Cascade Lake-X 10980XE 5.1Ghz boost all cores

I like how we've moved from overclocking being a tabu to overclocking being a primary part of CPU manufacturer's marketing strategy. It's like the only significant advantage that Intel currently has is the clock scaling still favor Intel a lot, especially as you increase cores.
 
I thought intel was going to compete with price cuts that cost them three billion? Huh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeo
like this
Nightfire said:
Well that's at 165w. At 5.1ghz I'm thinking 500w+.
Click to expand...
Well, as long as we all have a phase-change industrial cooling pump, which may or may not be legal depending on the country, we should be good. :D

index.png


https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/t...owed-at-computex-it-needs-some-cooling,4.html
 
From the article - The pr guy doesn’t seem sure it was all core either. Who. Knows what standard liquid cooling means to these guys.

“intel's EMEA Technical PR Manager, Mark Walton, told PCGamesN: "You can overclock the heck out of these and get some really interesting results. For example, we've had the 10980XE, the eighteen-core processor, up as high as 5.1GHz in the lab using standard liquid cooling. And that, I believe, is all cores".
 
d3athf1sh said:
where are all the guys that use to joke on amd for having 140w processors?? and calling them space heaters and what not? Hell my 8370 is only a 125w part...
Click to expand...

to be fair, they were space heaters, lol.. but that being said as always TDP ratings are complete horse shit from both companies so they don't really mean anything.
 
I'd take that with a grain of salt.

I still remember the 5ghz devil's canyon thing, and more recently, the PBO/opportunistic OC demonstration from AMD on Zen2.

At least this time, the statement on overclockability is more reserved.
 
Last edited:
Mega6 said:
Ten cores for six hundred bucks? Uh no thanks. Provided this even shows up.
Click to expand...

10 cores and also 44 or whatever PCIe lanes, don't forget.

I get a kick out of Minecraft streamers running systems built on stuff like this, but it's not really what they're for. Whatever the equivalent of the 9900k will be will be cheaper.
 
Owner of a 7940x here. That quoted 165W TDP only accounts for base clocks - at stock turbo values my chip cheerfully rises into the low 200s. I realized this when my Dark Rock 4 - nominally 200 watt-capable, especially with a second Noctua fan pushing air through while the stock fan pulled - still ended up throttling the chip under sustained loads.

The Cascade Lake chips are still made using a refinement of the same old process, so even if they maintain parity they belch heat. I can't imagine how much power one would drink at 5.1 GHz.
 
Last edited:
my 250w 1080ti pulls 330w.

My 7900x @4.6 pulls 160-200w under non AVX workload. 400w under AVX.

Then again i didnt buy any of the components in my system based on its power useage. If you all are buying systems based on their EnergyGuide Sticker that says Estimated yearly operating cost then maybe you should check out softforum.

Also AMD TDP and Intel TDP are not the same and are not comparable.
 
We all need to remember there is no universal TDP methodology. So each vendor hell on each PUBLICATION could have a completely different measurement.

There is nothing saying that TDP at Intel means they ask Tod, Don, and Paul what they each think the heat feels like then just publish the freaking average.
 
So these don't support ECC, are the xeons (like the upcoming w-2295) still multi locked? If your upgrade path involves you moving your HEDT desktop to your home server everytime you upgrade seems like TR is the better option if you want to OC and use ECC.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
to be fair, they were space heaters, lol.. but that being said as always TDP ratings are complete horse shit from both companies so they don't really mean anything.
Click to expand...

so we are all agreeing that the all the "new(+)" intel procs are space heaters as well then, right?. just trying to make this clear.
 
Master_shake_ said:
i remember when intel people said TDP was a factor when buying a cpu.

i believe it was back in 2016. you know... before ryzen.

16 cores pwned hyperthreading and chock full of intel security holes.

sign me up.
Click to expand...
Well i for one have never factored it. Also never disabled HT. Havent been compomised yet either.


Red Falcon said:
Well, as long as we all have a phase-change industrial cooling pump, which may or may not be legal depending on the country, we should be good. :D

View attachment 192886

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/t...owed-at-computex-it-needs-some-cooling,4.html
Click to expand...
Here is that very platform the the W1375x on water.

 

Attachments

  • nc_oc=AQnct438YIoVsz4G5iiVLqecK3Ze7xn8teFemAVgzoq0jnVClypVTaR71QJF4E3JANA&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.jpg
    nc_oc=AQnct438YIoVsz4G5iiVLqecK3Ze7xn8teFemAVgzoq0jnVClypVTaR71QJF4E3JANA&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.jpg
    349.5 KB · Views: 18
So
Mega6 said:
165W TDP

Toasty.
Click to expand...
So about 300w+ when using the usual auto OC while quoting a '165w' tdp.

TCO on these for single figure % fps gains in kiddy fps titles will be ridiculous, maybe they'll cut prices to $300 and offer a 2 year power rebate?
 
Master_shake_ said:
i remember when intel people said TDP was a factor when buying a cpu.

i believe it was back in 2016. you know... before ryzen...
Click to expand...

That rating is factor in the overclockability of the silicon. If one brand CPU is a 165W part, and the comparable (price wise probably) brand B part is 95W, guess which one has more OC headroom?

It was a valid comparison then, it's a valid comparison now. Difference is now the power envelope seems to be much more similar between the brands (even if they each measure it differently), so it is not as much of a stand out factor as it was back in 2016.
 
Lmao last time Intel made a promise....it came with big as water chiller unit

5.1ghz all core on liquid is about as vague as fuck. Sure liquid at 5c chilled.

165w tdp doesnt mean squat to me. I could care less if it were 200 watts as long as the claims were authentic but they are not. Intels word is a toilet bowl full of burning feces.

Intel should stop talking, stop pressing, stop marketing, just hush up and drop the bomb ass performance on AMD but Intel cant and wont.
 
tangoseal said:
Lmao last time Intel made a promise....it came with big as water chiller unit

5.1ghz all core on liquid is about as vague as fuck. Sure liquid at 5c chilled.

165w tdp doesnt mean squat to me. I could care less if it were 200 watts as long as the claims were authentic but they are not. Intels word is a toilet bowl full of burning feces.

Intel should stop talking, stop pressing, stop marketing, just hush up and drop the bomb ass performance on AMD but Intel cant and wont.
Click to expand...
Promising what? This was a single, short sentence said in an interview that looks to have been taken out of context and posted for outrage bait. Intel has been careful to not promise anything they achieve in a lab setting since the Devil's Canyon debacle.
 
mikeo said:
AMD's Ryzen boost debacle is a much greater marketing fail than anything Intel has messed up lately.
Click to expand...

Eeeeeh. If we're talking pure marketing and ignoring the reputation shitstorm caused by all the security vulnerabilities then the boost debacle sits only a little above the chiller and Intel's product naming garbage but still under all the 10nm mess.
 
Thunderdolt said:
I like seeing all of the folks with 250W GPUs complain about 165W CPUs.
Click to expand...

I don't have a 10lb heatsink and 3 fans on my CPU.

Edit:
Thats a lie, I have a dark rock 4 pro.... so I do have a 10lb heatsink and 3 fans on it....
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Red Falcon said:
I think the 22+ CPU hardware-level exploits over the last 2 years from Intel have been just a little bigger of a marketing failure than the Ryzen Boost debacle.
Click to expand...

I personally don't see the ryzen boost thing as an issue. I scratch my head about it really. I'm sure amd marketing does as well but they can't call customers petulant.
 
Red Falcon said:
I think the 22+ CPU hardware-level exploits over the last 2 years from Intel have been just a little bigger of a marketing failure than the Ryzen Boost debacle.
Click to expand...

For enterprise? Yes, depending on workload.

For consumers? Since the necessary workloads and levels of exposure of threat surface needed to exploit are extremely rare for consumer workloads, AMDs marketing / engineering repeatedly falling short of the company's claims is much more headline grabbing, most especially since they just lost a lawsuit over their false marketing claims for their last architecture.


For this new Intel stuff... we've shifted into 'wait and see' pretty solidly for both companies products. Both are hitting walls and having to get innovative to improve performance and either or both could be tripped up again at any time.
 
GoodBoy said:
That rating is factor in the overclockability of the silicon. If one brand CPU is a 165W part, and the comparable (price wise probably) brand B part is 95W, guess which one has more OC headroom?

It was a valid comparison then, it's a valid comparison now. Difference is now the power envelope seems to be much more similar between the brands (even if they each measure it differently), so it is not as much of a stand out factor as it was back in 2016.
Click to expand...

before boost clocks sure maybe.. post boost clocks TDP means squat nor does it effect overclockability. people need to get rid of that mindset, it doesn't work anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top