Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Core i9-10900K 10 Core CPU Is Only Slightly Faster Than AMD’s Ryzen 9 3900X

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Intel Core i9-10900K 10 Core CPU Is Only Slightly Faster Than AMD’s Ryzen 9 3900X

    Intel Core i9-10900K 10 Core CPU Is Only Slightly Faster Than AMD’s Ryzen 9 3900X While Consuming Irresponsible Amounts of Power!

    With all cores loaded up, the Intel Core i9-10900K would break the 300W power barrier

    Intel Core i9-10900K is going to end up consuming as much power as the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X while offering 5% better performance than a Ryzen 9 3900X.
    https://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-1...ryzen-9-3900x/

    #2
    [pats my 3900x] Who's a good boy? Who's a good boy?

    Comment


      #3
      Pointless. Give us real gaming benchmarks not synthetic 3dmark.

      The 3900x has a 2 core advantage to leverage the lower IPC and lower clock speeds. Most games don't care about 10vs12. If anything, it's a win for Intel as they're beating a 12core chip with 10cores in a benchmark that scales well with more cores..

      Though I still think the 3900x is the better chip and the 10900x is going to be a bust. Intel is forcing it out to try and hold over until they figure out how the hell to shrink the node.
      Originally posted by curio
      Eat this protein bar, for it is of my body. And drink this creatine shake, for it is my blood.
      "If you can't handle me when I'm bulking, you don't deserve me when I'm cut." -- Marilyn Monbroe

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Nunz View Post
        Pointless. Give us real gaming benchmarks not synthetic 3dmark.

        The 3900x has a 2 core advantage to leverage the lower IPC and lower clock speeds. Most games don't care about 10vs12. If anything, it's a win for Intel as they're beating a 12core chip with 10cores in a benchmark that scales well with more cores..

        Though I still think the 3900x is the better chip and the 10900x is going to be a bust. Intel is forcing it out to try and hold over until they figure out how the hell to shrink the node.
        How can you use the core difference excuse all while ignoring the Clock Speed differences. 10 cores at higher clock speeds (4.8Mhz base to 5.3Mhz single core boost - 4.9Mhz all core boost), vs 12 cores at lower clock speeds (3.8Mhz base to 4.8 Mhz single core boost - 4.1Mhz all core boost).. 25% base clock speed difference and a 21% all core boost difference, So that completely removes the more core argument.
        Last edited by NWR_Midnight; Feb 6, 2020, 04:14 AM.
        I speak my mind! if you can't handle that, you might want to leave, because **** is going to get real!!

        ~I had the right to remain silent, I just didn't have the ability. ~ Ron White
        ~You can't fix Stupid! ~ Ron White
        ~There's not a pill you can take; there's not a class you can go to. - ~Stupid is forever. ~ Ron White
        ~Life is a hard teacher, it gives you the test before it teaches you the lesson.
        ~It's never to late to have a good childhood! The older you are, the better the toys! ~ My Dad
        ~Live everyday as though it is your last, it can all end at any moment!

        Comment


          #5
          Because the extra cores don't do anything in actual gaming - only synthetic benchmarks. The extra cores will be good for productivity, but I was talking about gaming performance. Intel is getting higher performance with less cores, in a benchmark that scales very well with higher core counts. I'm not ignoring the clock speeds differences, I mentioned it in my post ..

          I think the 4 series Ryzen chips are going to fix the clock speed/IPC deficiency, and that's when Intel is going to really be in trouble.
          Originally posted by curio
          Eat this protein bar, for it is of my body. And drink this creatine shake, for it is my blood.
          "If you can't handle me when I'm bulking, you don't deserve me when I'm cut." -- Marilyn Monbroe

          Comment


            #6
            I find the clockspeeds completely irrelevant. If it's faster, it's faster. Who cares why. Kind of like taking a couple cars to the dragstrip, you "run what you brung".

            It does go to show, as Nunz said, that Intel is in real trouble though when AMD starts increasing their clockspeeds. Should be interesting.

            I'm fairly certain at this point that my latest build is likely my last Intel for a while.

            i9 9900KF/Corsair H100i
            Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Master
            EVGA 3080 FTW3 Ultra
            32GB G.Skill DDR3 3200
            Corsair HX1000W
            Corsair 600T Silver Edition
            Corsair Nightsword Mouse/Logitech G15 Keyboard
            LG CX 48"

            i5 3570k/OEM Cooler
            Asus Sabretooth Z77
            Asus ROG 1080Ti Strix
            16GB G.Skill DDR3 2600
            Corsair CX750M
            Lian Li Lancool II Mesh
            Logtech G703 Mouse/Logitech G915 Keyboard

            Comment


              #7
              I agree, I look at the chip's overall performance for the things I do the most and compare costs.

              12 cores on 7nm is being beaten by 10 cores on 14nm. That's across the board in multithreaded apps and gaming.

              Personally, I don't see more than 8 cores being used for the next 5 years because of the negative influence that consoles have on the PC gaming industry these days and for everything else mainstream...8 cores is overkill.

              This is just a product that is designed to take back that the multi threading crown in this price range.

              AMD will launch 4000 early next year and that is it's last chance to do what the 3000 series should have done last year. Unfortunately for AMD, Intel will also be launching a new product line next year so they will have a limited time at the top of the hill. Which is too bad.

              Comment


                #8
                Last chance, Intel are going to be coming up with the same slower GHz issues with there new 6 year old chips and will be behind there as well with the next AMD 4000 series coming with faster speeds.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Yes, this is AMD's last chance to put out a chip that outperforms Intel by a significant amount before Intel starts to retaliate again. The last handful of AMD architecture's were defeated without Intel releasing anything new at all. Late 2021 will be when Intel begins to release new designs onto the market again. Between now and then, the 4000 series of chips will be AMD's last chance to capitalize on Intel's 10nm blunder.

                  I agree that more cores could lead to lower clock frequencies but it really comes down to what developers want and need from CPU's. More cores won't do anything if they are not supported and they won't be supported until consoles move on. I don't doubt that Intel will struggle with their new design but I also highly doubt that they will release a chip that is slower than the ones they are currently releasing.

                  Intel's chips are about 5% faster out of the box and 20% faster when overclocked. AMD's new 4000 series chips will have a 17% IPC gain which will help them outperform Intel 14nm chips by a little. How much will Intel really need to improve over it's ancient 14nm design in order to come out on top? Probably not that much in my opinion.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Nunz View Post
                    Because the extra cores don't do anything in actual gaming - only synthetic benchmarks. The extra cores will be good for productivity, but I was talking about gaming performance. Intel is getting higher performance with less cores, in a benchmark that scales very well with higher core counts. I'm not ignoring the clock speeds differences, I mentioned it in my post ..

                    I think the 4 series Ryzen chips are going to fix the clock speed/IPC deficiency, and that's when Intel is going to really be in trouble.
                    who cares on most any game at ultra in game settings even at 1080p it is not going to be that much
                    and 1440p and 4k very little

                    and the thing sucks power like a sailor sucking beer after 6 months at sea
                    or like a AMD Vega

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by bill dennison View Post
                      who cares on most any game at ultra in game settings even at 1080p it is not going to be that much
                      It can be for high refresh rate gamers, and at 1080p/1440p that is definitely still a factor.

                      You can look at Gamers Nexus review of the 3900X - the 0.1% lows and 1% lows are significantly worse on the 3900X in the majority of games, not even considering that the average framerate is considerably higher on the 9900K. While I agree that it doesn't matter much at 4K, on my 165Hz 1440P monitor, the difference between my 9900K and a 3900X is noticeable for frametimes and maintaining a steady framerate with a 2080TI. The 10900K in the extreme minority of game engines that leverage more cores (such as Assassin's Creed), and more cores while also running a 5Ghz all-core clock (or even higher, possibly), will increase that gap considerably. From the rumors, the 4 series Ryzen should be increasing IPC another 15-20% along with clock speed increases, so we shall see.

                      At 4K, which I plan to move to at the end of this year, and why I'm likely grabbing a 4xxx Ryzen, I completely agree; the chip doesn't matter.

                      and the thing sucks power like a sailor sucking beer after 6 months at sea
                      or like a AMD Vega
                      I'm not concerned much at all with power draw. It's definitely something to note as power consumption will continue to get worse as Intel forces more cores into a 14nm architecture, but at the end of the day, it's a 14nm chip that is competing and/or outperforming a 7nm part. Concessions have to be made somewhere, and if power draw is where it's at, then fine with me. I have a 1000w PSU that will have no problem with that. Quite frankly, the 3900/3950X is no saint in power consumption either..
                      Originally posted by curio
                      Eat this protein bar, for it is of my body. And drink this creatine shake, for it is my blood.
                      "If you can't handle me when I'm bulking, you don't deserve me when I'm cut." -- Marilyn Monbroe

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Power issues aside, 10 cores faster than AMD 12 cores bodes well for per core performance and in turn gaming.
                        ____________________

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by the_sextein View Post
                          Yes, this is AMD's last chance to put out a chip that outperforms Intel by a significant amount before Intel starts to retaliate again. The last handful of AMD architecture's were defeated without Intel releasing anything new at all. Late 2021 will be when Intel begins to release new designs onto the market again. Between now and then, the 4000 series of chips will be AMD's last chance to capitalize on Intel's 10nm blunder.

                          I agree that more cores could lead to lower clock frequencies but it really comes down to what developers want and need from CPU's. More cores won't do anything if they are not supported and they won't be supported until consoles move on. I don't doubt that Intel will struggle with their new design but I also highly doubt that they will release a chip that is slower than the ones they are currently releasing.

                          Intel's chips are about 5% faster out of the box and 20% faster when overclocked. AMD's new 4000 series chips will have a 17% IPC gain which will help them outperform Intel 14nm chips by a little. How much will Intel really need to improve over it's ancient 14nm design in order to come out on top? Probably not that much in my opinion.
                          Once again your dreaming, intel has done nothing new in what a decade, and like I said their new chips will not be doing 5.2ghz.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Nascar24 View Post
                            Once again your dreaming, intel has done nothing new in what a decade, and like I said their new chips will not be doing 5.2ghz.
                            Why don't you think that? The 10920X is a 12core part that seems to be regularly hitting 4.8-5Ghz all-core. The 10900K with less cores, dual-channel instead of quad-channel, and not having to deal with mesh frequencies makes it reasonable to assume it will clock better than the 10920X.

                            Good cooling will be a major factor, but I think you'll see 5Ghz all-core and higher much more frequently than you think. Just at 5Ghz the performance uplift will be substantial, then the better chips hitting the 5.1-5.2 range..
                            Originally posted by curio
                            Eat this protein bar, for it is of my body. And drink this creatine shake, for it is my blood.
                            "If you can't handle me when I'm bulking, you don't deserve me when I'm cut." -- Marilyn Monbroe

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Nunz View Post
                              Why don't you think that? The 10920X is a 12core part that seems to be regularly hitting 4.8-5Ghz all-core. The 10900K with less cores, dual-channel instead of quad-channel, and not having to deal with mesh frequencies makes it reasonable to assume it will clock better than the 10920X.

                              Good cooling will be a major factor, but I think you'll see 5Ghz all-core and higher much more frequently than you think. Just at 5Ghz the performance uplift will be substantial, then the better chips hitting the 5.1-5.2 range..
                              https://www.pcworld.com/article/3431...-disaster.html

                              Its the nature of the beast until years and years of maturing.

                              How long has it taken Intel to get the 14+++++++++ up this high? A long time.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Originally posted by Nascar24 View Post
                                https://www.pcworld.com/article/3431...-disaster.html

                                Its the nature of the beast until years and years of maturing.

                                How long has it taken Intel to get the 14+++++++++ up this high? A long time.
                                Huh? Not sure you read through that link, but it's not talking about mainstream desktop processors. Those are Intel's U series chips that are actual 10nm chips that are running lower frequencies because of Intel's struggle with the fab process. The link basically says that the reason the clock speeds are dropping on those chips is because of Intel shifting to 10nm. The 10900K is a 14nm part, and that's part of the reason why 5Ghz+ all core is likely. Larger die is sort of an advantage in that there is more surface area to dissipate the heat. Larger IHS helps to a point but it can only do so much as the die can only transfer so much heat.

                                Unless you're talking about the chips Intel will be putting out once they transition to 7nm on all their chips. In that case, yes I agree. The die is getting too small to push higher voltage, and it's not correlating directly in IPC gain. For a while, I really don't see why everyone wants to rush into smaller architectures. 7nm should probably have been held off on for another year before we seen consumer applicable products.
                                Last edited by Nunz; Feb 6, 2020, 05:19 PM.
                                Originally posted by curio
                                Eat this protein bar, for it is of my body. And drink this creatine shake, for it is my blood.
                                "If you can't handle me when I'm bulking, you don't deserve me when I'm cut." -- Marilyn Monbroe

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by Nunz View Post
                                  Huh? Not sure you read through that link, but it's not talking about mainstream desktop processors. Those are Intel's U series chips that are actual 10nm chips that are running lower frequencies because of Intel's struggle with the fab process. The link basically says that the reason the clock speeds are dropping on those chips is because of Intel shifting to 10nm. The 10900K is a 14nm part, and that's part of the reason why 5Ghz+ all core is likely. Larger die is sort of an advantage in that there is more surface area to dissipate the heat. Larger IHS helps to a point but it can only do so much as the die can only transfer so much heat.

                                  Unless you're talking about the chips Intel will be putting out once they transition to 7nm on all their chips. In that case, yes I agree. The die is getting too small to push higher voltage, and it's not correlating directly in IPC gain. For a while, I really don't see why everyone wants to rush into smaller architectures. 7nm should probably have been held off on for another year before we seen consumer applicable products.
                                  Yes, I’m talking about the new process, I’ve left the old process behind myself, it’s been time for Intel to move on for over 5 years now, I have no interest in anything new from Intel on this old process and when intel puts out something new they are going to be behind the curve right out of the box, I really have no idea what the_sextien is talking about when he states this is AMD’s last chance. It’s only going to keep getting better from here for AMD at least with this current design.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    As I said, it's AMD's last chance to capitalize on having no competition. They can release a new series of chips and Intel will not be able to counter it until much later in the year. After that you will see the usual back and forth.

                                    I won't pretend to know what Intel it going to do because none of us do. If they focus on a higher core count processor with lower frequencies that is fine but it will need a much higher IPC in order to deliver the goods. Right now they have a similar IPC with higher core clocks. I could see them going in either direction or perhaps they will strike more of a balance between the two. If you think Intel's next generation is going to be slower than their current one then I think you are mistaken. It could have lower core clocks sure, but it will have to be a faster design with overall faster performance or they wouldn't bother to release it. Given the amount of investment and the amount of money they are making in combination with the people they have employed there, I'm willing to bet they will deliver rather than sit around for another 10 years. I suppose they could just roll over and die because of the big bad AMD but I doubt it considering the above.

                                    AMD's current chips are still behind Intel's old stuff and the 4000 has a good shot at changing that but by how much? AMD has had a tough time competing with Intel's old stuff and you can bet Intel's new stuff will be even better so it goes to figure that things will get interesting next year.
                                    Last edited by the_sextein; Feb 6, 2020, 08:07 PM.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Also of note, AMD is at 4.3Ghz right now and with a more mature process I could see them getting away with even higher clocks at the start of next year. Cluster designs with cores hitting 5ghz really aren't that far off.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by the_sextein View Post
                                        As I said, it's AMD's last chance to capitalize on having no competition. They can release a new series of chips and Intel will not be able to counter it until much later in the year. After that you will see the usual back and forth.

                                        I won't pretend to know what Intel it going to do because none of us do. If they focus on a higher core count processor with lower frequencies that is fine but it will need a much higher IPC in order to deliver the goods. Right now they have a similar IPC with higher core clocks. I could see them going in either direction or perhaps they will strike more of a balance between the two. If you think Intel's next generation is going to be slower than their current one then I think you are mistaken. It could have lower core clocks sure, but it will have to be a faster design with overall faster performance or they wouldn't bother to release it. Given the amount of investment and the amount of money they are making in combination with the people they have employed there, I'm willing to bet they will deliver rather than sit around for another 10 years. I suppose they could just roll over and die because of the big bad AMD but I doubt it considering the above.

                                        AMD's current chips are still behind Intel's old stuff and the 4000 has a good shot at changing that but by how much? AMD has had a tough time competing with Intel's old stuff and you can bet Intel's new stuff will be even better so it goes to figure that things will get interesting next year.
                                        Incorrect, The AMD chips are not behind the old Intel chips, they are behind in Ghz is all because it is not mature yet. Intel will have the same problems with their new chips. You can have the power hog oven Intel is putting out right now to try and stay competitive.

                                        Comment


                                          #21


                                          https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/co...t-that-up.html

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            Originally posted by Nascar24 View Post
                                            Incorrect, The AMD chips are not behind the old Intel chips, they are behind in Ghz is all because it is not mature yet. Intel will have the same problems with their new chips. You can have the power hog oven Intel is putting out right now to try and stay competitive.
                                            And if Intel does have problems with their new chips you won't see me telling people that it's incorrect that AMD has a faster processor because Intel's Ghz just aren't mature yet. lol.

                                            The 9900K was over a year old and went up against the 3900X and beat it in single core aspects which make up 90% of the mainstream content. The 3900X beat the I9 9900K at multi threading due to it's extra cores.

                                            If the 10900X is meant to compete at the $500 price point level then it would clearly win in both single thread and multi thread performance and they will maintain that lead until next year when AMD brings new chips to the party. This will knock the 9900K price point down and obliterate AMD's lineup. AMD can keep pushing it's server chips down into the mainstream until their is no HEXT market left but it won't change the fact that Intel's 6 year old 14nm chips are performing faster with less cores and the mainstream has no use for 24 core chips for the better part of a decade.

                                            If the PlayStation 5 uses more power and produces more heat than the PlayStation 4 guess how many people will care? You plug it in and have fun, the performance is what I'm paying for. Heat and power might come into play if you are overclocking but right now AMD's chips don't OC worth a crap.

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              Originally posted by the_sextein View Post
                                              And if Intel does have problems with their new chips you won't see me telling people that it's incorrect that AMD has a faster processor because Intel's Ghz just aren't mature yet. lol.

                                              The 9900K was over a year old and went up against the 3900X and beat it in single core aspects which make up 90% of the mainstream content. The 3900X beat the I9 9900K at multi threading due to it's extra cores.

                                              If the 10900X is meant to compete at the $500 price point level then it would clearly win in both single thread and multi thread performance and they will maintain that lead until next year when AMD brings new chips to the party. This will knock the 9900K price point down and obliterate AMD's lineup. AMD can keep pushing it's server chips down into the mainstream until their is no HEXT market left but it won't change the fact that Intel's 6 year old 14nm chips are performing faster with less cores and the mainstream has no use for 24 core chips for the better part of a decade.

                                              If the PlayStation 5 uses more power and produces more heat than the PlayStation 4 guess how many people will care? You plug it in and have fun, the performance is what I'm paying for. Heat and power might come into play if you are overclocking but right now AMD's chips don't OC worth a crap.
                                              Enjoy your oven! maybe cook a steak on it

                                              I do, I felt enough heat from my dam 6600K in the summer. Really don't need a heater at that time of the year.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                I don't have any heat issues with the 9900K even with an all core 5ghz OC with no AVX offset. The hottest I've seen it get is upper 70's on Cinebench. It stays between 58C and 62C when I game and idles at 28C. I'm not using a custom cooling loop anymore either, just an AIO from Corsair.
                                                Last edited by the_sextein; Feb 7, 2020, 04:44 PM.

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  I'm having no issues with my 9900K at stock clocks with an 8yr old H100i. I never see more than 65-68C during games. It sits at 4.8Ghz all cores 100% of the time. I thought it would be a huge deal too, but for gaming...I'm not seeing much of a difference from my old i5 3570k as far as inconvenience or a hot running chip.

                                                  i9 9900KF/Corsair H100i
                                                  Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Master
                                                  EVGA 3080 FTW3 Ultra
                                                  32GB G.Skill DDR3 3200
                                                  Corsair HX1000W
                                                  Corsair 600T Silver Edition
                                                  Corsair Nightsword Mouse/Logitech G15 Keyboard
                                                  LG CX 48"

                                                  i5 3570k/OEM Cooler
                                                  Asus Sabretooth Z77
                                                  Asus ROG 1080Ti Strix
                                                  16GB G.Skill DDR3 2600
                                                  Corsair CX750M
                                                  Lian Li Lancool II Mesh
                                                  Logtech G703 Mouse/Logitech G915 Keyboard

                                                  Comment


                                                    #26
                                                    I think those that have high temps are the ones that leave the Vcore on auto (which over-volts the CPU). My brother has a 7700K at stock clocks but I disabled auto Vcore and set a fixed Vcore well under what the auto Vcore was setting the voltage to. Temps are good.
                                                    Intel Core i7-3930K | Corsair Hydro Series H100i PRO | GIGABYTE GA-X79-UD3 | 16 GB Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR3 2133 MHz | EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti FTW3 GAMING | Creative Sound Blaster AE-9 | Crucial m4 256 GB | Western Digital Caviar Black 2 TB | Pioneer BDR-206DBK | EVGA SuperNOVA 850 P2 | Corsair Obsidian Series 650D | ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | 2 x JBL LSR305 + 1 x JBL LSR310S | Microsoft SideWinder X4 | Logitech G PRO X SUPERLIGHT | SteelSeries QcK mini | Microsoft Windows 10 Pro 64-bit

                                                    Comment


                                                      #27
                                                      Originally posted by Kain View Post
                                                      I think those that have high temps are the ones that leave the Vcore on auto (which over-volts the CPU). My brother has a 7700K at stock clocks but I disabled auto Vcore and set a fixed Vcore well under what the auto Vcore was setting the voltage to. Temps are good.
                                                      Mine is on auto.

                                                      I literally put the hardware together and went straight to gaming. I did try undervolting just a tiny bit once, but it blue screened as soon as I ran Prime95. It wasn't playing nice just from the one change, but I haven't tried anything else.

                                                      i9 9900KF/Corsair H100i
                                                      Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Master
                                                      EVGA 3080 FTW3 Ultra
                                                      32GB G.Skill DDR3 3200
                                                      Corsair HX1000W
                                                      Corsair 600T Silver Edition
                                                      Corsair Nightsword Mouse/Logitech G15 Keyboard
                                                      LG CX 48"

                                                      i5 3570k/OEM Cooler
                                                      Asus Sabretooth Z77
                                                      Asus ROG 1080Ti Strix
                                                      16GB G.Skill DDR3 2600
                                                      Corsair CX750M
                                                      Lian Li Lancool II Mesh
                                                      Logtech G703 Mouse/Logitech G915 Keyboard

                                                      Comment


                                                        #28
                                                        That's because all you're doing is Gaming, if you use anything that used AVX instructions heavily you'd get a small furnace, if you used Prime95 and small FFT then you'd have your own chernobyl.

                                                        Fortunately Gaming is less intensive.
                                                        Fantards the scourge of the universe:

                                                        Comment


                                                          #29

                                                          Comment


                                                            #30
                                                            For me, worst case scenario would be if I was rendering 3D art and an image series kicked my GPU's out due to a lack of video RAM. That will push the render onto the CPU. 100% AVX load on all 16 cores for 15 hours straight. Temps hit 79C.

                                                            Cinebench R20 is AVX enabled and results are 78C so it's a pretty accurate representation of real world use. Aida 64 AVX test for hours results in a cpu temp of 71C but a few individual cores hit 82C spikes here and there. Encoding a 4K h.264 video clip for 10 minutes resulted in a 75C temp. Gaming fluctuates between 58C and 62C depending on the game.

                                                            Temps really aren't a problem unless you are running prime 95. Prime 95 is not supposed to be indicative of temperatures. It's meant to stress your system for voltage stability problems. I ran it to make sure my overclocks were stable but yes, my temps do hit 90C with prime 95. Judging by the AMD owners thread I would say my temps are similar if not better than what AMD owners are getting. Probably because the CPU doesn't require 1.4 or 1.5 vcore. My motherboard is nice and cool as well, no problems to speak of after 1.5 years of ownership. Pictures of proof are in the 9900K build thread.

                                                            I have found that the key to cool operation is keeping your Load line level as low as possible and tweaking the vcore to the minimum as well. My first mobo had more v droop which resulted in a higher load line level but I sold that board with my cooling loop since it had a built in liquid cooling block for the northbridge. My new board is more efficient and temps are noticeably better. Temps were not a problem on either board though. Pushing 5Ghz on all cores all the time. If my CPU were not overclocked temps would be even better.
                                                            Last edited by the_sextein; Feb 9, 2020, 11:58 AM.

                                                            Comment


                                                              #31
                                                              Originally posted by bill dennison View Post
                                                              https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...JXcFRZGtltL1Bc

                                                              Comment


                                                                #32
                                                                Intel cpu designer

                                                                [yt]bT8CRi9k4bo[/yt]

                                                                Comment


                                                                  #33
                                                                  You won't get any argument from me regarding the HEXT platform. AMD has been dominating there since the 3000 series released. This thread was about the 10900K though which offers quad channel RAM, more PCIE lanes and faster performance than the 3900X hands down. It looks like Intel will continue to dominate the mainstream sector until the launch of the 4000 series. Being that none of us are running servers in our homes and the title of this thread, it seems irrelevant to the conversation.
                                                                  Last edited by the_sextein; Feb 9, 2020, 05:30 PM.

                                                                  Comment


                                                                    #34
                                                                    Originally posted by the_sextein View Post
                                                                    You won't get any argument from me regarding the HEXT platform. AMD has been dominating there since the 3000 series released. This thread was about the 10900K though which offers quad channel RAM, more PCIE lanes and faster performance than the 3900X hands down. It looks like Intel will continue to dominate the mainstream sector until the launch of the 4000 series. Being that none of us are running servers in our homes and the title of this thread, it seems irrelevant to the conversation.
                                                                    What? Intel hasn't been dominating except in the pre-built sector, so I am not sure where you get "will continue to dominate in the mainstream sector"

                                                                    [Yt]l3Z7SG3R-A0[/yt]
                                                                    I speak my mind! if you can't handle that, you might want to leave, because **** is going to get real!!

                                                                    ~I had the right to remain silent, I just didn't have the ability. ~ Ron White
                                                                    ~You can't fix Stupid! ~ Ron White
                                                                    ~There's not a pill you can take; there's not a class you can go to. - ~Stupid is forever. ~ Ron White
                                                                    ~Life is a hard teacher, it gives you the test before it teaches you the lesson.
                                                                    ~It's never to late to have a good childhood! The older you are, the better the toys! ~ My Dad
                                                                    ~Live everyday as though it is your last, it can all end at any moment!

                                                                    Comment


                                                                      #35
                                                                      I was talking about performance, not sales.

                                                                      Comment


                                                                        #36
                                                                        Originally posted by the_sextein View Post
                                                                        I was talking about performance, not sales.
                                                                        Performance as in speed, Ok, we can give you that. Performance on power consumption and heat, nope. Considering that for a lot of people, performance goes hand in hand with power consumption and heat, I wouldn't say they are dominating. But that is just an objective opinion.
                                                                        I speak my mind! if you can't handle that, you might want to leave, because **** is going to get real!!

                                                                        ~I had the right to remain silent, I just didn't have the ability. ~ Ron White
                                                                        ~You can't fix Stupid! ~ Ron White
                                                                        ~There's not a pill you can take; there's not a class you can go to. - ~Stupid is forever. ~ Ron White
                                                                        ~Life is a hard teacher, it gives you the test before it teaches you the lesson.
                                                                        ~It's never to late to have a good childhood! The older you are, the better the toys! ~ My Dad
                                                                        ~Live everyday as though it is your last, it can all end at any moment!

                                                                        Comment


                                                                          #37
                                                                          It's become abundantly clear that certain people are shills that are deeply invested in AMD stock. I don't care about any of that. I'm a fan of tech. Predominantly in tech that I can personally use which limits my interests to the mainstream sector. It's unfortunate how people's greed ruined the GPU market with bit coin and else ware. I have nothing to do with any of it and frankly, don't care about sales or the HEXT market, mining or which company is winning. I couldn't care less what corporations are investing in. I'm just a home computer user that wants to the most performance for my dollar. Since I'm not running a server farm I really don't care if my CPU has 60watts more power draw, it means nothing to the average user. If AMD makes a better chip when the 4000 series comes out, I will state that it is the better chip and argue with people who post trash for their own benefit.

                                                                          Comment


                                                                            #38
                                                                            I really don't care if my CPU has 60watts more power draw, it means nothing to the average user
                                                                            Have to agree with Sextein here. When trying to decide which CPU I wanted for my upgrade I just did, I went over power consumption and heat over and over.

                                                                            Once I installed the chip and started using it every day...man, it doesn't matter one bit. I don't notice a single difference from my lowly i5 3570k. I just use the thing and it works. I'm in a smallish office space and there isn't really a noticeable amount of heat difference.

                                                                            I thought it would be a big deal too. In the real world, it's just pretty irrelevant. I just use the thing and don't notice it.

                                                                            i9 9900KF/Corsair H100i
                                                                            Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Master
                                                                            EVGA 3080 FTW3 Ultra
                                                                            32GB G.Skill DDR3 3200
                                                                            Corsair HX1000W
                                                                            Corsair 600T Silver Edition
                                                                            Corsair Nightsword Mouse/Logitech G15 Keyboard
                                                                            LG CX 48"

                                                                            i5 3570k/OEM Cooler
                                                                            Asus Sabretooth Z77
                                                                            Asus ROG 1080Ti Strix
                                                                            16GB G.Skill DDR3 2600
                                                                            Corsair CX750M
                                                                            Lian Li Lancool II Mesh
                                                                            Logtech G703 Mouse/Logitech G915 Keyboard

                                                                            Comment


                                                                              #39
                                                                              Same with my 9900k.

                                                                              Let them hate.

                                                                              I'm at 5GHz on all cores and it runs fine.

                                                                              Comment


                                                                                #40
                                                                                Tech is exactly why I went with AMD, intel hasn’t done anything new in a decade and I run at 4K, the difference in performance is negligible. I didn’t want another half baked 14++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ intel part

                                                                                Comment

                                                                                Working...
                                                                                X