This is a translation from the guys that wrote the review LAB501 regarding why it was only compared for the moment with AMD 3900X Okay ... now I have to confess that this article is only a half review. Of course, we tested the Intel Core i9 10980XE and you can see in the following pages what results it gets. Unfortunately, I couldn't compare it directly to an equivalent processor, for several reasons. Thus, AMD Ryzen 9 3950X and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3rd gen have not been launched yet, Intel Core i9 9980XE has not been tested according to the new methodology, and those at Intel have refused to provide it to us, and the top of the range AMD , The Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is currently locked in a long-term test by my colleague Matei. For this reason, we have no graphs with the Intel equivalent model from the previous generation and no results with 2990WX. That is why, I will not comment on each result obtained by Intel Core i9 10980XE, preferring to leave you in the company of graphics. It is true that the Intel Core i9 10980XE performs well, but the difference from the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X is not as great as we would expect, although it has 12 cores and 24 threads, compared to the 18 cores and 36 cores. Execution threads of the Intel monster. Also, from the common benchmarks it is not difficult to realize that the Intel Core i9 10980XE achieves better results than the Intel Core i9 9980XE, but this is due to the slightly higher boost frequency. Clock per clock, the performance of the Intel Core i9 10980XE is lower, due to the factory-built security patches (Meltdown, etc.). you can find it on PAGE 3 of the review language is Romanian

The 3950X will destroy this chip.

Darksword:

The 3950X will destroy this chip.

Yeah. Considering the Cinebench perf shown for the 3900X is missing 200 points. Out of the box 3900X with Noctua D15, X570 Taichi with ABBA AGESA and 3600C16 XMP ram (not even tuned) gets ~7240. If out of the box 3950X can clock as same 4.1-4.2 all core on CB R20 it should give around 9650 against the 8563 of the 10980XE!!!

You can buy 2 3900X for the price of this. #laughingbigtime

nizzen:

It can't be slower than the 2 years old 7980xe when overclocked, so it WILL be good. 7980xe overclocked (50ns memory latency) is destroying 3900x overclocked (63ns memory latency) in any scenarioes. Most likely 3950x too. Time will tell, when I'm beching 3950x and 10980xe in some weeks 😀 PS: I have 3900x too 😉

So an 18 core Intel destroys a 12 core AMD for 4x of the price? 😀 LOL, great job blues! 🙂

Darksword:

The 3950X will destroy this chip.

BReal85:

You can buy 2 3900X for the price of this. #laughingbigtime So an 18 core Intel destroys a 12 core AMD for 4x of the price? 😀 LOL, great job blues! 🙂

7980xe is 2 years old, and now it's under 1000$ new. The best allways costs premium, no mather if it's a car or computerparts. I have 3x AMD cpu running and 2x Intel, so I'm not a fanboy 😉 I just like fast hardware 😀 Testet Cinebench R20 now with 7980xe @ 4700mhz, it got 10910points. 10980xe is going to be a bit faster than this when overclocked.

Fediuld:

Yeah. Considering the Cinebench perf shown for the 3900X is missing 200 points. Out of the box 3900X with Noctua D15, X570 Taichi with ABBA AGESA and 3600C16 XMP ram (not even tuned) gets ~7240. If out of the box 3950X can clock as same 4.1-4.2 all core on CB R20 it should give around 9650 against the 8563 of the 10980XE!!!

Testet Cinebench R20 now with 7980xe @ 4700mhz, it got 10910points. 10980xe is going to be a bit faster than this when overclocked. 7980xe overclocked has 25% lower latency than overclocked 3900x, so 3950x don't stand a chance in pure performance. But if running Cinebench R20 @ stock clock is all you are doing, then 3950x is a good choice 😀

angelgraves13:

I do hope we have 32 core CPUs around $500 by 2025. I could care less about clockspeeds...we need more cache (GBs of L3 or L4), and a 50% increase in IPC.

You do know that higher clocks and higher IPC are two parts to the same goal, more speed per core, right? If you increase IPC by 50% but reduce clocks by the same amount, then your CPU isn't actually faster, its just the same. Why not increase both, or at least maintain the high clocks we have now, for an actual proper increase in performance. What one should care about is actual final performance, it ultimately doesn't matter as much how its being achieved. For consumers at least, the core wars might as well be over. It'll take years, possibly a decade, for consumer software to catch up and fully and properly utilize 12-16 cores.

DW75:

You are just a fuckin troll.

Thank you 🙂 I love poor noobs to 🙂

nizzen:

Thank you 🙂 I love poor noobs to 🙂

Dude you sound like such a d**k, nobody cares about the so-called hardware you apparently own. Secondly, you clearly are very bias towards intel and just some advice you don't sound very smart if you are pissing money up on computer components all the time. It's just not cool bro

nizzen:

because I gaming on a 7980xe delidded @ 4800mhz and 4000c16 memory. 51ns memory latency. It's faster than my 3900x in all games that are cpubound. 9900k is still a bit faster with 39ns mem latency.

How many are going to delid 1000+ euros CPUs, though, when even Der8auer, the maker of delidding tools, can break a CPU when delidding it using his own tool? That being said, I'm sure the 10980xe will overclock decently even without risking breaking it, unless Intel again used toothpaste as TIM. Nonetheless, your example will definitely not be the average example. In fact I'd agree with the other guy who said most buyers won't even overclock. They will just want to get to work. This is why I think good reviews are made using stock values and then there could be an overclocking section separately like Guru3D tends to have. Individual CPUs will overclock differently anyway, so what you read in a review might not reflect your particular reality, in good or bad. If you only review using a good overclock, what are you going to do when people come to you complaining they can't achieve anywhere near those clocks and your review is thus nonsense?

karma777police:

This 18/36 is a beast, cpu is not even running proper clock. This baby can run 4.4Ghz on all Cores easy.

On the 7980xe and 9980xe 18 core, 4.4 Ghz will put you in the 400-500W power range, that is not something you just setup if you are bored during 1 or 2 hours. You need a serous PSU, motherboard and Watercooler to reach those numbers and on top of that some people needed to delid, sand down IHS and mount cooling fans on VRM, to keep the pc alive for more then 10 minuttes of load at the time. It does not look like there is much difference between 9980xe and 10980xe on paper, so in my head the 10980xe only exists to not piss off 9980xe owners too much because the price is now lowered.

I see a loot of people say that Intel can OC but reminder here not all of them do OC. My i9-7900X delid with copper IHS can't hit 4.5GHz on all cores (only 4 can do that). Keep in mind that these new CPUs will have in hardware mitigations for some of the many issues that plague Intel platform so IMHO they will run slower compared to previous gen running same clock. Platform cost is something that is missing in talk here. AMD can probably run nicely on AIO or air (level of NH-D15 cooling) vs Intel + custom liquid (for these 4.7/4.8 GHz on 18 cores). So platform cost is much higher on Intel platform. And yes I do understand that top of the line performance cost premium. If those benchmarks are mixture of stock and OC CPUs, are not representative. I do like this kind of tests but only when each setup is described with I don't see here. I'm on x299 platform and with all these 2x performance per $ increase on Intel side I still consider TR platform. AMD did great job with Zen and, at least as MT is concerned, Intel has nothing to combat against high end AMD offerings.

N0Name:

I see a loot of people say that Intel can OC but reminder here not all of them do OC. My i9-7900X delid with copper IHS can't hit 4.5GHz on all cores (only 4 can do that). Keep in mind that these new CPUs will have in hardware mitigations for some of the many issues that plague Intel platform so IMHO they will run slower compared to previous gen running same clock. Platform cost is something that is missing in talk here. AMD can probably run nicely on AIO or air (level of NH-D15 cooling) vs Intel + custom liquid (for these 4.7/4.8 GHz on 18 cores). So platform cost is much higher on Intel platform. And yes I do understand that top of the line performance cost premium. If those benchmarks are mixture of stock and OC CPUs, are not representative. I do like this kind of tests but only when each setup is described with I don't see here. I'm on x299 platform and with all these 2x performance per $ increase on Intel side I still consider TR platform. AMD did great job with Zen and, at least as MT is concerned, Intel has nothing to combat against high end AMD offerings.

Actually x299 is cheaper then x570 when you compare same type of motehrboard, take MSI creation and compare on both chipsets, x299 is cheaper. Also, based on THIS review if you check their web site, the 18 core beats both 3900x and 9900K in temps under load and beats 9900K in watts under load, its OVERCLOCKING MONSTER! [dont forget its 18 core and runs cooler then 12 core and 8 core and uses lets power then 8 core] 67 vs 83 for 3900x vs 94 for 9900 266W vs 252 for 3900x vs 300W for 9900K

Here is some hard info for AMD fanboys and just people that missed it Based on this review if you check their web site, the 18 core beats both 3900x and 9900K in temps under load and beats 9900K in watts under load! its OVERCLOCKING MONSTER! [dont forget its 18 core and runs cooler then 12 core and 8 core and uses less power then 8 core] 67c vs 83c for 3900x vs 94c for 9900 266w vs 252w for 3900x vs 300w for 9900K

nizzen:

X299 only shines when overclocked. When it is, it's kicking ass 😀 Stock-clock.net is not my forum 😛

I agree with the fact that it shine in OC, BUT to be tested versus another CPU it has to be within the frequency it is sold for, and so STOCK. and you might ask why: it's because a CPU compared to the same one wouln't give the same result, i remember my G3258 and the one from a friend, both from the same serie, mine were around 4.5 stock fan capable, his were 4.3 with water cooling and voltage up with the same ram and motherboard. The only comparable thing were the stock speed, i was lucky, he wasn't. Funny things my Athlon GE can't OC good (i am at GE 240 speed) and his seem to have no limit... the wheel of luck lol By the way in Guru3D you always found a Stock and OC test, but the OC is only to be taken as a "where can it might go", not as exact science.

angelgraves13:

7980XE isn't worth more than $400 IMHO. I can just get a 3900X for $499, so it's pointless. I don't know how people defend Intel...they dropped their prices and could drop it another 25% and still make massive profits.

Stock for stock the 7960x beats the 3900x where do you get the 7980xe being slower?

angelgraves13:

It takes 18 cores to beat AMD’s 12 cores...and you think that’s ok. Let that sink in for a second. Throw your money away

It depend what is the objective... On track some spend insane money to get around 20 HP more over existing engine tuning, and some (as i am) have fun on track but put money in the hollyday pot too. Same with computer some will pay some XXXX Euro more to have the best of the best even if the 2nd better choise is only few points in bench front the 1st. If they are happy with their choise then it is good 🙂 I don't see anything bad about it.

Loophole35:

Stock for stock the 7960x beats the 3900x where do you get the 7980xe being slower?

Sorry but if you read objective test it isn't as clear as you said... even more in game... Read the review in Guru3D of the 3800X (8c/16t) there is the I9 7960x in the list of CPU compared with this CPU.

MegaFalloutFan:

Actually x299 is cheaper then x570 when you compare same type of motehrboard, take MSI creation and compare on both chipsets, x299 is cheaper. Also, based on THIS review if you check their web site, the 18 core beats both 3900x and 9900K in temps under load and beats 9900K in watts under load, its OVERCLOCKING MONSTER! [dont forget its 18 core and runs cooler then 12 core and 8 core and uses lets power then 8 core] 67 vs 83 for 3900x vs 94 for 9900 266W vs 252 for 3900x vs 300W for 9900K

Is this price difference so big that I can purchase custom liquid cooling? Dunno why it's priced that, maybe x570 is more popular then x299 (well it is no question about that). Temps - That's why I did talked about TR and didn't mentioned desktop platform. Reason is simple - different package size for HEDT vs Desktop. For example package size: i9-9980X : 52.5x45mm Tj 84*C i9-9900K : 37.5x37.5 mm Tj 100*C So temp comparison is not really a thing here. Power consumption - Intel HEDT tops out @ 500W mark when OCed. This rises very fast when OCed and is non linear to frequency so that's why i9K draw more then i9X (higher frequency). I do get what You saying and In general IF one want to have FUN and OC then yeah Intel is the way and go for it. I personally look for CPU for work and if I can stable 24/7 OC it with reasonable thermals with NH-D15 then I will do it. The only problem with this OC business is that it's lottery. According to siliconlottery 90-95% i9-7900X did hit for them 4.5 on all cores one that I got don't do that so it's not 100% guarantee that when purchasing CPU I will hit those frequencies so I don't take that into account when comparing CPUs.

MegaFalloutFan:

Actually x299 is cheaper then x570 when you compare same type of motehrboard, take MSI creation and compare on both chipsets, x299 is cheaper. Also, based on THIS review if you check their web site, the 18 core beats both 3900x and 9900K in temps under load and beats 9900K in watts under load, its OVERCLOCKING MONSTER! [dont forget its 18 core and runs cooler then 12 core and 8 core and uses lets power then 8 core] 67 vs 83 for 3900x vs 94 for 9900 266W vs 252 for 3900x vs 300W for 9900K

Hi there I wouldn't compare X299 vs X570, X299 always have been HDET like is ThreadRipper and personally I would rather compare similar board to TR4 not X570 X570 is mainstream like is Z390 and MSI Creation is just overpriced board which I wouldn't touch just doesn't have extra molex for PCI_E Regarding the temperatures, this doesn't matter as much what temperatures they are getting because every CPU is different and everyone always use their own preferred cooler and comparing both of CPU doesn't make sense to me Would love to see what power draw i9-10980XE will have when OC and VRM temperatures as well Hope this helps Thanks, Jura