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

[xisor]

I don't understand the surprise of the power use of the 9900K at 5GHz blender. The 8086K review already shows that at 5GHz, it uses over 150W :



So an equally overclocked 8-core using 1/3rd more power isn't too surprising.

because this is stock 4.7ghz, not an overclock sir. 5ghz is only the single/dual threaded turbo clock, not the all-core.

 

[phillyman36]

That temp @stock is what im looking at.

 

[Accord99]

because this is stock 4.7ghz, not an overclock sir. 5ghz is only the single/dual threaded turbo clock, not the all-core.

Why is XTU reporting 5.0 GHz as Max Core Frequency with 8 active core counts? I doubt that one or two cores are running at 5GHz while the rest are at 4.7GHz, an unusual behavior for Intel Turbo.

 

[xisor]

Why is XTU reporting 5.0 GHz as Max Core Frequency with 8 active core counts? I doubt that one or two cores are running at 5GHz while the rest are at 4.7GHz, an unusual behavior for Intel Turbo.

XTU lists the maximum turbo frequency in that section, not the current clockspeed IIRC.

 

[Accord99]

XTU's Max Core Frequency value is the highest core clock at that instant. This is my 8700K at near idle:

And running multi-cpu Cinebench:

 

[epsilon84]

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!

 

[xisor]

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!

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.

 

[LTC8K6]

because this is stock 4.7ghz, not an overclock sir. 5ghz is only the single/dual threaded turbo clock, not the all-core.

So you have 214W at stock, with just 2 cores at 5.0?

If so, that is indeed a non-starter of a chip.

 

[xisor]

So you have 214W at stock, with just 2 cores at 5.0?

If so, that is indeed a non-starter of a chip.

i do not know, my source is not under embargo, but is releasing the review at the same time as embargo out of respect, and is keeping things close to the vest since the review goes live shortly. We've been teased about it for the last few days, and gotten some information, but we wont know everything until the reviews go live.

 

[jpiniero]

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!

There were rumors that Intel increased the stock PL2 to 210 W.

 

[LTC8K6]

i do not know, my source is not under embargo, but is releasing the review at the same time as embargo out of respect, and is keeping things close to the vest since the review goes live shortly. We've been teased about it for the last few days, and gotten some information, but we wont know everything until the reviews go live.

It was a hard enough sell already at $500...

Who is going to pay $500+ for 214W stock and maybe 5-10% more performance?

 

[LTC8K6]

The 8700K and 9900K seem to have the same cooling spec, which seems odd if the 9900K needs liquid cooling for stock operation, and if stock operation is about 100W higher than the 8700K.

 

[LTC8K6]

"water cooled, and stock, and not a torture test."

It's at 89C at stock, on max water cooling, under a normal heavy load, but it has the same 130W cooling spec as the 8700K?

 

[TheGiant]

The 8700K and 9900K seem to have the same cooling spec, which seems odd if the 9900K needs liquid cooling for stock operation, and if stock operation is about 100W higher than the 8700K.

Exactly. The 8700K considering ryzen/skl-x/bdw-e is quite power effective even when oced (that cannot be said about skl-x or ryzen).
I expected 9900K to be the same, just a little higher. But 100W? Is it factory overclocked/overvolted ?
The non oced turbo for 8700K is 4,3GHz 6 Core, but 9900K turbo for 8C is 4,7GHz......
I wonder how it ends or what is the powerdraw of 9900K @4,3 or 4,5GHz with proper voltage...

We shall see soon enough

 

[LTC8K6]

Exactly. The 8700K considering ryzen/skl-x/bdw-e is quite power effective even when oced (that cannot be said about skl-x or ryzen).
I expected 9900K to be the same, just a little higher. But 100W? Is it factory overclocked/overvolted ?
The non oced turbo for 8700K is 4,3GHz 6 Core, but 9900K turbo for 8C is 4,7GHz......
I wonder how it ends or what is the powerdraw of 9900K @4,3 or 4,5GHz with proper voltage...

We shall see soon enough

Well, we see in post #730 a package TDP for the 8700K of 110W under CB multi.
So we have a claim that the 9900K package TDP would be over 100W higher than that.

 

[jpiniero]

Exactly. The 8700K considering ryzen/skl-x/bdw-e is quite power effective even when oced (that cannot be said about skl-x or ryzen).
I expected 9900K to be the same, just a little higher. But 100W? Is it factory overclocked/overvolted ?
The non oced turbo for 8700K is 4,3GHz 6 Core, but 9900K turbo for 8C is 4,7GHz......
I wonder how it ends or what is the powerdraw of 9900K @4,3 or 4,5GHz with proper voltage...

We shall see soon enough

Intel may have loosened the binning quite a bit to ensure enough chips met the specs.

And yes PL2 is not guaranteed if you don't have sufficient cooling.

 

[LTC8K6]

Does 4.7 seem like a normal cache frequency? We have 4.4 for the 8700K.

 

[LTC8K6]

"To start, set your uncore to 47 and continue on with the guide."

From that GB 9900K overclocking guide.

 

[epsilon84]

My hunch is that there is some kind of MCE (multicore enhancement) going on, forcing the 9900K to run at 5.0GHz ACT with significantly higher core voltages.

My own motherboard does this with my 8700K with MCE enabled, forces 1.36V or something silly for 4.7GHz when in reality my chip only needs that voltage for 5.0GHz stable operation and can do 4.7GHz with ~1.25V.

 

[BrandonT]

Shoot...I am able to use a 240mm radiator so not so concerned there, but now I'm starting to wonder if the miniITX (Asrock Z390) mobo will be able to deliver 200w?

 

[xisor]

https://youtu.be/r5Doo-zgyQs enjoy der8auer confirms the heat issues

 

[LTC8K6]

because this is stock 4.7ghz, not an overclock sir. 5ghz is only the single/dual threaded turbo clock, not the all-core.

Blender allows two cores to run at 5.0? It doesn't run all the cores at the stock turbo speed of 4.7?

I would think that a bench that uses all of the cores would run all of the cores at the stock turbo speed?

We see 100% utilization, 5.0 clock, and a 4.7 cache clock on that XTU screen shot during blender.

 

[LTC8K6]

https://youtu.be/r5Doo-zgyQs enjoy der8auer confirms the heat issues

We'll see.

 

[xisor]

We'll see.

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.

 

[LTC8K6]

watch the video, he's literally breaking down how hes trying to fix it, and how intels solder is garbage and too thick.

He says at stock I will be fine...
You say at stock I need max water cooling...