Core i9-10980XE Review Roundup

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
10,785
"This completes the performance overview of Core i9-10980XE through basic benchmarks. Compared to the price when the current Core X series appeared, it is almost half the price, so the cost performance is quite high. However, the drastic price change is also a sign of fear for the competitor's third-generation Ryzen Threadripper. The third-generation Ryzen threat that has overcome weaknesses other than gaming with the 7nm process is also coming to the HEDT market. There is no better way to get insurance.

 In addition, if By Specific Core is enabled, power consumption will increase as much as it will go round. There is almost no extreme ultra-high load state like SmallFFT, so you may not need to worry about it for normal use such as gaming. However, considering the possibility of falling in the middle of creative work such as video encoding, it is safe to use the default.

 On the other hand, if you use the By Specific Core setting, if you do not mess around the voltage with more detailed settings, it will be a difficult horse to handle. A certain amount of know-how will be required to use it at full performance. In that sense, Core i9-10980XE can be said to be an advanced CPU. I don't know how far that can be packed, but next time I want to verify the usability of Core i9-10980XE, focusing on creative apps."

Source: https://ascii.jp/elem/000/001/981/1981439/


"Intel’s new 18-core Core i9-10980XE isn’t reaching for the stars. It’s reaching for the middle. Squeezed by AMD’s consumer 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X on one end, and the 32-core Ryzen Threadripper 3970X on the other, it can’t win on raw performance. But with Intel’s aggressive pricing at $1,000, it actually competes well on bang for buck, a tempting deal for the content creators who are the prime market for this chip. "


Source: https://www.pcworld.com/article/345...0xe-review-winning-the-middle.html#tk.rss_all
 
Last edited:
"Intel has done the right thing in cutting prices and the reality is that even though the Ryzen 9 3950X is a stunning processor, the Core i9-10980XE still beats it in plenty of tests and it's huge overclocking headroom means it leapfrogs the otherwise dominant AMD CPU in areas it's weak in at stock speed. This is assuming your average retail sample overclocks better than your typcial Core i9-9980XE as mine did - that's something only time will tell and is something to bare in mind."

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/antony...s-ryzen-9-3950x/?ss=consumertech#16d06b38405f
 
"We'll start by saying that before you reach for your wallet, we'd advise you to hang on until mid-afternoon, as we may have some interesting additional tech talk for you. We can't say any more at this point, but trust us - you need to tune in again. Hints aside, Intel doesn't have an AMD killer here, but the same is true the other way around. The Ryzen 9 3950X doesn't strike a killer blow and is significantly slower in some tests, but is far more efficient and affordable, especially if you opt for a decent B450 chipset board. If the monster overclock we achieved is replicated elsewhere (we'd be keen to see more retail sample evidence) then combined with massive price cuts, each of the four new HEDT CPUs could be worth considering if you need the extra PCIe lanes or quad-channel memory support.

The problem is, outside of those requirements, Intel already has decent options in the mainstream, especially for gaming-focussed rigs, and AMD certainly does, with more of a focus on content creation. Either way, the Core i9-10980XE sits a few hundred pounds above AMD's mainstream flagship but offers additional features that some will require for their specific needs. For those people, the Core i9-10980XE is a great buy, especially as X299 motherboards can be had for less than £200, and the CPU is a far better all-rounder than AMD's 2nd Gen Threadrippers. The 3rd Gen successors, meanwhile, look set to sit in a completely different price bracket, regardless of their performance. We're keen to see new things from Intel here as much as the next guy, but for now, 18 cores and a whole lot of performance and bandwidth just got a heck of a lot cheaper."

Source: https://bit-tech.net/reviews/tech/cpus/intel-core-i9-10980xe-review/1/
 
erek

They (reviewers) say the Ryzen 3 is not good at gaming? Compared to Intel? By what 5 fps on a 240hz panel or Tomb Raider lol??

Seriously at what point are we going to just admit that there is no discernable difference in gaming anymore.

If there were 75 fps margins of difference like days of old sure but... cmon man, were talking scientific margins of error here now especially in synthetics. Hardly allowable to legitimately say AMD is not as good as intel in gaming. Who plays Tomb Raider anymore anyways? It's like the only game AMD doesnt do good at.

It's like the only thing Intel can hold on to marketing wise is...look 9900k gets 7 fps in a 240hz esports title more than 3900x. Intel is toasted, for now in the interim at least.

You just wait and see Intel will crush AMD again in the near few years. Intel is not stupid, lazy yes, but not stupid.

As far as MT workloads and looking at all that Japanese stuff, Intel has 2 more cores and AMD is just as fast in some and faster in others with 2 less cores.

Intel if priced right is no slouch and is still a very very compelling purchase for some.
 
Last edited:
GamersNexus will have new thread ripper reviews in a few hours. 10980XE did well overclocked at 4.9Ghz on the GN review. I imagine going to get crushed by TR though... also not sure how many enthusiasts need a 18 core CPU (that would OC it to the max).
 
16% in what? That is a stupid title. It trades places with the 3950X.

And a sneak secret NDA lift hours before public AMD's? LOL, Intel, never change.


seems pointless of Intel, the 3950X seems to be vaporware / paper launch at the moment, still zero stock
 
It has avx512 which to some is absolutely worth it. I'd rock it for h265 using 512 but damn Threadripper 3 is going to compute-rip the shit out of the intel in sheer core count.

But seriously Linus just flamethrowed intel hard af lol.

If intel wanted to smack AMD in the anus they should have made the 18 core a loss leader and priced it at
 
Last edited:
It has avx512 which to some is absolutely worth it. I'd rock it for h265 using 512 but damn Threadripper 3 is going to compute-rip the shit out of the intel in sheer core count.

Exactly what you said; on Epyc vs Xeon benchies with AVX512, the Epyc pulling AVX-256 x2 is just as fast or faster than the Xeon with AVX-512.. it's that far ahead once you get to higher core counts that AVX-512 is almost irrelevant in 99% of use cases.
I also love how the shintel outlets claim "AMD SUXXX AT GAMING' when there is barely outside of margin of error differences.
They're both excellent at gaming is what they should be saying. I bet you couldn't tell the difference in an blind A-B test where there isn't some significant lack of optimisation or Intel compiler fuckery like usual.

and edit: LOL at LTT. Normally I'm not a fan but he has been savage ASF lately. Those 'fuzzy bars' are hilarious inclusions.
The slower results vs 980XE is also very interesting to see those 'non realworld impacts outside of data centre workloads' not doing anything.. ahem. That's how you get a '20% IPC boost' for next gen ;)
 
Last edited:
seems pointless of Intel, the 3950X seems to be vaporware / paper launch at the moment, still zero stock

Gee, maybe that has something to do with the fact that today is the first day for retail availability... :rolleyes:

It's kind of shitty of Intel to pull in the embargo date, knowing that many sites will necessarily publish reviews without all the data in order to secure those valuable early clicks. That's the kind of behavior that I refuse to support.
 
https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i9-10980xe-processor-review,1.html

An interesting page 25. Here Hilbert is trying to be more future-looking:
index.png
 
You don't answer his question.

You're not getting paid for these clicks, so you can stop with the click bait titles. Thanks for changing this title at least if it was you and not the mods having to clean your title up again.

it was me who changed the title. the title was based on a youtube title originally that was poorly translated from japanese
 
Linus showed the 10980XE to be doing pretty well across the board -- better than AMD in gaming, and by 'better', we mean Intel's lows ahead of AMD's highs, more than a 'margin of error' -- while also being competitive in multicore workloads.

That's versus the 3950X that no one can buy. So Intel has a point: if I had to buy something in that range today, it'd be Intel.

Of course, let's wait to see what TR3 brings. I'm quite interested to find out how well they do in gaming and in the few productivity workloads (ahem, Premiere) that their previous iterations were not optimized for.
 
Linus showed the 10980XE to be doing pretty well across the board -- better than AMD in gaming, and by 'better', we mean Intel's lows ahead of AMD's highs, more than a 'margin of error' -- while also being competitive in multicore workloads.

That's versus the 3950X that no one can buy. So Intel has a point: if I had to buy something in that range today, it'd be Intel.

Of course, let's wait to see what TR3 brings. I'm quite interested to find out how well they do in gaming and in the few productivity workloads (ahem, Premiere) that their previous iterations were not optimized for.

Good for you for looking on the bright side!
 
If you say "today" in the HEDT range and say Intel knowing that in very few hours TR3 is going to be out and LTT threw shade hard with the blurs, you are indeed not smart.

They did the 6h deal with people like you in mind tho. BTW HEDT platforms aren't bought with gaming in mind.
 
Linus showed the 10980XE to be doing pretty well across the board -- better than AMD in gaming, and by 'better', we mean Intel's lows ahead of AMD's highs, more than a 'margin of error' -- while also being competitive in multicore workloads.

That's versus the 3950X that no one can buy. So Intel has a point: if I had to buy something in that range today, it'd be Intel.
What?!

Screenshot_20191125-141134~01.jpg
Screenshot_20191125-141138~01.jpg
Screenshot_20191125-141143~01.jpg
 
Linus showed the 10980XE to be doing pretty well across the board -- better than AMD in gaming, and by 'better', we mean Intel's lows ahead of AMD's highs, more than a 'margin of error' -- while also being competitive in multicore workloads.

That's versus the 3950X that no one can buy. So Intel has a point: if I had to buy something in that range today, it'd be Intel.

Of course, let's wait to see what TR3 brings. I'm quite interested to find out how well they do in gaming and in the few productivity workloads (ahem, Premiere) that their previous iterations were not optimized for.
Premiere looks like dog shit optimisation with such outlying results for a threaded workload, considering 3950 has no numa bullshit this time around. Nothing has changed in years there, same for GPU offloading. Adobe has really slipped since cs6 and now they are not the only game in town, thank fuck. I will not be buying from them again.
 
Underwhelming product from Intel, not much faster than the 3950x and in some cases it loses against the 3950x which is rather embarrassing. At least Intel isn't charging $2k for this one this round because Intel knew that they were getting handed to them this round.
 
Linus showed the 10980XE to be doing pretty well across the board -- better than AMD in gaming, and by 'better', we mean Intel's lows ahead of AMD's highs, more than a 'margin of error' -- while also being competitive in multicore workloads.

That's versus the 3950X that no one can buy. So Intel has a point: if I had to buy something in that range today, it'd be Intel.

Of course, let's wait to see what TR3 brings. I'm quite interested to find out how well they do in gaming and in the few productivity workloads (ahem, Premiere) that their previous iterations were not optimized for.

If I was buying for me - joint gaming / amateur hour productivity - I would pick the 10980XE and I already have a custom cooling loop. If you look at the Gamers Nexus review where they have OC results throughout it is basically an 18 core 9900k. It's top of the charts in some games.

For the vast majority of users that need this core count I assume they don't dabble in overclocking... AMD is probably the way to go; but I'd imagine they'd get thread ripper with even more cores.

I'll be honest the core counts we're getting to are outside of my expertise. If you're an enthusiast that games/dabbles in productivity an OC'd 10980XE is still the way to go IMO, but that market has to be super small. Anyone serious with productivity would probably just have separate rigs.
 
Seeing as the 10980XE's power consumption goes through the roof when OCed, it's only a fraction of the OCing fraction that could benefit from it.
 
Premiere looks like dog shit optimisation with such outlying results for a threaded workload, considering 3950 has no numa bullshit this time around. Nothing has changed in years there, same for GPU offloading. Adobe has really slipped since cs6 and now they are not the only game in town, thank fuck. I will not be buying from them again.

These review sites need to start including davinci resolve more. Also HEVC 4k renders, time to get with the times haha.
 
More 14mm+++++++? No thx

LTT mentions that it is slightly worse than the 9980xe in some tests and speculated that Spectre etc mitigations might be the cause of that, but that Intel declined to comment.
 
erekSeriously at what point are we going to just admit that there is no discernable difference in gaming anymore.

When it becomes true.

I've talked about this at length in several articles. I'd agree that there isn't a functional difference between 600FPS and 700FPS. However, when you look into the data, you'll often find that the frame times or the minimum frame rates of one CPU or another are significantly lower than another. It was something I noticed consistently in Destiny 2 at 4K. My Threadripper 2920X simply couldn't maintain 60FPS at that resolution and the Core i9 9900K can.

I saw the same thing in Ghost Recon Breakpoint:

Ghost-Recon.png


Admittedly, this problem cuts both ways as I've seen the reverse happen as well where Intel's fall behind and AMD pulls ahead. But to say CPU's exhibit no difference in gaming between AMD and Intel, is simply untrue.
 
Every review I've seen today has been very harsh regarding the CPU...

Nice.
 
Well, it's more of the same from Intel. The price cut is nice, but you'd have to overclock the hell out of it and need the extra lanes and memory bandwidth for it to make sense over a 3950X. Or you'd have to have an existing X299 setup without a 7980XE or 9980XE processor already.
 

Thanks for sharing screenshots that prove the point ;)

Premiere looks like dog shit optimisation with such outlying results for a threaded workload, considering 3950 has no numa bullshit this time around. Nothing has changed in years there, same for GPU offloading. Adobe has really slipped since cs6 and now they are not the only game in town, thank fuck. I will not be buying from them again.

I give Adobe shit for their poor code every time I mention them, however they are still the 'standard' for a large part of each of the markets in which they compete.

Now, understandably, Premiere is on its way out. There are simply better, more performant options out there if you're not tied deeply into the ecosystem around it.

But other stuff like Photoshop, Lightroom, and a number of other 'productivity / content creation' suites? We're seriously lacking credible alternatives, so it makes sense to point out when weird architectures like TR1 and TR2, and Zen in general, don't behave as expected.
 
Back
Top