• Hey there Guest! This holiday season you have a chance to win some cool AnandTech swag! Check out “The Holiday Hotlist” giveaway, which you can find here.

** Building : Intel i9-9900k Thermals Question - Need Help **

Apr 27, 2000
10,192
112
126
#26
So spend $300 so you can pay another ~$400 in 6 months which will hopefully equal a single $500 purchase now...
Honestly, I would not get the 2700x now. If going AMD, get Matisse when it comes out, along with a new motherboard with a UEFI tuned to work with it. I have a feeling that people trying to run Matisee on X470 boards will be a bit disappointed with memory support.
 

ttechf

Senior member
Jun 11, 2012
336
0
81
#27
So spend $300 so you can pay another ~$400 in 6 months which will hopefully equal a single $500 purchase now...
Well to be fair, I'd spend $300 now, then when the new 3700X came out, spend maybe $350. Then I could always sell the 2700X I bought.
 
Mar 10, 2004
27,788
45
126
#28
1. Nice to know what they used and 2. Yeah, I didn't think it was hard to actually ACHIEVE the 5Ghz, I was/am just concerned about thermals. That's all.
They were at 87C with an AIO cooler running their Blender workload at 5.0 on all cores. You're not going to see those temps unless you run the same sort of workload.

As mentioned in the previous page, our software loading for power measurement is POV-Ray, which can thrash a processor quite harshly. POV-Ray also does a good job on stability, but is not a substantial enough test – for that we use our Blender workload, which pushes the cores and the memory, and lasts about 5 minutes on an 8 core processor.
 
Mar 10, 2004
27,788
45
126
#29
*VRM Supplimented with SST-FHP141-VF 173 CFM fans
** After Initial testing with the ASRock Z370 motherboard, we noted it had a voltage issue with the Core 9th Gen processors. As a result, we moved to the MSI MPG Z390 Gaming Edge AC for our power measurements. Benchmarking seems unaffected.
Wouldn't the voltage issue affect temps as well? They don't appear to have redone their overclocking tests?
 

deathBOB

Senior member
Dec 2, 2007
505
2
116
#30
Hot take: worry about actual game temps and not worse case workload unless you are getting for those kind of workloads.
 

ttechf

Senior member
Jun 11, 2012
336
0
81
#31
Hot take: worry about actual game temps and not worse case workload unless you are getting for those kind of workloads.
Well, I worry about all temps because I don't just game with my computer. Actually gaming is like 20% of what I do. The rest of 80% is business and work.
 
Mar 10, 2004
27,788
45
126
#32
Well, I worry about all temps because I don't just game with my computer. Actually gaming is like 20% of what I do. The rest of 80% is business and work.
It's very unlikely that you will ever push the cores the way the reviewers pushed them.

I spent a long time trying to keep my 4790K cool during difficult stress tests.
Well, nothing in the real world comes anywhere close to those stress tests.
It was a fool's errand.

Yes, you can keep a 4790K cool during Burn Test, but why?

The 4790K runs just fine and cool without all the fuss over benchmark/stress test temperatures.
 

ttechf

Senior member
Jun 11, 2012
336
0
81
#33
It's very unlikely that you will ever push the cores the way the reviewers pushed them.

I spent a long time trying to keep my 4790K cool during difficult stress tests.
Well, nothing in the real world comes anywhere close to those stress tests.
It was a fool's errand.

Yes, you can keep a 4790K cool during Burn Test, but why?

The 4790K runs just fine and cool without all the fuss over benchmark/stress test temperatures.
Oh I agree, you are correct. I just like to make sure of things before I buy them [research & analysis], especially a $500 processor such as the i9-9900k and make sure it doesn't burn itself up. Lol.
 
Mar 10, 2004
27,788
45
126
#34
Oh I agree, you are correct. I just like to make sure of things before I buy them [research & analysis], especially a $500 processor such as the i9-9900k and make sure it doesn't burn itself up. Lol.
Oh it's not going to do that.

If you put the stock Intel 65W i3 cooler on it, it would just be throttling a lot, it wouldn't burn up or die.
All modern CPUs are well protected against missing/loose/wrong heat sinks.
 

ttechf

Senior member
Jun 11, 2012
336
0
81
#35
Oh it's not going to do that.

If you put the stock Intel 65W i3 cooler on it, it would just be throttling a lot, it wouldn't burn up or die.
All modern CPUs are well protected against missing/loose/wrong heat sinks.
Ah okay, I guess what I mean rather is I know it can do 100c, but running 12+ hours a day at 100c, probably not the best thing to do for any processor. So I'm trying to get a "feel" where my cooling solution would be worst case scenario. I'd say MAYBE spike at 90c? I think that's my best guess right now.

Just don't want to buy the i9-9900k and find out I can "only" do like 4.7Ghz with it across all cores because my cooling solution wasn't adequate enough which I believe it will be. Just don't want to be let down. All I want is 5Ghz across all 8 cores and threads. I don't plan on going higher than that. The machine is built more for stability and long term than trying to achieve every little ounce of performance out of it.

Furthermore, IF Intel did come out with a locked i9, I'd buy that. It'd probably be like 3.4Ghz with 4.7Ghz turbo or something.
 

Despoiler

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2007
1,780
23
136
#36
Ah okay, I guess what I mean rather is I know it can do 100c, but running 12+ hours a day at 100c, probably not the best thing to do for any processor. So I'm trying to get a "feel" where my cooling solution would be worst case scenario. I'd say MAYBE spike at 90c? I think that's my best guess right now.

Just don't want to buy the i9-9900k and find out I can "only" do like 4.7Ghz with it across all cores because my cooling solution wasn't adequate enough which I believe it will be. Just don't want to be let down. All I want is 5Ghz across all 8 cores and threads. I don't plan on going higher than that. The machine is built more for stability and long term than trying to achieve every little ounce of performance out of it.

Furthermore, IF Intel did come out with a locked i9, I'd buy that. It'd probably be like 3.4Ghz with 4.7Ghz turbo or something.
I wouldn't put a 9900k under anything less than a custom water loop then. IMO if you are spending that much money on a CPU to overclock you should be running the best cooling anyways. AIO are not great for a number of reasons.
 

IEC

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
13,380
35
126
#38
Seems to me that reviewers' testing is closer to a "best case" scenario for heavy workloads. Open air test benches, expensive cooling, and probable golden review samples.

Slap that all in a case and you have a recipe for disappointment. If you're going to spend $580 on a processor, might as well make a custom loop for it.
 

ttechf

Senior member
Jun 11, 2012
336
0
81
#39
I wouldn't put a 9900k under anything less than a custom water loop then. IMO if you are spending that much money on a CPU to overclock you should be running the best cooling anyways. AIO are not great for a number of reasons.
Well, I certainly don't have the money to do a custom water loop and many months ago I bought an AIO 240mm that is capable of cooling 300 TDP. I don't even trust myself enough to do a custom water cooling loop. And yes, I am overclocking but not really. I just wanted 5Ghz, the turbo it reaches on 2 cores on all 8 cores. I'll never stress the CPU like the reviews do with 100% load on all 8 cores and 16 threads.

Worst comes to worst, I just go with the i7-9700k or i7-8700k I suppose.
 

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,091
5
126
#40
Well, I certainly don't have the money to do a custom water loop and many months ago I bought an AIO 240mm that is capable of cooling 300 TDP. I don't even trust myself enough to do a custom water cooling loop. And yes, I am overclocking but not really. I just wanted 5Ghz, the turbo it reaches on 2 cores on all 8 cores. I'll never stress the CPU like the reviews do with 100% load on all 8 cores and 16 threads.

Worst comes to worst, I just go with the i7-9700k or i7-8700k I suppose.
I don't think there's enough data points available yet to determine the required cooling to achieve your goal of 5GHz. You'd most likely be better off waiting for results from end users. There's not enough sample out there to even determine if the sTIM allows large temperature variation between cpus like the TIM did.

I always viewed the extreme stress testing apps as a useful tool to determine the worst case temp scenario that my rig may encounter. Your cooling solution and threshold for pain will dictate your overall overclock in the end.
 

ZGR

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2012
1,715
12
106
#41
These stress tests are great for knowing if an overclock is stable rather quickly. I find it important to not throttle during extreme stress tests.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
916
86
136
#42

5.1GHz on a 200W rated HSF is a pretty good result, though the temps are toasty at 91C! That said, AIDA 64 stress test is more of a 'worst case' stress test scenario as it heavily leverages AVX2 I believe (similar to Prime95) - your 'normal' temps shouldn't be this high in everyday applications, even CPU bound ones.

The reviewer did potentially get a 'golden sample', maybe you're looking at 'only' 5.0 instead of 5.1 on a retail chip at the same voltages he used (1.3V)
 

ttechf

Senior member
Jun 11, 2012
336
0
81
#43
Good link, thanks for the information.
 

Triton movies

Junior Member
Dec 4, 2018
2
1
36
#44
Good link, thanks for the information.
i just built a 9900k mechine it has a asus rog strix z390-e main board 16 gb of team force 3000 rgb mem asus ROG Ryujin 240 mm cooler using thermal grizzly hydronurt samsung 500gb 970 evo hard drive in a fractal Design usb c case have 3 fans at top one pulling out and two front ones pulling in a rear fan pulling in rad mounted at front of case pulling in with the 2 fans and one fan on bottom pulling air in and a asus rtx 2070 turbo grabhics card from what i have seen so far on stock settings it idles at around 38 deg c and so far the highest its been is around 44 doing a bench mark in Assassin creed havent realy did any real benchmarks with it yet at factory setting it seams to idel at around 4400mhz and that was at 1.1 volts every thing is on auto so it does what ever it wants to at present
 

Fir

Senior member
Jan 15, 2010
352
4
116
#46
Running 9900K here, MSI Godlike Z390. 50*100, 64GB DDR4-2666 CAS15. Works great. Can run realbench stress test for days. Peak temp is about 80C. Room temp is 19C. Yes it's warm. And yes that's -2 on AVX loads so that stress test is 4.8GHz on all cores. Core volts around 1.3. Tried the new Corsair 115i Platinum. It was a few degress HOTTER than my trusty 115i Extreme which btw I use on my 7980XE at 4.6. The 9900 can be pushed harder but you will need a real block and enough rad to dissipate 200+ Watts. MORA Pro 9x140mm is a good start. Forget 360s, even a pair of them. Unless you're just gaming with 52x100 at 1.4V. ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY