• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

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

Page 31 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

xisor

Member
Apr 5, 2010
28
13
81
He says at stock I will be fine...
You say at stock I need max water cooling...
i didn't say max water cooling, i said a 240mm AIO isn't sufficient to keep temps in control stock, nor is a D15, you'll find out shortly.
 

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
978
803
106
From what I can tell a 5ghz OC will burn upwards of 200w and 90c+ even with 360mm water block....not great but not crazy either.
What I am interested in is the 4.7ghz all core turbo...is that the PL2 state?...what is stock performance going to be like with a decent air cooler? Sure doesn't look like we will see long term 4.7ghz and for sure it is going to be over 95w.
 

Gideon

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2007
1,012
1,638
136
watch the video, he's literally breaking down how hes trying to fix it, and how intels solder is garbage and too thick. LM reduced temps by 8C, but its still hitting the mid to upper 80s at 4.8ghz 1.25v even with his fix. still watching, so there's more.
Yes the denial (and the look for excuses) is getting ridiculous by this point. You'll see, fair-enough, in 7 minutes.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
i didn't say max water cooling, i said a 240mm AIO isn't sufficient to keep temps in control stock, nor is a D15, you'll find out shortly.
You wrote:

"Stock, not a torture loop, 240mm CLC with pump and fans maxxed out for context."

I still think the XTU screenie indicates an overclock of all cores to 5.0
 

xisor

Member
Apr 5, 2010
28
13
81
From what I can tell a 5ghz OC will burn upwards of 200w and 90c+ even with 360mm water block....not great but not crazy either.
What I am interested in is the 4.7ghz all core turbo...is that the PL2 state?...what is stock performance going to be like with a decent air cooler? Sure doesn't look like we will see long term 4.7ghz and for sure it is going to be over 95w.
i can confirm a D15 will keep it from throttling stock (BARELY,and only if you're not using avx (blender, hevc video encoding and loads of other things use avx) if you have high airflow and the gpu isn't engaged raising case ambients any at all), a 240mm AIO requires max fans max pump to do the same, again with no gpu heat adding to the ambient, and a 360mm aio will be fine without blowing your eardrums like the other two solutions. this assumes your ambients are 21c, and in a case they'll be higher. realistically to do any overclocking at all you need a custom loop, or you need to grind your cpu die with sandpaper and delid your soldered cpu, which is freakin stupid.
 

xisor

Member
Apr 5, 2010
28
13
81
"Stock, not a torture loop, 240mm CLC with pump and fans maxxed out for context."
right, a 240mm aio is not MAX WATER COOLING, its mainstream water cooling at best, but its more than should be required, and judging by roman's results with both ES and retail chips, we now know why, intel botched the manufacturing, solder too thick, die about twice as thick as it needs to be as well




hey fun, its up ;)
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
Yes the denial (and the look for excuses) is getting ridiculous by this point. You'll see, fair-enough, in 7 minutes.
If it needs a water cooler to run stock, then it's a joke.

I've said that a few times already.
 

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
978
803
106
Power consumption is way past its rating, it is not even remotely close.
Gaming is meh...get a 9700k instead.
 

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
978
803
106
So the 9900k is a 220w chip that requires a solid water cooler to get to it's advertised 4.7ghz all core frequency...95w!? Lol.
9700k is a better chip IMO, but is really a 158w chip if you want to hit itsi all core turbo.

I think intel has hit it's limit at 14nm with skylake.
There is also the issue of golden samples, I wouldn't bet against intel seeding the reviewers with the best silicon and average users getting worse results.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
So the 9900k is a 220w chip that requires a solid water cooler to get to it's advertised 4.7ghz all core frequency...95w!? Lol.
9700k is a better chip IMO, but is really a 158w chip if you want to hit itsi all core turbo.

I think intel has hit it's limit at 14nm with skylake.
There is also the issue of golden samples, I wouldn't bet against intel seeding the reviewers with the best silicon and average users getting worse results.
I think it's fine at stock with a good AIO cooler?
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
Power consumption is way past its rating, it is not even remotely close.
Gaming is meh...get a 9700k instead.
Focusing on the three new Intel CPUs, the obvious outlier here is the Core i9-9900K. Despite Intel’s 210W PL2 value, our processor actually goes beyond this at full load, hitting 221W.
Looks like just a little past it's PL2 numbers?
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,127
1,535
126
I don't see any value here if you already have a decent CPU.

If I were buying new, I'd get the 9700K.
If I was buying new I'd be scratching my head and wondering if I'd even consider going with a Intel platform these days. Anything above 1080p takes the performance lead away and makes the 2700x more compelling.

I don't see much value their even building a new rig today. I'm thinking that Intel has some inside info on what Zen 2 will bring to the table and decided to launch these now to save face and have a chance to sell them while they can.....After all they do currently employ the mastermind behind Zen.

Tickle me not impressed....So far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: french toast

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
978
803
106
Looks like just a little past it's PL2 numbers?
Yea, and should be the tdp rating, the whole point of a tdp rating is to inform the consumer of the cooling required to extract the advertised performance.
95w tdp is disengenuous to say the least...nobody buying a $500 processor to run it at it's base clocks.

Can't help but think this is Intel's equivalent to AMD bulldozer FX 9590...4.7ghz 5ghz turbo, 220w tdp.
9590 wasn't the fastest chip on release unlike this 9900k, BUT at least they were honest about the tdp and included a water cooler for the crazy price.
 
Last edited:

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
Yea, and should be the tdp rating, the whole point of a tdp rating is to inform the consumer of the cooling required to extract the advertised performance.
95w tdp is disengenuous to say the least...nobody buying a $500 processor to run it at it's base clocks.
That's been the case for a long time with AMD and Intel. TDP doesn't mean that much in the real world.
 

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
978
803
106
That's been the case for a long time with AMD and Intel. TDP doesn't mean that much in the real world.
No I don't think it has, AMD has exceeded its tdp rating by 5-20 watts depending on the he test on a few products, but nothing like this...9900k more than DOUBLES its tdp rating, I don't care about the small print that is unacceptable.
 

arandomguy

Senior member
Sep 3, 2013
531
146
116
The problem with the rating is the work load dependency. If you they gave a 200w+ rating for TDP does that really benefit all consumers? Those only buying it for gaming are not going to reach that power load and can hit all core turbo speeds with much lower rated coolers.

This has been an interesting issue with Intel's CPUs and stress tests for quite some time now. Those tests really extract everything out AVX2 which sky rockets power usage beyond what typical consumers use.

GPUs got around this by specifically capping power usage in those artificial torture tests using heuristics.

Intel's power management and clocking method at this point is very behind. Perhaps next gen they will address this.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
No I don't think it has, AMD has exceeded its tdp rating by 5-20 watts depending on the he test on a few products, but nothing like this...9900k more than DOUBLES its tdp rating, I don't care about the small print that is unacceptable.
141 watts stock at Gamers nexus running Blender AVX.

It's too high, but it's nowhere near double the TDP.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
996
704
136


Some wildly fluctuating power numbers here... WTF? Lower power consumption at stock than a 8700K? That can't be right. The overclocked figures are scary though!
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
20,759
8,898
136
For those complaining about the power consumption...

9900K @ 4.7GHz = 2700X @ 4.2GHz
I don't believe those numbers. My 2990wx gets no where near that unless I OC to 4.1, and thats twice the cores of the 2950x
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

TheGiant

Senior member
Jun 12, 2017
722
321
106
I don't believe those numbers. My 2990wx gets no where near that unless I OC to 4.1, and thats twice the cores of the 2950x
I don't know about TR numbers, but other are pretty much the same as I measured with my friends 2600X and other 2700X. And the same with the 1700(non x oced and underclocked, where ryzen is just super efficient like 35W @3GHz, kudos to AMD, I don't get why they are not using it in 15W intel U series CPUs...)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY