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 i9-9980XE review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£570PassMark multi-core score:31507N. of physical cores:18CPU boost clock speed:4.5 GHzCPU socket:LGA2066TDP (Thermal design power):165 W

Intel Core i9-9980XE Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 20 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i9-9980XE
7.3/10

Overall score

Score
7.3/ 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 69% of models
Score components

40%

7.3

Technical score

25%

7.2

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–²Better than 69% 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%

7.3

Overall score

30%

7.5

Price

â–¼Worse than 51%
7.3

Technical score

Technical score
7.3/ 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 73% of models
Score components

60%

8.0

Performance

18%

6.2

Architecture

10%

7.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.0

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 73%
7.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.2/ 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–¼ Worse than 59% of models

80%

6.7

Average grade

20%

9.2

Popularity

Grades by review (20)
13 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 7 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–¼Worse than 59%
?

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-i9-9980xe
  • intel-core-i9-9980xe
  • intel-core-i9-9980xe
  • intel-core-i9-9980xe
  • intel-core-i9-9980xe
  • intel-core-i9-9980xe
intel-core-i9-9980xe
intel-core-i9-9980xe
intel-core-i9-9980xe
intel-core-i9-9980xe
intel-core-i9-9980xe
intel-core-i9-9980xe
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 i9-9980XE

Based on 8 · 10

Reviewers praise its multi-core muscle and connectivity, but criticise the high power draw, poor value and small gains over its predecessor.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i9-9980XE

Technical score
Technical score
7.3/ 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 73% of models
Score components:

60%

8.0

Performance

18%

6.2

Architecture

10%

7.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.0

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

7.3
Reviews score
7.2
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%

7.3

Overall score

30%

7.5

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
4.5 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.5 GHz which is higher than that of 53.9% of processors and equal to that of 5.5% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
18x 3 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 18x3 GHz which is higher than that of 95.6% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
31,507
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 31,507 in PassMark, which is higher than 87.5% 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
2,666 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,666 MHz, which is lower than that of 56.7% of processors and equal to 7.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2666 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2666 MHz, which is lower than that of 59.8% of processors and equal to 7.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% 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)
165 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 165 W which is higher than that of 89.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core i9-9980XE 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
  • 2.75x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (31,507 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    31,507 vs 11,469
  • 3.13x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (8,791 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    8,791 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
  • 2.15x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (11,223 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    11,223 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
  • 28 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (44 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    44 vs 16
  • 7.5% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.2/ 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–¼ Worse than 59% of models

    80%

    6.7

    Average grade

    20%

    9.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (20)
    13 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 7 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.
    7.2 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
  • 2.75x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (31,507 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    31,507 vs 11,469
  • 3.13x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (8,791 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    8,791 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
  • 2.15x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (11,223 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    11,223 vs 5,209
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (18x3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    18x3 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.
  • 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 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
  • 28 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (44 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    44 vs 16
  • 81.2% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (85 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    85 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.
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • 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
  • 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
  • 2.58x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (165 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    165 W vs 64 W
  • 73.8% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (104.3 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    104.3 vs 398.015
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, SGX, TXT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, SGX, TXT 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
  • 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
  • 2.28x more expensive
    Intel Core i9-9980XE is more expensive than the average processor (£570 vs £250).
    £570 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, SGX, TXT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, SGX, TXT 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
  • 2 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2018 vs 2020).
    November 2018
    2018 vs 2020
  • 73.8% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (104.3 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    104.3 vs 398.015
  • 6.8% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,430 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,430 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Skylake vs Kaby Lake).
    Skylake vs Kaby Lake
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 16.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,666 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,666 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 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
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2666 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,666 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 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
  • 2.58x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (165 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    165 W vs 64 W
  • 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

Video reviews

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

6.0
Luumi
≈ estimated
24/08/2019
Overclocking test · water cooling and memory tuning
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9980XE ran hotter in this sample and failed to reach 5 GHz easily, so the refresh feels a little pointless for overclockers.
4.0
Luumi
≈ estimated
08/05/2019
Overclocking test · liquid nitrogen, Cinebench and GPU-Pi
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9980XE gives no reason to upgrade from the 7000 series, as it cracks easily and overclocks below the best samples.
5.0
Luumi
≈ estimated
10/02/2019
Overclocking test · cooling, memory and pricing
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9980XE offers a slightly better overclock than the 7980XE, but the refresh is pointless and the price is too high.
7.0
Inspire2Rise
≈ estimated
15/12/2018
Hands-on review · benchmarks, gaming and multi-core tests
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9980XE is only worth it for heavy parallel workloads; it is not a gaming chip, and most buyers should look elsewhere.
3.0
KitGuruTech
≈ estimated
08/12/2018
Hands-on review · benchmarks against Threadripper and value
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9980XE is a rebadged 7980XE with no reason to exist; nobody should buy it at this price.
4.0
OC3D TV
≈ estimated
02/12/2018
Hands-on review · overclocking, temperatures and comparisons
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9980XE runs too hot and is hard to cool for most buyers; the previous generation is the better choice.
4.0
Hardware Canucks
≈ estimated
13/11/2018
Hands-on review · benchmarks, power draw and pricing
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9980XE is hard to recommend at this price; a mainstream chip or second-gen Ryzen is the better buy.
6.0
Tom's Hardware
≈ estimated
04/10/2019
Light-hearted comparison · heat and stability test against AMD
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9980XE runs hot and unstable under stress, but it won an unscientific pancake contest against AMD.
6.0
Paul's Hardware
≈ estimated
13/11/2018
First look · day-one benchmarks and comparison
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9980XE is only a small step over the previous generation at the same price, with overclocking still untested.
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
13/11/2018
Lab test · High-end desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9980XE is an 18-core chip for heavy multi-threaded work, but it needs a premium motherboard, strong cooler and good power supply to perform well.
7.0
gamersnexus.net
≈ estimated
13/11/2018
Overclocking test · Heat testing
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9980XE is a higher-clocked i9-7980XE that runs well at stock, but heat limits overclocking with practical cooling.
8.0
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
13/11/2018
Launch review · 18-core desktop chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9980XE is Intel's new 18-core flagship, a Skylake-X chip with higher clocks but the same underlying design.
7.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
20/12/2018
Lab review · High-end desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9980XE is a fast 18-core chip for HandBrake encoding and single-core work, but it needs a high-end board, strong cooling and a separate graphics card.
8.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
13/11/2018
Benchmark review · Extreme multi-core chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9980XE is the fastest high-end desktop chip tested, but its lead over AMD's 2nd-gen Threadripper is slim, making it best for extreme multi-core work.
8.0
hardwarecanucks.com
✓ explicit
13/11/2018
Performance review · Power and heat
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9980XE is a strong 18-core chip, only 7 to 14 percent faster than its predecessor in multi-core work, and it draws a lot of power.
6.0
chip.de
≈ estimated
25/02/2019
Benchmark test · High-end desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9980XE is a strong 18-core chip for video and 3D work, but AMD's Threadripper chips with more cores win in some high-end video tasks.
7.0
computertalenta.de
✓ explicit
Not Dated
Lab test · High-end desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9980XE is a very fast 18-core chip that still trails AMD's Threadripper 2990WX in tests and draws more power.
6.0
tomshardware.fr
✓ explicit
28/11/2018
Lab test · Desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9980XE is a minor refresh with 18 cores, hard to recommend next to AMD's 32-core Threadripper 2990WX.
9.0
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
06/03/2019
Lab review · High-end desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9980XE is a fast 18-core chip for workstations and mixed use, but it needs a strong cooler and power supply, especially when overclocked.
5.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
20/11/2018
Lab review · Skylake-X refresh
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9980XE is an 18-core refresh with higher Turbo clocks, but with 32-core AMD Threadripper chips on the market, it is hard to recommend.
7.0
hwupgrade.it
≈ estimated
27/11/2018
Feature overview · Enthusiast desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9980XE is a modest update of the 7980XE, with a 3 GHz base clock and 4.5 GHz turbo, keeping 18 cores and the same memory support.
6.0
ct.nl
≈ estimated
26/02/2019
Lab test · Enthusiast CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9980XE is an 18-core chip about 4% faster than its predecessor, but AMD's Threadripper 2990WX leads by 50% in full multi-core loads.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i9-9980XE

  • Flagship-class performance with 18 cores and 36 threads for heavy multi-threaded workloads like video rendering and 3D modeling.
  • Higher stock and turbo frequencies compared to its predecessor (i9-7980XE), leading to out-of-the-box speed gains.
  • Inclusion of Solder Thermal Interface Material (STIM) improves thermal conductivity between the die and heat spreader.
  • Strong gaming performance for an HEDT chip, avoiding the major bottlenecks often seen in high-core-count competitors.
  • Supports cutting-edge platform features like Thunderbolt 3 and quad-channel memory.

What customers don't like about Intel Core i9-9980XE

  • Extremely high MSRP (approximately $2,000) results in poor performance-per-dollar compared to AMD Threadripper alternatives.
  • Significant power consumption under load, reaching over 340 watts in some stress tests.
  • Can be thermally constrained even with the new solder, often requiring high-end custom liquid cooling for stable overclocking.
  • Fewer PCIe lanes (44) compared to AMD's Threadripper platform (64), which can limit multi-GPU or storage configurations.
  • Marginal performance improvement over the previous generation for users who already own an i9-7980XE.

Verdict

The Intel Core i9-9980XE is a flagship Extreme Edition processor featuring 18 cores and 36 threads built on a 14nm architecture for the LGA 2066 socket. It operates at a base frequency of 3.0 GHz with a maximum Turbo Boost 3.0 speed of 4.5 GHz, supported by 24.75 MB of L3 cache and a 165W TDP. Main pros include exceptional multi-threaded performance for professional content creation, quad-channel memory support, and improved thermals due to the use of Solder Thermal Interface Material (STIM). However, notable cons include its high power consumption, expensive launch price, and the fact that it is often outperformed in gaming and single-core tasks by cheaper mainstream processors like the i9-9900K.

Compare Intel Core i9-9980XE 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 i9-9980XE and other processors

No results found