- May 16, 2002
- 25,542
- 14,496
- 136
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review
Reading it now
Edit:
221 watts power ! --- old number, but depending on the motherboard and bios, it can still do this
160 watts later revised number
Conclusion:
"The outlandish flash of the cash goes on the Core i9-9900K. The smart money ends up on the 9700K, 9600K, or the 2700X. For the select few, money is no object. For the rest of us, especially when gaming at 1440p and higher settings where the GPU is the bigger bottleneck, there are plenty of processors that do just fine, and are a bit lighter on the power bill in the process."
The one thing that I take exception to ? on the tests they compare to a 1920x@799, when newegg (and others) have a 1950X $680 and still call it 95w.
Edit: What HSF did Anandtech use ?
And $580 and OOS at newegg
And Tomshardare: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-9900k-9th-gen-cpu,5847.html
And from Toms:
"We tapped Corsair's H115i v2 to test our Core i9-9900K sample in the U.S. lab. This liquid cooler afforded enough headroom to sustain a 5.0 GHz overclock with a 1.33V Vcore and a Load Line Calibration 4 setting. It kept the chip at a steady 85°C during extended non-AVX stress tests. Folding in AVX instructions did, unfortunately, overwhelm the all-in-one. To reign in the thermal output, we set the AVX offset to -2, meaning the chip ran at 4.8 GHz during AVX-optimized workloads and 5.0 GHz in the absence of AVX instructions. We maintained a temperature of 95°C during three hours of Prime95 using those settings.
To model real-world settings attainable by enthusiasts with closed-loop liquid coolers, we applied the -2 AVX offset for our 5.0 GHz overclock in the gaming, office and productivity, and rendering tests."
Reading it now
Edit:
221 watts power ! --- old number, but depending on the motherboard and bios, it can still do this
160 watts later revised number
Conclusion:
"The outlandish flash of the cash goes on the Core i9-9900K. The smart money ends up on the 9700K, 9600K, or the 2700X. For the select few, money is no object. For the rest of us, especially when gaming at 1440p and higher settings where the GPU is the bigger bottleneck, there are plenty of processors that do just fine, and are a bit lighter on the power bill in the process."
The one thing that I take exception to ? on the tests they compare to a 1920x@799, when newegg (and others) have a 1950X $680 and still call it 95w.
Edit: What HSF did Anandtech use ?
And $580 and OOS at newegg
And Tomshardare: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-9900k-9th-gen-cpu,5847.html
And from Toms:
"We tapped Corsair's H115i v2 to test our Core i9-9900K sample in the U.S. lab. This liquid cooler afforded enough headroom to sustain a 5.0 GHz overclock with a 1.33V Vcore and a Load Line Calibration 4 setting. It kept the chip at a steady 85°C during extended non-AVX stress tests. Folding in AVX instructions did, unfortunately, overwhelm the all-in-one. To reign in the thermal output, we set the AVX offset to -2, meaning the chip ran at 4.8 GHz during AVX-optimized workloads and 5.0 GHz in the absence of AVX instructions. We maintained a temperature of 95°C during three hours of Prime95 using those settings.
To model real-world settings attainable by enthusiasts with closed-loop liquid coolers, we applied the -2 AVX offset for our 5.0 GHz overclock in the gaming, office and productivity, and rendering tests."
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter