Skip to main content

Intel Core i9-10900X Cascade Lake-X Benchmarks Emerge

(Image credit: Intel)

Someone has seemingly benchmarked the Intel Core i9-10900X with the Geekbench 4 software. The unreleased processor sports the 10000-series branding, so it's most likely one of Intel's upcoming HEDT (high-end desktop) parts based on the Cascade Lake microarchitecture.

Based on the core count on the posting, we suspect the Core i9-10900X is the same Cascade Lake-X (CSL-X) chip that surfaced in SiSoftware's database back in April. The processor will most likely serve as the direct replacement for the existing i9-9900X. 

(Image credit: Geekbench)

If the Geekbench listing is accurate, the Core i9-10900X's latest appearance not only helps fill in some of the missing specifications but also gives us some insight on the performance improvements. At any rate, the Geekbench 4 results should be taken with a grain of salt since we're talking about unreleased hardware here.

Cores /ThreadsBase / Boost (GHz)L1 Cache L2 Cache L3 Cache PCIe 3.0DRAMTDP
Core i9-10900X*10 / 204 / 4.6640KB10MB19.25MB???
Core i9-9900X10 / 203.5 / 4.5640KB10MB19.25MB44Quad DDR4-2666165W
Core i9-9820X10 / 203.3 / 4.2640KB10MB16.5MB44Quad DDR4-2666165W

*Specifications in the table are unconfirmed

Based on the reported specs, the Core i9-10900X isn't much different from the i9-9900X. It still has 10 cores, 20 threads and the same amount of L1, L2 and L3 cache. SiSoftware detected the Core i9-10900X with a 4 GHz base clock and 4.6 GHz boost clock. Geekbench 4 posted a minimum frequency of 4.137 GHz and a maximum frequency of 4.680 GHz, so both reports are in the same ballpark.

(Image credit: Geekbench)

The Core i9-10900X seemingly delivers up to 5.71% higher performance than the i9-9900X in single-core workloads. When it comes to multi-core workloads, the Core i9-10900X performs up to 10.34% faster. The difference in performance seems feasible since Cascade Lake-X is somewhat a rewarmed Skylake-X Refresh part. Of course, we should wait until the final products are out before we pass judgement.

Intel claims Cascade Lake-X will bring double the performance per dollar. The 14nm multi-core chips are scheduled to arrive next month. Sadly, Intel hasn't specified a date yet. 

  • jimmysmitty
    So basically it looks like if you have anything modern such as a 9000 series or Ryzen chip its best to wait a few years till Intel pushes out 7nm and whatever AMD has at the time.
    Reply
  • kinggremlin
    jimmysmitty said:
    So basically it looks like if you have anything modern such as a 9000 series or Ryzen chip its best to wait a few years till Intel pushes out 7nm and whatever AMD has at the time.
    Probably shouldn't write off Intel's 10nm yet. But Cascade Lake is definitely not something worth waiting for although Intel's claim of 2x price/performance improvement does create minimal intrigue to see how they will be priced. If Intel hits 10nm next year and can hit 7nm the following year as they are currently predicting, there might finally be some notable mainstream cpu performance increases.
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    kinggremlin said:
    Probably shouldn't write off Intel's 10nm yet. But Cascade Lake is definitely not something worth waiting for although Intel's claim of 2x price/performance improvement does create minimal intrigue to see how they will be priced. If Intel hits 10nm next year and can hit 7nm the following year as they are currently predicting, there might finally be some notable mainstream cpu performance increases.
    At this point I don't think we're even expecting to see any 10nm desktop parts.
    Reply
  • gggplaya
    These geekbench scores are worse than Ryzen 3900x for both single and multicore. This chip may be dead out of the gate unless Intel can get those numbers up.
    Reply
  • kinggremlin
    TJ Hooker said:
    At this point I don't think we're even expecting to see any 10nm desktop parts.
    Certainly could be another Broadwell. That would probably be a good thing as that would indicate 7nm was on schedule.
    Reply
  • salgado18
    I think the key here is "double perf per dollar", which means you can get a 10-core i9 for half the price. If you already have one, it's not for you (and you can cry in the corner for what you paid before). If you have an older system and was considering an upgrade, Intel is saying "now you can upgrade for cheap" (plus powerful cooler, don't forget).
    Reply
  • jimmysmitty
    kinggremlin said:
    Certainly could be another Broadwell. That would probably be a good thing as that would indicate 7nm was on schedule.

    No roadmap shows 10nm desktop parts only mobile and server. Intel plans 7nm in 2021. They might be pushing desktop to that instead of 10nm.

    salgado18 said:
    I think the key here is "double perf per dollar", which means you can get a 10-core i9 for half the price. If you already have one, it's not for you (and you can cry in the corner for what you paid before). If you have an older system and was considering an upgrade, Intel is saying "now you can upgrade for cheap" (plus powerful cooler, don't forget).

    To be fair I paid more per core for a Pentium than a Core 2.

    And on the other point, no one who would buy a top end CPU uses the stock cooler. The few that do are normally people spending money and not enthusiasts. Most enthusiasts will toss the stock cooler and buy an AiO, better air cooler or a custom water loop for better performance, looks and of course to be quieter than the stock cooler.
    Reply
  • nitrium
    I just ran Geekbench 4.3.0 on my 3700X and get:
    Single-core score: 5627
    Multi-core score: 35204

    If these scores are representative of actual performance the chip DOA.
    Reply
  • jimmysmitty
    nitrium said:
    I just ran Geekbench 4.3.0 on my 3700X and get:
    Single-core score: 5627
    Multi-core score: 35204

    If these scores are representative of actual performance the chip DOA.

    Stock or overclocked?
    Reply
  • nitrium
    jimmysmitty said:
    Stock or overclocked?
    100% stock, and still running the old BIOS. I just ran it again so I can give you link to the result: ?rel=ugc]https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/14639964
    Reply