1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

Intel's 10th-gen 18-core beats Core i9-9980XE by 11%, Ryzen remains faster

By mongeese · 54 replies
Aug 18, 2019
Post New Reply
  1. Before we tread further into the forest of CPU stats and figures, let me remind you that public Geekbench entries are very limited indicators. Geekbench results overestimate Ryzen CPUs for gaming but underestimates them slightly for video exporting, for example. Furthermore, the single entry could be underperforming if Geekbench’s reported 3.3 GHz boost speed is accurate and the final chip can hit higher clocks.

    Now for the breakdown: we know this chip is next-gen, because Geekbench lists the stepping as seven, while released chips are on the fifth stepping. It’s also likely this specific chip is a Xeon as it was tested in a Dell Precision 5820 workstation that is only sold with Xeons, but that’s academic really, as there is functionally no difference between a Xeon and its Core i9 equivalent.

    Model Cores/
    Base/Boost (GHz) L3 Cache (MB) MSRP Multi-Core Score Single-Core Score
    Intel 18-core* 18/36 2.2/3.2 24.75 - 100% 100%
    Intel i9-9980XE 18/36 3.0/4.4 24.75 $1,700 90% 100%
    Intel i9-7980XE 18/36 2.6/4.2 24.75 $1,765 80% 99%
    Ryzen 9 3950X* 16/32 3.3/4.3 64.00 $750 112% 109%
    Ryzen 9 3900X 12/24 3.8/4.6 64.00 $500 84% 105%

    Assuming the 54,597 score is accurate, the new chip slots in nicely above the i9-9980XE/Xeon W-2195 in multi-core tasks, so we could expect it to be excellent at the usual things: renders, simulations, file compression, encryption/decryption, encoding, exporting, etc.

    In these tasks, the i9-9980XE tends to roughly match the Threadripper 2990WX (32-core) so the new chip should come out slightly on top.

    However, one must also consider the price. Previous mainstream Intel 18-cores have had an MSRP in excess of $1,700 and in practice go for about $2,000 and their Xeon counterparts go for about $3,000, while the Ryzen 3950X will cost only $750. Quite frankly, that kills the viability of this new processor, unless Intel decides to radically re-evaluate their i9 pricing strategy.

    Permalink to story.

  2. VitalyT

    VitalyT Russ-Puss Posts: 4,612   +3,222

    Show me one radical thing Intel has done in the last 10 years... There is a reason the company is steadily losing its market share.
  3. Daniele 00

    Daniele 00 TS Enthusiast Posts: 33   +37

    ... fear to take radical decisions?
  4. VitalyT

    VitalyT Russ-Puss Posts: 4,612   +3,222

    I think in their case it got more to do with laziness and the lack of talent and/or vision. They have been treating the market as a cushy job for too long, thinking their monopoly will last forever, and now they are paying the price for it.

  5. x925x

    x925x TS Rookie

    They got comfortable, charging the same price for very little to nothing new each gen. AMD decided that it was time to really shake up everything, and launched ryzen. Now while not everything that we wanted from it, it forced intel's hand, I believe that they wouldn't have gone to 6 cores with 8th gen consumer cpus, or even their 9th. We'd likely still be sitting with essentially the same architecture, nothing new or exciting, just a bunch of refreshes.
    noel24, VitalyT and trparky like this.
  6. Kashim

    Kashim TS Addict Posts: 160   +148

    Actually, the exact opposite is true. They don't have to do anything radical BECAUSE they dominate the market. They've been stuck on 14nm for several years because they had no competition and no reason to move forward. Now they're scrambling because of AMD's aggressive moves, but really in a couple of years everything will be back to the status quo once Intel squashes AMD's resurgence like they've done before.
    Shadowboxer and Morris Minor like this.
  7. Cowymtber

    Cowymtber TS Rookie

    When comparing Intel HEDT to AMD, the equivalent priced processors will not be Ryzen desktop, but the upcoming Zen 2 based Threadrippers, 16/24/32/64 cores. And at the same price, these will offer more cores and vastly superior performance across the board.
    Bp968 and TempleOrion like this.
  8. yRaz

    yRaz Nigerian Prince Posts: 2,973   +2,304

    Okay, let's see them manufacturer a chip of that size on a large scale.... Oh, wait, they can't, that's why it's priced the way it is.

    Now, once Intel starts to develop its own "chiplet" architecture, AMD is in trouble. However, Intel is probably about 5 years away from that so AMD better make their money and put it to good use.
    Godel and Dimitrios like this.
  9. VitalyT

    VitalyT Russ-Puss Posts: 4,612   +3,222

    What planet are you from? Intel squashed AMD in the past? Do tell us!

    As far as I remember, AMD had only itself to blame for the previous mishaps in both management and technology. That fall started when AMD overpaid for ATI. Intel squashed jack, they simply got lucky AMD made those mistakes.
  10. yRaz

    yRaz Nigerian Prince Posts: 2,973   +2,304

    While I agree with most of what you said, AMDs licensing of ATi products on gaming consoles is the only thing that kept them afloat in their "dark" years. Their licensing of ATi graphics is what paid for their research of the "infinity fabric" and "chiplet" design.
  11. VitalyT

    VitalyT Russ-Puss Posts: 4,612   +3,222

    I did not say anything about ATI side of business in the long term. I was only stating what every financial paper wrote about it years ago, that ATI was hugely overpriced at the time, and AMD bluntly overpaid for it, and exposed themselves badly.
  12. Dimitrios

    Dimitrios TS Guru Posts: 532   +393

    Please change your comment to, " INTEL WAS CHEATING." You must be a kid and you need to do your homework on the history of INTEL and the illegal monopoly tactics they were pulling.
  13. Puiu

    Puiu TS Evangelist Posts: 3,573   +2,055

    They definitely have talent in the company. What they lack is proper leadership. Most if not all of their problems have been caused by those at the top.
    Charles Olson and Evernessince like this.
  14. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 11,584   +5,140

    I disagree! They didn't all of a sudden decide. They wanted to the whole time. They did however finally make good design decisions. AMD didn't just wake up one morning and decide they wanted to finally complete.

    Refresh my lack of history. Was it illegal or was it deemed illegal after the fact?
    mosu likes this.
  15. yRaz

    yRaz Nigerian Prince Posts: 2,973   +2,304

    They didn't over pay for it, it's what's been floating them for the last 10 years
    Charles Olson likes this.
  16. godrilla

    godrilla TS Enthusiast Posts: 92   +48

    Most r & d is in graphics now. Hopefully their graphics line-up will be more exciting for competition sake.
    Charles Olson likes this.
  17. ZackL04

    ZackL04 TS Guru Posts: 565   +278

    According to the chart, the higher clocked chips are getting lower single core speeds. Wtf is up with that.

    The 3900x at 4.6 slower than the 3950x at 4.3? I find that hard to believe.

    And the new Intel at 3.2 matches the 9980 at 4.4?? Dafuk?
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2019
  18. Manya3084

    Manya3084 TS Enthusiast Posts: 26   +39

    Hi Intel, just drop the bloody prices. That's all we want. What purpose will this chip have when they release it at...I'm going to estimate...$1,800.
    It's like Kia vs Toyota
  19. Puiu

    Puiu TS Evangelist Posts: 3,573   +2,055

    They definitely paid too much compared to what ATI was valued at the time. The investment was huge and for the longest time it was the CPU side that was carrying the GPU side.
    Couple that huge investment with how Intel was blocking AMD on the OEM side through illegal means and you got the perfect recipe for a disaster that lead to a smaller and smaller R&D budget.
    TempleOrion and Clynt like this.
  20. Parkerthon

    Parkerthon TS Rookie

    What purpose? Video editing and 3d content creation.

    Intel wasn't milking the market, they have been tying up resources trying to catch up with mobile processor development and Nvidia's GPU development. In the end they have failed for one reason or another. You can always blame leadership or overly comfortable veteran upper management.
  21. ACE76

    ACE76 TS Enthusiast

    Squash them with what exactly? Silicon is rapidly reaching EOL. The gains any micro processor company gets moving to a new die process is getting smaller and smaller. Even cutting a die size in half (14nm to 7nm) at best have 15% increases in performance. Intel won't be beating AMD going forward. They will likely end up performing close to one another. Intel is already showing their new CPUs won't be clocking anywhere near what they had on 14nm. They have huge security flaws to fix as well which will further hurt performance....so no, Intel won't be leading the pack as they once did unchecked by any means.
  22. amghwk

    amghwk TS Guru Posts: 571   +353

    True to Techspot's preference towards AMD, the last part of the title - "..Ryzen remains faster." - they just needed to add in that, even though the sentence seem to focus intel's own improvements over it's predecessor. Not just here but almost in every article here, Techspot just wanted to uphold AMD - "but it's cheaper...but it's faster in productivity...but it has less R&D budget..." etc.

  23. DraktharBlack

    DraktharBlack TS Rookie

    Cause its True, not only cheaper, faster in productivity, but RAW Performance is better, so Ryzen remains faster ...
    Probably they added that not cause they have preference for AMD, probably they added that cause AMD is finally showing up what they can do. If you don't live in a cavern, you probably notice AMD rising up from the darkness, and beating Intel, and generating concurrence in the market, something that didn't happened in the last 10 YEARS, that is a LOT of time, so everyone should be impressed, even Intel is impressed, it's fanboys should be too.
    Silvernine and TempleOrion like this.
  24. Puiu

    Puiu TS Evangelist Posts: 3,573   +2,055

    You are just too outdated. Maybe if you upgraded from MSDOS to something newer you would understand the appeal of rooting for the underdog.
  25. Dosahka

    Dosahka TS Addict Posts: 168   +64

    Intel i5/7/9 fo Pure Gaming, AMD for gaming and streaming/recording! Intel might've been had better perf in gaming, but when you started to stream/record, well, hardly hit that FPS counter of yours, while AMD kept their FPS and was able to stream/record without breaking a sweat.
    Now AMD even goes a bit further with more cores and higher clock rates, they are coming a breathing on Intel's neck. I'm not AMD fan but, it was/is not healthy for the gaming community to have "one" brand for maximum performance and another for cheap entry/mid level gaming, but now hopefully AMD (with leadership of Lisa Su) shows a nice comeback. Same as Intel will with it's dedicated (and probably overpriced) dedicated GPU in 2020. Race for customer satisfaction never stops.
    TempleOrion likes this.

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...