It’s a Cascade of 14nm CPUs: AnandTech’s Intel Core i9-10980XE Review
by Dr. Ian Cutress on November 25, 2019 9:00 AM ESTGaming: Grand Theft Auto V
The highly anticipated iteration of the Grand Theft Auto franchise hit the shelves on April 14th 2015, with both AMD and NVIDIA in tow to help optimize the title. GTA doesn’t provide graphical presets, but opens up the options to users and extends the boundaries by pushing even the hardest systems to the limit using Rockstar’s Advanced Game Engine under DirectX 11. Whether the user is flying high in the mountains with long draw distances or dealing with assorted trash in the city, when cranked up to maximum it creates stunning visuals but hard work for both the CPU and the GPU.
For our test we have scripted a version of the in-game benchmark. The in-game benchmark consists of five scenarios: four short panning shots with varying lighting and weather effects, and a fifth action sequence that lasts around 90 seconds. We use only the final part of the benchmark, which combines a flight scene in a jet followed by an inner city drive-by through several intersections followed by ramming a tanker that explodes, causing other cars to explode as well. This is a mix of distance rendering followed by a detailed near-rendering action sequence, and the title thankfully spits out frame time data.
There are no presets for the graphics options on GTA, allowing the user to adjust options such as population density and distance scaling on sliders, but others such as texture/shadow/shader/water quality from Low to Very High. Other options include MSAA, soft shadows, post effects, shadow resolution and extended draw distance options. There is a handy option at the top which shows how much video memory the options are expected to consume, with obvious repercussions if a user requests more video memory than is present on the card (although there’s no obvious indication if you have a low end GPU with lots of GPU memory, like an R7 240 4GB).
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
| AnandTech | IGP | Low | Medium | High |
| Average FPS |  |
 |
 |
 |
| 95th Percentile |  |
 |
 |
 |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
79 Comments
View All Comments
nt300 - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Do not thank Intel for anything CPU related. They've been milking consumers for many years, confusing people with several different sockets, chipsets, price points etc., this processor not compatible with that socket and so on. They've caused an industry mess with very expensive CPUs and miniscule IPC increases.Who to thank? AMD for launching ZEN and catching Intel by the surprise.
evernessince - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
While your at bringing up irrelevant points from over 7 years ago, might as well thank AMD for X64 as well. Are you going to fellate Intel for everything they've done in the past?Korguz - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
evernessince dont forget the on die memory controller that intel also copied from amd :-)not irrelevant points, they are valid points.. it kinda proves intel likes to milk people for all they are worth, while stagnating the cpu industry, and over charging for their cpus as well. come on, the top sku for 10xxx cpus is 1k less then the cpu it is replacing, and it cant even do that for the most part, may as well just stick with the 9xxx cpus....
Xyler94 - Wednesday, November 27, 2019 - link
While technically Intel was first to 64bit X86, AMD beat intel to X86-64bit, meaning it was both x86(32bit) and x86(64bit) compatible. Intel tried to go 64bit only, but it backfired on them hard, and so they scrambled to do both 32 and 64 bit, but AMD beat them to the punch, so much so Intel had to license that from AMD, and is the sole reason it's still known today as AMD-64Qasar - Wednesday, November 27, 2019 - link
Xyler94 i remember reading that good old microsoft didnt want to have to code windows for 2 different x86-64 instruction sets, so they made intel drop theirs and adopt AMDs instead, as they had already started programming windows for amd64...Samus - Wednesday, November 27, 2019 - link
You realize the only reason Intel lowered the mainstream bracket to the $300 level was competition from AMD's Black Edition CPU's. And after Ivy Bridge, they shot right back up to $400.So stop pretending Intel doesn't price their products based on competition from AMD. That's just ridiculous.
Beaver M. - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
Yeah well, lower prices are nice and all, but the product isnt that good.Its still the Skylake architecture, still ancient 14 nm, still has dozens of security flaws.
ksec - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Thanking AMD for Intel's Price Cut and then continue to buy Intel?JlHADJOE - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Now W3175X needs to drop down to $2000 for the 32-core TR3 to have any kind of competition.UglyFrank - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
This could make a great workstation processor for me but AMD is still much compelling.