OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core i9-10980XE review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£660PassMark multi-core score:31984N. of physical cores:18CPU boost clock speed:4.8 GHzCPU socket:LGA2066TDP (Thermal design power):165 W

Intel Core i9-10980XE Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 32 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i9-10980XE
7.4/10

Overall score

Score
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 75% of models
Score components

40%

7.2

Technical score

25%

7.6

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

7.2

Sentiment score

â–²Better than 75% of processors
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Score components

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

7.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 51%
7.2

Technical score

Technical score
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 72% of models
Score components

60%

8.0

Performance

18%

6.1

Architecture

10%

7.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

3.0

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 72%
7.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 50% of models

80%

7.2

Average grade

20%

9.5

Popularity

Grades by review (32)
24 reviews: 14 with a printed score, 10 estimated from the review. 8 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 50%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • intel-core-i9-10980xe
  • intel-core-i9-10980xe
  • intel-core-i9-10980xe
  • intel-core-i9-10980xe
  • intel-core-i9-10980xe
  • intel-core-i9-10980xe
  • intel-core-i9-10980xe
  • intel-core-i9-10980xe
  • intel-core-i9-10980xe
intel-core-i9-10980xe
intel-core-i9-10980xe
intel-core-i9-10980xe
intel-core-i9-10980xe
intel-core-i9-10980xe
intel-core-i9-10980xe
intel-core-i9-10980xe
intel-core-i9-10980xe
intel-core-i9-10980xe
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Intel Core i9-10980XE

Based on 10 · 8

Reviewers praise its rendering, encoding and overclocking headroom, but agree it brings little over its predecessor and runs hot.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i9-10980XE

Technical score
Technical score
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 72% of models
Score components:

60%

8.0

Performance

18%

6.1

Architecture

10%

7.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

3.0

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

7.2
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Score components:

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

7.0

Price

7.3
Processor type
workstation
This processor belongs to the workstation processor class, which is more advanced than that of 95.4% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA2066
This processor uses the LGA2066 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 73.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
Chipset
X299
This processor supports X299 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 95.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 83.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
N. of physical cores
18
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 18 CPU cores, which is more than 94.7% of processors and equal to 0.4% of processors.
CPU threads
36
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 36 CPU threads, which is more than 98.2% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.8 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.8 GHz which is higher than that of 69.2% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
18x 3.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 18x3.0 GHz which is higher than that of 95.6% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
31,984
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 31,984 in PassMark, which is higher than 87.9% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to that of 29% of processors.
L3 cache
24.75 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 24.75 MB which is larger than that of 86.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
L2 cache
18 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 18 MB which is larger than that of 91.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
L1 cache
1,152 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 1,152 KB which is larger than that of 88.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,933 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,933 MHz, which is lower than that of 50.3% of processors and equal to 5.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2933 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2933 MHz, which is lower than that of 54% of processors and equal to 4.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
256 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 256 GB of memory, which is more than 89% of processors and equal to 8.8% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
165 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 165 W which is higher than that of 96.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
165 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 165 W which is higher than that of 96% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
198 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 198 W which is higher than that of 91.8% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
32 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 32 seconds which is shorter than that of 95.7% of processors.
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core i9-10980XE vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 12 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (18 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    18 vs 6
  • 2.79x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (31,984 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    31,984 vs 11,469
  • 14 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (18 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    18 vs 4
  • 3.05x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (8,563 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    8,563 vs 2,804.5
  • 28 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (36 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    36 vs 8
  • 2.12x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (11,067 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    11,067 vs 5,209
  • 6x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (18 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    18 MB vs 3 MB
  • 32 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (48 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    48 vs 16
  • 13.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 50% of models

    80%

    7.2

    Average grade

    20%

    9.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (32)
    24 reviews: 14 with a printed score, 10 estimated from the review. 8 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.6 vs 6.7
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA2066 vs FP5).
    LGA2066 vs FP5
  • Higher-end processor class
    This processor belongs to a higher-end processor class than the average processor (workstation vs mobile).
    workstation vs mobile
  • 12 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (18 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    18 vs 6
  • 2.79x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (31,984 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    31,984 vs 11,469
  • 3.05x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (8,563 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    8,563 vs 2,804.5
  • 14 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (18 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    18 vs 4
  • 28 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (36 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    36 vs 8
  • 2.12x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (11,067 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    11,067 vs 5,209
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (18x3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    18x3.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 9.1% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    Intel Turbo Boost Max 3
    3 vs 2
  • 6x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (18 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    18 MB vs 3 MB
  • 3x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (1,152 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    1,152 KB vs 384 KB
  • 2.75x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (24.8 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    24.75 MB vs 9 MB
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 32 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (48 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    48 vs 16
  • 4x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    256 GB vs 64 GB
  • 2x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (94 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    94 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 14 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (86 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    86 °C vs 100 °C
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 3.09x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (198 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    198 W vs 64 W
  • 3.67x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (165 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    165 W vs 45 W
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Cascade Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Cascade Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 82.1% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (71.4 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    71.4 vs 398.015
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 2.73x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (484 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    484 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 2.64x more expensive
    Intel Core i9-10980XE is more expensive than the average processor (£660 vs £250).
    £660 vs £250
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 82.1% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (71.4 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    71.4 vs 398.015
  • 6.5% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (458 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    458 vs 490
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Cascade Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Cascade Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.73x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (484 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    484 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 25.7% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.4 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.375 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 2 fewer memory channels
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (4 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    4 vs 2
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 3.67x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (165 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    165 W vs 45 W
  • 3.09x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (198 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    198 W vs 64 W
  • 14 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (86 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    86 °C vs 100 °C
  • 3.67x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (165 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    165 W vs 45 W
  • 4 seconds shorter turbo duration
    This processor has a lower turbo duration limit than the average processor (32 seconds vs 28 seconds). The average processor maintains turbo for 28 seconds.
    32 seconds vs 28 seconds

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
Frame Chasers
≈ estimated
04/05/2021
Hands-on review · gaming and overclocked benchmarks
Verdict
Intel Core i9-10980XE is recommended for gaming and workstation use, though it draws a lot of power under load.
7.0
Luumi
≈ estimated
04/07/2020
Hands-on test · lapping, overclocking and voltage tuning
Verdict
Intel Core i9-10980XE reaches 5 GHz on water cooling, which is a good result for this chip.
8.0
TheOverclocker
≈ estimated
05/02/2020
Long-term impressions · power, heat and overclocking tests
Verdict
Intel Core i9-10980XE is flexible and has good options, so it is mainly worth owning if you already use the platform.
4.0
Hardware Canucks
≈ estimated
26/11/2019
Performance review · benchmarks, pricing and platform analysis
Verdict
Intel Core i9-10980XE is overpriced for most buyers; skip it for new builds, since the Ryzen 9 3950X offers far better value.
5.0
Linus Tech Tips
≈ estimated
25/11/2019
Hands-on review · productivity, gaming, power and thermal tests
Verdict
Intel Core i9-10980XE is a decent chip, but it is expensive and stuck on a dead-end platform with no upgrade path.
8.0
KitGuruTech
≈ estimated
25/11/2019
Deep-dive review with benchmarks against AMD Threadripper
Verdict
Intel Core i9-10980XE is a good upgrade for existing X299 owners, but AMD's rival remains a tough competitor for most buyers.
5.0
optimum
≈ estimated
25/11/2019
Comparison with benchmarks against Ryzen 3950X
Verdict
Intel Core i9-10980XE is too expensive for its performance next to the Ryzen 3950X, which is close and cheaper.
Overview video
Overview video
Overview video
Overview video
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

6.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
28/11/2019
Lab test · High-end desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10980XE brings modest gains and lower power over the 9980XE and fits existing X299 boards, but its platform is a dead end.
6.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
25/11/2019
Benchmark test · Enthusiast desktop chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10980XE is an 18-core chip for heavy video and data science work, but it's overkill for most buyers and trails AMD's Threadripper in multi-core tests.
7.0
pcworld.com
≈ estimated
25/11/2019
Benchmark test · Creator CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10980XE is an 18-core chip that trails AMD on raw speed but fits existing X299 boards and suits content creators.
9.0
trustedreviews.com
✓ explicit
25/11/2019
Benchmark test · Creative multi-core CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10980XE is a multi-core chip for creative work, but its gaming gains over the Core i9-9900K are small outside Shadow of the Tomb Raider.
9.2
tweaktown.com
✓ explicit
25/11/2019
Benchmark test · Intel X299 CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10980XE is a clear step up in single-core speed and overclocking over the 9980XE, but multi-core and gaming results are almost unchanged.
7.5
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
25/11/2019
Benchmark test · Refreshed 18-core chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10980XE is a refresh of Skylake-X with faster memory, higher boost clocks and AI instructions, but still not Intel's newest design.
8.0
servethehome.com
≈ estimated
25/11/2019
Workstation test · Creative desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10980XE is a strong 18-core choice for creative professionals who don't need ECC memory, offering more lanes and memory channels than mainstream chips.
5.0
arstechnica.com
≈ estimated
26/11/2019
Benchmark test · Workstation CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10980XE is best for AI inference and low power use, but it falls behind AMD's Threadripper and often lags its predecessor elsewhere.
7.0
hardwarecanucks.com
✓ explicit
26/11/2019
Benchmark review · X299 platform
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10980XE is only worth it as a drop-in upgrade for older X299 systems, since it trails AMD's chips and the platform lacks PCIe 4.0 and Wi-Fi 6.
9.0
impulsegamer.com
✓ explicit
30/04/2020
Benchmark review · Content and gaming
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10980XE is a strong all-round chip for content creators and gamers, though it needs an X299 motherboard and offers only PCIe 3.0.
6.0
hardwarezone.com.sg
≈ estimated
25/11/2019
Benchmark test · Enthusiast desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10980XE is a near-identical update to the 9980XE, strong in multi-core work and video encoding but not much faster in most games.
7.0
pcper.com
≈ estimated
26/11/2019
Benchmark test · High-end desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10980XE is fast at video encoding and a clear step up from the 7980XE, but it trails the 32-core Threadripper 2990WX in rendering.
8.4
pcgameshardware.de
✓ explicit
04/12/2019
Hands-on test · Desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10980XE is Intel's strongest high-end desktop chip, but it only matches AMD's Ryzen 9 3950X in applications and trails mainstream Ryzens in games.
7.6
computerbild.de
✓ explicit
02/03/2020
Benchmark test · High-end desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10980XE is Intel's fastest desktop chip for heavy video editing and gaming with a separate graphics card, but AMD still leads overall.
8.4
chip.de
✓ explicit
25/02/2020
Lab test · Enthusiast desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10980XE is an easy drop-in upgrade for existing X299 boards, but AMD's Threadripper 3960X is far faster in heavy multi-core rendering.
6.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
25/11/2019
Benchmark test · 18-core desktop chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10980XE is a faster Skylake-X refresh with few new features, but AMD's Zen 2 chips beat it on speed and efficiency.
7.0
hardwareluxx.de
≈ estimated
25/11/2019
Launch review · Workstation CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10980XE is an 18-core chip for X299 boards, a modest step up that keeps the same platform and adds faster memory support.
7.0
hardwareinside.de
≈ estimated
12/06/2020
Lab test · Overclocking and games
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10980XE is best for overclocking and video encoding, but at stock its multi-core speed trails the i9-9980XE and AMD's Ryzen chips.
8.8
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
25/11/2019
Benchmark test · Desktop processor
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10980XE is a many-core chip for design and video work, but older X299 boards may need checking and it ships without a cooler.
8.8
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
21/12/2019
Lab test · Overclocking and cooling
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10980XE is a powerful 18-core chip that overclocks well, but the aging X299 platform and strong rival chips limit its appeal.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i9-10980XE

  • Substantial price reduction compared to the previous generation (i9-9980XE).
  • Drop-in compatibility with the mature X299 motherboard ecosystem via BIOS update.
  • High PCIe lane count (48 lanes) supporting multiple GPUs and NVMe storage.
  • Strong quad-channel memory support up to 256GB.
  • Significant overclocking headroom, often reaching 4.6GHz to 5.0GHz with high-end cooling.
  • Solid performance in specific AVX-512 and Deep Learning Boost (DL Boost) workloads.

What customers don't like about Intel Core i9-10980XE

  • Outperformed by the less expensive AMD Ryzen 9 3950X in many multi-threaded benchmarks.
  • Uses an aging 14nm process with high power consumption and significant heat output when overclocked.
  • Lacks modern features like PCIe 4.0, which was available on competing platforms.
  • Minimal performance gains over the previous generation beyond slightly higher boost clocks.
  • Poor value for pure gaming compared to mainstream CPUs like the i9-9900K or newer alternatives.

Verdict

The Intel Core i9-10980XE is a high-end desktop (HEDT) processor from the Cascade Lake-X series featuring 18 cores, 36 threads, and a 165W TDP. It operates at a base clock of 3.0 GHz with a maximum Turbo Boost 3.0 frequency of 4.8 GHz and includes 24.75MB of Intel Smart Cache, 48 PCIe 3.0 lanes, and quad-channel DDR4-2933 memory support up to 256GB. Main pros include a significantly reduced launch price compared to its predecessor, compatibility with existing X299 motherboards, excellent multi-threaded performance for intensive creative tasks like 4K video editing, and strong overclocking potential. However, its main cons are high power consumption, reliance on an aging 14nm process, and being outperformed in efficiency and certain benchmarks by competing AMD Ryzen and Threadripper alternatives.

Compare Intel Core i9-10980XE with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i9-10980XE and other processors

No results found