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

[Markfw]

Intel doesn't require a 280 AIO. It is recommended if you're trying to push it hard. It will run on an air cooler. That is not a "requirement". Your use of the word is incorrect. Recommended is probably the word you are looking for.

Required means the Intel CPU will not function with an air cooler. This is simply not true.

There is NO stock cooler for the 10900k. So why are we comparing that CPU to a 3900x with a stock cooler ? and why after weeks, is this thread coming back to life ? Because I answered one user ?

 

[Zucker2k]

One test for one hour at 86c, NOT 90c. Thats not worht didly. Look at this thread ? Its overwhelming that the 90c is true for the 10900k

You asked for it:

Edit: Go to 4:50 mark in the video.

Page 12 - Discussion - Comet Lake Intel's new Core i9-10900K runs at over 90C, even with liquid cooling TweakTown

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

 

[Markfw]

Well, the video is worthless to me since I am DEAF, and they don;t say what the performance is where the 10900k is 4 c lower than a 3700x, just MCE off. But here the 3900x is not down to 82c.

Just keep it up.....

 

[LikeLinus]

There is NO stock cooler for the 10900k. So why are we comparing that CPU to a 3900x with a stock cooler ? and why after weeks, is this thread coming back to life ? Because I answered one user ?

No clue. I haven't been reading CPU forum as much and didn't realize it had died down. I was just replying to the comment I saw. I realize it doesn't come with a cooler, I was just saying it doesn't necessarily require a 280 AIO to operate. Either way, people who are purchasing that type of CPU are going to be using high end cooling and trying to get the highest performance. But, I digress, I don't care either way as I don't own either cpu. The topic of the thread though is about temperatures. So we're really not derailing a thread or anything.

 

[Magic Carpet]

10900k does run cooler, but consumes more electricity, but that shouldn't come as a surprise. ~10 years ago, it was exactly the opposite, Thuban ran cooler, but consumed more watts versus Sandy Bridge.

Let's move on.

 

[DrMrLordX]

How warm does the equivalent amd processor run when air cooled with stock cooler ?

Depends, all the high-end AMD CPUs right now are 142W parts @ stock, so they all dissipate about the same amount of heat and run at about the same temp, albeit with variances. I think the 3950X actually runs lower temps than all the rest due to distributing power dissipation over a larger number of cores, but that is not always the case.

That being said, the temp you get reported from an AMD chip is a "hotspot" temp rather than a bulk die temp, so any of the 142W CPUs (3800X/XT, 3900X/XT, 3950X) can appear to be running hot when in reality it's due to power density. It doesn't take much of a heatsink to deal with the total heat flux; instead, you're encouraged to oversize your cooling to try to drive down delta T, which produces diminishing returns rapidly. Going from Wraith Prism to an NH-D15 to a 280mm AiO to custom water will only drop your observed temps in something like CBR20 by a few degrees per step. For example, I have an expensive custom water setup on a 3900X and get a temp of 60C in CBR20. I could put a Wraith Prism on there and it'd probably hit 75C. Performance is within 5% depending on other factors. It really doesn't matter what temp it's running so long as it's below 90C, since it's the same heat flux no matter what. At best, driving hotspot temps down buys you a few extra MHz of boost.

A 10900k is a completely different animal. For non-trivial durations, it can dump 250W, which makes it a lot "hotter" than anything AMD produces for AM4. Choose an undersized cooling solution - like an NH-D15 - and at best you are going to get some clockspeed losses as it throttles back clockspeeds. A 280mm AiO should be considered the minimum required to allow the CPU to reach its full PL2 value of 250W for a sustained workload of 56s - and that's only if it's following spec (some boards allow 250W indefinitely out-of-the-box). A CPU with a heat flux of 250W running a die temp of 70C is objectively "hotter" than a 142W CPU reporting a hotspot temp of 75C or higher.

 

[AussieKenDoll]

Is running stress tests degrade the CPU?

 

[you2]

Look the reason i asked about 'stock' cooler for the amd chip was because i wanted to gauge the heat buildup of the amd chip vs intel. The word 'stock' was really meant to limit some high end water cooling or to try to prevent an apple to orange cooling between the two cpu. What i was really trying to ask was at the same performance level does the amd chip run cooler (there are two aspect to 'cooler' - one is power consumption which is clearly less (per people comments above) and heat dissipation which can be a combination of factors and something intel has been spotty on over the years (think haswell refresh i7).
-
The motivation for the question was personal and not meant to reopen a long debate. I have a 10 year old 2500k system and will probably upgrade the mb/cpu in 6 to 12 months. Why did i post the question on this thread - because it showed up on the side bar and i was curious about how intel was managing heat these days esp after my deep disappointment with the above mentioned i7 - and before i get a lecture on that cpu i'm using a noct. heat sink and with prime 95 stress test it runs about 75c.

 

[DrMrLordX]

there are two aspect to 'cooler'

There really isn't, at least not in any meaningful sense. The type of heatsink you need is based on heat flux. That's all you need to worry about.

 

[ondma]

Depends, all the high-end AMD CPUs right now are 142W parts @ stock, so they all dissipate about the same amount of heat and run at about the same temp, albeit with variances. I think the 3950X actually runs lower temps than all the rest due to distributing power dissipation over a larger number of cores, but that is not always the case.

That being said, the temp you get reported from an AMD chip is a "hotspot" temp rather than a bulk die temp, so any of the 142W CPUs (3800X/XT, 3900X/XT, 3950X) can appear to be running hot when in reality it's due to power density. It doesn't take much of a heatsink to deal with the total heat flux; instead, you're encouraged to oversize your cooling to try to drive down delta T, which produces diminishing returns rapidly. Going from Wraith Prism to an NH-D15 to a 280mm AiO to custom water will only drop your observed temps in something like CBR20 by a few degrees per step. For example, I have an expensive custom water setup on a 3900X and get a temp of 60C in CBR20. I could put a Wraith Prism on there and it'd probably hit 75C. Performance is within 5% depending on other factors. It really doesn't matter what temp it's running so long as it's below 90C, since it's the same heat flux no matter what. At best, driving hotspot temps down buys you a few extra MHz of boost.

A 10900k is a completely different animal. For non-trivial durations, it can dump 250W, which makes it a lot "hotter" than anything AMD produces for AM4. Choose an undersized cooling solution - like an NH-D15 - and at best you are going to get some clockspeed losses as it throttles back clockspeeds. A 280mm AiO should be considered the minimum required to allow the CPU to reach its full PL2 value of 250W for a sustained workload of 56s - and that's only if it's following spec (some boards allow 250W indefinitely out-of-the-box). A CPU with a heat flux of 250W running a die temp of 70C is objectively "hotter" than a 142W CPU reporting a hotspot temp of 75C or higher.

No, it is not "hotter". It is dissipating more heat.

 

[DrMrLordX]

No, it is not "hotter". It is dissipating more heat.

ahahahah

Sure it isn't.

 

[you2]

My limited understanding is that there is the amount of heat the cpu generates and the ability of the cpu to dissipate the heat. If the cpu can't dissipate it at all (the thermals traps the heat) then a much larger heat sink will be needed. This ability to dissipate is for example based on the material used for the shell and conductivity of the cpu to the shell.

There really isn't, at least not in any meaningful sense. The type of heatsink you need is based on heat flux. That's all you need to worry about.

 

[DrMrLordX]

My limited understanding is that there is the amount of heat the cpu generates and the ability of the cpu to dissipate the heat. If the cpu can't dissipate it at all (the thermals traps the heat) then a much larger heat sink will be needed.

That isn't happening unless you have cracked solder or a bad mount. You're confusing the issue with heat density, which is more a product of the process and the way the individual designer chooses to set up their temp sensors.