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

[LikeLinus]

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.

Can you please provide data which supports "consensus" (majority rules, based on a poll +/-) that these will take an "insane" amount of power"?

 

[Markfw]

Can you please provide data which supports "consensus" (majority rules, based on a poll +/-) that these will take an "insane" amount of power"?

Use common sense, and read this thread and others that talk about these CPU's. I don't need to prove anything, its an OPINION based on WHAT I HAVE READ.

 

[LikeLinus]

Use common sense, and read this thread and others that talk about these CPU's. I don't need to prove anything, its an OPINION based on WHAT I HAVE READ.

I did. I saw someone post the temps between the two chips and then a lot of complaining. No real answer to why a higher temperature is so much more important. It's at least 50 degrees less than other CPUs. Like you, there wasn't a reply?

Never asked you to "prove anything", other than just curious why temps are so important now, vs. a couple of years ago when you weren't complaining?

 

[Markfw]

I did. I saw someone post the temps between the two chips and then a lot of complaining. No real answer to why a higher temperature is so much more important. It's at least 50 degrees less than other CPUs. Like you, there wasn't a reply?

Never asked you to "prove anything", other than just curious why temps are so important now, vs. a couple of years ago when you weren't complaining?

A couple of years ago ? complaining about which CPU ? All I remember is Oct 2018 when the 9900k came out, and I was saying that it took too much power and was running hot.

 

[lobz]

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?

You're speaking of hooks and baits a mere hour after you've linked a tweet for us where it was nowhere to be seen which workload was used.

 

[DrMrLordX]

And due to 5.3Ghz peak speed i expect 10900K to have advantage over 9900K.

Remember, that's only achievable via TVB. Which users probably won't see much in newer multithreaded games. Might be great for emulators, SCII, and some other stuff that already makes an Intel chip a must-have for people serious about ST performance.

 

[Magic Carpet]

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?

Let me quote Toms on this:

The biggest drawback with operating temperatures this high is that you won't get to enjoy the i9-10900K's full potential. The i9-10900K leverages Intel's Thermal Velocity Boost and can hit 4.9 GHz on all cores, as long as the operating temperature is below 70 degrees Celsius (158 degrees Fahrenheit). Once you cross that threshold, you're losing 100 MHz of performance on every core.

Temp is kind of important.

 

[Zucker2k]

You're speaking of hooks and baits a mere hour after you've linked a tweet for us where it was nowhere to be seen which workload was used.

If you paid attention to my post, you'd understand I was trying to make a point about not drawing conclusions from obscure, non-verifiable tests, from random sources, and rather, relying on reviews from reputable sites - like we've a;ways adhered to on this forum. Your question suggests that my point was well made, even if you failed to understand the accompanying text.

Temp is kind of important.

Of course, it is. And the same laws of physics apply to Zen 2 as well.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Of course, it is. And the same laws of physics apply to Zen 2 as well.

I remember with previous designs, after a certain point, increasing temp added up extra power consumption due to whatever laws of physics it had. I suspect it's the same here.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Deleted.

 

[IEC]

We can still see every edit.

 

[DrMrLordX]

@IEC

Yeah that's what I thought.

Oh well, carry on then!

 

[Zucker2k]

Guys, a mistake was made. Please, let it slide.

 

[Hitman928]

BTW, even automotive and most space qualification for electronics is only 125C and those aren't high drive current, fast CPUs. There's no way a consumer CPU is going to be running anywhere near 150C. Tjmax for the 9900K is 100C. I don't have one but I've seen people report throttling on them anywhere from the mid 80s to mid 90s so if you really want the 10900K to hit the max turbo clocks when loaded, bring some high quality cooling.

 

[Magic Carpet]

@Hitman928

Also, mobo dependent, some throttle sooner. Would be interesting to try peltier cooling with this one

 

[moinmoin]

The ever increasing temperature (not only for Intel CPUs for that matter) that is supposedly okay makes me think of this meme:

 

[JoeRambo]

Remember, that's only achievable via TVB. Which users probably won't see much in newer multithreaded games. Might be great for emulators, SCII, and some other stuff that already makes an Intel chip a must-have for people serious about ST performance.

I think the same applies to all vendors, AMD is also punishing inadequate cooling by dropping clocks if temp rises.

Overall i view 10900K as enthusiast chip with greatest ST and up to 10-15 thread performance, one that also is less of tradeoff versus 16C desktop chip from AMD in 15-32 thread processing.
For example programming, benefit from Intel high clocks in IDE and also 10C when compiling? Same with quite a lot of what I do on my dev machine -> like spinning thread pool of size X to do calculations, while more cores would be nice, I don't really need more than 10-15 cores.

But i am certain there are people who do rendering, encodes, compile HUGE projects like Linux kernel or Android AOSP images that by default would choose 3950x as it offers amazing value for what it does in MT.

 

[coercitiv]

I see no problem with high temps as long as throttling is properly setup to ensure the longevity of the system. Both boost and temps are knobs that can be used to maximize performance. The higher we can safely go, the better.

Now efficiency, noise, sustained performance... those are different topics

 

[DrMrLordX]

I think the same applies to all vendors, AMD is also punishing inadequate cooling by dropping clocks if temp rises.

I mean, sort of? AMD is still offering generational improvement. Matisse is very temperature-sensitive, but if you compare it to Pinnacle Ridge, you'll see what I'm talking about. Just because a 3900x can only rarely hit 4.6 GHz running defaults doesn't mean you're missing out on anything (you aren't).

Reviews will tell us more about how much better Comet Lake-S is than Coffee Lake-S. But i would not expect TVB to kick in all that often. I still expect to see the 10900k as a 9900k with two more cores, and that's about it. That won't make it much more of an ST monster than the 9900k except in a few niche applications (like Dolphin emulation).

 

[coercitiv]

I mean, sort of? AMD is still offering generational improvement. Matisse is very temperature-sensitive, but if you compare it to Pinnacle Ridge, you'll see what I'm talking about. Just because a 3900x can only rarely hit 4.6 GHz running defaults doesn't mean you're missing out on anything (you aren't).

My 1600X throttles to keep 75C Tdie (semi-passive setup), how does Mattisee behave?

 

[DrMrLordX]

My 1600X throttles to keep 75C Tdie (semi-passive setup), how does Mattisee behave?

It'll run all the way up to 95C if you let it, though you get a worse voltage/clockspeed curve as temp rises. In effect, you lose some clocks, mostly in heavy MT applications that can bring about those temperatures. It technically isn't throttling though, at least not until it bounces off that 95C temp (and some users like @VirtualLarry have gone right past that limit, albeit on early and possibly buggy hardware). Sadly, it does not respond all that well to bulk ambient cooling (high-capacity water cooling). You're more limited by thermal resistance beyond a certain point. With Intel's current generation of 14nm CPUs, they're more like old-school Piledriver: "If you can cool it, you can clock it". Bulk capacity goes a longer way on those chips. If somebody put my cooling rig on a 10900k, you would probably see those 4.9 GHz all-core TVB clocks.

 

[piokos]

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)

Cooler as in what: 80*C with Tmax=95*C?
10900K does 90*C with Tmax=100*C.
Yes, it's hotter. But it's not exactly a huge difference.

Heat is another story. Obviously 14nm is less efficient and will pull more.
But it's also less dense, so in the end a 3950X (limit 150W?) and 10900K (limit 250W) require similar cooling.

 

[Dave2150]

Remember, that's only achievable via TVB. Which users probably won't see much in newer multithreaded games. Might be great for emulators, SCII, and some other stuff that already makes an Intel chip a must-have for people serious about ST performance.

No new multi-threaded games come anywhere close to fully utilising 10 cores. We're at the point where some new games actually use 5-6 cores, no more. Hence the 10900k will not come close to 90C during normal gaming, and will be able to turbo high

The extra cache will help it further extend Intel's gaming performance lead.

 

[DrMrLordX]

No new multi-threaded games come anywhere close to fully utilising 10 cores. We're at the point where some new games actually use 5-6 cores, no more. Hence the 10900k will not come close to 90C during normal gaming, and will be able to turbo high

I don't buy it. If the game taxes more than 1-2 cores, you won't see those 5.3 GHz speeds. Certainly not sustained speeds that high. You MIGHT get the 4.9 GHz number, but again, we don't know the temp limits where TVB starts to back off (I would be surprised if it's 90C). If you really want to see TVB in action, look at the 9980HK. It's not that impressive.

The extra cache will help it further extend Intel's gaming performance lead.

It might help a little, but remember that just as Intel has added a diminishing number of cores (by percentage) as they moved from Kabylake to Comet Lake, they've also added a diminishing amount of L3 (again, by percentage) in the same generational upgrades.

 

[Topweasel]

No new multi-threaded games come anywhere close to fully utilising 10 cores. We're at the point where some new games actually use 5-6 cores, no more. Hence the 10900k will not come close to 90C during normal gaming, and will be able to turbo high

The extra cache will help it further extend Intel's gaming performance lead.

I wouldn't assume its going to turbo much higher than a 9900K with out some really expensive cooling.

This isn't about temperature and we need to stop thinking about it as hot vs. not hot. Its about the cooling requirements and what temp it will run at, at that spot. Now in regards to the 10900k, we look at the power usuage of lets say the 3900x or 3950x. They don't actually use max power at max load. They both top out at about 8c (16t) full usuage and that's because of other limits outside just temp. That's were core usuage, core speed, and power usuage hits its max and it starts leveling off after that.

Anyways. As the cores try to clock higher for having less of them used. I suspect it will be much the same unless MCE is turned on. So at defualt settings at 6 core usuage we could be looking at max power usuage. That max usuage is looking north of 200w, specially if you are able to use TVB. But the problem with TVB is its use is basically going to be hotspoting an area, making TVB limited on that point. But to even hit that the CPU has to be running rather cool. That's where the problem comes in. If its thermal throttling with a 280 AIO, will a 360 work. Will we need custom loops. I think we can mostly agree that a D15 or H100i are the on the extreme end of coolers that we can "recommend" for desktop chips as 99% of the CPU's out there its way overkill. But I think there is a point that if this chip starts requiring $150-200 cooling or more, to run in spec, without slamming up against the thermal limits of the chip, there is problem, or at least can be mocked for being "hot".

In the past we have gotten review where the reviewers went straight to AIO's because Intel doesn't ship coolers with their CPU's and not accounting for that when comparing to other CPU's. With the 8700k it was as it was brought up there probably a wash. Less so on the 9900k. But I think specially with this guy it will be important for the reviewers to figure out what "adequate" cooling will be like comparitively.