Discussion Comet Lake Intel's new Core i9-10900K runs at over 90C, even with liquid cooling TweakTown

[JPB]

Intel's new Core i9-10900K runs at over 90C, even with liquid cooling

Did you think the 14nm++++++++ CPU was going to be cooler? Intel is running HOT, HOT, HOT

Intel is just over a week away from making its new 10th Gen CPUs official, with the flagship Core i9-10900K offering 10 cores and 20 threads of 14nm+++++++ power. All those pluses really mean temperature, and with lots of them, that means these new CPUs run really hot. Like, really hot.

In some early results by Weibo user Wolfstame, we see that Intel's new flagship Core i9-10900K runs ridiculously hot, all while gobbling down huge amounts of power. Intel's biggest issue is the 14nm node that they're stuck on, while their competitor in AMD has coasted by and is riding smooth on 7nm... it now shows, a lot.

The Core i9-10900K is a 125W part that during Wolfstame's testing, reached a peak temperature of a super-hot 93C -- and that's with a decent 240mm AIO cooler. Yeah, so stock cooling is going to require LN2 to keep it cool I guess. Power consumption was awful too, with up to 235W under full load in AIDA64 FPU stress tests.

If you're going to buy Intel's new Core i9-10900K and want to see the maximum Thermal Velocity Boost clocks? You're going to need some pretty kick ass cooling, so look into a larger premium 360mm radiator, or a custom loop water cooling setup.

Nothing here will improve until Intel is able to shift down to another node, 14nm has reached its utter limits. All while at the same time this is actually astounding that Intel were able to do this (up to 5.3GHz with 10C/20T) all on a very aged, very run down 14nm node.

 

[NTMBK]

I mean, what did people expect from Thermal Velocity Boost? It's literally "run as fast as you can without hitting the thermal limit". Of course it's going to go hard up against that.

 

[amrnuke]

KitGuru's results

3900X hit 82C in AIDA64
9900K hit 88C in AIDA64

Total system draw under load:
3900X drew 218W in AIDA64
9900K drew 228W in AIDA64


TPU results

3900X hit 79C in Blender
9900K hit 57C in Blender

Total system draw under load:
3900X drew 168W in Prime95 and 385W in Witcher 3
9900K drew 157W in Prime95 and 356W in Witcher 3


Anandtech results

3900X drew 142W
9900K drew 168W


If we consider that this chip draws 235W, that is, 67W more than 9900K drew in package power test at AT, it seems reasonable to conclude that total system draw could approach 300W in AIDA64, 225W in Prime95, and probably about the same in gaming (since most of that is GPU driven).

That being said, if they truly extract another 5% performance, there will be plenty who enjoy it.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Damn it, and I thought the 2nd revision of the FX series was bad. Well, at least it performs unlike the FX, but still... that's a lot of air to move inside the case...

 

[Zucker2k]

https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/gisods

I wouldn't read anything into these posts. The reviews should straighten everything out in short order.

 

[pauldun170]

Not disputing that the 10900k may be comical BUT what liquid cooler was used?
After seeing air vs liquid cooling results on certain Ryzen models where some Air coolers beat out liquid cooling I'm curios to see what was used and verification on the test bed.
Behind a firewall at the moment so dealing with lots of blocked links

 

[Markfw]

Not disputing that the 10900k may be comical BUT what liquid cooler was used?
After seeing air vs liquid cooling results on certain Ryzen models where some Air coolers beat out liquid cooling I'm curios to see what was used and verification on the test bed.
Behind a firewall at the moment so dealing with lots of blocked links

its a 240 mm AIO, thats all they said. It is comical how hot it is. When a 3950x can run 16 cores cooler than this 10 core heatwave. On a 240 mm AIO (I have one)

 

[Zucker2k]

its a 240 mm AIO, thats all they said. It is comical how hot it is. When a 3950x can run 16 cores cooler than this 10 core heatwave. On a 240 mm AIO (I have one)

Usually, when it's AMD, you want to see reviews from reputable sites and accusing people of trolling. But since it's your nemesis, Intel , you're swallowing the bait, hook, line, and sinker. Why am I not surprised? Maybe we should wait for real reviews before we get excited, shall we?

 

[Elfear]

Usually, when it's AMD, you want to see reviews from reputable sites and accusing people of trolling. But since it's your nemesis, Intel , you're swallowing the bait, hook, line, and sinker. Why am I not surprised? Maybe we should wait for real reviews before we get excited, shall we?

It's rare that we agree ( ) but in this case I think you're right. We need to wait for proper reviews before mocking Intel. I do expect temps to be pretty bad but best to wait for validated results.

 

[amrnuke]

As a corollary to the posts here about waiting for real reviews...

AIOs range in cooling capability on AIDA64 OC tests from to 86C for a solid 240mm AIO to 91C for a bad 280mm AIO.

93C doesn't seem all that terrible under a heavy workload, given the # of cores and clock speeds, to be honest.

But until we can compare it apples-to-apples with a known cooler, in a controlled environment, it doesn't make sense to jump to any conclusions at all.

 

[Markfw]

I actually agree that we need to wait for real reviews. BUT its known that it will be a furnace, and the 9900k is not known to be cool, and this is 2 more cores. And Intel is not my nemesis, I still have several Xeons working. But when they are on a streak of bad products, I will not say they are doing a good job.

 

[KentState]

Did it throttle at 93C or just got to that temp and stay there? Not sure I'd be too worried about that temp as the 9900k would do that also when allowed to run at all core @5Ghz+.

 

[Topweasel]

The question is does this have MCE going? The problem with all tests on Intel CPU's is that there is the huge swath of settings that seem to be in direct violation of Intel's recommended settings, but usually directed to use by Intel. At Default, this is probably not a big issue, it like the 3950x or 3900 will use a good 30-40% more power at mid to high loads. So in this case 150w-160w. Problem is any load leveling clock settings, increases in PL2, and so on. This thing will be a power eater. The Z boards are being built for a post 300w power usage. The stats that this will have to bring it close to or beat a 3900x. Well that will come at a power cost, a cooling cost, that will be extreme.

 

[JoeRambo]

its a 240 mm AIO, thats all they said. It is comical how hot it is. When a 3950x can run 16 cores cooler than this 10 core heatwave. On a 240 mm AIO (I have one)

There is also a question of clocks, 3950x stock has what clocks in Aida FPU? ~3.8-3.9Ghz? In my testing 4.05Ghz static OC Ryzen is 150W in Aida FPU @1.15V, so it is incredible that Intel manages to run 10 cores @ 4.8Ghz in same workload on inferior process. And Aida64 fpu only is "peak" load, using like 30-40% more power than Cinebench on 3950x

All that scaremongering is irrelevant for 99% of PC users that are not rendering, running DC apps and not into stress testing with prime95.
Sure 10900K is gonna be hot, but for gaming and general desktop use it is gonna be fastest due to advantage in clocks and memory latency. Just like 9900K and 8700K before it.

 

[tamz_msc]

There is also a question of clocks, 3950x stock has what clocks in Aida FPU? ~3.8-3.9Ghz? In my testing 4.05Ghz static OC Ryzen is 150W in Aida FPU @1.15V, so it is incredible that Intel manages to run 10 cores @ 4.8Ghz in same workload on inferior process. And Aida64 fpu only is "peak" load, using like 30-40% more power than Cinebench on 3950x

All that scaremongering is irrelevant for 99% of PC users that are not rendering, running DC apps and not into stress testing with prime95.
Sure 10900K is gonna be hot, but for gaming and general desktop use it is gonna be fastest due to advantage in clocks and memory latency. Just like 9900K and 8700K before it.

Games use AVX these days, and trigger offsets, if available. I would expect heavily multithreaded games to cause the CPU to run quite hot without adequate levels of cooling. I think anything below a good 280mm AIO would be insufficient to cool the 10900K.

 

[JoeRambo]

Games use AVX these days, and trigger offsets, if available. I would expect heavily multithreaded games to cause the CPU to run quite hot without adequate levels of cooling. I think anything below a good 280mm AIO would be insufficient to cool the 10900K.

I doubt anyone here disputes it being hot or requiring high end air or good AIO. But games using on some cores AVX is not the same as hammering all cores with Linpack or Aida64 FPU load. Read gamers will be just fine, as long as cooling is not overhelmed by >125w of load and case has good ventilation.

 

[Markfw]

I doubt anyone here disputes it being hot or requiring high end air or good AIO. But games using on some cores AVX is not the same as hammering all cores with Linpack or Aida64 FPU load. Read gamers will be just fine, as long as cooling is not overhelmed by >125w of load and case has good ventilation.

Why buy a hot 10 core, when a less hot (but hot nonetheless) 8 core 9900k will give you most likely better framerates for less money ? Those buying a 10 core most likely need more than 8. But the 3900x or 3950s would be better suited for that task. This is why I think this release is a joke.

 

[JoeRambo]

Why buy a hot 10 core, when a less hot (but hot nonetheless) 8 core 9900k will give you most likely better framerates for less money ? Those buying a 10 core most likely need more than 8. But the 3900x or 3950s would be better suited for that task. This is why I think this release is a joke.

There will be no doubt new SKUs with 8 unlocked cores from Intel at lower price than 9900K. And due to 5.3Ghz peak speed i expect 10900K to have advantage over 9900K.

I think before Rocket Lake / Zen3 launches, this 10C from Intel will be the best for 99% of people desktop/gaming uses ( at horrible power efficiency).

edit: meant 10900 not 10700K

 

[Magic Carpet]

Can't wait to see where the new 10-core beast will end up taking place in Doom (the engine, I heard can utilize up to 24 threads).

 

[Elfear]

There will be no doubt new SKUs with 8 unlocked cores from Intel at lower price than 9900K. And due to 5.3Ghz peak speed i expect 10900K to have advantage over 9900K.

I think before Rocket Lake / Zen3 launches, this 10C from Intel will be the best for 99% of people desktop/gaming uses ( at horrible power efficiency).

edit: meant 10900 not 10700K

Really? I would think the only gamers/desktop users who would even notice a difference vs a good 6-8 core offering from AMD or Intel would be the small niche of folks who have a very powerful GPU but play at 1080p. Even those who have high refresh 1440p monitors will likely only see a very small difference if any.

 

[Topweasel]

Really? I would think the only gamers/desktop users who would even notice a difference vs a good 6-8 core offering from AMD or Intel would be the small niche of folks who have a very powerful GPU but play at 1080p. Even those who have high refresh 1440p monitors will likely only see a very small difference if any.

That's really the crux of CPU choices right now and considering the requirements to hit the thermal velocity bump (and the fact that it is temporary because I am pretty sure even with other overrides turned of there will be a hotspot thermal limit hit), there won't realistically be a major difference in this cpu outside maybe the first CB15 SC run, with the 9900k or the (what is it?) the 10700k. To some degree someone is going to try to make a case for the 10900 as the ultimate ST/Gaming CPU. But realistically its there with those two.

So you have the economy gaming CPU. Think we can agree that this is kind of a tossup between the 3100 and 3300x.
You have the General gaming CPU. Here the 3600 probably wins but there is room for a Good HT i5 in the new lineup.
You have the ultimate Gaming CPU. 9900k/10700k/10900k.
You have the Teir 2 Gaming but Teir one MT in the 3900x and specially the 3950x.

It'll come down to pricing and seeing if AMD reacts. But there is a point that is paying more for the 10900k smart when the 10700k and 9900K will perform the same in games, if you are losing so much in MT compared to the the other 2. Specially if you start losing MCE as a free performance uplift because its that much harder to keep the MT perf up with cooling.

But I think it also relies on AMD balancing the cost of the 3900/3950x. At 750 its going to be a little harder to say pay for the extra MT compared to where the 10900k is and with proper cooling and power the 3900x will be eclipsed by this. A 3900x at 400 and a 3950x at 575-600 I think would make Mark's point a little more apparent.

 

[LikeLinus]

Why buy a hot 10 core, when a less hot (but hot nonetheless) 8 core 9900k will give you most likely better framerates for less money ? Those buying a 10 core most likely need more than 8. But the 3900x or 3950s would be better suited for that task. This is why I think this release is a joke.

Pure curiosity. Why does heat matter and seems to be the only argument? Who cares about the difference of 10 degrees between it and another CPU? If it works, it works. I never saw anyone complain about the temperature when CPUs ran at 150+ degrees. Now all the sudden it's the most horrible thing in the world?

 

[maddie]

Pure curiosity. Why does heat matter and seems to be the only argument? Who cares about the difference of 10 degrees between it and another CPU? If it works, it works. I never saw anyone complain about the temperature when CPUs ran at 150+ degrees. Now all the sudden it's the most horrible thing in the world?

150+ degrees? Sure you're not mixing scales?

 

[Markfw]

Pure curiosity. Why does heat matter and seems to be the only argument? Who cares about the difference of 10 degrees between it and another CPU? If it works, it works. I never saw anyone complain about the temperature when CPUs ran at 150+ degrees. Now all the sudden it's the most horrible thing in the world?

There are no official reviews yet, but the consenus is, that these will take an insane amount of power to run (worst problem) and require an insane amount of cooling (just as bad). I will say that I think this "pre-review" is essentially what everyone will say in a week IMO, but if I am wrong, I will eat crow.

I say it will be close to the 3900x in performance, and have a higher street price, and take WAY more power and cooling. That is a prediction, and an opinion, just leave it at that.

 

[scannall]

Pure curiosity. Why does heat matter and seems to be the only argument? Who cares about the difference of 10 degrees between it and another CPU? If it works, it works. I never saw anyone complain about the temperature when CPUs ran at 150+ degrees. Now all the sudden it's the most horrible thing in the world?

I can't speak for everyone obviously, but for me heat is very important. I like quiet computers. Listening to a leaf blower next to me is aggravating. And I don't do liquid cooling.