Friday, October 4th 2019

Intel 10th Gen Core X "Cascade Lake-X" Pricing and Specs Detailed

Ahead of their October 7th product launch and November availability, we have confirmation of the specifications and pricing of Intel's 10th generation Core X "Cascade Lake-X" HEDT processors in the LGA2066 package. These chips feature compatibility with existing socket LGA2066 motherboards with a UEFI BIOS update, although several motherboard manufacturers are launching new products with some of the latest connectivity options, such as 2.5 GbE wired Ethernet, and 802.11ax Wi-Fi 6 WLAN.

The 10th generation Core X HEDT processor family is based on the new 14 nm++ "Cascade Lake" silicon, which comes with hardware fixes against several classes side-channel vulnerabilities, and introduces an updated instruction-set that includes more AVX-512 instructions, and the new DLBoost instruction. DLBoost leverages new fixed-function hardware on silicon to accelerate AI deep-learning neural-set building and training by up to 5 times. Intel's first wave of 10th gen Core X lineup is rather slim, with just four processor models. The company did away with the Core i7 brand extension, as core-counts in the mainstream desktop segment have already reached 8-core. The lineup now begins at 10-core/20-thread, with the chip's full 48-lane PCI-Express and 4-channel DDR4 interfaces enabled across the board. All models feature the "XE" brand extension, and feature unlocked base-clock multipliers.
The Core i9-10900XE is your gateway to the series. This 10-core/20-thread chip comes with a fascinating price-tag of just USD $590, a significant drop from the $999 price for the previous-generation 10-core chip, the i9-9900X. It's clocked higher, with 3.70 GHz nominal, 4.50 GHz Turbo Boost 2.0, 4.70 GHz Turbo Boost Max 3.0 and 4.30 GHz all-core Turbo. The chip is endowed with 1 MB of dedicated L2 cache per core, and 19.25 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Core i9-10920XE is a $689 12-core/24-thread chip priced under AMD's upcoming flagship AM4 model, the Ryzen 9 3950X. It's marginally faster than its predecessor, the i9-9920X, with 3.50 GHz base clocks (same), 4.60 GHz Turbo Boost 2.0, 4.80 GHz Turbo Boost Max 3.0, and 4.30 GHz all-core turbo. Interestingly, the increase in core-count doesn't bring additional L3 cache, you get the same 19.25 MB.

The next step in this series is the $784 Core i9-10940XE, a 14-core/28-thread processor clocked at 3.30 GHz, with 4.60 GHz Turbo Boost 2.0, 4.80 GHz Turbo Boost Max 3.0, and 4.10 GHz all-core turbo. Yet again, you get just 19.25 MB of shared L3 cache. Interestingly, Intel did not plan a 16-core/32-thread model in this series, you jump straight to the flagship.

Leading the pack is the Core i9-10980XE, an 18-core/36-thread processor priced at a mouth-watering $979, which is less than half that of the previous-generation Core i9-9980XE. It ticks at 3.00 GHz, with 4.60 GHz Turbo Boost 2.0, 4.80 GHz Turbo Boost Max 3.0, and 3.80 GHz all-core turbo. You get a larger 24.75 MB of shared L3 cache. All four chips have their TDP rated at 165 W.
Add your own comment

121 Comments on Intel 10th Gen Core X "Cascade Lake-X" Pricing and Specs Detailed

#51
danbert2000
Whether you like Intel or not, they are certainly bringing the fight to AMD to try to stop Threadripper and Ryzen 3 from taking away all of their high-margin enthusiast market. This is good for everyone. I suppose some would prefer that Intel would just roll over and let AMD soak up the entire market, but that's not how it works. I'll be interested to see single core and multicore benchmarks in a few months. I'm guessing that we'll see a similar situation where Intel still keeps the gaming crown (not that it means much on these workstation chips) and AMD takes the overall performance crown except maybe in AVX 512 situations.

Healthy competition is a good thing. Please, everyone, don't start foaming at the mouth because AMD is not the ONLY choice. That's how you make a new monopoly.
Posted on Reply
#52
Shatun_Bear
How Intel have fallen. Max of 18-cores when their competitor will offer 32 soon and 64 later...

Using old inefficient 14nm when their competitor is on 7nm and has higher IPC is also a bad look. Imagine how hot and power hungry Intel's hypothetical 14nm equivalent of the 24-core Threadripper would be. That's right it would literally catch fire!
Posted on Reply
#53
Xx Tek Tip xX
dicktracy, post: 4127444, member: 173119"
7980XE 3.0
Sadly this is what it is in reality.
Posted on Reply
#55
jayjr1105
How bad do you need extra PCIe lanes is the question. That 3950x is nuts. You won't even get PCIe gen 4 on the new Intel HEDT socket either I don't beleive.
Posted on Reply
#57
Xx Tek Tip xX
HwGeek, post: 4127529, member: 185585"
I think boards like ASUS Pro WS X570-ACE can give you the lanes you need, so you can go for 3950X.
That board is for ECC.... there's only 24 lanes...
Posted on Reply
#58
Shatun_Bear
Thom'sHard
At stock, the Ryzen 9 3950X scored 3,932 points in Cinebench R15, which is 92.4% faster than a stock Core i9-9900K and 81% faster than the Core i9-9900K overclocked to 5 GHz on all cores (which would be similar to a stock Core i9-9900KS)
The 3950X is indeed nuts! Would be set for about 6 years top perf with one of those.
Posted on Reply
#59
jayjr1105
Is Intel HEDT still a single monolithic chip? Cutting pricing that much, they have to be operating on razor thin margins now.
Posted on Reply
#60
tabascosauz
danbert2000, post: 4127498, member: 165365"
Whether you like Intel or not, they are certainly bringing the fight to AMD to try to stop Threadripper and Ryzen 3 from taking away all of their high-margin enthusiast market. This is good for everyone. I suppose some would prefer that Intel would just roll over and let AMD soak up the entire market, but that's not how it works. I'll be interested to see single core and multicore benchmarks in a few months. I'm guessing that we'll see a similar situation where Intel still keeps the gaming crown (not that it means much on these workstation chips) and AMD takes the overall performance crown except maybe in AVX 512 situations.

Healthy competition is a good thing. Please, everyone, don't start foaming at the mouth because AMD is not the ONLY choice. That's how you make a new monopoly.
Issue is, unless Intel whips out an unforeseeable shocker out of a hat, things are looking really grim. They have a couple of extra arches waiting for HEDT since it's so slow, but AMD is bringing their latest to their HEDT game and upping the core counts drastically too - that's one hell of a pinch for Intel.

As for MSDT, Intel is trying to push 14nm to tide them over to 10nm, but Coffee Lake is verging on joining the ranks of Prescott and Fermi from the amount of heat and power draw it suffers. As for 10nm, we all know of Intel's fab problems. It's one thing to hang by a 14nm thread until they can bring out a Conroe-level breakthrough, but do they have anything nearly that revolutionary?

Betting on Ryzen's weaknesses such as cache speeds and DRAM latency can only last so long. Yes, AMD will be saddled with it until they move on from Ryzen, but as the 3000's prefetchers' improvements have shown, they can do just fine without the theoretical DRAM performance. Look what Ryzen 3000 has done; they've already beat Coffee Lake on IPC.

I've always been an Intel guy, and would like to return to Intel someday because I believe they create the most solid firmware and platforms. I really hope I can see that day again.
Posted on Reply
#61
Vayra86
tabascosauz, post: 4127565, member: 158152"
Issue is, unless Intel whips out an unforeseeable shocker out of a hat, things are looking really grim. They have a couple of extra arches waiting for HEDT since it's so slow, but AMD is bring their latest to their HEDT game and upping the core counts drastically too - that's one hell of a pinch for Intel.

As for MSDT, Intel is trying to push 14nm to tide them over to 10nm, but Coffee Lake is verging on joining the ranks of Prescott and Fermi from the amount of heat and power draw it suffers. As for 10nm, we all know of Intel's fab problems. It's one thing to hang by a 14nm thread until they can bring out a Conroe-level breakthrough, but do they have anything nearly that revolutionary?

Betting on Ryzen's weaknesses such as cache speeds and DRAM latency can only last so long. Yes, AMD will be saddled with it until they move on from Ryzen, but as the 3000's prefetchers' improvements have shown, they can do just fine without the theoretical DRAM performance.

I've always been an Intel guy, and would like to return to Intel someday because I believe they create the most solid firmware and platforms. I really hope I can see that day again.
Intel's only path forward is to shamelessly copy AMD and go chiplet, find a great interconnect and glue the whole thing together. Its also their only way out of the 14nm problem while maintaining a performance per core lead - IF they keep their Core ideas intact. Sprinkle some minor improvements on top from the already announced architectures and voila.

But yeah, they have tons of work. Their turbo is inferior to AMD's XFR and other tech, power draw is only going up, chips are too complex... And they even had to adjust ring bus to mesh and now use both out of necessity on different product lines. Meanwhile, Zen is the same, top to bottom, completely scalable and even those CCX's help seed the entire product stack.

jayjr1105, post: 4127569, member: 190965"
I feel like we're not going to see desktop 10nm for some time if ever at all from Intel. I think that semiaccurate article back in the spring about Intel cutting their losses with 10nm had some truth to it. It will be interesting to see what they can do with 14nm for another year or so. Meanwhile AMD might have a 7nm refresh out by then.
That's my take and prediction as well. Intel is trying to find a way to not lose face and skip as much of 10nm as possible. Roadmaps were already adjusted, but we'll see another round of that. If you see what their current crop of 10nm can do, its nothing earth shattering in any way shape or form. And their other announced architectures... when a CPU engineer no longer talks about raw performance but rather about IGPs and optimizing for 'Creators' and all, you know they haven't got a thing to offer.
Posted on Reply
#62
jayjr1105
I feel like we're not going to see desktop 10nm for some time if ever at all from Intel. I think that semiaccurate article back in the spring about Intel cutting their losses with 10nm had some truth to it. It will be interesting to see what they can do with 14nm for another year or so. Meanwhile AMD might have a 7nm refresh out by then.
Posted on Reply
#63
xkm1948
For HEDT use one really need quad channel DDR4. 2 memory pipes feeding data into 16 core CPU is a serious bottleneck for power users.

If you just enjoy having 16 cores without the need to use it for production, by all means go for it.

TR3 is the real competition to Intel's HEDT feature wise, which it will for sure slaughter Intel's lineup if AMD price them right. 24C48T for $999 would be nice.
Posted on Reply
#64
Vayra86
xkm1948, post: 4127580, member: 50521"
For HEDT use one really need quad channel DDR4. 2 memory pipes feeding data into 16 core CPU is a serious bottleneck for power users.

If you just enjoy having 16 cores without the need to use it for production, by all means go for it.

TR3 is the real competition to Intel's HEDT feature wise, which it will for sure slaughter Intel's lineup if AMD price them right. 24C48T for $999 would be nice.
Yup, quad channel is the only reason those ancient platforms still play ball to some degree as well. They can feed those cores and MSDT just stalls much more readily. I reckon even the 9700K and up can gain a lot of they had quad channel.
Posted on Reply
#65
efikkan
Xuper, post: 4127441, member: 83814"
Why didn't Intel increase L3 Cache ? 25M is really low , compare to TR3. some workstation application favors the use of a large cache.
It has 1 MB of L2 (which is more important) and a non-inclusive L3 vs. normal Skylake family CPUs which waste a lot of L3 with duplication of L2.
But as you are saying, some applications may benefit from even more, but this would require much larger dies. If so, I think there are better uses for die space.

jayjr1105, post: 4127542, member: 190965"
Is Intel HEDT still a single monolithic chip? Cutting pricing that much, they have to be operating on razor thin margins now.
For Skylake-SP/X, the HCC die was ~485 mm², I assume the Cascade Lake-SP/X die is comparable.
So this is smaller than the TU104 die used in RTX 2070 Super etc., but this is of course not an apple-to-apple comparison.

Skylake-SP/X was plagued with being produced on a lower volume 14nm+ production line, which has contributed to the high price and low availability. Cascade Lake-SP/X was according to roadmaps supposed to launch one year ago, but I assume it's the 10nm problems causing laptop and desktop parts to eat up much of the 14nm++ capacity that has caused the delay.

xkm1948, post: 4127580, member: 50521"
TR3 is the real competition to Intel's HEDT feature wise, which it will for sure slaughter Intel's lineup if AMD price them right. 24C48T for $999 would be nice.
That would sure make an attractive product.
But always keep in mind that workstations are built for a specific purpose in mind, so if the buyer are going to have a heavy AVX load or similar, the real world performance could just as easily tilt the other way.
Posted on Reply
#66
xkm1948
I agree that AVX512 is very useful.

Would be nice if Zen2 had AVX512 support
Posted on Reply
#67
jayjr1105
xkm1948, post: 4127601, member: 50521"
I agree that AVX512 is very useful.

Would be nice if Zen2 had AVX512 support
Switching gears a bit, I swear I saw one of the new Rome EPYC chips come real close to a Xeon that cost twice as much in an AVX512 benchmark.
Posted on Reply
#68
Valantar
jayjr1105, post: 4127604, member: 190965"
Switching gears a bit, I swear I saw one of the new Rome EPYC chips come real close to a Xeon that cost twice as much in an AVX512 benchmark.
You mean this?


Source: AnandTech
Posted on Reply
#69
jayjr1105
Valantar, post: 4127605, member: 171585"
You mean this?


Source: AnandTech
Yes, that's downright brutal being AMD has no native AVX512 support.
Posted on Reply
#70
ncrs
Valantar, post: 4127605, member: 171585"
You mean this?
Or maybe this? ;)

Source: STH
Posted on Reply
#71
Ashtr1x
Vayra86, post: 4127567, member: 152404"
Intel's only path forward is to shamelessly copy AMD and go chiplet, find a great interconnect and glue the whole thing together. Its also their only way out of the 14nm problem while maintaining a performance per core lead - IF they keep their Core ideas intact. Sprinkle some minor improvements on top from the already announced architectures and voila.

But yeah, they have tons of work. Their turbo is inferior to AMD's XFR and other tech, power draw is only going up, chips are too complex... And they even had to adjust ring bus to mesh and now use both out of necessity on different product lines. Meanwhile, Zen is the same, top to bottom, completely scalable and even those CCX's help seed the entire product stack.



That's my take and prediction as well. Intel is trying to find a way to not lose face and skip as much of 10nm as possible. Roadmaps were already adjusted, but we'll see another round of that. If you see what their current crop of 10nm can do, its nothing earth shattering in any way shape or form. And their other announced architectures... when a CPU engineer no longer talks about raw performance but rather about IGPs and optimizing for 'Creators' and all, you know they haven't got a thing to offer.
Your comment makes me laugh.
Shamelessly copy ? Ever seen Intel Core 2 Exteme QX6850 from 2007, Kentsfield and even in 2010 with Clarksdae. Guess not lol, And hit Anandtech piece on this same processor and see what AMD called Intel as fake LOL during Phenom days.

AMD Ryzen CPUs use MCM because their WSA and R&D budget and how cheap it is (Intel also did the MCM due to same reason) vs Monolithic Nonpureplay Foundry like Intel. Foveros is coming and also EMIB came into KBL G CPU as well. This is not new thing lmao and how HBM failed hard and fell flat for Consumer (Ofc Vega/GCN needed it to scale and we know RVII EOL)

Intel stagnated due to no competition and they milked the whole world, Still do (CSL X Server a.k.a Cooper Lake glued server processor) and their 10nm went too aggressive and also BK as CEO failed. And their Knights Landing also failed but that socket lives !

Zen2 has DRAM latency but their high Cache and Intel IPC catchup helped them with their brilliant Ryzen 3000 series. And 14nm or not it beats 7nm still with what ? A 4 year old microarch, Zen+ was Haswell and what happened with 8C/16T 2700 vs a 7700K (Massacre happened). Turbo is inferior ? What ? XFR is completely pushing the edge of thay stupid Low power 7nm TSMC node (Made for Apple since they arr primary for CapEx funding and ARM) thank god Ngreedia went with HPP 7nm Samsung node and not suffer from same crap off inferior 7nm node. So yeah back to Turbo, Intel PL2 set to max. There you go Max clocks on all cores without any Junk of PPT, PBO, XFR2 marketing drama (Watch GN on this if you did not).

Intel processors also are made to be scalabale if you are not under a rock LCC, HCC (HEDT), XCC (Xeon) until SKL X because they switched HEDT to XCC due to AMD closing in as their 10nm failures, since their uArch is coupled with node. So yeah the uArch scales here while Cores are not scaled like AMD.

AMD recycles their cores off this MCM due to WSA as it helps keeping budget off CCD at 7nm and I/O chip of decoupling Northbridge at 14nm GoFlo (EPYC Rome, where as 12nm for Ryzen Matisse)

And finally Intel is still raking profits due to DC arena where adoption rate is slower when you bring in a new competetor esp given how NUMA Ryzen 2000 to non NUMA Ryzen 3000 uArchs came. While Monolithic Intel still didn't had to change the programming much.

Iris Plus IGP has advantage over existing AMD APUs consider it getting tougher only not simple when you count Intel's massive R&D. And finally Apple AirPods profit is higher than AMD at gross $5Billion.

To conclude consumer wins when competition arrives like this (9980XE ST and Gaming was good and comparable to 9900K, 10K CSL X will improve at the cost of power but if people buy what to lose, more lanes more options better pricing all win) and shakes up the incumbent. So stop frothing over corporates :)
Posted on Reply
#72
notb
Slizzo, post: 4127402, member: 97498"
That's... not true at all. Whether you own the fab or not does not change how you design and validate a processor.
I wouldn't be so sure.
We can safely assume TSMC designed their 7nm for mobile SoCs (over 90% of TSMC's sales).
So who knows? If AMD could influence TSMC in any way (by capital or as a major client) maybe these CPUs would boost higher.

Xuper, post: 4127441, member: 83814"
Why didn't Intel increase L3 Cache ? 25M is really low , compare to TR3. some workstation application favors the use of a large cache.
And some applications favor low latency (ideally: ringbus). CPUs have different architectures and they excel in different tasks. And every architectural choice has a cost.
Let's cherish the fact that CPUs differ in something other than core count and frequency. :)
There's really no reason why Intel would make CPUs more like Zen (since work perfectly well). And there's no reason for AMD to make CPUs exactly like *Lake, because their only advantage would be price.
john_, post: 4127213, member: 137560"
Maybe you have. We don't know the REAL TDP of that 10 core CPU.
This TDP is as real as it gets. It's just a number. And Intel CPUs will behave accordingly by default.
Looking at Intel's earlier LGA2066 stuff, there's a good chance 10 and 12-core CPUs are within those 165W at full blast (sans AVX-512).
ncrs, post: 4127154, member: 180045"
Too bad it doesn't have the features that AMD does... No ECC support is just pathetic at this point.
AMD and Intel plan their lineup differently.

In the AMD world EPYC is solely a server lineup. Ryzen lineup (including TR) spans both consumer and pro use.
So for an 8-core or 24-core workstation you're expected to buy a Ryzen 7 or Ryzen TR accordingly.

Intel is not marketing HEDT towards professional use (not for production systems anyway). There's no official ECC support. And they aren't put in big OEM workstations.
Intel has a large Xeon lineup that is meant to cover all production scenarios.
On the other hand, Intel doesn't have a separate "consumer" and "pro" variants - many CPUs are vPro-eligible. And they offer IGP in multiple CPUs - including Xeons.
Posted on Reply
#73
PrEzi


A new wave of speculative security holes in Intel incoming...
Posted on Reply
#74
notb
ncrs, post: 4127622, member: 180045"
Or maybe this? ;)

Source: STH
Well, you drool over the fact that there's an EPYC bar on top, but you fail to notice it is a Dual 64-core system barely beating Dual 28-core (8280) and Dual 24-core (8260).
Hence, this is a very good example of how important AVX-512 is.
Posted on Reply
#75
GoldenX
(*^^*), post: 4127479, member: 190962"
What was the price of the past Intel CPU? Is this the price of a true Intel CPU? Have you suddenly found a manufacturing cost reduction method that is different from the previous Intel CPU? Is it only me that feels fooled?
And you noticed this just now?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment