Two more 10th-gen Intel X-series processors leak on Geekbench, almost completing the lineup

[mongeese]

Highly anticipated: Intel’s next X-series Core i9 processors are just around the corner, and courtesy of a sneaky Dell engineer, four of them have appeared in the Geekbench 4 database. Last week we met the 18-core behemoth i9-10980XE and the little 10-core i9-10900X, and now we’ve also glimpsed the 14-core i9-10940X and the 12-core i9-10920X. Performance boosts are solid, but will they be enough to compete with Zen 2-based Threadripper?

Let’s dive immediately into the scores. For the following sneak-peak, we’ve used the online Geekbench scores from the same Dell 5820 workstation used by Dell for all their testing, so while this may not be the exact performance of the chips, they’ll at least be configured and cooled the same (and thus appropriate for comparisons). To be clear, none of these tests were completed by TechSpot.

Apart from the Core i9-10980XE which achieves all of nothing over its predecessor, multi-core scores improved respectably by 10%, 11%, and 10% for the i9-10940X, i9-10920X, and i9-10900X.

Single-core scores don’t improve quite so pleasingly, but despite YouTubers loving to game on these beasts, they are meant for multi-core workloads. Nonetheless, scores improved by 4%, 2%, 3% and 6% respectively, going down the lineup.

Overall, results are good for yet another iteration of 14nm. If AMD was still uncompetitive these indicators would suggest a large boost in performance for Intel, given the 9th-gen parts barely improved over their predecessors.

But with Ryzen 9 3950X coming in November with 16 cores for $749, and probably better per-core performance given other Ryzen benchmarks we've ran, it’s hard to imagine these processors will be at all competitive in most workloads. Whenever they do release though, we’ll have our test benches primed and ready to put AMD and Intel head to head once again.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/82114-two-more-10th-gen-intel-x-series-processors.html

 

[yRaz]

It's refreshing to finally see some competition in the CPU space again. Whether you're red team or blue team, this is good for all of us. Although, I'm waiting for a much needed price drop on Intel's side. I'm still probably going to go with a 3X00 threadripper, but I think we can all agree that keeping the prices down on both sides.is a good thing whenever possible

 

[QuantumPhysics]

It's refreshing to finally see some competition in the CPU space again. Whether you're red team or blue team, this is good for all of us. Although, I'm waiting for a much needed price drop on Intel's side. I'm still probably going to go with a 3X00 threadripper, but I think we can all agree that keeping the prices down on both sides.is a good thing whenever possible

Most of this stuff isn't gonna sell well and will depreciate as the coming years roll in.

 

[neeyik]

The single core scores for the 9900X and 9920X are a little odd - with default settings, it should be exactly the same, as the only difference between those processors is that the 9920X has 12 cores compared to the 9900X's 10.

Edit: the same is true for the 9940X vs 9920X - just 2 more cores. The only explanation I can think of is that while all 3 processors have a boost clock of 4.5 GHz, the 9940X must be reaching its single core boost better than the others.

 

[yRaz]

Most of this stuff isn't gonna sell well and will depreciate as the coming years roll in.

Well I think Intel will keep supply low to keep prices high. They do have better single core performance and demand from the premium market isn't going to drop. i9s hold their value pretty well even if the price: performance isn't really there. I'd like a threadripper as I run TONS of virtual machines. I'm already foaming at the mouth thinking about running 8, quadcore VMs on one machine with a 32 core threadripper.....

 

[Uncle Al]

Flood that marketplace!!! We'll pick up the spares for pennies on the dollar!

 

[mongeese]

The single core scores for the 9900X and 9920X are a little odd - with default settings, it should be exactly the same, as the only difference between those processors is that the 9920X has 12 cores compared to the 9900X's 10.

Edit: the same is true for the 9940X vs 9920X - just 2 more cores. The only explanation I can think of is that while all 3 processors have a boost clock of 4.5 GHz, the 9940X must be reaching its single core boost better than the others.

A little odd, but not, I would argue, unexpected. Not only is the run to run variation in the single core Geekbench workload noteworthy, but Intel's HEDT chips often do weird things in single core benchmarks. In the 7th gen i9 review, for example, the 7980XE scored 180 in single thread Cinebench and the 7960X scored 185 despite identical boost frequencies. The 7900X, which is supposed to be 100 MHz faster than both, got 183.

 

[kmo911]

Now im aming for pcie 4.0 performance and want to try out 3dmark pcie 4.0 speed test.

if intel want to come all after with pcie 5.0 I will benchmark with limited pcie 4.0 on a pcie 5.0 from intel ?

when will games take full performance of useing pcie 4.0 chioses like asus prime x570-p and so on. https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserR..._xz7okAUwh1LpAAm8xBLl9WiniaX001YTkSAKWk3AlxQ0 so getting a pcie 4.0 ssd and gpu would it make any better fps then i9-9900 series ?
will lga 2066 support the 10 th gen and lga 1151 ?
where are the pcie 4.0 support from intel ?
looks like amd getting better in next gen 4xxxX too if intel dont get their hands from slievees. now a little update https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserR...6VyTOK1VXg7bHmLX6OEq_PuvVPVbpd1oJDWcaxqov1wIM how much speed does you need to beat a 9900k ? x3990 would be the speed.
intel beats amd nvidia gets a pcie 5.0 but no motherboards that"s support 5.0 yet ??
far cry 6 gta 6 with full scaling on 4.0-7.0 ?

upd https://www.techspot.com/news/80310...n-announced-offer-128gbs-transfer-speeds.html

so about a few months we get https://www.techspot.com/news/82374-pci-e-60-specification-set-finalized-2021.html

 

[Markoni35]

What about fixing those hundreds of KNOWN security holes (not to mention those yet to be discovered)? Did they fix them? Nope.

If they keep adding numbers to CPU names, they'll soon come to number 80286

 

[ubronan]

I am totally not interrested in these multi core models being released.
They add nothing usefull for me, so I am not even looking at the latest news anymore.
For me I wake up again if some miracle happens and a 6 Ghz 4 core / 8 threads cpu gets released anytime in the coming 20 years then I will be inclined to buy a new cpu.
But this far nothing which has been released did spark for me a feeling thats what I want and need.
Hell not even the pci-e 4 ssd's made me wake up because real world performance they do nothing more than the previous generation. They are not fast in any way and will never load games faster.
Its almost as if people just love to jump on the next hype "oooohhhh its got BLERCH 4.5 now I need it."
People are bragging to me they got a pci-e 4.0 ssd and brag I got the fastest ssd on the planet now, and then I show them 10 seconds later their expenissive toy gets beaten by a duo of old enterprise ssd who can be bought for scraps nowadays so they payed a premium for a drive which does not even do anything for them. But just the fact that its new and sounds fast made them happy and seems to make them believe its better.
The only thing its good for is the endless quest for more money on this planet