Zen2 does because of what you said: dense architecture and hotspots. That's the whole point.142W chips don't hit the 95C limit too easily.
Let's just step back to a principle for a moment.
We have a Zen2 (7N) CPU pulling 140W and a Comet Lake (14m) CPU pulling 140W. We use the same cooler.
What I'm saying is: Zen2 will report higher temperatures. Do we converge on that?
And BTW: I'm not saying there are no hotspots in the Intel chip that are hotter than the reported temp. It is possible.
Thankfully I don't. Because you're extremely confident in your statements.Yeah I keep forgetting that.
Well, I did a quick search and it seems people tried doing that. There's just slight performance loss, but that means it's probably hitting 95*C.You can run one with Wraith Prism. It's still a 142W chip. That lame little 2-heatpipe cooler isn't quite enough, but it's funny watching it try.
If you have some good article about it (with temperatures and performance shown), post it.
But that's likely controlled testing, with good airflow (or open case) and relatively low ambient.
So for a more general use: in a case and with higher ambient, I'd probably follow AMD's recommendation.
Either way, if you think AMD's official statement is incorrect, you have to discuss it with them, not me.
In other words:
Oh yeah.Oh yeah?
Just for the record: you can use a Wraith Prism-class air cooler on a 10900K as well. It will be loud under load and it'll cut some performance (I guess: ~20% in full all-core load), but it's totally feasible otherwise.