PC Pro

18-core Intel

It’s big and it’s fast, but can it unseat AMD?

- MIKE JENNINGS

SCORE

PRICE £1,016 (£1,220 inc VAT) from scan.co.uk

Make no mistake: the Core i9-10980XE is a monster 18-core CPU with staggering levels of performanc­e by almost any measure. But it’s more evidence that Intel is falling further behind AMD at the top end, both in terms of speed and value. For instance, a price of £1,220 inc VAT is almost £500 more expensive than the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X ( see issue 305, p72).

And, while Intel proudly describes the i9-10980XE as a 10th Gen part using a design called Cascade Lake-X, this is a cosmetic upgrade: the new chip uses a refined version of 2017’s Skylake-X architectu­re. It relies on the same core architectu­re and the same 14nm manufactur­ing process, only making minor improvemen­ts when compared to the i9-9980XE.

For example, its Turbo clock has risen from 4.5GHz to 4.8GHz while the new DL Boost system can improve performanc­e in a handful of AI-centric applicatio­ns. The i9-10980XE has 48 PCIe 3.0 lanes – four more than its predecesso­r – which brings the total of PCI lanes to 72 once you include the X299 chipset. The new CPU also doubles DDR4 support to 256GB of quad-channel memory. All commendabl­e upgrades.

Elsewhere, though, nothing has changed. It still has a 3GHz base clock, 1MB of L2 cache per core and 24.75MB of L3 cache, with the same TDP of 165W. There’s some good news: as it uses the existing LGA 2066 socket and X299 chipset, you can drop the CPU into an older motherboar­d after applying a BIOS update.

So, how does Intel’s chip stack up against the 3950X? As well as a newer 7nm architectu­re, AMD’s part has a faster base clock, more L3 cache, support for PCIe 4.0 and a lower TDP. Its reliance on the consumer X570 platform means motherboar­ds are cheaper and more varied than X299 products, and the 3950X also works with older motherboar­ds.

However, the Ryzen part has a lower Turbo speed and less L2 cache. It only supports 24 PCIe 4.0 lanes, with that figured improving to 40 thanks to the X570 chipset. And AMD’s platform only supports dual-channel memory.

The huge core count of Intel’s chip means that this part is only suitable for certain workloads and scenarios; it’s overkill for consumer computing and gaming. The i9-10980XE is designed for rendering, encoding, 3D modelling and CAD applicatio­ns – and it will also work well in financial and database applicatio­ns.

When it comes to benchmarks, though, the Intel chip disappoint­s.

The i9-10980XE’s overall benchmark result of 440 is very fast, but the AMD chip scored 501. Our image-editing test is a great indication of singlethre­aded power, and here the Intel chip’s score of 173 was 35 points behind AMD. In the multithrea­ded video-encoding test, the i9-10980XE scored 428 to the 3950X’s 476.

Intel also fell behind in other benchmarks. In Cinebench R20’s single-threaded and multithrea­ded tests, the Intel chip delivered results of 468 and 8,700 points, but the AMD chip scored 505 and 8,903 points. In Geekbench 4’s single-threaded test, the Intel CPU scored 5,107 points, around 500 points fewer than AMD. And in the multithrea­ded benchmark, Intel’s score of 38,592 was 7,000 points behind its rival.

Intel’s power consumptio­n figures weren’t particular­ly impressive, either. When idling, the Intel chip’s

“Many of the advantages are relatively minor, and in core areas Intel can’t stack up to the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X”

66W power requiremen­t was below the AMD rig, but during benchmarks the Intel CPU demanded 197W, which was 23W more than AMD’s silicon. The only area where Intel’s chip won was in gaming, but Intel’s advantage was minor – and no one will be buying this CPU for a gaming PC. Intel’s scores are also a little better when using quad-channel memory – its overall score in our benchmarks was 455 – but the performanc­e boost will be minimal and only certain applicatio­ns will benefit from this configurat­ion.

The 18-core i9-10980XE struggles against the 16-core 3950X, then, and there’s another AMD chip that could threaten Intel. The Ryzen Threadripp­er 3960X is more expensive, at £1,350 inc VAT, but it has 24 cores, AMD’s superior architectu­re and support for both PCIe 4.0 and quad-channel memory.

AMD’s superiorit­y leaves the i9-10980XE in an awkward spot.

There are positives: it’s still fast, and its 18-core design gives it tremendous ability. Intel’s platform support for quad-channel memory, DL Boost and additional PCI lanes gives it a win over the consumer 3950X in certain situations. It’s also easy to slot into an existing X299 build, which may reduce costs.

Many of the advantages are relatively minor, though, and in core areas Intel falters. The i9-10 980XE is slower, less efficient and pricier than the 3950X – so AMD’s chip remains the best option for the vast majority of high-end productivi­ty builds.

SPECIFICAT­IONS

3GHz base frequency 4.8GHz max boost frequency 18 cores 36 threads SMT 24.75MB Level 3 cache 18MB Level 2 cache quad-channel memory controller up to 2,933MH LGA 2066 socket 165W TDP

 ??  ??
 ??  ??
 ??  ?? BELOW The chip’s performanc­e might be “extreme”, but so is the price
BELOW The chip’s performanc­e might be “extreme”, but so is the price
 ??  ?? ABOVE The Cascade Lake-X design is a refined version of the Skylake-X from 2017
ABOVE The Cascade Lake-X design is a refined version of the Skylake-X from 2017

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom