Yes the denial (and the look for excuses) is getting ridiculous by this point. You'll see, fair-enough, in 7 minutes.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.
You wrote: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.
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.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.
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"Stock, not a torture loop, 240mm CLC with pump and fans maxxed out for context."
I think it's fine at stock with a good AIO cooler?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.
Power consumption is way past its rating, it is not even remotely close.
Gaming is meh...get a 9700k instead.
Looks like just a little past it's PL2 numbers?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.
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 any value here if you already have a decent CPU.
If I were buying new, I'd get the 9700K.
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.Looks like just a little past it's PL2 numbers?
That's been the case for a long time with AMD and Intel. TDP doesn't mean that much in the real world.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.
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.That's been the case for a long time with AMD and Intel. TDP doesn't mean that much in the real world.
141 watts stock at Gamers nexus running Blender AVX.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.
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...)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
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|***OFFICIAL*** Ryzen 5000 / Zen 3 Launch Thread ***CONFIRMED***||CPUs and Overclocking||686|
|Question For gaming only, would a 9900k be notably better than a 3900x?||CPUs and Overclocking||27|
|Discussion [Video]Ryzen 7 3800X 5GHz vs. Core i9 9900K 5 GHz||CPUs and Overclocking||55|
|I||Question 9900K 5.4 ghz question||CPUs and Overclocking||12|
|N||Question i9 9900k downgrading to ryzen 3600 for my usage||CPUs and Overclocking||22|
|***OFFICIAL*** Ryzen 5000 / Zen 3 Launch Thread ***CONFIRMED***|
|Question For gaming only, would a 9900k be notably better than a 3900x?|
|Discussion [Video]Ryzen 7 3800X 5GHz vs. Core i9 9900K 5 GHz|
|Question 9900K 5.4 ghz question|
|Question i9 9900k downgrading to ryzen 3600 for my usage|