Intel Core i9-10980XE "Cascade Lake-X" Benchmarked

[MikeZTM]

8700K is 6 cores / 12 threads

9700K is 8 cores / 8 threads

apparently more threads was more beneficial for such benchmarks

PS....now I see a 9900K is in there too which is 8 cores / 16 threads....OK so 8700K beating 9900K is a bit perplexing. However, not perplexing in my initial response between 8700K and 9700K

Games usually gain more FPS when you disable HT/SMT on the CPU. Those threads are not easy to optimize and not suited for game data processing.

8700k is 6 cores so ring bus latency is 20% lower by average. Unless 8700k is limited by its 6 cores throutput, its always better than a Intel 8 core CPU. Same goes for 7700k, if game does not overwhelm a quad core then 7700k is slightly faster than a 8700k.
Next gen Intel high end 10 cores only make this situation worse.

The problem for Intel right now is more core == less gaming performance.

This is their fault in architecture, AMD does not affected by this. Each CCX is a 7700k equivalence and can enjoy low latency. For old games 1CCX is enough so Ryzen will act like a 7700k. For newer games they can group threads into group of 4 and make them run on different CCX to minimize cross CCX latency. And AMD is trying to improve that by adding a larger cache to the CCX.

 

[Patriot]

A lot of reviewers include old results with a handy * saying we didn't re-run with spectre/meltdown/zombieload/md---- mitigations.

 

[skizzo]

Games usually gain more FPS when you disable HT/SMT on the CPU. Those threads are not easy to optimize and not suited for game data processing.

8700k is 6 cores so ring bus latency is 20% lower by average. Unless 8700k is limited by its 6 cores throutput, its always better than a Intel 8 core CPU. Same goes for 7700k, if game does not overwhelm a quad core then 7700k is slightly faster than a 8700k.
Next gen Intel high end 10 cores only make this situation worse.

The problem for Intel right now is more core == less gaming performance.

This is their fault in architecture, AMD does not affected by this. Each CCX is a 7700k equivalence and can enjoy low latency. For old games 1CCX is enough so Ryzen will act like a 7700k. For newer games they can group threads into group of 4 and make them run on different CCX to minimize cross CCX latency. And AMD is trying to improve that by adding a larger cache to the CCX.

thanks for an explanation, however now you gotta tell me what the heck is CCX?

and no thanks (jk) for worrying me about waiting for comet lake. the yet to be released 10 core / 20 thread Intel CPU. I've been holding out for the new Z490 series chipsets and 10 core / 20 thread CPU. Thinking it would be just that much better for gaming. Though, I use my workstation as an audio workstation running Pro Tools, but also game on it just as much. So I'm trying to upgrade into a system that still gives me the best of both worlds.

 

[Patriot]

thanks for an explanation, however now you gotta tell me what the heck is CCX?

and no thanks (jk) for worrying me about waiting for comet lake. the yet to be released 10 core / 20 thread Intel CPU. I've been holding out for the new Z490 series chipsets and 10 core / 20 thread CPU. Thinking it would be just that much better for gaming. Though, I use my workstation as an audio workstation running Pro Tools, but also game on it just as much. So I'm trying to upgrade into a system that still gives me the best of both worlds.

I am curious how the DAW benchmarks will go between Threadripper and i9, it's a place where AMD struggled a bit last gen curious if the io-die helps or hurts on that situation.

 

[Octavean]

A lot of reviewers include old results with a handy * saying we didn't re-run with spectre/meltdown/zombieload/md---- mitigations.

Very good point!

 

[MikeZTM]

thanks for an explanation, however now you gotta tell me what the heck is CCX?

and no thanks (jk) for worrying me about waiting for comet lake. the yet to be released 10 core / 20 thread Intel CPU. I've been holding out for the new Z490 series chipsets and 10 core / 20 thread CPU. Thinking it would be just that much better for gaming. Though, I use my workstation as an audio workstation running Pro Tools, but also game on it just as much. So I'm trying to upgrade into a system that still gives me the best of both worlds.

CCX is AMD's core cluster on the CPU die. 1 CCX contains 4 cores in a group. Cores inside same CCX have low latency access.

And 10 core comet lake will not be something you really want. According to current testing with more core count, 10 core will have worse performance in gemming compared to 9900k.

Intel switched to "mesh" bus for Xeon and HEDT with Skylake-X just because ringbus doesn't hold up.

 

[pantti]

8700k just was without a outdated bios. I was just debugging similar performance issue just to discover some of company computers were on old bios and performance was way better than in the IT test lab. 2017-2019 security penalty is well over 20%

 

[efikkan]

Games usually gain more FPS when you disable HT/SMT on the CPU. Those threads are not easy to optimize and not suited for game data processing.

Games may be affected negatively by SMT due to latency issues. While the OS scheduler controls which threads share a core, the CPU itself is fully in control about when it switches them. From the application there is really not much to "optimize", other than controlling thread count and possibly setting affinity and priority.

8700k is 6 cores so ring bus latency is 20% lower by average. Unless 8700k is limited by its 6 cores throutput, its always better than a Intel 8 core CPU. Same goes for 7700k, if game does not overwhelm a quad core then 7700k is slightly faster than a 8700k.
Next gen Intel high end 10 cores only make this situation worse.

The problem for Intel right now is more core == less gaming performance.

And 10 core comet lake will not be something you really want. According to current testing with more core count, 10 core will have worse performance in gemming compared to 9900k.

Intel switched to "mesh" bus for Xeon and HEDT with Skylake-X just because ringbus doesn't hold up.

There are rumors about a dual ring bus in Comet Lake-S, but we'll see if that claim holds up.
The mesh network of Skylake-SP only makes sense with high core counts, and even with 10 cores the ring bus will probably offer lower latency.
The ring bus will only be a bottleneck when the bandwidth is exhausted, which will not happen during gaming.

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

Intel is desperate. Even their 18-core i9-10980XE can't even topple AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X in all benchmarks. They (Intel) is riding on the 14nm+++ node too much. Them scrapping out 10nm & other future smaller node shows they no longer innovate.

 

[Berfs1]

Wow no comparisons against the 9980XE to show architectural improvements...

 

[ador250]

Ok, I honestly expected much from a 10980XE. 3900X is just right behind 10980XE in workloads, with 3950X it's game over.

 

[IronMetal84]

I'd honestly take this over AMD's offerings, mainly because:
- HEVC advantage, optane and TB3
- lower idle consumption and better overclocking experience
(unlike the sterile, meaningless and incremental one on AMD's zen cpus)
- none of the countless problems faced by AMD mobos and memory
- super ST performance, being more reflective and reliable in today's usages
- superior gaming experience
- availability of ITX option - Asrock X299-ITX/Server counterpart
- AMD's lack of optimization in windows

So many unmentioned advantages. I say its a good placeholder until the actual zen response (Tiger-Lake/Ice Lake) arrives. Kudos to AMD for catching up to Coffeelake though.

Come on cucker tarlson, we all know it's you with a fake account

 

[Octavean]

If someone has an older motherboard that supports Cascade Lake-X and the compromised with an older slower processor yielding fewer core, I can see why they might want to upgrade. Intel prices have been slashed and a drop-in CPU upgrade would likely be cheaper and easier then a new AMD RyZen 3900X, 3950X or Threadripper build.

Having said that, I’m waiting for early November RyZen 3950X and Threadripper releases.

The major problem I see with AMD right now is that they pushed back the release of the 3950X and 3900X availability is scarce (with outrageous pricing if you can find it in stock). AMD needs to keep up with demand and better assure MSRP.

It doesn’t matter if AMD has a better product if customers can’t buy it Or can’t buy it anywhere near MSRP.

 

[Dave65]

Intel is dead to me!

 

[thesmokingman]

If someone has an older motherboard that supports Cascade Lake-X and the compromised with an older slower processor yielding fewer core, I can see why they might want to upgrade. Intel prices have been slashed and a drop-in CPU upgrade would likely be cheaper and easier then a new AMD RyZen 3900X, 3950X or Threadripper build.

Having said that, I’m waiting for early November RyZen 3950X and Threadripper releases.

The major problem I see with AMD right now is that they pushed back the release of the 3950X and 3900X availability is scarce (with outrageous pricing if you can find it in stock). AMD needs to keep up with demand and better assure MSRP.

It doesn’t matter if AMD has a better product if customers can’t buy it Or can’t buy it anywhere near MSRP.

First if ya have an existing x299 setup, obviously these new chips are your path to a questionable upgrade. I'm not really into throwing more money into a dead end platform. I've got a 7820x and MSI carbon pro... Instead throwing more at it, I'm retiring it and handing it down. I'd rather invest in a platform that is forward thinking.

As for the 3900x, stock fluctuates. Stop with the hyperbole of outrageous pricing. There are always ppl who take advantage of popular and highly desired product by jacking prices up. This is NOT an AMD thing, its a human nature thing. What it also tells us is ppl really want these chips. That said 3900x are in stock at msrp. It's an individuals choice if they cannot wait for restock to buy at msrp. Timing is key obviously. AT my local MC, 3900x "10+ in stock at Tustin Store" priced at retail.

 

[Octavean]

That’s a little like saying criminals are going to crime. Sure there are always going to be people who will unscrupulous try to profit by buying up stock and inserting themselves between legitimate venders and legitimate customers.

I have four MicroCenters that are local to me. The availability of the 3900X has fluctuated significantly over time. Half of my local Microcenter stores currently don’t have the 3900X and the other half that do require you to come into the store So you can’t order it online for delivery like the other AMD CPUs.

Not everyone has a Microcenter near them though so people shouldn’t pretend that everyone can just walk or drive to their local MC store and buy a 3900X assuming they have it in stock Which is by no means a guarantee.

 

[thesmokingman]

3900x is in stock everywhere atm, the egg, amazon, bh, etc etc and ofc MC. The 3900x is not sold online at MC, only in store as its a major loss leader. The other thing is this happens every time some new super cool part comes out. It's what happens and as I wrote it's not an AMD thing.

 

[Arc1t3ct]

it’s just like the Athlon 64 x2 days... Unbelievable...

 

[Vayra86]

Yeah but how does that explain it? the 8700k is a 6 core cpu, 9900k/9700k is a more modern, higher clocked, 8 core cpu.
Both have more cores the games can use but the 9900k/9700k is better right? so why are they doing worse?

EDIT, guess Glacier's speculation will have to do, but its still just odd to me, I would think processor makers could figure stuff like this out.

This is why I always say Intel's turbo is an ancient POS in need of refinement. Its either turbo, or its base clock. Nothing in between - well, there is, but only if the CPU is going down or up through C states - which it doesn't do at full sustained load.

So what happens here, the 8700K can sustain its turbo across any number of cores much better than the 9700/9900K can within the stock TDP limit. And there is no 'mild turbo' that covers the gap, its boom down to baseclock and back up again. Consider that 8700K still comes with a conservative turbo of 4.3 all core; 8 physical cores just take more juice, there is no denying it, and peak turbo is also higher on the newer parts. The larger the gap between base and turbo, the more erratic these CPUs will become.

 

[Octavean]

3900x is in stock everywhere atm, the egg, amazon, bh, etc etc and ofc MC. The 3900x is not sold online at MC, only in store as its a major loss leader. The other thing is this happens every time some new super cool part comes out. It's what happens and as I wrote it's not an AMD thing.

Sure,.....

I’m going on what I said earlier which is at or very much near MSRP. Newegg has the 3900X. However, stock was and has been an issue. Sometimes they had it sometimes they didn’t. Sometime you could buy it but only bundled with a motherboard.

Also, last time I checked and Newegg had stock it was about ~$80 over MSRP and that wasn’t a third party it was Newegg themselves selling the part. Third party from Newegg at the time was around ~$700 USD. Right now it’s just about ~$30 over MSRP, so I suppose we should consider that good?

Keep in mind that AMD processors haven’t historically kept their value very well. For example, The MSRP for Threadripper processors like the 2950X cost roughly ~$900 USD in late 2018 but now it can be had from MC for $599. The 2920X is only ~$299 at MC (down from an introductory ~$650 USD) and neither part has been replaced with an official successor by AMD.

One central reason for scarcity and jacked up prices has to do with supply and demand. If there isn’t enough supply then the manufacture or some other entity in the chain has an issue.

Lower end RyZen 3000 series processors are much easier to find and the MSRP is much better respected by venders. Maybe there is a yield issue I don’t know but the higher end of lineup has been problematic with respect to supply and price. Is it getting better? Sure but that doesn’t mean there aren’t still problems.

 

[F-man4]

I saw nothing but 3900x simply roasted the 10980xe ....

How about 8700K > 9900K & 9700K (>>>10980XE) in gaming test lol.

 

[thesmokingman]

Sure,.....

I’m going on what I said earlier which is at or very much near MSRP. Newegg has the 3900X. However, stock was and has been an issue. Sometimes they had it sometimes they didn’t. Sometime you could buy it but only bundled with a motherboard.

Also, last time I checked and Newegg had stock it was about ~$80 over MSRP and that wasn’t a third party it was Newegg themselves selling the part. Third party from Newegg at the time was around ~$700 USD. Right now it’s just about ~$30 over MSRP, so I suppose we should consider that good?

Keep in mind that AMD processors haven’t historically kept their value very well. For example, The MSRP for Threadripper processors like the 2950X cost roughly ~$900 USD in late 2018 but now it can be had from MC for $599. The 2920X is only ~$299 at MC (down from an introductory ~$650 USD) and neither part has been replaced with an official successor by AMD.

One central reason for scarcity and jacked up prices has to do with supply and demand. If there isn’t enough supply then the manufacture or some other entity in the chain has an issue.

Lower end RyZen 3000 series processors are much easier to find and the MSRP is much better respected by venders. Maybe there is a yield issue I don’t know but the higher end of lineup has been problematic with respect to supply and price. Is it getting better? Sure but that doesn’t mean there aren’t still problems.

This is my last post on this as you make no sense to me. Thanks for stating obvious laws of supply n demand as if I've never heard that before. I swear if I read of any more whiners regarding stock...

And you blame AMD for pricing last years tech at reduced price? WTF? Threadripper is being replaced. Everyone and their damn dogs has read the news, so I've no idea why you would troll and say there is no replacement. TR3 release date is the Nov 19th iirc. Previous gen gets slashed to make way for new stock. That's the way shit is supposed to happen.

This is like opposite world....? And the high end parts are more effin rare because they are the highest binned. WTF?

 

[Octavean]

This is my last post on this as you make no sense to me.

fine by me,.....

As I stated before, AMD having a superior product isn’t worth much unless MSRP is respected and there is healthy availability. Things are improving with the 3900X but I would rather not see the 3950X and upcoming Threadripper line go through what I’ve observed the 3900X go through.

One can only hope that the delay of the 3950X release date can help prevent the poor availability and jacked prices that plagued the 3900X early on.

 

[ratirt]

fine by me,.....

As I stated before, AMD having a superior product isn’t worth much unless MSRP is respected and there is healthy availability. Things are improving with the 3900X but I would rather not see the 3950X and upcoming Threadripper line go through what I’ve observed the 3900X go through.

One can only hope that the delay of the 3950X release date can help prevent the poor availability and jacked prices that plagued the 3900X early on.

Well I remember Intel's supply problems this year starting March and companies arguing about this in the press. Those weren't new processors and I think AMD is in a different place with the demand of the CPUs since these were never in the market so supplying every single reseller, pc producer etc. will take time.
BTW I can see availability of the 3900x basically in every single online pc market.

 

[MikeZTM]

This is why I always say Intel's turbo is an ancient POS in need of refinement. Its either turbo, or its base clock. Nothing in between - well, there is, but only if the CPU is going down or up through C states - which it doesn't do at full sustained load.

So what happens here, the 8700K can sustain its turbo across any number of cores much better than the 9700/9900K can within the stock TDP limit. And there is no 'mild turbo' that covers the gap, its boom down to baseclock and back up again. Consider that 8700K still comes with a conservative turbo of 4.3 all core; 8 physical cores just take more juice, there is no denying it, and peak turbo is also higher on the newer parts. The larger the gap between base and turbo, the more erratic these CPUs will become.

It's the RingBus.
We already know with more cores RingBus latency will become higher as a physical limitation. 10 core i7 6950x was never as fast as a 4 cores 4790k in gaming when clocked the same.

8086k in extreme RAM limited gaming cases like high refresh rate PUBG can out perform 9900k by 100%.

Intel really have to fix this POS or they will lose on gaming performance.