Intel Core i9-9990XE Conclusion

Intel never really announced the Core i9-9990XE into the market. We broke the story this year at CES in January after confirming from several sources in that initial auction said that it was taking place – a 14-core 5.0 GHz CPU and an unknown quantity would be available for select system integrators and OEM partners to bid on. There is no warranty from Intel, so these integrators were taking a risk, and could ultimately bid too high for a chip that might not sell.

In the end, that initial auction fell to (at least) three companies, of which two ended up with the CPUs. We very quickly found out that CaseKing snapped up most of them, and the company eventually ended up putting them for direct sale (with 1 year warranty) on their connected websites for €2999 (now €2849) as well as offering several of their high profile water cooled extreme overclocked systems with the chip inside. We also saw Puget Systems with at least one, and another companies was ICC, an Intel partner that focuses on a number of markets including the financial market. It was ICC who built a 1U system for this chip and sampled the system for us to review.

The system was provided with custom proprietary liquid cooling, which we’re not able to show you. The thing is a beast, however, and can appropriately cool up to 400W of CPU in a 1.75-inch form factor. It’s also loud, registering 78 decibels whether the system is at idle or running a full workload. Given that it is a 1U server, this would suggest that a datacenter is the best place for it. I have no doubt that it could be transferred into a tower, although much like the 28-core Xeon W-3175X we tested in January, it requires a substantial cooling setup to be tamed.

In performance, the tweaked system from ICC was built for low latency financial trading. It was only paired with 32 GB of DDR4, but running at DDR4-3600 with tuned subtimings. We added in our standard testing SSD and GPU, although due to the complexity of the system build we weren’t able to run games on this thing. But for raw ST performance, the Core i9-9990XE puts all the other high-end desktop chips to shame – as it should do. Everything from Intel on a Core chip gets obliterated, and against the Xeon W-3175X which has 28-cores, the Xeon does go ahead just on the multithreaded stuff but this Core i9-9990XE kills it when frequency is the limiting factor. This shows up in our compile test, where the right balance of cores and frequency are needed - the Core i9-9990XE set a new world record in our benchmark. There are some caveats - the mesh frequency does seem to be a little bit of a hold back in some tests, or frequency going in and out of turbo modes can cause additional delays in tests.

Against AMD counterparts, that 5.0 GHz frequency carves through anything like butter. Where AMD has to play is on its 32-core Threadripper CPUs, and even then it’s a tradeoff – 14 cores at 5.0 GHz against 32 cores at ~3.4 GHz means that the 2990WX has a lead only it’s a raw compute problem, but put in any memory limited scenario, or add in AVX2/AVX512, and the Core i9-9990XE is going to win.

We obviously haven’t talked price. The W-3175X is a similar $3000 to the i9-9990XE, but has ECC support and six memory channels, but doesn’t have that single thread frequency. The 2990WX is a NUMA design that works well in focused applications rather than the i9-9990XE which works well in almost every scenario, but the 2990WX is 30-40% cheaper.

Comparing the i9-9990XE
Intel   AMD
Xeon
W-3175X
Core i9
9990XE
Core i9
9900KS
AnandTech Ryzen
7 3950X
TR 2
2990WX
EPYC
7542
28 14 8 Cores 16 32 32
56 28 16 Threads 32 64 64
3.1 4.0 4.0 Base 3.5 3.0 2.9
  5.0 5.0 All-Core      
4.5 5.0 5.0 Turbo 4.7 4.2 3.4
255 W 255 W 127 W? TDP 105 W 250 W 225W
6 x 2666 4 x 2666 2 x 2666 DDR4 2 x 3200 4 x 2933 8 x 3200
48 44 16 PCIe 24 64 128
$2999 $auction $513 MSRP $749 $1799 $3400

Then around the corner we have Intel’s 8-core 5.0 GHz processor, the Core i9-9900KS. This is a consumer level processor, with only two memory channels and 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes, but is set to be $513 when launched in a couple of days (October 30th). Users interested in an all-core 5.0 GHz processor out of the box (i.e., not overclocked) are likely to find that the 9900KS acts as a good starter position, which might be able to be scaled with the 9990XE when things like memory bandwidth start becoming an issue.

On the topic of sustainability, no-one is going to be able to deploy the Core i9-9990XE en-mass: Intel only has a few chips that meet the specifications, and these are auctioned to system integrators. So unless a customer wants a specific number, they will have to work with an system integrator with a set budget for that auction in mind, and even then, there’s no guarantee that Intel will have that many chips available (or if someone will outbid you). There’s also no-warranty on the parts from the perspective of the system integrator, so that adds additional cost. Companies looking at one of these systems might have to consider them as one-offs for their deployment, whereas by comparison, we expect there to be more Core i9-9900KS processors in the wild for companies to buy direct from retailers.

Ultimately, the Core i9-9990XE is a curio. It’s a hell of a curio, that’s for sure. It is like one of the house robots on Robot Wars (UK) or BattleBots (US): something completely outside the rules of normal sportsmanship and is big enough to beat you to a pulp, and it’s very rare that you would even own one, not at least before it owns you.

 

Power Consumption, Frequencies, and Thermals
POST A COMMENT

145 Comments

View All Comments

  • yannigr2 - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    An over 300W chip that loses in so many cases from chips that cost under $500, with less than half power consumption. And Intel is $auctioning$ it. That isn't even funny. It's tragic. Reply
  • AshlayW - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    600W for performance that's not even going to be that much over a 3950X (if at all?) Intel is a laughing stock at this point. Can't wait to see the 9900KS, and have a good laugh at the last desperate, dying twitches of the Skylake architecture. Reply
  • 29a - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    HFT should be illegal! Reply
  • MrSpadge - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    Why? And on which basis would you forbid it? I think the better way to deal with this is to attach a tiny tax to each transaction. So if it's really worth it, they may do it. But the government gets its share and can redistribute to something more useful. Reply
  • RBFL - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    It has no useful purpose for society, the fact it is difficult to identify the people being harmed does not mean that harm is not taking place.

    I think making people have a 1 second relationship with a share is not unreasonable. Just because someone can do something doesn't mean we have to allow it. We have speed limits, laws against dishonesty and murder and we could just as easily have one against HFT.

    The fact that exchanges sell expensive server space to these companies for lower pings, while purportedly being the arbiters of fair play and price transparency is, of course, another big issue.
    Reply
  • rahvin - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    So anything you in your all knowing capacity deem as not useful for society at large it should be illegal? Doesn't that mean gaming should be illegal?

    I've yet to meet a single one of these people that complain about HFT that actually understand how the market works, how stock trading function and what HFT even is. Most of them simply heard some talking point they regurgitate without any understanding of how the stock market even works let alone how a stock transaction works or what HFT involves.
    Reply
  • shadowx360 - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    It's a mix of ignorance and jealousy, that they can't be the successful ones rolling in dough, and all investing is somehow evil and taking advantage of the common worker. There are some downsides to HFT, namely increased market volatility and cascading problems where a fall in prices can trigger millions of stop losses that compound the issue, but like you said, most have zero clue. Reply
  • RBFL - Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - link

    And that statement is based on?

    I am not jealous of an industry that has basically bought its way to success through lobbying and every time it explodes it expects the rest of us to reboot it, while mysteriously keeping the proceeds prior to the crash. An industry that gives away billions of our dollars of our money to avoid their own prosecution. Where almost no-one goes to jail after egregious lies, fraud, money laundering,....

    All investing is not evil, however many of the practices of the industry are. Lobbying against fiduciary duty for the small investor, for example. If you actually look at the share classes available you will undoubtedly see some that no-one who understood what they were being sold would ever buy. Telling people 'they are responsible for their future' while not cleaning up the industry is like throwing sheep to wolves. And no, it is not everyone's responsibility to know every evil practice in every area of life in which they are forced to deal. It is unrealistic for the well educated, let alone the average citizen. It is why we have laws, which are generally reactive rather than proactive and thus mainly address known abuses rather prospective ones.
    Reply
  • Alistair - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    Nice article, except the final page. Why mention "highest ST for HEDT" and "carves through AMD like butter" etc., then you don't even make mention of any MT performance in summary. You could have said, in MT scenarios, it performs about the same as any Intel 18 or AMD 24 core server CPU or some such. Reply
  • Alistair - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    my meaning is the summary shouldn't just be for what is awesome, but should also summarize all the results... no mention of multi threading performance on the final page at all, because it isn't special? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now