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?
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 will have to see if I can go home and try more testing, Right now it runs 24/7@100% with a 1080TI@100%That is system power consumption though, not CPU power alone. How are you measuring your 2990WX?
What are people complaining about then? Because it uses more power when overclocked?For those complaining about the power consumption...
9900K @ 4.7GHz = 2700X @ 4.2GHz
Because even a Noctua D15 can't really keep it cool enough at stock speeds...What are people complaining about then? Because it uses more power when overclocked?
Same for the 2700x correct? I'm mean its a 3 watt difference.Because even a Noctua D15 can't really keep it cool enough at stock speeds...
I'm not sure anymore. 9900K numbers seem to vary a lot.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
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.
Looks like the 9700k is the one to get, all things considered.
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 nowSame 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
Yeah.. tough choice.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..
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
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.
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!
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.
So I'm guessing a typical gaming workload would be even less power correct?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:
Correct, it's basically the same as a 8700K:So I'm guessing a typical gaming workload would be even less power correct?
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
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
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.