Intel Core i9-10980XE Cascade Lake-X CPU Can Hit Lofty 5.1GHz Overclock Across All 18 Cores

[BiG StroOnZ]

Quote

The flagship of the new Cascade Lake-X family is the Core i9-10980XE (say that three times fast), which is an 18-core/36-thread CPU. The processor has a base clock of 3GHz, a maximum Turbo Boost 2.0 clock of 4.6GHz, and an all-core turbo clock of 3.8GHz.

 

However, Intel’s Mark Walton has confirmed that the processor has plenty of overclocking headroom to hit 5.1GHz with liquid cooling (instead more exotic liquid nitrogen setups).

 

You can overclock the heck out of these and get some really interesting results,” said Walton to PCGamesN. “For example, we’ve had the 10980XE, the eighteen-core processor, up as high as 5.1GHz in the lab using standard liquid cooling. And that, is all cores.”

 

However, Walton also cautioned that this result was obtained with a chip that in its testing labs and YMMV once you get a chip in your own rig. “Just to be clear on that, every chip is different, some chips will overclock better than others, but it is possible,” he added.

 

Source: https://hothardware.com/news/intel-core-i9-10980xe-cascade-lake-x-51ghz

 

If any of this is even remotely true (within +/- 300MHz), this will really shake up the CPU marketplace yet again. Because if the 18-core parts are allowing these insane all-core overclocks. In theory, less cores often means better overclocks. Translating to these Cascade Lake-X parts actually being worthy competitors to Zen 2 (3000-series). 

 

The 10920x displayed more than satisfactory performance against the 2920x, according to a leaked benchmark:

 

 

 

 

While this is a 2nd Gen Ryzen part in the above chart, here is 3rd Gen Ryzen (3900x) performing only slightly better than the 10920x (3% better):

 

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/14734945 @ 4.10GHz

 

There is also another 3900x entry showing a 12% better score:

 

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/14512679 @ 4.29GHz

 

So I guess we will have to wait and see if leaked benches with these Cascade Lake-X parts with an overclock appear, to do a better comparison. As the chart above the 10920x is @ 3.8GHz. We could extrapolate performance, but I doubt performance scales linearly in Geekbench with overclocks.

 

EDIT:

 

Did some quick maths: In the WCCFTech chart the 10920x's score is 44,046 @ 3.8GHz (Supposedly). Meaning @ 4.1GHz it would score around a 47,550 and @ 4.3GHz it would score a 49,800. This is looking really good for Intel, because they are claiming 4.5GHz+ overclocks with these parts.

[mxk]

I can bring the beach weather right into my own room, thanks intel

[Firewrath9]

"Standard Liquid Cooling"

Direct Die, special binned, 3 mo-rad nonuple 120mm rads, and 3 D5 pumps and a heatkiller iv. Also, its in canada so the ambient temps are -40c.

Also, don't forget the liquid metal and the 1.7v.

It's just a 6700k, but with 4x the cores. This is still the same silicon as a skylake-x.

 

Still waiting on my 5ghz 28c ambient cooling proc.

[Arika]

just because you can, doens't mean you should..

 

Also what is deemed "standard liquid cooling"? 

[Fasauceome]

6 minutes ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

In theory, less cores often means better overclocks. Translating to these Cascade Lake-X parts actually being worthy competitors to Zen 2 (3000-series). 

6GHz with an NH-D15?

/s

 

generally speaking, I don't believe the trend has been less cores = more speed, because the 9600K isn't known for hitting 5.5GHz, the 9th gen has generally been the "5GHz all cores" lineup

[sazrocks]

Quote

standard liquid cooling

What they want us to think from that:

 

What they probably actually mean by that:

[williamcll]

Would be nice to see some benchmarks for that.

[Rolling2405]

8 minutes ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

 

Source: https://hothardware.com/news/intel-core-i9-10980xe-cascade-lake-x-51ghz

 

If any of this is even remotely true (within +/- 300MHz), this will really shake up the CPU marketplace yet again. Because if the 18-core parts are allowing these insane all-core overclocks. In theory, less cores often means better overclocks. Translating to these Cascade Lake-X parts actually being worthy competitors to Zen 2 (3000-series). 

 

The 10920x displayed more than satisfactory performance against the 2920x, according to a leaked benchmark:

 

 

 

 

While this is a 2nd Gen Ryzen part in the above chart, here is 3rd Gen Ryzen (3900x) performing only slightly better than the 10920x (3% better):

 

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/14734945 @ 4.10GHz

 

There is also another 3900x entry showing a 12% better score:

 

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/14512679 @ 4.29GHz

 

So I guess we will have to wait and see if leaked benches with these Cascade Lake-X parts with an overclock appear, to do a better comparison. As the chart above the 10920x is @ 3.8GHz. We could extrapolate performance, but I doubt performance scales linearly in Geekbench with overclocks.

If this is true I may consider upgrading from my Intel 9900k to a Intel 10900x.

[Windows7ge]

And it'll cost $∞, need a $1,000 motherboard with 30 phase power delivery, LN to keep it under 80°C, & a dedicated 25A circuit in your home.

[BiG StroOnZ]

29 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

6GHz with an NH-D15?

/s

 

generally speaking, I don't believe the trend has been less cores = more speed, because the 9600K isn't known for hitting 5.5GHz, the 9th gen has generally been the "5GHz all cores" lineup

 

Average overclock for the 9600k is 4.6GHz:

 

https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i5_9600k/

 

Average overclock for the 9980xe is 4.2GHz:

 

https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i9_9980xe/

 

26 minutes ago, Thomas001 said:

If this is true I may consider upgrading from my Intel 9900k to a Intel 10900x.

 

Agree (with the upgrade part), as I always wanted to go HEDT, but didn't want to sacrifice gaming performance. What I think is important to take away from this, is that; in the WCCFTech chart the 10920x's scores a 44,046 @ 3.8GHz. Meaning @ 4.1GHz it "should" score around a 47,550 and @ 4.3GHz it should score a 49,800. Yet Intel are claiming 4.5GHz + overclocks with these parts.

[Fasauceome]

4 minutes ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

Average overclock for the 9600k is 4.6GHz:

 

https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i5_9600k/

 

Average overclock for the 9980xe is 4.2GHz:

 

https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i9_9980xe/

yes but that's coffee lake vs skylake, and also a pretty enormous leap in core count difference.

 

average OC for 9900X is 4.3

https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i9_9900x/

so I'm not anticipating a huge difference across the stack in OC perf.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Fasauceome

[SupaKomputa]

The table are turned, use to be AMD who use higher clock speed to match Intel's IPC.

This is the first time i see Intel hack the price in half to maintain competitive.

[Rolling2405]

If Intel made their chip die size bigger the thermals would be better increasing overclocking headroom (at least if I understand it correctly).

[Vishera]

Just now, Fasauceome said:

6GHz with an NH-D15?

/s

 

generally speaking, I don't believe the trend has been less cores = more speed, because the 9600K isn't known for hitting 5.5GHz, the 9th gen has generally been the "5GHz all cores" lineup

Considering all consumer Sandy-bridge K proccessors can hit 5GHz on liquid,The 9600K and the 9900K hit 5GHz as much as the 2600K,progress.

[SupaKomputa]

3 minutes ago, Thomas001 said:

If Intel made their chip die size bigger the thermals would be better increasing overclocking headroom (at least if I understand it correctly).

Because thay can't make it smaller. No company wants a big chip..

[Vishera]

Just now, SupaKomputa said:

Because thay can't make it smaller. No company wants a big chip..

Correct,it increases costs and lowers the amount of chips per wafer.

The ideal chip for a manufacturers is to be as small as possible,with high yield rate.

[TensorVortex]

4 minutes ago, SupaKomputa said:

Because thay can't make it smaller. No company wants a big chip..

big chip means more latency and more leakage... and also more expensive

[Jurrunio]

Voltage(s) not mentioned at all? So it's just a matter of how much you're gonna risk your CPU eh? He can pretty much say whatever he wants then.

 

8 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

average OC for 9900X is 4.3

https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i9_9900x/

Nah, just that no one bothered to test the rebadged 10 core. older 10 core shows much higher results. Also btw average overclock result means nothing on hwbot

https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i9_7900x/

 

12 minutes ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

Average overclock for the 9600k is 4.6GHz:

 

https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i5_9600k/

 

Average overclock for the 9980xe is 4.2GHz:

 

https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i9_9980xe/

average OC results there means nothing, hwbot are for people who challenge the extreme, not running stuff 24/7.

 

14 minutes ago, Thomas001 said:

If Intel made their chip die size bigger the thermals would be better increasing overclocking headroom (at least if I understand it correctly).

that means spreading the cores further to increase latency (the problem that hurt 1st gen Ryzen a lot) or spreading the transistors and increase current leakage (one reason why 12nm RX 590 run so much hotter than 14nm RX 580), it's ill-advised to do so.

[BiG StroOnZ]

3 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

yes but that's coffee lake vs skylake, and also a pretty enormous leap in core count difference.

 

average OC for 9900X is 4.3

https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i9_9900x/

so I'm not anticipating a huge difference across the stack in OC perf.

 

Coffee Lake and Skylake are basically the same arch. They just kept adding cores to Skylake following Kaby. And with maturation of 14nm, it allowed for better bins, thus higher clocks:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylake_(microarchitecture)

 

Regardless, you tried to claim that there isn't a difference in overclocking ranges between different core count products. Then posted a link to a 9900x with a 4.3GHz average overclock. When the 9600k you originally used as an example has a 4.6GHz average overclock.

 

You do realize a 4.6GHz overclock compared to a 4.3GHz is nearly another 10% uplift in clockspeed right (7%)? 

 

Say you got a check for $11,000 when you were supposed to get one for $11,760... would that not raise an eyebrow? While not a huge difference, definitely clearly noticeable. I understand your point, but when you're talking about MHz anyway, it does make a difference.

[BiG StroOnZ]

3 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

average OC results there means nothing, hwbot are for people who challenge the extreme, not running stuff 24/7.

 

The results are based on Air and Water too... 

[Jurrunio]

1 minute ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

 

The results are based on Air and Water too... 

lifespan's concerned? Or just finishing a benchmark?

[Fasauceome]

3 minutes ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

Regardless, you tried to claim that there isn't a difference in overclocking ranges between different core count products. Then posted a link to a 9900x with a 4.3GHz average overclock. When the 9600k you originally used as an example has a 4.6GHz average overclock.

 

I didn't claim that there's no difference, just that the difference itself is contained within the range of CPUs that the product stack is in, and I showed that a 10 core is gonna behave really similarly to an 18 core despite almost half the cores. Is the 9600K a better overclocker than the 9900K?

 

also @Jurrunio is right, HWBot won't give accurate "average" OC data

[2SidedPolygon]

43 minutes ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

If any of this is even remotely true (within +/- 300MHz), this will really shake up the CPU marketplace yet again.

I wouldn't get too excited. Firstly, a comparison against last-gen silicon is useless. The 3900X performs better in most of the Geekbench scores I found (https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=ryzen+9+3900x, I'd guesstimate around 15%-20% based on these numbers), and with significantly higher power efficiency, more than likely. Regarding those overclocks, I wouldn't be inclined to trust Intel's own statistic, and I certainly wouldn't be inclined to claim that if the overclocks are X% faster, then the performance is X% better.

 

And let's not even get started on the price tag. This isn't a mainstream processor, this is an Extreme chip. I'd expect some eye-watering numbers, even in light of the recent 7nm shortages.

 

So don't get ahead of yourself, 10th gen isn't shaping up to be Intel's big break.

[Vishera]

Just now, Jurrunio said:

lifespan's concerned? Or just finishing a benchmark?

It's a mix of both,

There are also LN2,Dry ice,and Water chillers in the results too.

[Jurrunio]

1 minute ago, 2SidedPolygon said:

and I certainly wouldn't be inclined to claim that if the overclocks are X% faster, then the performance is X% better.

it should be fine to say so for Cascade Lake, from the earlier W-3175X we can see how IPC hasn't really changed from Skylake-X

 

1 minute ago, Vishera said:

It's a mix of both,

There are also LN2,Dry ice,and Water chillers in the results too.

that's the problem, results in HWbot aren't meant for 24/7 use, in other words not what a general user should come to expect. Minus all the silicon binning going on.