is the best 10 can do, whay not make this multi core high desktop models on 10 in the first place ?
or are you saying that if it was on 10 it would be worse ?

 

[Tomgang]

Phoronix is what I consider the authority when it comes to reviews in the Linux ecosystem. My point though is that a modern 6c CPU can easily be twice as fast as your 980X or my 3930k. Honestly, it's a motivator for me to upgrade... and honestly, it's about time considering the 3930k was released 8 years ago. Also consider power consumption. In most tests it eats the most power and performs near the bottom, so there's that too.

I dont use Linux, but i see your point. If i go the route with a temporary CPU. I think i will be better of with a used ryzen 2600 CPU them as it is temporary Any way and a used CPU will not have nearly a big value loss than a New CPU would have.

Hmm, I'm not sure what you saw, but the 980x at 4.4 even is at the bottom of the those charts on almost all the test. A Ryzen 3 2200 is an 85 dollar bottom barrel chip. It's not even a current gen chip anymore at that. A current Ryzen 5 3600x will be such a massive upgrade. Hell anything currently new will be a massive upgrade, including Intel.

My pointe is that in many test its pretty close to a stock ryzen 5 1600 CPU and by that, i cant get My self to buy a 3600 CPU for temporary use. Only if x58 gives up on life, then i would be forced to do something. And Even then i thing as a temporary CPU a used ryzen 2600 is a better choise as that cost less used and will have less value loss.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

I dont use Linux, but i see your point. If i go the route with a temporary CPU. I think i will be better of with a used ryzen 2600 CPU them as it is temporary Any way and a used CPU will not have nearly a big value loss than a New CPU would have.



My pointe is that in many test its pretty close to a stock ryzen 5 1600 CPU and by that, i cant get My self to buy a 3600 CPU for temporary use. Only if x58 gives up on life, then i would be forced to do something. And Even then i thing as a temporary CPU a used ryzen 2600 is a better choise as that cost less used and will have less value loss.

For someone who wants to upgrade, you are coming up with a LOT of excuses for not beginning investment in a new platform, even when you are shown how far behind your current setup is.

Look at your own Techspot link. Outside of ZIP file extraction, the 1600 is a noticeable bump in every way from the OCed i7 980X. In games, the minimum of the 1600 is often tied or higher then the average for the i7. The 3600 is a massive improvement in every way from the 1600.

Just buy yourself a 3600, enjoy the huge boost in performance, then buy the 3950X or the 4000 series 16 core chip when they release next year.

 

[Manoa]

you have to understand 980X costed him alote of money

 

[thesmokingman]

you have to understand 980X costed him alote of money

He should have sold it years ago when it was worth something then. I dunno, or maybe hold onto it another 30 years and maybe it will be worth something again?

 

[biffzinker]

you have to understand 980X costed him alote of money

I would say the investment paid for itself over the eight years of ownership.

 

[Valantar]

so whay did they make it on 14 ? if lower clocks is the best 10 can do, whay not make this multi core high desktop models on 10 in the first place ?
or are you saying that if it was on 10 it would be worse ?

Plenty of reasons:
-10nm is an immature node, so producing large dice (such as HEDT chips) will result in lower yields - and with the current HEDT market, there's nothing Intel can do with harvested dice with 8 or less functioning cores.
-10nm at this point has far lower production capacity than 14nm. These HEDT dice are also used for Xeon chips, which sell in massive volumes. They likely wouldn't be able to meet demands.
-Intel seems to be reserving 10nm for chips that also have architectural improvements - whether that is to ensure the arch makes the most of the node, or simply to keep die sizes small with mobile chips is impossible to say. But they have so far not launched any Skylake refreshes on 10nm, so they seem unwilling to do so - likely because they would dramatically underperform their 14nm counterparts due to lower clocks.
-and so on.

 

[Ruru]

No i will not Bay a measly 6 core now, then i already have one now. X58 CPU is not 4 threads. All x58 CPU's has hyper threading. Means All CPU for x58 is 4 core/8 threads or 6 core/12 threads and My i7 980X is a 6 core/12 threads CPU.

Nope. There are single and dual core Xeons, as well Xeons without HT for LGA1366.

 

[Chrispy_]

I dont use Linux, but i see your point. If i go the route with a temporary CPU. I think i will be better of with a used ryzen 2600 CPU them as it is temporary Any way and a used CPU will not have nearly a big value loss than a New CPU would have.

Yes, you're right about that. A Ryzen 5 2600 on some kind of clearance deal would be better value if you're truly only buying it as a temporary CPU. The 2200G isn't a bad stopgap, either, for around $50 less than even a 2600.

My pointe is that in many test its pretty close to a stock ryzen 5 1600 CPU and by that, i cant get My self to buy a 3600 CPU for temporary use. Only if x58 gives up on life, then i would be forced to do something. And Even then i thing as a temporary CPU a used ryzen 2600 is a better choise as that cost less used and will have less value loss.

What's your use case? If you're doing things that are dominated by single-core performance, the industry hasn't moved on as fast as any of us would have hoped in the last decade.
In saying that, modern Intel 9000-series and Ryzen 3000-series have roughly similar IPC which is about 50% higher than the IPC of your 980X.

• If your 980X is stock-clocked at 3.6GHz single-core boost, a 3600 will be (4.2/3.6)*1.5 = 75% faster.
• If your 980X is at 4.4GHz, a 3600 will be (4.2/4.4)*1.5 = 43% faster.

...and those are the worst-case, single-thread improvements. Current Intel Hyperthreading is better than old Nehalem Hyperthreading, and AMD's SMT is better than either, so on top of the extra 43-75% performance, you'd also be getting six SMT threads that add around 30% more performance (compared to your Nehalem's 15%). If you want an approximate figure for how much the real world difference is, those Phoronix charts are pretty accurate in my experience. You'd also get more cache, more RAM bandwidth, PCIe 3.0, NVMe support, USB3.1 and USB-C, UEFI boot support, XMP support, and a CPU that isn't hindered by Spectre/Meltdown/Zombieload/Foreshadow mitigation patches. If you believe the experts, Intel hyperthreading should be disabled altogether!

 

[Tomgang]

Phoronix is what I consider the authority when it comes to reviews in the Linux ecosystem. My point though is that a modern 6c CPU can easily be twice as fast as your 980X or my 3930k. Honestly, it's a motivator for me to upgrade... and honestly, it's about time considering the 3930k was released 8 years ago. Also consider power consumption. In most tests it eats the most power and performs near the bottom, so there's that too.

No douts these old chips are power hungry, specially when overclock. I am as well motivated for an upgrade, just not to

For someone who wants to upgrade, you are coming up with a LOT of excuses for not beginning investment in a new platform, even when you are shown how far behind your current setup is.

Look at your own Techspot link. Outside of ZIP file extraction, the 1600 is a noticeable bump in every way from the OCed i7 980X. In games, the minimum of the 1600 is often tied or higher then the average for the i7. The 3600 is a massive improvement in every way from the 1600.

Just buy yourself a 3600, enjoy the huge boost in performance, then buy the 3950X or the 4000 series 16 core chip when they release next year.

3600 is a good gaming CPU, but only for gaming. Not for streaming while gaming, serious multi taskning and so on. 3600 is and will al ways only be a temporary solution. There is a reason for why i want a 3950X over the lower end parts of ryzen. I want a CPU there can handle multi tasking like i game while i stream and record at the same time and after can convert the video fast while i still game.

you have to understand 980X costed him alote of money

I7 980X dit not cost me much money. I buy it used 3 years ago. Before that i had a I7 920.

Nope. There are single and dual core Xeons, as well Xeons without HT for LGA1366.

Yes for xeons there are. I whas talking about desktop I7 chips.

Yes, you're right about that. A Ryzen 5 2600 on some kind of clearance deal would be better value if you're truly only buying it as a temporary CPU. The 2200G isn't a bad stopgap, either, for around $50 less than even a 2600.



What's your use case? If you're doing things that are dominated by single-core performance, the industry hasn't moved on as fast as any of us would have hoped in the last decade.
In saying that, modern Intel 9000-series and Ryzen 3000-series have roughly similar IPC which is about 50% higher than the IPC of your 980X.

• If your 980X is stock-clocked at 3.6GHz single-core boost, a 3600 will be (4.2/3.6)*1.5 = 75% faster.
• If your 980X is at 4.4GHz, a 3600 will be (4.2/4.4)*1.5 = 43% faster.

...and those are the worst-case, single-thread improvements. Current Intel Hyperthreading is better than old Nehalem Hyperthreading, and AMD's SMT is better than either, so on top of the extra 43-75% performance, you'd also be getting six SMT threads that add around 30% more performance (compared to your Nehalem's 15%). If you want an approximate figure for how much the real world difference is, those Phoronix charts are pretty accurate in my experience. You'd also get more cache, more RAM bandwidth, PCIe 3.0, NVMe support, USB3.1 and USB-C, UEFI boot support, XMP support, and a CPU that isn't hindered by Spectre/Meltdown/Zombieload/Foreshadow mitigation patches. If you believe the experts, Intel hyperthreading should be disabled altogether!

Ryzen 5 2600 will for sure only be a temperary use. 2200G is apselutely no go with only 4 cores and 4 threads. That will nok give a good gamings exsperience. For gaming 4 cores/8 threads is minimum and 6 core/12 threads is the optimal today.

My use case right now is gaming as the old CPU cant handle more than that. But that is about to changes, as i am planing to stream and record my gamings and as well convert video and have the power to serious multitask again. So 3600 is for sure not the permanent solution for me.

 

[cucker tarlson]

unless they're about to slash prices in half,don't nobody care about skylake cores in late 2019

 

[Renald]

Finnally this fits.

I dont think intels 10000 series offer has Any thing better than ryzen 9 3950X, besides the 18 core maybe, but all depending on price. So far 3950X is still My choise of CPU.

Technically, it fits since 9000 series, because the english version is not using the right number. But the meme is made under a false translation.
It's 8000 in all other languages

Interestingly, it seems only English, Hindi and Croatian versions have this change

 

[Vlada011]

I still believe demand for these processors will be lowest in modern history of Intel.
We will see significant number of people who deny reality but globally Intel will suffer from lowest demand last 10 years.

 

[Chrispy_]

My use case right now is gaming as the old CPU cant handle more than that. But that is about to changes, as i am planing to stream and record my gamings and as well convert video and have the power to serious multitask again. So 3600 is for sure not the permanent solution for me.

The AM4 platform has legs, so buy a decent motherboard and RAM kit, like a 3600CL16 kit.

Gaming and streaming work great on a $329 3700X today. Serious multi-tasking really isn't a problem with 16 threads at your disposal, Streaming/Encoding are down to the graphics card unless you're doing a multi-pass x265 encode for maximum compression, at which point it's an overnight job on either a 3950X or a lowly 3600 regardless of which model you have.

I guess the main thing we're trying to point out is that Waiting for a $750 chip to arrive and then pay the premium tax because of low availability isn't a good use of your time or money. Buy a mainstream chip today that is 90% as good as the best thing available right now and use it for a few years. You'll have $500 in the kitty ready to spend on whatever's good in three years time. You can pretty much guarantee that the 3950X won't look as impressive by then, anyway.

I still believe demand for these processors will be lowest in modern history of Intel.
We will see significant number of people who deny reality but globally Intel will suffer from lowest demand last 10 years.

Intel won't care. Their HEDT lineup are just rejects they can't sell as server chips anyway. There's relatively little profit in the HEDT lineup compared to selling those dies as Xeons, and the chances are good that they're just taking away a 9900K sale (or whatever the equivalent mainstream socket will be in 2020). Intel are selling these chips solely because it's better than throwing the Xeon rejects in the trash.

 

[kapone32]

For me the most important thing for this launch is whether Intel will continue the new CPU new board argument. If they maintain support for X299 and price these chips accordingly they could actually do really well. There are plenty of X299 users out there.

 

[Yttersta]

Threadripper will eat it. I don't like being nihilistic but i think that we're at the point of no return on this one, on this generation. The core advantage with TR will easily allow it to plow Intel's refreshed-yet-again Skylake-X CPUs where this platform is aimed at - multicore applications.

I'm on the x299 platform right now - bad decisions two year ago me - and to be frank, I wouldn't mind a 10% clock per clock increase from where I am now, assuming I can actually get to the same clocks as I do right now and that is a huuuge if; but it would help a lot in some of the work I do on this machine. Currently I get 4.8Ghz easily on all cores from the 7800x, I could drop that to 4.6, gain a few more threads and not lose much on single threaded workload then, that sounds alright to me without a platform change...

... given that it costs competitively enough.

I mean, Ryzen 3 3800x is better both in single and in multithreaded workloads than my well overclocked and delidded-otherwise-fire CPU. If Intel offers such a pricing that for that extra few threads on the new x299 CPUs would cost me as much as 3800x + AM4 board, then yeah, no upgrade for me there thank you.

 

[Chrispy_]

my well overclocked and delidded-otherwise-fire CPU.

I know that's a typo but it makes sense as it is with the old x299 platform