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

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
996
704
136
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
That is system power consumption though, not CPU power alone. How are you measuring your 2990WX?
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
20,811
8,996
136
That is system power consumption though, not CPU power alone. How are you measuring your 2990WX?
I will have to see if I can go home and try more testing, Right now it runs 24/7@100% with a 1080TI@100%

But it is at the wall system power.(kill-a-watt)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
469
126
Because even a Noctua D15 can't really keep it cool enough at stock speeds...
Same for the 2700x correct? I'm mean its a 3 watt difference.

Edit.
Did any reviewers use a 2080ti at 1080p? Id like to see those figures. Im at work no real time to search and read. Thanks
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
Same for the 2700x correct? I'm mean its a 3 watt difference.

Edit.
Did any reviewers use a 2080ti at 1080p? Id like to see those figures. Im at work no real time to search and read. Thanks
I'm not sure anymore. 9900K numbers seem to vary a lot.

Anandtech power numbers dropped a lot:

Notice: When we initially posted this page, we ran numbers with an ASRock Z370 board. We have since discovered that the voltage applied by the board was super high, beyond normal expectations. We have since re-run the numbers using the MSI MPG Z390 Gaming Edge AC motherboard, which does not have this issue.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/21
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
996
704
136
Same for the 2700x correct? I'm mean its a 3 watt difference.

Edit.
Did any reviewers use a 2080ti at 1080p? Id like to see those figures. Im at work no real time to search and read. Thanks
GamersNexus and Techspot from memory (they used multiple res but included 1080P). I'm sure theres more, but thats some reviews to go on for now
 
  • Like
Reactions: happy medium

Brahmzy

Senior member
Jul 27, 2004
583
27
91
Looks like the 9700k is the one to get, all things considered.
Yeah.. tough choice.
If you’re an overclocker, you’ll get 5.1/5.2 out of the 9700K. Maybe 5.0 out of the 9900K with a LOT of heat. Is HT worth it? That’s the decision. I’ve got a 9900K on preorder and I’m thinking of switching it to a 9700K..
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
996
704
136
Yeah.. tough choice.
If you’re an overclocker, you’ll get 5.1/5.2 out of the 9700K. Maybe 5.0 out of the 9900K with a LOT of heat. Is HT worth it? That’s the decision. I’ve got a 9900K on preorder and I’m thinking of switching it to a 9700K..
If your tasks can take advantage of HT and get the ~30% speedups that it provides, then it's probably worth it.

A 9900K running at 8 threads load is not going to be any 'hotter' than a 9700K at 8 threads. At 16 threads it obviously will, but that's because its fully utilised"
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
996
704
136
intel's official in spec PL2 state for the 9900k is 215w, which means at turbo frequency in a non avx workload it will have a sustained power draw of 215w. this is completely consistent with every bit of info we have about the 9900k at this time, furthermore, we will indeed see in 2 hours ;) and i was being quite literal about my burning house meme coverphoto, from a well established, trusted, reliable reviewer.
Well, the dust has settled, I've read a few reviews and you were wrong. Funny how you haven't resurfaced since the reviews went live ;)
 

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
13,903
3,505
136
Well, the dust has settled, I've read a few reviews and you were wrong. Funny how you haven't resurfaced since the reviews went live ;)
He's not really wrong. The Intel recommended PL2 value is indeed 210W. Per AnandTech, different motherboard manufacturers can override this value by default, which is why we're seeing the discrepancies in power consumption across reviews.

With the Intel recommended PL2 value being 210W, that's a little bit more evidence in favor of the idea that reviewers got golden samples. I doubt retail samples are going to achieve AnandTech's 5GHz 8c/16t @ 1.25V stable - definitely not on average.

If a run-of-the-mill retail chip really does achieve that, I'm going to buy one because that's an extremely nice bin.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
996
704
136
He's not really wrong. The Intel recommended PL2 value is indeed 210W. Per AnandTech, different motherboard manufacturers can override this value by default, which is why we're seeing the discrepancies in power consumption across reviews.

With the Intel recommended PL2 value being 210W, that's a little bit more evidence in favor of the idea that reviewers got golden samples. I doubt retail samples are going to achieve AnandTech's 5GHz 8c/16t @ 1.25V stable - definitely not on average.

If a run-of-the-mill retail chip really does achieve that, I'm going to buy one because that's an extremely nice bin.
I'm talking about a stock, 9900K @ 4.7GHz 1.25V drawing 215W sustained load as he claims, in non AVX no less. That's a load of BS. Here is a stock 9900K drawing 141W in an AVX Blender workload:

 
  • Like
Reactions: happy medium

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
996
704
136
Unless some kind of auto overvolting is going on, I don't think a stock 9900K @ 4.7GHz would be drawing 200W+.

We will find out very soon though!
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/21
Notice: When we initially posted this page, we ran numbers with an ASRock Z370 board. We have since discovered that the voltage applied by the board was super high, beyond normal expectations. We have since re-run the numbers using the MSI MPG Z390 Gaming Edge AC motherboard, which does not have this issue.
Don't mean to 'gloat', but this is exactly what I predicted, and is what actually happened with Anandtech's sample to hit 221W under load. How nobody bat an eyelid at such an anomaly (compared to other reviews) and proceeded to proclaim the 9900K as the new 9590 is beyond me.

Sure, it consumes a lot of power and runs hot, but its not Prescott 2.0. At least the performance is there to back up the extra power consumption: https://techreport.com/review/34192/intel-core-i9-9900k-cpu-reviewed/13
 

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
469
126
I'm talking about a stock, 9900K @ 4.7GHz 1.25V drawing 215W sustained load as he claims, in non AVX no less. That's a load of BS. Here is a stock 9900K drawing 141W in an AVX Blender workload:

So I'm guessing a typical gaming workload would be even less power correct?
 

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
469
126
I just read this in the Anandtech review...

Quote:
"The best bit about this overclock is the 4.7 GHz value: by using our own voltage settings, we reduced power consumption by 41W, almost 25% of the total power, and also reduced temperatures by 24ºC. That's a safe idea. Even 4.8 GHz and 4.9 GHz was reasonable, but the temperatures at 5.0 GHz might not be for everyone."

I wonder how many reviewers used the auto settings on the motherboards?
41 watts is a good amount of savings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k

xisor

Member
Apr 5, 2010
28
13
81
Well, the dust has settled, I've read a few reviews and you were wrong. Funny how you haven't resurfaced since the reviews went live ;)
no, i wasn't wrong, the temps are too high even on a 240mm AIO, did you not watch hardwareunboxed, gamersnexus, or der8auers coverage? there are MAJOR problems on the engineering side that are causing all of this. PL2 is indeed 210w, i believe i mentioned that well ahead of the reviews dropping as well. As for the wildly fluctuating power and temperature data across reviews. I can tell you that OC3D used a strix-e board with a 4 phase vrm and no airflow over the vrms, so come time to stress test to take those readings, the vrm was throttling him hard, same for kitguru and a couple of the other outliers. LanOC had this problem as well, and have since corrected their review to indicate proper data after the fact. As for my not being active in this thread since reviews went live, that is because i went to sleep after watching most of them, because i pulled an all nighter waiting for them to arrive, sorry :D
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
996
704
136
no, i wasn't wrong, the temps are too high even on a 240mm AIO, did you not watch hardwareunboxed, gamersnexus, or der8auers coverage? there are MAJOR problems on the engineering side that are causing all of this. PL2 is indeed 210w, i believe i mentioned that well ahead of the reviews dropping as well. As for the wildly fluctuating power and temperature data across reviews. I can tell you that OC3D used a strix-e board with a 4 phase vrm and no airflow over the vrms, so come time to stress test to take those readings, the vrm was throttling him hard, same for kitguru and a couple of the other outliers. LanOC had this problem as well, and have since corrected their review to indicate proper data after the fact. As for my not being active in this thread since reviews went live, that is because i went to sleep after watching most of them, because i pulled an all nighter waiting for them to arrive, sorry :D
Please show me one example of a sustained 215W power draw in non AVX workloads, as you claimed? I also missed that review with the burning house meme ;) care to share that one with us?
 

xisor

Member
Apr 5, 2010
28
13
81
Please show me one example of a sustained 215W power draw in non AVX workloads, as you claimed? I also missed that review with the burning house meme ;) care to share that one with us?
gladly ;) I do believe this should suffice no? Look at the cover photo for the video.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
996
704
136
You're just owning yourself more and more, that is system power consumption, not CPU power.

Any more fresh FUD you wanna spread? Because this one is debunked, hard.

Edit - I see you mean the burning house in the background! That is indeed cheeky from HWUB ;)

Still waiting on those power numbers though
 

xisor

Member
Apr 5, 2010
28
13
81
You're just owning yourself more and more, that is system power consumption, not CPU power.

Any more fresh FUD you wanna spread? Because this one is debunked, hard.
you asked for a video with the burning house meme that i mentioned ahead of review, i was simply providing it for you, that wasn't an example for the power draw, it was a response to the other part of your request sir, and if you think i'm spreading fud, you're missing the part where intel's own specifications say 210W non AVX at stock boost clocks, which confirms my bloody statement.
If you want to accuse me of something that's fine, but i'm not going to get into a pissing match with you on some random forum.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
996
704
136
you asked for a video with the burning house meme that i mentioned ahead of review, i was simply providing it for you, that wasn't an example for the power draw, it was a response to the other part of your request sir, and if you think i'm spreading fud, you're missing the part where intel's own specifications say 210W non AVX at stock boost clocks, which confirms my bloody statement.
So no actual real world examples of a 215W power draw in non AVX loads then? Gotcha. Thought so.

Update me when do you find it ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY