News Intel 18-Core Cascade Lake-X CPU Enters Geekbench 4 Database

[Admin]

An unknown Intel 18-core, 32-thread Cascade Lake-X processor, has been benchmarked with Geekbench 4.

Intel 18-Core Cascade Lake-X CPU Enters Geekbench 4 Database : Read more

 

[jimmysmitty]

Interesting you didn't mention the chipset which was listed as an Intel C422 chipset. So it is LGA2066 and if its working on the C422 platform this is most likely a refresh and nothing major to even consider.

 

[GetSmart]

For the actual clockspeed, add ".gb4" to the end of that Geekbench database link like this.

 

[bit_user]

this is most likely a refresh and nothing major to even consider.

As far as I know, Cascade Lake is just a refresh of Skylake SP, with a couple hundred more 100 MHz and a couple hardware mitigations.

Heh, even the name is fitting. Like it cascaded down from Skylake.
: )

 

[bit_user]

For the actual clockspeed, add ".gb4" to the end of that Geekbench database link like this.

Okay, so we get:

  "processor_frequency": {
    "minimum": 3978,
    "maximum": 4480,
    "median": 4433,
    "mean": 4407,
    "stddev": 86.391331606938024,

Except, then there's a list of "frequencies" that's 111 entries long. That's obviously not cores or threads, so I don't know exactly what to make of it.

But, it looks like maybe the part has a base of 4.0 GHz and max turbo of 4.5 GHz? Not bad. With Intel cranking it up so high, you can just smell their fear of the next ThreadRipper.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Okay, so we get:

  "processor_frequency": {
    "minimum": 3978,
    "maximum": 4480,
    "median": 4433,
    "mean": 4407,
    "stddev": 86.391331606938024,

Except, then there's a list of "frequencies" that's 111 entries long. That's obviously not cores or threads, so I don't know exactly what to make of it.

But, it looks like maybe the part has a base of 4.0 GHz and max turbo of 4.5 GHz? Not bad. With Intel cranking it up so high, you can just smell their fear of the next ThreadRipper.

Best question is what lie is Intel going to tell for this CPU's TDP. I bet they will say it is a 165W TDP when its normal TDP is closer to 300W.

 

[bit_user]

Best question is what lie is Intel going to tell for this CPU's TDP. I bet they will say it is a 165W TDP when its normal TDP is closer to 300W.

Well, it actually depends on the motherboard. If the motherboard strictly follows Intel's guidelines, then the steady state of the CPU will be at its specified TDP. However, you'll mostly see it running at or near its base clock speed, in that case.

This article explains it quite clearly.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13544/why-intel-processors-draw-more-power-than-expected-tdp-turbo

Enthusiast & gamer-oriented motherboards allow the CPU to run outside of Intel's specifications. Workstation and server boards generally do not (and certainly not by default). So, if you want it to stay within their specified TDP (which guarantees at least Base clocks), then choose your motherboard wisely.

Basically, it's not a lie, so much as an unspoken caveat or footnote. I'll agree that Intel really should do a better job of communicating what their TDP actually means, and when you can expect it to count. Likewise, we should expect motherboard vendors to make it clear when they're configured to exceed Intel's advertised TDP and how to keep within Intel's guidelines for users who care about that.

 

[GetSmart]

Not sure how Intel's new Cascade Lake-X (with up to 18 cores) is going to compete in the HEDT space since AMD's Threadripper has more cores (up to 32 cores) and much cheaper as well. Heck even Apple opted for Intel's 28-core Xeon line in their new Mac Pros.

 

[bit_user]

Not sure how Intel's new Cascade Lake-X (with up to 18 cores) is going to compete in the HEDT space since AMD's Threadripper has more cores (up to 32 cores) and much cheaper as well.

Not well. And don't forget PCIe 4.0.

Heck even Apple opted for Intel's 28-core Xeon line in their new Mac Pros.

What Apple did was to go with Intel's server socket (LGA 3647), which Intel is now pushing for workstations, instead of the LGA 2066 on which they introduced the Skylake X-series and Xeon W.

The new Mac Pro's baseline CPU is certainly not 28-cores, though. I think they have 4 different CPU options, and going with the top-end 28-core model will probably add more to the workstation's price than the cost of a decent, small car.

One way I think Intel enticed Apple is by unlocking an extra 16 PCIe lanes, so they at least can match ThreadRipper's 64 lanes. Also, LGA 3647 has 6 memory channels, beating ThreadRipper's 4-channel support. Of course, Apple probably could've sweet-talked AMD into issuing a special, high-clocking, 32-core+ Epyc model, with all 8 memory channels enabled.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Not well. And don't forget PCIe 4.0.


What Apple did was to go with Intel's server socket (LGA 3647), which Intel is now pushing for workstations, instead of the LGA 2066 on which they introduced the Skylake X-series and Xeon W.

The new Mac Pro's baseline CPU is certainly not 28-cores, though. I think they have 4 different CPU options, and going with the top-end 28-core model will probably add more to the workstation's price than the cost of a decent, small car.

One way I think Intel enticed Apple is by unlocking an extra 16 PCIe lanes, so they at least can match ThreadRipper's 64 lanes. Also, LGA 3647 has 6 memory channels, beating ThreadRipper's 4-channel support. Of course, Apple probably could've sweet-talked AMD into issuing a special, high-clocking, 32-core+ Epyc model, with all 8 memory channels enabled.

The high clocking part is what I doubt. Considering on less cores AMD can't clock as high as Intel even with better cooling I doubt their 32 core TR is going to clock much better. Thats the only advantage Intel has in the consumer space is clock speed currently.

Hopefully they come up with something that is competitive in per core.

 

[bit_user]

The high clocking part is what I doubt. Considering on less cores AMD can't clock as high as Intel even with better cooling I doubt their 32 core TR is going to clock much better. Thats the only advantage Intel has in the consumer space is clock speed currently.

The wildcard is that AMD is probably saving the highest binned parts. So, it could be that their 16-core Ryzen 3000 and the new ThreadRipper clock higher that what we've so far seen.

But, with lower cost, lower power, PCIe 4.0, more cores, and more PCIe lanes, AMD only has to equal Intel's performance, for ThreadRipper to become the preferred workstation platform.

 

[jimmysmitty]

The wildcard is that AMD is probably saving the highest binned parts. So, it could be that their 16-core Ryzen 3000 and the new ThreadRipper clock higher that what we've so far seen.

But, with lower cost, lower power, PCIe 4.0, more cores, and more PCIe lanes, AMD only has to equal Intel's performance, for ThreadRipper to become the preferred workstation platform.

True. But considering what we have seen so far I won't hold my breath. I actually think the 16 core Ryzen will have more issues clocking than the others. More cores means more heat to get out and more power to dissipate.

Also Intel could, although I don't think they will, throw some server centric featuires AMD doesn't have at consumer. I doubt they will but you never know.