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

Page 19 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,725
3,500
136
What is ironic is that you would think I can't agree with a particular presentation in a body of work without disagreeing with its conclusion. What sort of thinking is that?
Let me repeat: the irony comes from ignoring his "real world" conclusion on those 2 specific Intel and AMD CPUs. You bemoan reviewers putting too much of an accent on synthetic benchmarks as opposed to real world productivity workloads, yet when they finally express their conclusions as to how these purchases are worth in the real world, you chose to ignore them... because they don't fit the synthetic benchmarks?!

It's not even about me not agreeing with you, as I probably already stated Come Lake is quite competitive. It's the provocative hyperbole that led to a response.

We all know what's popular on Anandtech now, and your one-sided gotchas (you've done this to other users) may get you a few points here and there so it's cool.
It's obviously not cool as you seem irritated. I invite you to pay more attention to my "one-sided gotchas", you may find I'm not particularly popular around the forum because sooner or later I have contradictory discussions with just about anybody.

so go ahead and be his spokesman because he's made no real argument in this thread.
I have said this before: this is a public forum, we discuss things publicly. If you have a private matter to resolve with @lobz , do so using the messaging system.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,725
3,500
136
Intel confirmed they have have improved stock coolers for i7 10700 & 10900.
The improved coolers have an 80W TDP rating, which is a step up from the 65W coolers (2015C per Intel's spec) that came with previous-gen 65W chips. Curiously, these new 80W coolers still carry the '2015C' specification moniker but come with a new copper core that helps reduce thermal resistance to improve processor cooling and acoustics. The change was largely needed to address the 80W TDP specification for the listed Xeon W-1200 workstation processors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
20,242
7,887
136
What is ironic is that you would think I can't agree with a particular presentation in a body of work without disagreeing with its conclusion. What sort of thinking is that? I am well aware of the conclusion of the Anandtech review, but does that preclude me from pointing out where I got the idea that cinebench is a synthetic benchmark from? The Anandtech review has been quoted in this thread many times over to point out the high consumption of Comet Lake, and I have argued against why it is wrong:

1. The reviewer only realized that 254w by running a torture test (Y-Cruncher running AVX based code)
2. 254w is only peak power consumption; average workload power consumption is what he should have posted
3. Dr. Ian Cutress himself only used air-cooling, and the chip still performed as expected
4. Temps are also missing from the review, maybe because Zen actually runs hotter under stock conditions?

Other reviews noted Comet Lake chips are running cooler than expected when benchmarked under stock conditions. I'm seeing temps in the 80s up to mid 90s only under MCE and overclocking conditions in reviews, whereas Zen 2 is reporting in at high 80s and mid 90s under stock operation. I've posted links in this same thread..

We all know what's popular on Anandtech now, and your one-sided gotchas (you've done this to other users) may get you a few points here and there so it's cool. These are the last few posts and activities of @lobz , so go ahead and be his spokesman because he's made no real argument in this thread. He only takes offense to posts he doesn't agree with :rolleyes:
Your points on wattage are rediculous. The average wattage for a 10900k is 254 if pl2 is used. The peak was 380 watt.
Temps claims up to mid 95s are the norm, and thats with AIO water cooling.

As for Zen running hotter ? and over 80c ? Also insane. I run a 3900x@100% @ 4 ghz 24/7, and the only time I have ever gotten over 80c was yesterday when it was 95f outside and the AC in my house could not keep up and it got to 90f, and then the 3900x was running peak 82c. They throttle themselves at 85. Right now the inside temp is 75f. That is the NORMAL accepted inside temp ir higher. 72f I think is most peoples target. At normal temps, and full 100%load is running 70C.

And to rerefresh your memory on Ians ideas from his article:
"The one issue that Intel won’t escape from is that all this extra power requires extra money to be put into cooling the chip. While the Core i9 processor is around the same price as the Ryzen 9 3900X, the AMD processor comes with a 125 W cooler which will do the job – Intel customers will have to go forth and source expensive cooling in order to keep this cool. Speaking with a colleague, he had issues cooling his 10900K test chip with a Corsair H115i, indicating that users should look to spending $150+ on a cooling setup. That’s going to be a critical balancing element here when it comes to recommendations. "
 
Last edited:

Gideon

Senior member
Nov 27, 2007
801
1,181
136
Here is the written article of the GN video.

Overall some motherboards totally make the CPU a fiery unstable monster by feeding excessive voltage into the CPU at stock settings with MCE (way more than needed with decent silicon). This is a huge problem even in the real world and causes people to have bluescreens and instabilities (you know in real world cases like installing your OS not doing AVX2 Blender runs).

Here is a quote (and some twitter screenshots) from the GN article above:

Recently, we’ve had several of you tweet at us or post comments about how MCE and similar features caused system instability, blue screens, or other troubleshooting challenges, and that’s because it’s effectively pre-overclocked by the manufacturer, just without asking you. Pay close attention to our use of the word “effectively,” here, because it isn’t “officially” overclocking -- but that’s ultimately what’s going on. The clock is higher than expected -- you might even say it’s “over” what the expected value -- and so we ignore semantics of “spec,” “guidance,” and “overclocking,” and instead go with what makes the most actual sense for the user, bullshit marketing labels aside.
Here are some of the tweets of people having problems with excessive power limits and MCE pumping excessive voltage into the CPU:










 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
20,242
7,887
136
@coercitiv Here's another gotcha for you.
Not sure what you are getting at, but here is another example. Toms Hardware review was titled
Intel Core i9-10900K Review: Ten Cores, 5.3 GHz, and Excessive Power Draw

And this in the text of that review
"To find the power limit associated with our chip paired with the Gigabyte Aorus Z490 Master motherboard, we ran a few Prime95 tests with AVX enabled (small FFT). During those tests, we recorded up to 332W of power consumption when paired with either the Corsair H115i 280mm AIO watercooler or a Noctua NH-D15S air cooler. Yes, that's with the processor configured at stock settings. For perspective, our 18-core Core i9-10980XE drew 'only' 256W during an identical Prime95 test. "
 

RetroZombie

Senior member
Nov 5, 2019
464
381
96
4. Temps are also missing from the review, maybe because Zen actually runs hotter under stock conditions?
What are stock conditions for you?

1. amd cpu using the stock cooler while intel gets some $$$ aio 280/360mm cooler? then say look amd cpus run hot, intel are actually cool!​
2. intel cpu runs all power and temperature tests with the stock power limit (125W) forced, but benchmarked without them? where some reviewers like to disable avx in those test benefiting intel tremendously.​
3. intel system is run with highend z490 board without any memory limit? not the stock memory speeds of the H and B chipsets?​
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
7,789
1,114
126
They already cut prices. You can get a 3900x for around $420 right now. Last week you could get one for, what, $405? Comet Lake-S doesn't really move the bar.
That's what I mean. They would rather sell a 3900XT at $499 or $479 or some number higher than 410, 420.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
15,742
4,706
136
@Markfw

If you look at the Gamer's Nexus video, you will see that the Z490 Aorus Master is one of the worst boards when it comes to overvolting/overclocking a 10900k using default settings. There's no way a stock 10900k should sustain 332W. Kinda makes you wonder how much Intel actually objects to such practices, if at all.
 

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,194
1,156
106
As someone who should know better, sometimes you really disappoint me with your comments.

The poster accused me of provocation because I used the word "synthetic benchmark" and I posted a link to where the labeling came from. Is that a bad thing now? Cinebench is labelled as a synthetic benchmark in the Anandtech review. Check the link. If you want to take my linking to a labeling in a review as a ringing endorsement of said review then I feel sorry for your interpretational skills.


I feel sorry for you because the first time you were really going to contribute something to this thread other than attacking my posts, someone beat you to it. :D
Stop lying please, it's not getting your anywhere, because this is not a verbal conversation, but a written forum where we can see what you wrote before.

You wrote explicitly this: Yes, AMD offers more bang for buck in Cinebench (a synthetic benchmark) but that's about it.

Surely even you know this is not true, thus my notion of you deliberately provoking the forum.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
20,242
7,887
136
@Markfw

If you look at the Gamer's Nexus video, you will see that the Z490 Aorus Master is one of the worst boards when it comes to overvolting/overclocking a 10900k using default settings. There's no way a stock 10900k should sustain 332W. Kinda makes you wonder how much Intel actually objects to such practices, if at all.
Would you say the 250 watt power is appropriate at the correct voltages ? It seems that is what most reviewers say. I only quoted Toms, since they are usually pretty good.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,725
3,500
136
@coercitiv Here's another gotcha for you.
This is exactly what I talked about in my previous post. I strongly suggest you watch the video or browse the article, as it shows exactly what's happening and why this time both you and @Markfw can be right at the same time.
This video sums up perfectly my only gripe with Comet Lake: unbalanced "stock" power limits combined with full vendor freedom lead to dangerous combinations. It also shows why this thread was littered with valid opinions from both sides, as one can easily choose a more favorable motherboard and get expected results.

The problem is users are going to get burned: the same users that know little about overclocking and cooling are the ones tempted by motherboards with disabled limits and ridiculous stock voltage settings to "safely" enable MCE by default.
We could go on with graphs about power limits and thermals, but I think the real star of the show is the voltage graph. That's where the horror shows it's real fangs:

z490-boost-vcore_all.png

I talked about this repeatedly in the past years, said it was a very dangerous route Intel was heading by losing control over their own stock configuration. Well, it's time to "reap the rewards": up to 25% higher VCore on the Gigabyte board, meaning up to 50% more power at ISO frequency (and they're not running at the same clocks obviously, so power goes up even further).
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,725
3,500
136
Would you say the 250 watt power is appropriate at the correct voltages ? It seems that is what most reviewers say. I only quoted Toms, since they are usually pretty good.
Take a look at the Gamer Nexus article, it will reveal everything that's needed to know on the matter.

A properly configured 10900K is a 125W TDP CPU, but more often than not that means manual BIOS intervention since mobo makers have made a mess of power limits and voltages. Without a properly selected motherboard or BIOS intervention the CPU can also run unchecked and horribly configured. (the voltage graph above should induce pain to any enthusiast)
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
20,242
7,887
136
Take a look at the Gamer Nexus article, it will reveal everything that's needed to know on the matter.

A properly configured 10900K is a 125W TDP CPU, but more often than not that means manual BIOS intervention since mobo makers have made a mess of power limits and voltages. Without a properly selected motherboard or BIOS intervention the CPU can also run unchecked and horribly configured. (the voltage graph above should induce pain to any enthusiast)
Aside from the hard to read color scheme, and other display things that make it hard to read, they also don't clearly says anything about what I am many others want to know:
"For a properly configured, I want to see 2 areas
1) what is the power draw and what the the performance, and what is the temp of the processor for the tau (56 second or less) for a particular relevant benchmark.

and

2) What are these SAME numbers for processes that run well over 56 seconds on a regular basis"

Many things that people in the DC community and other places, like rendering and other compute intense need WAY over 56 seconds to complete their work most of the time. I am not sure on gaming, as it looks to be way more variable on its usage. I don't clearly see those answers in that review. And why are there so many reviews that ignore that, if Gamers Nexis is correct ? Given their name, I would not have guessed that they care a lot about production type performance.

And last, but not as relevant to this thread, how does their competitor work using the same metrics ? Now if someone could read through all these reviews and come up with clear answers, that would be great. I try to read all the reviews, and assume that the real answer is in the majority of reviews in the middle. Also, a little a little reality and physics: When you run a processor on a very old ( or much older than many other companies) process tech, its will run hotter, and take more power for the same performance. If I add common sense to the average reviews, the answer should be clear. LOGICALLY.

If you could answer some of these questions, maybe the truth would be more clear to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,725
3,500
136
Aside from the hard to read color scheme, and other display things that make it hard to read, they also don't clearly says anything about what I am many others want to know:
For a properly configured, I want to see 2 areas
  1. What is the power draw and what the the performance, and what is the temp of the processor for the tau (56 second or less) for a particular relevant benchmark.
  2. What are these SAME numbers for processes that run well over 56 seconds on a regular basis
For the temps you can consult the temp graph in the article, it clearly shows the rise in temps for Tau followed by sustained PL1 temps.

z490-boost-thermals_all.png

For performance data you can check their 10900K review or if you prefer a classic color scheme head over to Techspot's written review which contains both "proper" and "MCE" data to compare.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
20,242
7,887
136
For the temps you can consult the temp graph in the article, it clearly shows the rise in temps for Tau followed by sustained PL1 temps.

View attachment 21805

For performance data you can check their 10900K review or if you prefer a classic color scheme head over to Techspot's written review which contains both "proper" and "MCE" data to compare.
I like the techspot type of bar graphs much better, and overall more easily read and understood.

But they say the same thing I have been saying that Zucker2k keeps rebuffing. The 10900k wins a little on gaming compared to the 3900x, looses by a lot (35%) in productivity, and takes a lot more power to run. (very power hungry in their words). The heat they said is easily managed by a good cooler, but they don't specify is that a $50 or $150 cooler that is NOT included. But power hungry=high end cooler by physics. More power = more heat = more cooling required.
 
Last edited:

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,326
1,521
136
I like the techspot type of bar graphs much better, and overall more easily read and understood.

But they say the same thing I have been saying that Zucker2k keeps rebuffing. The 10900k wins a little on gaming compared to the 3900x, looses by a lot (35%) in productivity, and takes a lot more power to run. (very power hungry in their words). The heat they said is easily managed by a good cooler, but they don't specify is that a $50 or $150 cooler that is NOT included.
It's like the assesment JayZ did yesterday. He takes a $150 cooler and yeah it doesn't overheat, hell it probably keeps it below a Ryzen using the same amount of power. What Intel did with their shaved dies and better heatspreader is great. Means that unlike lets say Ryzen a 10900k is going to hit thermal limits of the die much closer to hitting the thermal limits of the cooler. But you can't ignore the thermal limits of the cooler. It does mean I was probably wrong about needing to run at a higher setting than Ryzen to be as quiet. But you still need a cooler that can deal with both the spikey loads and especially the sustained loads. Nothing Intel can do will remove the requirement for better cooling, you just plainly need the cooler to work within the limits and showing the CPU with a new $150 cooler with a fresh new larger better baseplate isn't going to change that.
 
Last edited:

killster1

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
5,231
231
106
I like the techspot type of bar graphs much better, and overall more easily read and understood.

But they say the same thing I have been saying that Zucker2k keeps rebuffing. The 10900k wins a little on gaming compared to the 3900x, looses by a lot (35%) in productivity, and takes a lot more power to run. (very power hungry in their words). The heat they said is easily managed by a good cooler, but they don't specify is that a $50 or $150 cooler that is NOT included. But power hungry=high end cooler by physics. More power = more heat = more cooling required.
whats funny is on the gamersnexus review the 3900 is not even on the list for game benchmarks! the 10900k beats ALL chips by ALOT. now since you are determined to cure cancer with your computers and not play games this really doesn't matter to you, but if your going to play games mostly with your computer and do side tasks less often (everyone in my household plays games and does not fold) then the 10900k easily beats them, i imagine the 10600k will be the same situation with lower price and heat. now as far as power hungry? not even close as the reviews defiantly say you should check your settings and not just let your motherboard go wild with its default settings. In blender the 10900k actually uses less watts then the 3950x AND The 3900x, the 10900k in cinibench uses a bit more because of the boosting and short test (200.4 watts). So yes if you use your computer for mostly rendering of course why would you choose anything other than cores! if you use for gaming it looks like 32 cores really isnt needed and the 10600k will be fine. (would i choose either of these chips today? NO i will continue to wait to see what happens next year as the chips i have now are fine, but i will be purchasing another laptop in the next few months and will take either intel or amd depending on what features and gfx card is bundled for 1200$

EDIT: the 10600k doesnt do as well as i had hoped in the review i just watched, the 3900x and 3950x match it in performance or even beat it in a few of the games. (im looking at 1440p since that is what i game @)
 
Last edited:

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,194
1,156
106
whats funny is on the gamersnexus review the 3900 is not even on the list for game benchmarks! the 10900k beats ALL chips by ALOT. now since you are determined to cure cancer with your computers and not play games this really doesn't matter to you, but if your going to play games mostly with your computer and do side tasks less often (everyone in my household plays games and does not fold) then the 10900k easily beats them, i imagine the 10600k will be the same situation with lower price and heat. now as far as power hungry? not even close as the reviews defiantly say you should check your settings and not just let your motherboard go wild with its default settings. In blender the 10900k actually uses less watts then the 3950x AND The 3900x, the 10900k in cinibench uses a bit more because of the boosting and short test (200.4 watts). So yes if you use your computer for mostly rendering of course why would you choose anything other than cores! if you use for gaming it looks like 32 cores really isnt needed and the 10600k will be fine. (would i choose either of these chips today? NO i will continue to wait to see what happens next year as the chips i have now are fine, but i will be purchasing another laptop in the next few months and will take either intel or amd depending on what features and gfx card is bundled for 1200$
Yes, and in blender the 10900k is actually noticeably slower than the 3950x AND The 3900x, so what of it?
 

killster1

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
5,231
231
106
Yes, and in blender the 10900k is actually noticeably slower than the 3950x AND The 3900x, so what of it?
well since it was in reply to mark and how the chip is power hungry i guess thats what of it. so why did you bother replying?
 

RetroZombie

Senior member
Nov 5, 2019
464
381
96
if your going to play games mostly with your computer and do side tasks less often (everyone in my household plays games and does not fold) then the 10900k easily beats them
That's quite the intel problem isn't it?

-1 hour of game play with the intel chip at 64 fps
-1 hour of game play with the amd chip at 60 fps
Game experience basically the same not ALOT better like you said, in the rest the same performance or noticeable less performance.

And to add more, the cpu is more expensive, more expensive boards, more expensive psu, more expensive cooler, dead-end platform (the norm with intel), lack of pcie4 that might end up useful even if not immediately used which is simply inexistent with the intel chips.

Resuming more power usage, more expensive, so where is intel really winning? They are the +4 frames champions in todays games, and even that might change in the future.
 

killster1

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
5,231
231
106
That's quite the intel problem isn't it?

-1 hour of game play with the intel chip at 64 fps
-1 hour of game play with the amd chip at 60 fps
Game experience basically the same not ALOT better like you said, in the rest the same performance or noticeable less performance.

And to add more, the cpu is more expensive, more expensive boards, more expensive psu, more expensive cooler, dead-end platform (the norm with intel), lack of pcie4 that might end up useful even if not immediately used which is simply inexistent with the intel chips.

Resuming more power usage, more expensive, so where is intel really winning? They are the +4 frames champions in todays games, and even that might change in the future.
oh so its a constant 4fps difference? or are you just making up numbers? Some people care about the lows not just the average. if you are not a gamer then you most likely dont care. what can you use pcie4 for as a gamer? idk about more expensive boards and coolers. more expensive psu now i know you dont know what you are talking about :p thanks for the laughs. All my motherboards cost 200+$amd or intel, im sure using stock tdp the cooler will not need to be exotic. My point is better highs and lows FPS you can try and argue everything else but its as simple as that. If you are a serious gamer you would care, if not then you can buy a 100gpu and be happy but if you spend 2000$ on a gpu whats another 100$? its all opinion you have yours i have mine, no matter what you say i still have mine and you still have yours.

am i reading this graph wrong?

i see 11-15fps difference and the 3900x is not even in the chart just the 3950x (710$+cooler) you would buy this if you are a gamer?
 
Last edited:

RetroZombie

Senior member
Nov 5, 2019
464
381
96
oh so its a constant 4fps difference?
Do you like percentages is that it?
how about single digit percentage, do you want me to teach you how much % is 64 in 60? You can then use that number in any game you want.

what can you use pcie4 for as a gamer?
Might use a pcie4 gpu or a pcie4 m.2 now or latter?

expensive boards and coolers. more expensive psu now i know you dont know what you are talking about :p thanks for the laughs.
Are you sure you are really a gamer? I mean you didn't mention things like noise, because of the 'hot' intel will add that up, i know you can solve the problem with $$$, but $$$ are always $$$. Maybe you have unlimited funds or just like to pay a premium for no reason.

All my motherboards cost 200+$amd or intel
If that's the case then you need to know that the amd board is more valuable at the same price of the intel.

you can buy a 100gpu and be happy but if you spend 2000$ on a gpu whats another 100$?
But that 100$ is 100$, and i see that argument here a lot!
It's not some percentage number, i don't have x% of money in my bank account i have $$$.
If the pc cost 2100$, why not save 100$ and pay 2000$. If all components are the same it means those 100$ are money to use else where!


its all opinion you have yours i have mine, no matter what you say i still have mine and you still have yours.
That's why we are here to discuss, i try to understand your point of view, you try to understand mine. Then we argue :D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY