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

[killster1]

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.


Might use a pcie4 gpu or a pcie4 m.2 now or latter?


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.


If that's the case then you need to know that the amd board is more valuable at the same price of the intel.


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!



That's why we are here to discuss, i try to understand your point of view, you try to understand mine. Then we argue

hahahhahaha well thanks for the laughs, you didnt even mention the chart where there isnt a 4 fps difference but instead a 11-15fps difference, you didnt mention if you would buy a 710$+ cpu and cooler or if you would get a lower priced 10900k, you did touch on value of motherboards (but i dont understand you either get features you want or you dont and i dont care about pcie4) funny you mention a 2100$ pc when just the gfx card alone is 2000$! what happen to needing a more powerful PSU for this crazy power hungry 125w tdp chip!? should i get the 2000w psu or will the 850w titanium i already own be good enough? highs and lows are not for everyone, some people cant even notice the difference between 60 fps and 120fps some people dont notice pixels or rainbow effects from projectors, and SOme do. So my guess is you would rather buy a rendering cpu to play games on then a gaming cpu to play games on the 3700x is the closest listing in tomb raider and its 30fps away from the high and almost 20fps from the low.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2020/10900k-review/intel-10900k-str-1080p.png

im not saying this chip is great or spectacular but it obviously is better at gaming (even if it is only the 4fps you claim ) ((even tho all the benches show more than 4fps what ever ) we all have our priorities in life, i choose a honda on my last purchase over the toyota because it had better gas mileage AND horse power, the toyota had better ride and sound, i wanted better speed and gas mileage so i went honda. as far as motherboards, just give me good audio / 10gbps lan 6+usb3 and im good to go. Not being able to upgrade the cpu well i usually give away my whole rig and buy another one so.. i guess its OK, a 200$ motherboard is just one time eating out at a nice restaurant.

 

[RetroZombie]

am i reading this graph wrong?

Hand picking results?

Do you like this one:

 

[RetroZombie]

https://www.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2020/10900k-review/intel-10900k-str-1080p.png

Yes i will waste my money on the Nvidia RTX 2080Ti just to play games on medium settings...

 

[lobz]

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?

Because it actually is more power hungry for a given performance.

 

[killster1]

Hand picking results?

Do you like this one:
View attachment 21831

o wow the results for the 10900k are where?

Yes i will waste my money on the Nvidia RTX 2080Ti just to play games on medium settings...

No your not you dont care about fps and your whole pc cost 2000$

Because it actually is more power hungry for a given performance.

more power hungry? ha well then that would mean they both are power hungry right?

 

[Markfw]

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 @)

First, I was talking about the techspot review. Also my computing preferences have no bearing on this thread and whether I play games or not. As far as power, its right in a direct quote from the conclusion on techspot, why are you trying to confuse the issue ? talk to the reviewer I quoted. And then you get off on the 10600k which is totally Off-topic.

 

[RetroZombie]

o wow the results for the 10900k are where?

Ok fair:



Can you calculate the percentage?

No your not you dont care about fps and your whole pc cost 2000$

But your pc costs still cost 100$ more and it's worst.

 

[Rigg]

As opposed to Cinebench being an immensly popular mainstream software.

Cinebench is essentially a canned benchmark for Cinema 4D which is a widely used piece of mainstream software for 3d modeling. It's just as valid of a benchmark as Blender is.

How to Use Cinebench to Predict Cinema 4D Performance

Here at Puget Systems, it is our goal to perform realistic testing on the software packages we tailor our workstations toward. Sometimes this is easy, sometimes it is harder... and sometimes a software maker already provides their own benchmark tool. That is the case with Maxon, makers of Cinema...

www.pugetsystems.com

 

[DrMrLordX]

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.

For 56s, yes. It isn't really a 332W CPU, and it isn't really a 125W CPU either. If you want to own/operate a 10900k, you need to prepare yourself for 250W heat output unless you are comfortable with it throttling itself during surges in power use.

@coercitiv

It's only 125W beyond 56s tau according to the configuration Intel intended for the chip (which fortunately, is far more honest than the power setup for the 9900k which basically nobody uses). At that power level, the chip can't sustain clocks higher than 4.3 GHz. On some boards it's actually as slow as 4.1 GHz in that power envelope for whatever reason.

That's the dirty little secret: if you want to deal with a lower heat flux from a 10900k, you sacrifice a lot of performance. People keep arguing to try to obfuscate that fact, but it can't be done. There is no free lunch here people.

 

[killster1]

Ok fair:

View attachment 21834

Can you calculate the percentage?


But your pc costs still cost 100$ more and it's worst.

worst or worse? also that is just one game one benchmark but it is 1440p like i said, nice job, not sure how 6 fps more is worse!? (but at 190fps i think id be safe with either chip)

 

[coercitiv]

That's the dirty little secret: if you want to deal with a lower heat flux from a 10900k, you sacrifice a lot of performance. People keep arguing to try to obfuscate that fact, but it can't be done. There is no free lunch here people.

Secret? Isn't that obvious from reviews such as Techspot's? Gaming loads don't need extra TDP to make the 10900K shine, but other than that it's pretty obvious you're gonna have to pay 50-100W for 10-15% extra performance. Such is the nature of the beast.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Secret? Isn't that obvious from reviews such as Techspot's?

Not everyone seems to have gotten the memo. And I still see no real reason to get a 10900k if all you're going to do with it is play games (10700k seems to make more sense).

 

[RetroZombie]

worst or worse?

Sorry english is my 3rd language, i fail at grammar sometimes.

not sure how 6 fps more is worse!?

It's not. The problem was never the winning results, but the compromises to get to the win.

If they could just lower the prices a little bit, and remove some limits on the B series boards like memory OC it could look better for them.

 

[amrnuke]

Not everyone seems to have gotten the memo. And I still see no real reason to get a 10900k if all you're going to do with it is play games (10700k seems to make more sense).

Depends, because the 10700K doesn't even really make sense compared to the 10600K, which is within 3% of the 10900K at 1080p and costs $100 less than the 10700K, and nearly $300 less than the 10900K. And it doesn't seem that any current games leverage more than 8-12 threads.

But if all you do is play games, and 3fps is the difference between you pwning that n00b or being knifed by a camptroll, then maybe a 10900K OC'd to board/voltage limits on LN2 would make sense

 

[lobz]

Depends, because the 10700K doesn't even really make sense compared to the 10600K, which is within 3% of the 10900K at 1080p and costs $100 less than the 10700K, and nearly $300 less than the 10900K. And it doesn't seem that any current games leverage more than 8-12 threads.

But if all you do is play games, and 3fps is the difference between you pwning that n00b or being knifed by a camptroll, then maybe a 10900K OC'd to board/voltage limits on LN2 would make sense

If 3 fps difference is the problem, you chose the wrong game for sure
But a healthy dose of LN2 can't hurt anyway!!!

 

[DrMrLordX]

@amrnuke

Main reason to look at the 10700k is that it's a 9900k at a lower price. For "just gaming" the 9700k always made more sense than the 9900k in terms of bang/buck. So I guess it really depends on whether the 10600k or 9700k are better CPUs for that purpose.

 

[reqq]

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)

No a propertly configured 10900k does atleast 4.9 on all core on all loads. This bs needs to stop. It downclocks on stock settings to 4.2 during all core blender. A 4.9 10900k uses 300 watt, while a 3950 uses 220 watt. This is the real figure becuase no one buys "5 ghz" 10 core cpu to run it at 4.2.

 

[Gideon]

No a propertly configured 10900k does atleast 4.9 on all core on all loads. This bs needs to stop. It downclocks on stock settings to 4.2 during all core blender. A 4.9 10900k uses 300 watt, while a 3950 uses 220 watt. This is the real figure becuase no one buys "5 ghz" 10 core cpu to run it at 4.2.

Sigh, then stop spreading BS. At "stock", to which almost no motherboard adheres to, it downclocks on any all core load after PL2 time expires (56s) to 125w (4.2-4.3 ghz):

The Intel Comet Lake Core i9-10900K, i7-10700K, i5-10600K CPU Review: Skylake We Go Again

www.anandtech.com

And at stock settings no 105w Ryzen CPU goes over 144W, ever. That includes the 3950x

The AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review: 16 Cores on 7nm with PCIe 4.0

www.anandtech.com

 

[mopardude87]

Yeah the 3900x and 3950x are locked to whatever tdp up to 144 you want, the clocks wildly vary depending on load. I love the function cause you could count on top end thermals always being as good as nearly mid range loads as the clocks and voltage increase to balance things out.

I love this series of cpu, its been amazing. Glad Amd got their money from me.

 

[DrMrLordX]

A 4.9 10900k uses 300 watt

That's actually not true. It's ~250W.

while a 3950 uses 220 watt.

Also not true. A 3950x uses ~142W.

 

[mopardude87]

Took someone long enough to break that 666 likes, thanks

 

[RetroZombie]

That's actually not true. It's ~250W.

Also not true. A 3950x uses ~142W.

But only if no OC is involved, right?

 

[DrMrLordX]

But only if no OC is involved, right?

Yes. If you OC either chip, all bets are off.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

@amrnuke

Main reason to look at the 10700k is that it's a 9900k at a lower price. For "just gaming" the 9700k always made more sense than the 9900k in terms of bang/buck. So I guess it really depends on whether the 10600k or 9700k are better CPUs for that purpose.

The 10600 is the best bang for buck Gaming CPU from Intel's new lineup. An easy overclock puts it with the stock 10900.

But you know what, all this debating is still us splitting hairs. We enthusiasts argue over insignificant bar chart differences, power and heat requirements, whatever keeps the fires burning. Meanwhile, Steve runs popular MP games and concludes no perceivable difference between 10600 and 3700x. Heck combine them with a 2060 super and they will average more than the vast majority of gamers high refresh monitors. Its all us fighting the marketing wars for these companies. I ain't doing it. 3700x is a better value, with PCIe4.0, but 10600 is an overclocking enthusiasts best friend. So buy what you want, and enjoy the awesome experience.

As to the 10900 and the high temps that inspired this thread? It has been covered. Also, revealed themselves, some have. /Yoda

 

[piokos]

Cinebench is essentially a canned benchmark for Cinema 4D which is a widely used piece of mainstream software for 3d modeling. It's just as valid of a benchmark as Blender is.

Cinema 4D is not "widely used".
And yes, it's just as valid - for gamers - as Blender. Which is: not at all.