Intel Core i9-10900K spotted overclocked at 5.4 GHz, incl Cinebench CB15 score

Core i9 offers the best quality for overclocking but needs a lot of power
MSI has discussed the quality of the Intel Comet Lake-S processors during their ‘MSI Insider’ live stream.

Up to 27% of the samples tested by MSI were offering more overclocking headroom. After all, these are the full die SKUs, with all 10 cores enable. Some, however, may have integrated graphics disabled (the F series), but they were grouped together by MSI.

https://videocardz.com/newz/msi-discusses-intel-comet-lake-s-processors-binning-and-overclockability

 

This could be a sub zero liquid chiller cooling this thing with -20c liquid.

Don't shoot the messenger but someone at wccftech forum said they translated the chinese leaks and actually have pics of (a) chiller in the forum there.

The could be trolling for sure but i say wait until reputable sites benchmark it.

Edit : Hmm had a look at his link , https://tieba.baidu.com/p/6662363446?pid=131987095399 translated it using google translate and its not proof it used a chiller from what i can read from the translation, certainly talk of it but not proof .

Anyway take it with a large grain of salt i say.

 

Confirm by the top overclockers , 1HP huge water chiller was used to get this score , you can tell by looking at the benchmate min/max core temp ,* Min temperature reported are 0 degrees

 

Well of course this is not doing 5.4ghz with a simple noctua dh15 air cooler. We all agree on that right?
If it did, it would be sold for 5.2ghz all cores rather than 5.3 thermal boost.

 

I used to run a chiller -30c methanol/glycol/water mix on a converted air conditioner chiller - i had 5.4 ghz back in the sandy bridge days lol . My old system here https://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showthread.php?t=363597 , broke a 3dmark world record at one point . Days when i had more time. I used a chill box , eg no needed insulation as you have your components in a airtight box.

This same chip would likely do 5.2 ghz on all cores anyway at normal watercooled temps but hey anything for a good benchmark !!

 

Look at the max temp though 62c ? , if thats -20c chilled liquid and they are up to 62c under load my goodness . Something like an 82c delta , normal watercooling on these chips i think is going to tap out at 5.1 - 5.2 ghz

Just looked it up , in 2012 i had 5.4 GHZ on a 2700K (HT off) - max temp 17-30c (liquid -30c) almost seems like clock speeds have moved nowhere in 8 years lol . Chips have got wider for sure and some minimal IPC gains for intel but yeah clock speed has hit the wall.

 

that's what 3000x threadripper generate (287w stock 347+w oc) and I can answer that for you, you have to go custom loop
- there's no air cooler for them, noctua were made for prev.gen. and are officially rated 150-180Watts bequiet dark rock pro tr4 same thing 180W TDP, the cpu is 280W TDP (funny how "tdp matters" people forget that when they complain about intel and noctua)
- I tried AIOs they do better until they don't anymore because unlike Intel which have ultra good idle management, amd TR are always hot at idle (unless you underclock undervolt them) and this means the liquid never cools down, AIOs are over-worked the liquid will have 35-37-38°C and the rad itself will stay hot all the time not doing a great job at cooling anymore after a few hours it also means the rad fans will push noticeably hot air in your room nonstop when if your liquid temps is at 30-32° you barely notice a difference in room temp
- I ended up building my 1st custom loop, not by choice, at those power stages I recommend at least a 360x55 or 60mm thick rad or two 360 rads, not necessary for short usage but if you use the cpu for hours, you need that to have acceptable cpu,liquid temps without having the fans at 100% 35°C liquid temp for me is the threshold after which you need to raise fan rpms

you can listen to my advice and get 70°C for 14'000 cinebenchR20 score with acceptable noise or don't and have 90°C with noisy fans and a room at 28°C when it's -3°C I've experienced both

p.s.
had perfectly fine temps on a 9900k@5.0Ghz around 65-70°C with an AIO
I find it very suspicious that sites keep pushing benchmarks of 9900k @5.1Ghz when they all know it's too much, GN for example has that in all of his latest benchmarks but if you google you'll find they said several times that 5.1 was too much for the silicon (+10-15°C and 60Watts more for 100Mhz shouldn't be used in any comparisons it's like driving a car 5000rpm car at 7000rpm and complaining about engine heat)
, they are manipulating results to make Intel look bad, where are their 4.6Ghz all cores numbers for AMD ? no ? that's dumb ? yes it is...

 

Is not that anyone wants to have intel looks bad, when you compare intel stock with amd stock, people start to say: `but intel strength is also in overclock headroom` and this how you get to 5.1Ghz all cores benchmarks as a general reference point.

Amd can't basically do 4.6ghz all core, that is why you do not see it.

 

addon to my previous post talking about 300Watts cooling and or any of my complaints about AMD idle/clock/power management

and that's my current downgraded cooling all out QL rgb fans build (yep thats with QL fans on the rad, pretty much the worst rated radiator fans) and single rad
last month I had dual 360mm rads and high static pressure silent wings 3 high-speed it cooled even better but fans made an annoying noise, QLs push almost no air but the don't "whine" like other fans do even at 1000+rpm
this build at 900rpm (10 fans) makes less noise than a single HDD I found I enjoyed that more than -10°C cpu temp

 

This is the product of binning MANY Patriot Viper 4400c19 kits with Asus z390 Apex xi and 8086 cpu (epic imc):

Norway is ready for Asus z490 Apex xii and 10900k

 

You're talking about a single chip at the bleeding edge of the high tier. What i'm more interested in is how well something like the i5-10600K with 6 cores, 12 threads will overclock. Base frequency 4.1ghz and turbo frequency at 4.8ghz. If it overclocks real good, i'd wager it would be a better gaming CPU than the 10700k or 10900k. With an MSRP of $260 for the 10600K, i know it will be available for quite a bit less at my local Microcenter plus another $30 off when bought with a z490 motherboard... i think i'm going to finally upgrade.