Puget Systems Lists Intel Core i9-9900XE Specs, Explores Cooling


The TDP is a result of them slamming the clock speed up to a base of 4GHz.

Honestly Intel needs to take a deep breath and just chill out and find a way to compete cost wise with AMD. I don't see this CPU selling well at all except in boutique systems.



Even Intel has to obey the laws of thermodynamics.

Obviously an Intel X model, or in this case XE, wasn't create to win price efficiency battles even against Intel's own chips as shown by the price per cores column.

What it does let you do is have a rendering computer and a gaming computer all in one.

The price isn't out yet but you can be sure it will be more than the $1387 for the lower clocked 14 cores model.

Rather the CPU sells well or not is highly subjective depending on what your definition of success is.

Intel is highly aware that they won't sell more i9-9900XE than i5-9600k.

But for the 1% of market that does need/want an i9-9900XE it is available.




Everything on this is mesh.

I understand that. I just feel like they have been making more wrong choices than right ones. I think they need to drop pricing a bit to be more competitive and focus on getting 10nm out so they can finally start to move forward.



Thats just an assumption. People think most of what Intel has released wouldn't exist without Ryzen but the issue with that is that it takes more than just a few months to design a chip and get it ready.

The difference is that the FX-9590 couldn't match anything Intel had out and was launched at $1k, well above where it should have been priced. It also was notoriously difficult to keep at its rated clock speed even with the best cooling and typically would only work well with the most expensive boards.
Intel stopped using the Ring Bus architecture on extreme edition parts since x99 and the 6950X. All CPUs on the X299 platform (except for Kaby Lake X which really aren't x299 chips in the first place.) use the mesh architecture.

AMD took more than a few months to come out with Ryzen and so did Intel to counter it. True competition in the market will force Intel to lower prices.




OR....Intel, as usual, will increase their IPC/possbily core counts with 10NM processors, re-establish the lead which they have had for years, while not changing their pricing scheme.

Now that AMD has market share to take, and Intel is selling every processor they make as soon as it is manufactured, Intel is in no hurry to change anything
Feb 8, 2019
Processors like this are grabs for attention, it's more of a "look what we did" kind of CPU.

As for Intel not requiring AMD or Ryzen to give larger core counts and better prices, apparently people already forgot what Intel was pricing and selling for YEARS during the FX "fiasco". What was it??? 5-6 years of nothing but quad cores?

"but but but, that was because no software was able to use more than 4 cores, it would have been pointless".

While there is truth in that, it's also 1/2 ignorance. Intel dominated the market with games optimized for their hardware, they could have pushed for more cores EASILY, unless you think the "big blue titan" was incapable of anything but 4 cores for 6 years?

All the Intel fanboy's need to realize that Intel got caught with their pants down by Ryzen, Threadripper, and EPYC, and now that AMD is getting more marketshare, and applications are starting to optimize for AMD's CPU's which includes considerably more cores like Vulkan API among others, things are starting again to rapidly change.

2002 saw the FX 64 bit single core CPU's hit the market, by 2004 we were moving on to triple core and quad core CPU's from AMD. By 2008 we were at a quad core standard with 6 cores becoming prevalent, and in 2012 octacores were unsuccessfully pushed by AMD due to the failed bulldozer architecture and the use of virtual cores instead of physical ones.

It should not have taken Intel 8 years to start making 6-8 core CPU's mainstream, what they did was start charging for 10% gains every year since 2015. Why? because they could, AMD was no competition and they were filing for Chapter 11.

Again Intel got caught with their pants down and is now playing catch up, and this time AMD has a very competent leader and one hell of an R&D team that has a very bright well paved future ahead of them.

Class Dismissed.


Yeah... The problem is that Intel don't have to reduce prices. People buy Intel CPU even if it would be weaker than AMD and more expensive than AMD...
In long term it could hurt Intel, but Intels reputation and people's behaviour allows Intel to keep high prices and it still sells well!

The only reason Intel's prices remain high is because they are slightly better than AMD. If AMD can match or surpass Intel then prices will have no choice but to drop. I do believe Groveling_Wyrm though. Intel very well could increase their IPC significantly. Kind of like when Sandy Bridge came out and if that is the case then my next build will be intel. For right now i'm going to stick with my current build and see how the price to performance and cores/IPC stabilizes and what will be the new standard.




Ryzen took years to develop with Jim Keller at the helm of the design team.

Most of the CPUs Intel launched after Ryzen people said were only because of Ryzen but they launched so soon after the odds of them being only a response to Ryzen is a near impossibility.

Either way it takes years to develop and design a CPU and its platform. Months of testing and certifying and making sure its meeting the spec then the months of ramp up for volume production.

As for 10nm its hard to tell. It seems their 10nm will be more dense than TSMCs 7nm and it will also be Sunny Cove instead of a * Lake based uArch so its possible but I am not sure IPC will increase unless Intels 10nm is good enough to push higher clocks out. I think the biggest gains from 10nm will be more cores and lower TDP/heat.


Jan 9, 2019
The technical name for this marketing approach is equine faeces. This is why everyone loaths MBAs. This is also why AMD is kicking there buttocks!