News [VideoCardz] Intel 10th Gen Core-X Series (Cascade Lake X) final specs and pricing leaked

[Det0x]

Intel Cascade Lake
Intel Cascade Lake-X launches October 7th
Next week Intel is launching its high-end desktop 10th Gen Core-X series. The processors codenamed Cascade Lake-X will utilize Skylake architecture manufactured in the 14nm process technology.

Much cheaper, but not cheap

The most important news is that the Intel Core-X series will much cheaper than the previous generation. The cost of a single-core will drop to AMD’s level and therefore it will be comparable to Threadripper 2000. The price per single core will drop to 54-59 USD depending on the SKU, while the last generation was starting at 99.

Faster memory, more memory

The 10th generation supports quad-channel DDR4-2933 memory, the same as Threadripper 2000. The capacity, however, increased to 256GB, which is twice as much as both SKL-X and TR2000.

Clocks

This is not the time and place to discuss the differences between each clock type, but let us just give you a list of what customers need to go through before opening their wallets: base clocks, boost blocks, turbo clocks, single-core clocks, all-core clocks, AMD’s Max Boost, Intel Turbo Boost 2.0, Intel Turbo Boost Max 3.0 and Intel Velocity Boost. And guess what, Intel is adding yet another clock called Deep Learning Boost. Why? We don’t know and this point we don’t what to know. The clock advertised by Intel on a highlight slide is the Turbo Boost Max 3.0, which goes up to 4.8 GHz.

Other stuff

The new series also support Intel Performance Maximizer, 2.5G Intel i225 Ethernet and Wi-Fi 6. The whole 10th Gen Core platform will support up to PCIe 72 lanes. Intel’s Cascade Lake X will launch on October 7th. The new CPUs will be available for sale in November.

Intel 10th Gen Core-X Series (Cascade Lake X) final specs and pricing leaked | VideoCardz.com

Featured, INTEL HEDT (Cascade Lake) Update: After our story went live Intel decided to lift the embargo, which was originally scheduled for October 7th. Intel announces Cascade Lake-X

videocardz.com

*other comments*

Deep Learning Boost is marketing name for AVX-512 workloads
X299X probably means a new motherboard is needed for the higher SKU's, maybe they forgot a zero somewhere on that 165W TDP rating
Low All Core Turbo for the Core i9-10900XE ? (only X299 supported cpu?)
TR3 will all but certain demolish these new Skylake-X cpus

 

[Zucker2k]

There's a lineal price gap of $95 to $99 that allows a Core i9 10960X to fit into the release table snugly at $880. Is Intel planning an ambush for the 16 core 3950x? The bolded is just speculation on my part, for those who are not aware of the Cascalade-X release table.

Core i9-10980XE	18C / 36T	3.0	3.8	4.6	4.8	165 W	$979
Core i9 10960X	16C / 32T	3.4?	4.2?	4.8?	5,0?	180 W?	$880
Core i9-10940X	14C / 28T	3.3	4.1	4.6	4.8	165 W	$784
Core i9-10920X	12C / 24T	3.5	4.3	4.6	4.8	165 W	$689
Core i9-10900X	10C / 20T	3.7	4.3	4.5	4.7	165 W	$590

 

[Zucker2k]

There is no suprise from Intel, only thing they can do is fight with lower prices.But keep in mind, Intel has 100 000 employees+12 FAB-s=lots of mouth to feed and very high maintenance costs.

lower CPU prices 50% or more(in all cpu segments), this is big problem for very big company as Intel.

Look at Ryzen 5 3600( in EU 187euro), and what that CPU is doing for AMD vs Intel competition.The question is whether Intel can lower the price of i7 8700K to the level 200-250?

TR 3000 24 cores will be performance king in HEDT CPU market.But it will be priced as CPU performance king, or probably no lower below 1200$.

Intel's quarterly results beg to differ.

 

[Atari2600]

There's a lineal price gap of $95 to $99 that allows a Core i9 10960X to fit into the release table snugly at $880. Is Intel planning an ambush for the 16 core 3950x? The bolded is just speculation on my part, for those who are not aware of the Cascalade-X release table.

Core i9-10980XE	18C / 36T	3.0	3.8	4.6	4.8	165 W	$979
Core i9 10960X	16C / 32T	3.4?	4.2?	4.8?	5,0?	180 W?	$880
Core i9-10940X	14C / 28T	3.3	4.1	4.6	4.8	165 W	$784
Core i9-10920X	12C / 24T	3.5	4.3	4.6	4.8	165 W	$689
Core i9-10900X	10C / 20T	3.7	4.3	4.5	4.7	165 W	$590

Possibly.

But it'd be a poor ambush* when AMD are set to release Threadripper at the same time as 3950X.

As I've stated elsewhere, there is supposed to be a 16C TR3 coming - so the hunter could become the hunted about 15 mins after Lisa Su unveils the 3950X and gets on to unveiling the 16C TR3.


*HEDT vs mainstream platform and quite different power requirements for both would mean 3950X doesn't really compete with (a hypothetical) 10960X for people's wallets.

 

[Zucker2k]

Possibly.

But it'd be a poor ambush when AMD are set to release Threadripper at the same time as 3950X.

As I've stated elsewhere, there is supposed to be a 16C TR3 coming - so the hunter could become the hunted about 15 mins after Lisa Su unveils the 3950X and gets on to unveiling the 16C TR3.

It'll boil down to clocks so I wouldn't be in a hurry to call that just yet.

 

[Yotsugi]

Is Intel planning an ambush for the 16 core 3950x?

These are different platforms.

Intel's quarterly results beg to differ.

Muh moneyz are unrelated to the actual products.

 

[Zucker2k]

These are different platforms.

Muh moneyz are unrelated to the actual products.

Except he's making a money argument, ie. keeping a significantly larger workforce employed.

 

[Atari2600]

It'll boil down to clocks so I wouldn't be in a hurry to call that just yet.

Clocks vs. heat I suppose.

While the 9900K might have a clock edge, double the core count and how much heat you looking to shift? North of 300W?

Intel Core i9-9900K Re-Review

Today we're revisiting our original Core i9-9900K review and updating it with 95 watt TDP limited results, basically results based on the official Intel specification. For better...

www.techspot.com

Intel Core i9-9900K 9th Gen CPU Review: Fastest Gaming Processor Ever

More cores, higher frequencies, and performance-boosting Solder TIM place the Core i9-9900K ahead of the pack. Just be prepared to pay for it.

www.tomshardware.com

 

[Zucker2k]

These are different platforms.

I realize that, but there's been a lot of talk on these forums about how the 3950x is going to obsolete Intel's entire HEDT line, plus, the Threadripper lineup is supposed to start at 24 cores so this is the best chance we get at a 16 core battle.

 

[Zucker2k]

Clocks vs. heat I suppose.

While the 9900K might have a clock edge, double the core count and how much heat you looking to shift? North of 300W?

Intel Core i9-9900K Re-Review

Today we're revisiting our original Core i9-9900K review and updating it with 95 watt TDP limited results, basically results based on the official Intel specification. For better...

www.techspot.com

Intel Core i9-9900K 9th Gen CPU Review: Fastest Gaming Processor Ever

More cores, higher frequencies, and performance-boosting Solder TIM place the Core i9-9900K ahead of the pack. Just be prepared to pay for it.

www.tomshardware.com

Intel's 14nm++ takes heat quite well. It'll chug along at 100c for days, albeit while throttling. I don't think anyone knows how well Threadripper 3 is going to handle heat if AMD decides to be aggressive on clocks like Intel is doing with Cascade lake-X

 

[Kenmitch]

Except he's making a money argument, ie. keeping a significantly larger workforce employed.

I think the point was sustainability.

 

[Markfw]

It'll boil down to clocks so I wouldn't be in a hurry to call that just yet.

And you think based on Rome, that regardless of clocks, TR3 would not kill the Intel line in performance ?

 

[Atari2600]

Intel's 14nm++ takes heat quite well. It'll chug along at 100c for days, albeit while throttling. I don't think anyone knows how well Threadripper 3 is going to handle heat if AMD decides to be aggressive on clocks like Intel is doing with Cascade lake-X

TR3 at 180W TDP?

Given the 12 core 3900X performs quite adequately at 105W TDP, I can't really see how a 16C TR3 (33% more cores) won't operate very nicely with a 75W (70%) higher thermal budget.

A 16C TR3 will not have lower clocks than a 12C 3900X [base 3.8GHz, 1C boost 4.6 GHz, All-Core boost 4.0*GHz].


*based on silicon lottery getting 100% of 3900X to at least a 4.0GHz AC overclock - I don't think that mild an AC boost will be bursting the power budget.

Which means Intel has a worse base [13-21%], similar AC boost and better ST clock rate [4-5%]. (based on 14C & 18C)

So it should be a wash.


Intel's problems is - that is me comparing the top two in their HEDT product stack to the bottom of the line Threadripper 3. If TR3 has a 24C part - then in very parallel scenarios Intel is in trouble. If TR3 has a 32C part - then in very parallel scenarios Intel's not in the same race.

 

[Markfw]

TR3 at 180W TDP?

Given the 12 core 3900X performs quite adequately at 105W TDP, I can't really see how a 16C TR3 (33% more cores) won't operate very nicely with a 75W (70%) higher thermal budget.

A 16C TR3 will not have lower clocks than a 12C 3900X [base 3.8GHz, 1C boost 4.6 GHz, All-Core boost 4.0*GHz].


*based on silicon lottery getting 100% of 3900X to at least a 4.0GHz AC overclock - I don't think that mild an AC boost will be bursting the power budget.

Which means Intel has a worse base [13-21%], similar AC boost and better ST clock rate [4-5%]. (based on 14C & 18C)

So it should be a wash.


Intel's problems is - that is me comparing the top two in their HEDT product stack to the bottom of the line Threadripper 3. If TR3 has a 24C part - then in very parallel scenarios Intel is in trouble. If TR3 has a 32C part - then in very parallel scenarios Intel's not in the same race.

And if TR3 has a 48 core and later a 64 core part ? Based on the TRX80 rumor for chipset, and how the IO die makes memory channels sorts of a non-issue, I think a 64 core TR3 will happen. Its just Rome at a higher TPD and clockspeed.

 

[Atari2600]

And if TR3 has a 48 core and later a 64 core part ? Based on the TRX80 rumor for chipset, and how the IO die makes memory channels sorts of a non-issue, I think a 64 core TR3 will happen. Its just Rome at a higher TPD and clockspeed.

Ahh, I'm torn on that.

While 64C TR3 would be jaw dropping on media encoding etc - I can't see how AMD don't conclude its cannibalising EYPC sales.

It even leaves me torn - on one hand I'd love to see the performance, but on the other - I want AMD to get enough money in the door to remain competitive after Sunny Cove. Otherwise we're back to Intel sitting on their 4C ass for years (again).

 

[Thunder 57]

Ahh, I'm torn on that.

While 64C TR3 would be jaw dropping on media encoding etc - I can't see how AMD don't conclude its cannibalising EYPC sales.

It even leaves me torn - on one hand I'd love to see the performance, but on the other - I want AMD to get enough money in the door to remain competitive after Sunny Cove. Otherwise we're back to Intel sitting on their 4C ass for years (again).

I think we will eventually see a 64 core TR3. Not at launch though, and for exactly this reason. Maybe Summer 2020? That way anyone who really needs 64 cores now pays for EPYC.

 

[Ajay]

I think we will eventually see a 64 core TR3. Not at launch though, and for exactly this reason. Maybe Summer 2020? That way anyone who really needs 64 cores now pays for EPYC.

I'm really expecting TR3 to start with 6 core CCDs, given the announcement of a 24 core TR3 to start with. We'll all find out in a month or so. In the mean time, I wait for the Cascade Lake X benchmarks.

 

[Thunder 57]

I'm really expecting TR3 to start with 6 core CCDs, given the announcement of a 24 core TR3 to start with. We'll all find out in a month or so. In the mean time, I wait for the Cascade Lake X benchmarks.

Interesting point. But then what about the 32 core one, do they instead offer 30? They could still do 48. As far as Cascade Lake X, I don't expect much difference in performance, just a huge price cut.

 

[jpiniero]

I'm really expecting TR3 to start with 6 core CCDs, given the announcement of a 24 core TR3 to start with. We'll all find out in a month or so. In the mean time, I wait for the Cascade Lake X benchmarks.

Yeah or it could be just 3 chiplets.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Eh, so intel still wants us to pay 20% premium over roughly equivalent AMD parts? And that's with 50% more power draw? I already switched every single rig in my household to AMD, it's going to take more than that for me to switch back to Intel. I don't think Intel is going to be competitive until they go to 10nm or smaller.

10nm is having massive problems, so we will need to wait for 7nm for a proper Intel response (if they can manage that).

Isn’t intels 10nm more “dense” than amd’s 7nm?
I know it’s hard to say because it’s mostly rumor now.

 

[scannall]

Isn’t intels 10nm more “dense” than amd’s 7nm?
I know it’s hard to say because it’s mostly rumor now.

Its initial goals were to be very dense. But that failed. Hard. So they have relaxed it quite a bit. How much? They haven't really been very forthcoming about that, but I doubt it's as dense as TSMC's current shipping 7nm.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Underwhelming launch. Intel is stuck competing with AM4 using their HEDT lineup. Only this time it's going to take their top-end product to beat the 3950X. They have no answer to TR3. What can you expect when it is the third time Intel has sold us Skylake-X?

 

[Ajay]

Yeah or it could be just 3 chiplets.

Could be, and add in a blank for better mechanical clamp force distribution. I just think that AMD may be able to find more higher clocking 6 core chiplets. The 3950 must have 2x 8 core CCD with good parametrics - and that part will easily outsell TR3 CPUs. That’s my reasoning anyway.