Review Intel Core i9-10980XE Review: Intel Loses its Grip on HEDT

[PaulAlcorn]

To TomsHardware: please compare what make sense: Intel 10980XE is at 1100 euros., AMD TR2990WX ist at 2000 euros.

Thanks for the feedback, but we didn't make direct comparisons between the two, instead focusing on the 2970WX and the 3950X that slot into competitive range for this price bracket.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

There is more to the power usage than just the CPU. What you really need to know is total system power draw and guess what the AMD is better than Intel at that, even with 14 more cores. https://www.servethehome.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3970x-review-32-cores-of-madness/6/ The reason that happens is that with more cores each core doesn't have to run as hard to get more work done on parallel tasks.

The handbrake efficiency charts are also telling, last two images on the album on page 2. It's just one application with two different distributions of AVX instructions, but this is very telling. I'm going to add another test to cover SSE at some point, but I am undecided on which is the best application for that. Definitely not CineBench R15

 

[TJ Hooker]

To TomsHardware: please compare what make sense: Intel 10980XE is at 1100 euros., AMD TR2990WX ist at 2000 euros.

Why would anyone spend 2000 eur on a TR2990WX when you can get the superior 3970X for about the same price (2000 USD MSRP)?

 

[RodroX]

Good article. I think this few sentences define exactly whats going on right now between Intel and AMD:

"... The Core i9-10980XE has two primary competitors: the Ryzen 9 3950X and the Threadripper 2970WX that AMD has left on the market to address this price bracket..."

... Given the Ryzen 9 3950X's impressive performance in many mainstream tasks, including threaded workloads, and its lower overall chip and platform pricing, it is a viable alternative to Intel's Core i9-10980XE...

... Intel often has to lean on its overclocking advantage to wrest the lead from the 3950X, but the 3950X isn't too shabby after overclocking, either. Intel's advantage after tuning comes at a $230 premium and requires more robust cooling and power delivery, so you should factor that into your purchasing decision...

... We generally don't recommend HEDT parts for gamers, you'll get faster performance from the mainstream Core i9-9900K and 3950X, but streamers do benefit from the extra cores and threads, particularly for editing tasks. Intel's new $979 price point is much more palatable for this class of user, but most of the benefit over the 3950X would only come after spending those extra dollars on accompanying components. Most would be better served by the Ryzen 9 3950X...

....If you don't need extra I/O or quad-channel memory, the 3950X is also a better value for most productivity workloads.... Overclocking performance is a factor if you're willing to spend the cash. You can drop the -10980XE into an existing X299 board if you're willing to sacrifice a few PCIe lanes, but be aware that this is the end of the line for the X299 platform..."

Its amazing just how the game turned out.

Good thing Intel still have a lot more budget than AMD, because when you realize a mainstream CPU (R9 3950X) is a viable alternative to the best, just released, HEDT part (i9-10980XE) of the opposite company I would not want to be on Intel CEO shoes right now.

 

[jpe1701]

I am so glad commenting has returned to a (hopefully) consistent format.
I think you should add that there is some 300 series support for the 3950x because it would slot nicely into my X370 Taichi ;-) If only I could justify a 16 core gaming and internet rig with the occasional session of poking and prodding it to see what it can do. Lol.

 

[Crashman]

To TomsHardware: please compare what make sense: Intel 10980XE is at 1100 euros., AMD TR2990WX ist at 2000 euros.

So you're saying it doesn't make sense to compare Intel's "Best" to AMD's "Best" HEDT processor? Ever?

 

[atomicWAR]

Yes let's be honest here,we can all bash intel all we want but if intel had done all that there would be no AMD left today...a 6c/12t sandybridge would have overshadowed anything AMD had by so much that nobody would have stayed with them.
The i9-10980XE on the other hand still has several wins over the, almost double the cores,threadrippers even outside of gaming even if you need to overclock the intel part.

Intel loses on the very scalable stuff but intel also has xeon phi for this type of workload and yes they also come as co-processors as well...

Oh I agree that would have been a likely death blow to AMD. While angry with I am not trying to outright bash Intel, though I do feel they have made such sentiments easy to do as of late and can see why you may have assumed that was my overall intent ( I was brutal to be fair but please read on). At the end of the day the more competition we have the better. It only helps the consumer. So the last thing I want is for AMD or Intel to make such a bad move that we lose one. That would ruin the x86 desktop space. So I apologize if I sounded too team green, it was my last intention. It is nice to see AMD back in the game though, I won't lie. We wouldn't have this core war going had they not stepped up. And yes I am mad at Intel but we need them just as much as AMD. So while AMD has my next purchase in all likelihood (no huge IPC changes excluded), I do have to burn off some of that disappointment with Intel out some how. But at the end of the day I truly look forward to Intels response to Ryzen 3 (or 4/5 depending on when we get said response). I hope we get another Core 2 type of response like Intel did to get out from underneath AMD's Athlon x64 dominance. I went from a FX 53 to a core 2 quad back in the day with a smile. The jump in performance was huge not only going from 2 cores to four but even the single threaded IPC jump was big. Intel was firing on all cylinders again and I was loving it.

As to InvalidError's comment on Intel's indeal die size for the mid-range, 150mm squared, I totally understand the economies of why Intel likes to keep their mainstream chips small but I do think they had a market where the iGPU could have been left off to add some more cores...OR I would have even been ok with something like the Core 2 series did and use a MCM approach. Trim two CPU's (sandy bridge) of their iGPU's, kill a core on each quad core die (or not) and stitch them together so the overall combined size squared was closer to that 150mm scale (216mm squared for the whole CPU/GPU package as it shipped with 131mm squared for the iGPU alone, when you trim the iGPU off or leave it off you're left with only 85mm squared for 4c/8t...170mm for a 8c/16t CPU and had they gone with 6c/12t setup with the lower mainstream cache sizes and gone sans iGPU from the get go it would have been approx 128mm squared which is less then half the size of a i7 3930k 6c/12t @ 435mm squared...so I feel like there were way's for intel address the market better it's just they had no motivation to utilize them as AMD posed no threat what so ever in those days, especially at the higher price points). Then Intel could have used higher cache and/or core counts in the HEDT space to help differentiate. Regardless I do believe they could have done more on that CPU front for it's enthusiast/prosumer level buyers. But as stated this likely would have decimated AMD. For me the higher core count per gen argument I made was more of a "in a perfect world" type of discussion. Clearly it's not how things went and surely it would have spelled the likely doom of AMD. Something that would have done no one any good but Intel share holders. While I do feel like this launch for Intel is an embarrassment, I truly look forward to their true reply to Ryzen. I suspect it will be very powerful, more cost effective then their CPU gen's in recent history and I hope AMD is ready for it when it comes. I just want to keep everyone in the game so we all win at the end of the day.

 

[InvalidError]

We wouldn't have this core war going had they not stepped up.

The core count would still go up, albeit only as fast as process maturity and most cost-effective die size allow instead of being forced to make ~2X bigger chips at a time where fabs already could not keep up with demand only to prevent market share collapse while it gives 10nm one last shot as it gears up for 7nm.

 

[Deleted member 2783327]

Ryzen 9 3950X

16 / 32

3.5 / 4.7

64

64

Dual DDR4-3200

105W

Is that a typo? 64 PCIe lanes on 3950x?

There is more to the power usage than just the CPU. What you really need to know is total system power draw and guess what the AMD is better than Intel at that, even with 14 more cores. https://www.servethehome.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3970x-review-32-cores-of-madness/6/ The reason that happens is that with more cores each core doesn't have to run as hard to get more work done on parallel tasks.

So, what are you saying. that a 280w CPU under full load will be cooler and use less power than a 165w CPU given that the system power draw for all other components will not change... Well except for motherboard maybe?

I'd really like to see some charts or formulas for calculating this stuff. At 25%, 50% load, 75% load and 100% load etc.

Even if that were true, AMD clearly don't want to break into the Australian market because the price for the change over to AMD is twice that of Intel as the prices stand at this minute. I'd almost be tempted to go AMD if I could be sure the power consumption wasn't going to set me back another $600 per year, and with ambient temps of 35-40c, being able to cool it over summer would be possible with my H150i Pro.

 

[Deleted member 2783327]

There is so much wrong in your post. Your power consumption calculations are completely pointless, you need the energy per job done. Energy to render for example. You don't sit there with your CPU maxed all day. And you're comparing 18 vs 24 cores... And don't use TDP for that, that is a mistake. You are completely ignoring performance per watt, and idle power etc.

OK, I don't mind being told I'm wrong, as long as it's done respectfully. I'm not trying to ignore anything.

The only thing that matters to me is (a). How much is it going to cost per year to run with loads of ~ 100% 6 hours a day, 300 days a year, and say 50% load 4 hours a day for 365 days a year. (b). Can I cool it in the hot summers when the ambient temps are 35-40 Celsius? Is the cooler going to have to work harder, and therefore consume more power also?

If my post is so ignorant, please give me the accurate figures for 12 months of usage, for a $4000 investment. Electricity is 43c per KwH. The system has a 1200w HX1200i PSU and the cooler is a Corsair H115i Pro.

Peformance per watt and all other intangibles are fine - but what really matters (at least to me), is the AMD going to cost me more or less to run when I have to pay double the price to buy it?

And before I get accused of being an Intel Supporter - I most definitely am not! I hate Intel. I just can't see how the AMD is going to be cheaper or at least the same to run per year over the 10980XE for (a) Initial outlay and (b). long term costs.

 

[atomicWAR]

@InvalidError

Yeah the core count would go up but if AMD had not stepped in...at what rate would have Intel added more cores though? AMD really pushed core heavy CPUs on the mainstream when Intel was content to leave those types of chips in the HEDT space. First eight cores then up to sixteen on a mainstream platform. It was/is unheard of. Intel is literally having to use their HEDT chips to fight off mainstream AMD ones. I feel like it is a fair argument to say we have AMD to thank for the current core count situation and not just increase in transistor density. I am not going to say the transition from 14/12nm down to 7nm didn't help the core count in AMDs case, it made it possible and more economical. AMD had 8C/16T chips on 14/12nm. One would think with Intel on 14nm, which if I recall correctly is denser then TSMC's 14nm, they could have done mainstream 8c/16t CPU's sooner and not just as a reaction to AMD's product releases. Though to be fair AMD's core is leaner and takes up less mm squared then Intel, so I can understand where the extra cost in silicon would not been seen as in Intel's best interest during development of their mainstream chips as Intel would have still been unaware AMD Ryzen would force their hand later down the line. I get these chips are devoloped years in advance. In many respects both Intel and AMD are guessing where the other will be at any given time frame and setting their target's accordingly.

 

[nofanneeded]

AMD is playing a dangerous game and tricking people ,they are lowring the CPU price and demanding you to buy a $400+ motherboard ... bad trick ..

offer cheap moterboard option please. you can find $200 x299 intel motherboard. but never AMD new threadripper

 

[InvalidError]

offer cheap moterboard option please. you can find $200 x299 intel motherboard. but never AMD new threadripper

Don't worry, Intel motherboard prices will go up once Intel launches a new HEDT lineup on a new socket able to compete with 3rd-gen Rippers. Bigger sockets and extra board layers to route extra high-speed IO don't come cheap.

 

[nofanneeded]

Don't worry, Intel motherboard prices will go up once Intel launches a new HEDT lineup on a new socket able to compete with 3rd-gen Rippers. Bigger sockets and extra board layers to route extra high-speed IO don't come cheap.

It is not about the layers , from the beginning of X299 intel offered $200 to $600 motherboards all had the same memory channels but the cheapest one was with lower onboard options very basic ...

we allways need basic motherboards for workstation models. Dell does that by making entry level workstation and high end workstation using the same CPU ...

MSI is good at making cheap X299 motherboards as well. I hope they do the same for AMD

 

[RodroX]

It is not about the layers , from the beginning of X299 intel offered $200 to $600 motherboards all had the same memory channels but the cheapest one was with lower onboard options very basic ...

we allways need basic motherboards for workstation models. Dell does that by making entry level workstation and high end workstation using the same CPU ...

MSI is good at making cheap X299 motherboards as well. I hope they do the same for AMD

I see your point, if a basic motherboard works for ya, and maybe you don't need the extra PCI-E lane or the Quad-Channel memory, a decent B450 (MSI B450-A Pro) or X470 (Asrock X470 Taichi) + R9 3900X or 3950X will be a better choice than Intels or AMD HEDT solutions.

If you do need PCI-E 4.0 for fast storage and/or ECC memory support, then a sub $200 mobo like Asus TUF GAMING X570-PLUS will give you up to 128GB DDR4 ECC memory, PCI-E 4.0 and you can use the R9 3900X/3950X to have a workstation level PC for cheap with very good mainstream parts.

 

[nofanneeded]

I see your point, if a basic motherboard works for ya, and maybe you don't need the extra PCI-E lane or the Quad-Channel memory, a decent B450 (MSI B450-A Pro) or X470 (Asrock X470 Taichi) + R9 3900X or 3950X will be a better choice than Intels or AMD HEDT solutions.

If you do need PCI-E 4.0 for fast storage and/or ECC memory support, then a sub $200 mobo like Asus TUF GAMING X570-PLUS will give you up to 128GB DDR4 ECC memory, PCI-E 4.0 and you can use the R9 3900X/3950X to have a workstation level PC for cheap with very good mainstream parts.

Many proffessionals want more cores but dont need fast 10Gbit lans or other expensive components. They just need basic Motherboard with 32 to 64 cores CPU and one or two M2 slots and one or two GPU slots and thats it.

Such motherboards are not expensive .

here is an example

https://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=MB-X299EX4&c=CJ&cjevent=4915b1b812bc11ea804601140a18050d

it has everything one needs for a workstation .. and for $189 only.

quad channels , 2xM2 , and three 16 lanes slots.

 

[InvalidError]

It is not about the layers , from the beginning of X299 intel offered $200 to $600 motherboards all had the same memory channels but the cheapest one was with lower onboard options very basic ...

Even the most basic ThreadRipper motherboard still has a socket that is nearly twice as big as Intel's HEDT and 20 extra PCIe lanes that have much tighter signal integrity requirements than DDR4 due to 2-3X higher (now 4-6X higher with 3rd-gen's PCIe4) bit rates and much longer distances.

 

[TJ Hooker]

The only thing that matters to me is (a). How much is it going to cost per year to run with loads of ~ 100% 6 hours a day, 300 days a year, and say 50% load 4 hours a day for 365 days a year. (b). Can I cool it in the hot summers when the ambient temps are 35-40 Celsius? Is the cooler going to have to work harder, and therefore consume more power also?

If my post is so ignorant, please give me the accurate figures for 12 months of usage, for a $4000 investment. Electricity is 43c per KwH. The system has a 1200w HX1200i PSU and the cooler is a Corsair H115i Pro.

Peformance per watt and all other intangibles are fine - but what really matters (at least to me), is the AMD going to cost me more or less to run when I have to pay double the price to buy it?

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, just looking at power consumption for 100% load with no context makes zero sense if you're trying to factor in power draw/cost in deciding whether to purchase.

If one CPU is twice as fast as the other either you're going to finish what you're doing in half the time, or you're going to be able to get twice as much done. Either way, comparing power draw for both CPUs assuming they're running for the same amount of time is illogical.

Also, how do you figure a 3rd Gen TR is going to run you $4K? It's ~$2K for a 3970X, and another ~$500 for a new board. As has been pointed out to you, you can reuse your current memory.

It's like comparing the fuel efficiency between a truck and a car. Sure, you can look at fuel costs assuming you're just driving around aimlessly for 6 hours a day no matter which one you choose, in which case you'd always conclude that the car is the better buy. But that would obviously be a dumb way of looking at things.

 

[nofanneeded]

Even the most basic ThreadRipper motherboard still has a socket that is nearly twice as big as Intel's HEDT and 20 extra PCIe lanes that have much tighter signal integrity requirements than DDR4 due to 2-3X higher (now 4-6X higher with 3rd-gen's PCIe4) bit rates and much longer distances.

That does not justify $400 starting price ... and the extra PCI e lanes can be ignored in basic mmotherboards ...

take away two slots for example ...

not everyone will use all the lanes as I said but need more cores at cheaper price than intel.

 

[InvalidError]

That does not justify $400 starting price ... and the extra PCI e lanes can be ignored in basic mmotherboards ...

When you are paying $1000+ for a server-class CPU that sits on a 2S server-scale socket and can draw upwards of 300W peak stock, a "basic" motherboard tends to get expensive no matter how "basic" you go.

 

[Sleepy_Hollowed]

Disclaimer: I badly want to dump Intel and go AMD. But are the conditions right?

The AMD 3950X has 16 PCIe lanes, right? So for those of us who have multiple adapters such as RAID cards, USB or SATA port adapters, 10G NICs, etc, HEDT is the only way to go.

Someone once told me "No one in the world needs more than 16PCIe lanes, that's why mainstream CPUs have never gone over 16 lanes". If that were true the HEDT CPUs would not exist.

So we can say the 3950X destroys the Intel HEDT lineup, but only if you don't have anything other than ONE graphics card. As soon as you add other devices, you're blown.

The 3970X is $3199 where I am. That will drop by $100 by 2021.

The power consumption of 280w will cost me an extra $217 per year per PC. There are 3 HEDT PCs, so an extra $651 per year.

AMD: 1 PC @ 280w for 12 hours per day for 365 days at 43c per kilowatt hour = $527.74
Intel: 1 PC @ 165w for 12 hours per day for 365 days at 43c per kilowatt hour = $310.76

My 7900X is overclocked to 4.5GHZ all cores. Can I do that with any AMD HEDT CPU?

In summer the ambient temp here is 38 - 40 degrees Celsius. With a 280mm cooler and 11 case fans my system runs 10 degrees over ambient on idle, so 50c is not uncommon during the afternoons on idle. Put the system under load it easily sits at 80c and is very loud.

With a 280w CPU, how can I cool that? The article says that "Intel still can't deal with heat". Errr... Isn't 280w going to produce more heat than 165w. And isn't 165w much easier to cool? Am I missing something?

I'm going to have to replace motherboard and RAM too. That's another $2000 - $3000. With Intel my current memory will work and a new motherboard will set me back $900.

Like I said, I really want to go AMD, but I think the heat, energy and changeover costs are going to be prohibitive. PCIe4 is a big draw for AMD as it means I don't have to replace again when Intel finally gets with the program, but the other factors I fear are just too overwhelming to make AMD viable at this stage.

Darn it Intel is way cheaper when looked at from this perspective.

That's quite inaccurate. The mainboard platform has a total of 24 lanes: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-x570-x470-chipset-pcie-4.0,39651.html

It does mean that you do have to choose between massive storage machine or gaming, but that's a no brainer, since if I had a gaming machine and wanted lots of media storage I'd be better served by quicker Gigabit NAS than in-PC one, but that's just me.

 

[InvalidError]

That's quite inaccurate. The mainboard platform has a total of 24 lanes: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-x570-x470-chipset-pcie-4.0,39651.html

24 for the CPU (4 for the chipset uplink) and up to 16 more from the chipset itself depending on how many HSIO/Flex lanes (if any) the motherboard manufacturer decides to dedicate to additional USB or SATA beyond those hard-wired in the CPU and chipset.

 

[mac_angel]

While I agree that AMD is taking over when it comes to core count and programs that are well programmed for multi-threads, Intel was still right in their press release about price/performance. While I can't speak for all countries, in Canada the Core i9 10980XE is going for $1399, and the AMD Threadripper 3960X is $1899. That's quite a price difference, and when you apply a basic overclock to the Intel, it matches or beats AMD.
btw, not an Intel fanboy, just stating facts. I don't care about the name so much as getting the best for how much I can afford, which isn't much. And everyone's needs are different.

 

[RodroX]

While I agree that AMD is taking over when it comes to core count and programs that are well programmed for multi-threads, Intel was still right in their press release about price/performance. While I can't speak for all countries, in Canada the Core i9 10980XE is going for $1399, and the AMD Threadripper 3960X is $1899. That's quite a price difference, and when you apply a basic overclock to the Intel, it matches or beats AMD.
btw, not an Intel fanboy, just stating facts. I don't care about the name so much as getting the best for how much I can afford, which isn't much. And everyone's needs are different.

Youre lucky you found a TR 3960X!, Let see if demand settles and stocks shows up, how the prices ends.

Far as I know the Ryzen 9 3950X, TR 3960X and 3970X are out of stock in most places

 

[TCA_ChinChin]

While I agree that AMD is taking over when it comes to core count and programs that are well programmed for multi-threads, Intel was still right in their press release about price/performance. While I can't speak for all countries, in Canada the Core i9 10980XE is going for $1399, and the AMD Threadripper 3960X is $1899. That's quite a price difference, and when you apply a basic overclock to the Intel, it matches or beats AMD.
btw, not an Intel fanboy, just stating facts. I don't care about the name so much as getting the best for how much I can afford, which isn't much. And everyone's needs are different.

Depends on the workload you are talking about. I would say for more cases than not the thread ripper still beats the i9 for popular workstation tasks.