Confirmed - i9 9900k will have soldered IHS, no more toothpaste TIM

Page 28 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Gideon

Gideon

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2007
1,644
3,705
136
Looks like some delays across europe :S
Registeryouraccount said:
Just got an email from Scan to let me know my order got delayed till 31st of Oct.

I ordered on the release date 2-3 hours after the announcement.

The "good" news is that we are getting CoD 4 keys
Click to expand...
atalurk said:
In Italy day one has been postponed to 20/12 what a joke
Click to expand...
 
A

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
10,953
3,474
136
5GHz/237W (with Prime 95) and 110°C at what seems stock setting....

https://www.computerbase.de/2018-10/core-i9-9900k-hohe-temperatur/

1-1080.3846368904.jpg


2-1080.4281660788.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek
LTC8K6

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
That makes no sense at all, so I don't believe it's accurate.

Plus it's an ES chip.
 
A

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
10,953
3,474
136
LTC8K6 said:
That makes no sense at all, so I don't believe it's accurate.

Plus it's an ES chip.
Click to expand...

Reality always hit hard...

237W@5GHz = 185W@4.7GHz, that s with Prime 95, with Cinebench we can expect 140-145W@4.7GHz...

Anyway i m curious about how the reviewers will deal with the official 95W TDP...
 
  • Like
Reactions: french toast
LTC8K6

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
Abwx said:
Reality always hit hard...

237W@5GHz = 185W@4.7GHz, that s with Prime 95, with Cinebench we can expect 140-145W@4.7GHz...

Anyway i m curious about how the reviewers will deal with the official 95W TDP...
Click to expand...
TDP is not a measurement of power consumption. Cooling spec is 130W, I believe.
 
Z

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
If they're hitting the chip with 512bit AVX code at 5GHz without an AVX offset then that's bogus as hell. We already know what the worst case scenario for this chip will be - SKLX - 7820x. The AVX offset is there for a reason.
 
ehume

ehume

Golden Member
Nov 6, 2009
1,511
73
91
Zucker2k said:
If they're hitting the chip with 512bit AVX code at 5GHz without an AVX offset then that's bogus as hell. We already know what the worst case scenario for this chip will be - SKLX - 7820x. The AVX offset is there for a reason.
Click to expand...
Of course we want testers to hit a CPU with Linpack+AVX512. Although you may trip up a chip with fancy benchmarks, there is no higher heat test than Linpack with AVX512 and no reduction for AVX. I speak with some experience because I routinely tested heatsinks with an i7 8700k at 5GHz running Linpack+AVX2 (all I had). There was no reduction for AVX and the chip needed none.
 
LTC8K6

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
A

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
10,953
3,474
136
StinkyPinky said:
That stuff from Gigabyte contradicts this mini review of the 9900k (cached as it was taken down)

https://webcache.googleusercontent....i9-9900k-with-gigabyte-z390-aorus-master.html

We will know soon enough
Click to expand...

A few quotes of this "reviewer" :

In fact, the difference in score really showed how much more superior the Intel processors are, especially when both the CPUs shared the same TDP of 95W.
AMD Ryzen 7 2700
AMD Wraith Stealth Cooler


Intel Core i9 9900K
Cryorig A80 280mm AIO Hybrid Liquid Cooler
Click to expand...



And the most relevant :

Also, we measured the power consumption of the whole system to be at about 43W in idle and 330W when on load (Cinebench).
Click to expand...

So about 215W CPU TDP with Cinebench....?
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek and Jan Olšan
Aikouka

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
I saw that Gigabyte PDF, and what has me puzzled is... why are the temperatures so high in the 5GHz OC? If you go to PDF page 15, they list the IET results for stock, and two overclocks of 5GHz and 5.2GHz. The stock result seems somewhat normal in the 70s, the 5GHz OC is listed as 99C (not 110C), but the real kicker... the 5.2GHz benchmark, which should run hotter, is actually the middle ground at 83C. What's the deal here? Two potential things come to mind...

  1. The voltage was adjusted properly between 5GHz and 5.2GHz. In the above steps, Gigabyte suggests just setting the voltage to 1.3V and potentially going up to 1.4V. I'm not a master overclocker or anything of the sort, so I can't tell you whether this much voltage is necessary; however, if Gigabyte was being a bit too liberal with the voltage, which meant they dialed it back for a more advanced 5.2GHz OC, that would reduce the heat.
  2. The hardware setup wasn't the same. I'd heard something about this being done using a custom water loop, but yet again, there's very little information on the 5.2GHz run and no guarantee of how it was run. In that case... did it have a better cooler?
Essentially, was there just less heat being generated or was there more heat being removed.
 
Markfw

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
25,564
14,520
136
Aikouka said:
I saw that Gigabyte PDF, and what has me puzzled is... why are the temperatures so high in the 5GHz OC? If you go to PDF page 15, they list the IET results for stock, and two overclocks of 5GHz and 5.2GHz. The stock result seems somewhat normal in the 70s, the 5GHz OC is listed as 99C (not 110C), but the real kicker... the 5.2GHz benchmark, which should run hotter, is actually the middle ground at 83C. What's the deal here? Two potential things come to mind...

  1. The voltage was adjusted properly between 5GHz and 5.2GHz. In the above steps, Gigabyte suggests just setting the voltage to 1.3V and potentially going up to 1.4V. I'm not a master overclocker or anything of the sort, so I can't tell you whether this much voltage is necessary; however, if Gigabyte was being a bit too liberal with the voltage, which meant they dialed it back for a more advanced 5.2GHz OC, that would reduce the heat.
  2. The hardware setup wasn't the same. I'd heard something about this being done using a custom water loop, but yet again, there's very little information on the 5.2GHz run and no guarantee of how it was run. In that case... did it have a better cooler?
Essentially, was there just less heat being generated or was there more heat being removed.
Click to expand...
Throttling ? My 1950x did that when my Enermax AIO failed. Down to 500 mhz
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick
Aikouka

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
Markfw said:
Throttling ? My 1950x did that when my Enermax AIO failed. Down to 500 mhz
Click to expand...

Hm, it's plausible, but I'm assuming that it would've kept itself closer to TJ Max if it was throttling, which was adjusted to 110C in the steps in the document. Even if it was still set to 100C, that's 17C off. Also, I'm assuming that trying to run a 5.2GHz benchmark that can't even keep itself at 5.2GHz (due to throttling) is sort of a failed benchmark run. :p

Also, I think it's a bit amusing that there is -- yet again -- another data set that seems to have issues with its presentation. Albeit, I don't think this Gigabyte thing is really meant to be a serious guide nor representation of the overclocking potential. We'll likely see some good numbers from outlets like Anandtech and Gamers Nexus on Friday.
 
Arachnotronic

Arachnotronic

Lifer
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,012
126
The Stilt said:
High temperatures are to be expected despite the use of sTIM, due to the extremely high intensity.
Even Pinnacle Ridge CPUs suffer from this to certain extent, despite having a significantly larger die.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that the use of STIM was necessary for Intel to hit the frequencies that they wanted to.
 
DrMrLordX

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,637
10,855
136
So pre-orders got delayed to Oct 31st in some instances?

No commercial availability of chips in Italy until 20th of December 2018?

What is going on? They were supposed to be ready by maybe November. Stockpiling dice and all that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom