Core i9-10990XE 22-core Processor

erek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
5,225
Wonder if it's 5.0 GHz all-core? 380W seems excessive!

"Referenced as Core i9-10990XE in straight-up CPU-Z screenshots, the processor is based on the "Cascade Lake-X" microarchitecture, and has the same I/O as the i9-10980XE, looking at the instruction sets featured. It has 22 cores and HyperThreading enables 44 threads. Cache hierarchy and balance are characteristic of "Cascade Lake," with 1 MB of dedicated L2 cache per core, and 30.25 MB of shared L3 cache. The I/O is likely identical to the i9-10980XE as that's a function of the platform and the socket. What's more interesting are the clock-speeds. The name-string of the engineering sample references a nominal clock-speed of 4.00 GHz, and in the screenshot, the chip is shown running at 5.00 GHz (at least on one core). There's also a performance benchmark to go with the leak, possibly CineBench R20 nT. Here, the i9-10990XE is shown scoring 14,005 points, which is in the same ballpark as the 24-core Ryzen Threadripper 3960X."

od3Ts9YZQ3rTqcEm.jpg


https://www.techpowerup.com/262915/core-i9-10990xe-22-core-processor-last-gasp-of-the-x299-platform
 

Skull_Angel

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
1,602
Ok, so gonna need 3x 360 (fat) rads, 12mm tubing and fittings, dual-pump (running at 80% speed), and at least 9x high-static pressure fans to get the most out of this sucker for standard intended use, huh? Hahaha

I understand companies sticking to Intel because name recognition, but with IPC being equal at workloads that these high-core count CPUs will actually see, wouldn't AMD's thermals (being 7nm) be a big advantage?

Sorry, just having too much fun poking at Intel for scrambling to play catch up.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,389
Anyone else thinks they needed a refreshed brand name?

Core i9-10990XE doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. I mean how exactly is that pronounced?
 

DrDoU

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
2,566
Are the lights flickering at your house or has the electric bill done the bank account in. Can it cook a steak faster than a 8370?
 

sfsuphysics

I don't get it
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
14,030
Anyone else thinks they needed a refreshed brand name?

Core i9-10990XE doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. I mean how exactly is that pronounced?
Well it's not like they don't have the i9-10980XE...

But yeah that one is "only" 165W TDP, granted 18 cores not 22 but still.
 

tunatime

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
3,352
I thought cooling a 3960x was bad couldn't imagine trying to cool a colse to 400w CPU with water. You just don't have enough surface area to disperse off the CPU fast enough.
 

Zarathustra[H]

I Complain about Everything
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,019
I thought cooling a 3960x was bad couldn't imagine trying to cool a colse to 400w CPU with water. You just don't have enough surface area to disperse off the CPU fast enough.
My TR 3960x runs 20C cooler during load than my old x79 3930k did using the same loop, so I don't think they are too difficult to cool.

This thing on the other hand...
 

KazeoHin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,054
If the price is right, near threadripper performance for half the price? I'd bite. But Intel would be mad to price it anywhere near the real-deal threadripper CPUs.
 

thesmokingman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
5,846
If the price is right, near threadripper performance for half the price? I'd bite. But Intel would be mad to price it anywhere near the real-deal threadripper CPUs.
Near? At 5ghz pushing north of 700w, it does what a similar score to a 3960x in R20. That's not anywhere near... in a real world setting right?
 

Dayaks

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
7,806
I thought cooling a 3960x was bad couldn't imagine trying to cool a colse to 400w CPU with water. You just don't have enough surface area to disperse off the CPU fast enough.
With water it’s not that hard. I’ve had multiple chips pull 400W OC’d.

This thing could pull way more than 400W OC’d though...
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
21,962
355mm^2, 471mm^2; this has to be bigger than the 355mm^2 at least.
The 18-core 9980XE was 484 mm². If the die layout is the same as Skylake-X Refresh then the 10990XE would be around 600 mm².
 

THRESHIN

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
3,093
Hope this comes with a lake I can. Toss it in when it catches fire. Then again, it might just boil it all off.
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
560
The 18-core 9980XE was 484 mm². If the die layout is the same as Skylake-X Refresh then the 10990XE would be around 600 mm².
Ok so the 3990x has a total die area of 1008mm2, buuuut the IO die is 416m2 itself and isn't that hard to cool because it doesn't use that much wattage compared to the Zen 2 chiplets and has a large area, so that brings it down to 592mm2 of pure CPU cores.
If the 10990XE is indeed around 600mm2 then I can see it not being that much harder to cool than a 3990x at stock. Unless they don't solder the IHS.

The 3950x has a die area of only 273mm2 by comparison and is extremely hard to cool to get max possible clocks @ stock and uses waaaaay less power. Probably not as hard to cool as a 3990x but close.

What we really need is a way to get the heat away from the CPU dies faster and more efficiently, as when my OC'd 1700 reaches 85C, I can comfortably keep my hand on the heatsink for a while as it only gets slightly warm. The hotter your heatsink is, the more efficiently its working and right now, having more die area for a given wattage is the only way to have more efficient heat transfer.
 
Last edited:
Top