Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jan 10, 2020.
Intel is ironically drowning in all the Lakes they made.
That's a gold comment! LOL
Not too surprising. They're including two more cores while upping the turbo clocks, and they're using the same 14nm node. Intel may be engineering wizards but this is too much even for them.
Intel will never allow it. They use the base clock for the TDP while promoting the turbo clock for their CPUs. If they had to list the max or typical TDP (like AMD does) then their CPUs would seem wildly inefficient.
Intel should just stop chasing the Ghz game and focus how they can be more efficient. The 14nm node is really biting them hard atm.
Honestly using TDP to compare products of any kind is pointless. Gamers Nexus had an excellent video on it - AMD's TDP number doesn't even use electrical power as part of the calculation
Oh snap, i guess does high frequencies come at a cost.
Nonetheless a brown trouser moment, yes xD
Can I get a link to that video if you have one? Not trying to argue with you. I'm just interested in seeing it.
Tomshardware has an obvious anti-AMD bias and always has. However, we must be looking at completely different reviews since the one I'm looking at shows the 3700X consuming 82-123watts. In fact, below are all of the power consumption charts from the 3700X review over at Tomshardware.... They didn't even make it half way to 300watts...
I'm not at home so I can't link you my screenshot of yesterday but here's what an actual owner of both a 9900k and 3960x TR can tell you
1) processors advertised TDP are fantasy if you even mention them anything else you write becomes worthless
2) don't mix total system power with cpu package power, two very different things
3) my email@example.comGhz 1.36v used around 180watts alone, total system power while stress-testing maxing cpu and gpu (1080ti) around 600watts
4) a 9900k downclocked to 4.2Ghz used 60watts instead in the same test !!!
5) a TR 3960x 24 cores 100% stock used 287watts ALONE, total system power while stress-testing maxing cpu and gpu (1080ti) 770-840watts !!! (I had a 850watt psu for the 9900k I bought a 1200watts for the TR)
6) my 9900k cpu package at idle used like 20watts, the TR uses like 80watts (simply surfing the web my psu reports 250watts on the amd build which is enough to activate the psu fan, something I never had on the intel)
7) the noctua double fan tr4 is rated 180watts the bequiet dark rock pro tr4 is rated 250watts, both are already insufficient for the base 24 cores TR, needless to say you can FORGET using them on a 64 cores 3990x unless you think it's ok to have a 2400rpm fan running full speed in a 5-10k desktop computer, I'm not
8) AIOs are the same, none is rated for 287+ watts so none of them are good for TR4
9) open bench review build temperatures do not represent a real-life closed case
10) a fully populated 3 M.2 +6 sata drives all memory slots occupied etc... TRX40 motherboard generates a ton more heat inside your case than a "gamer" setup like my Z390 9900k, there's a reason why AMD put fans on the chipset, my PCH is at 60°C most of the time and I have 8-10 case fans
Being simply "ok" and being "good" or even "adequate" and working in a reliable and acceptable way with no throttling are two different things
I was "ok" using with a H115i rgb platinum aio I can encode videos for 8hrs and the cpu temp won't go above 90°C but with maxed fans and pump and more importantly yes of course the cpu clock went down to like 4.0Ghz I didn't really check frankly staying close to a full fans machine encoding all day long isn't a pleasant experience.
So....I ordered custom loop parts, rebuilding my AMD case this weekend I could buy a 32 cores but didn't because I guessed the 24 cores would already be a nuclear reactor and I was right.
I can run Kombustor stress test while doing cinebenchR20 runs without the computer crashing (no way with the 9900k) and I still managed to have 12k score lol oh yeah I was surfing the web at the same time rofl threadripper is fun ^^
I can confirm that, that is true!
I've had terrible experience on tomshardware forum, only because of being "AMD fanboy". 13 years ago, there was only 2 of us (that's joke of course, but it wasn't far from that)
To be fair a firstname.lastname@example.orgGhz 1.36v at 180Watts is Silicon lottery top specs and your CPU i better then a lot of 9900ks CPU´es you can buy today.
Gamers Nexus meassures 200W on the 12V power cables with a stock but unlimited 9900ks.
In my opinion a comparison with your CPU is somewhat not indicative with "normal" parts and if a similar 9900k is sold today, it would be branded 9900ks.
I'm just curious if the remaining small number of Intel hardcore fans will admit Intel has made the egg-frying CPUs like AMD with the FX (tbh, this was already true for Coffee Lake i7).
I don't think there has been in the last 10 years a Dead-on-Arrival CPU like this one...
Even FX cpu's, as inefficient as they were, brought more cores (but unfortunately software at the time was way behind the multi-core revolution).
But these "10th gen" 10-cores are completely obsoleted by a product that launched 6 months ago (3900X)
What Intel should do is accept defeat on this front, reduce prices on their 9th gen to get parity (so 9900K would be at the price level of 3800K, so ~$380) and they will sell decently well !
And then focus all efforts and investments on the new architecture and their 7nm process (or whatever will get them to cut power in half)
This 300W monstrosity has no place on the market, just like AMD's FX 9590 which should not have existed.
^ Couldn't agree more mate. I think Intel are going all Pentium 4 on us again
Would be interesting if you could let us know how the custom CPU block and loop compare to the AIO you were previously using - especially using a new Threadripper. Most AIO CPU block cooling fins (the critical component) don't cover the full CPU (irrespective of the block plate), however custom Threadripper CPU blocks are supposed to have full cooling fin coverage e.g. Heatkiller IV PRO, XSPC Raystorm NEO, EK, etc etc
Are you dumb? They don't pull 300W+. I own both a Gigabyte X570 Aorus Xtreme with the 3900X and Gigabyte X570 Master + 3700X. the most I've ever pulled with per CCX OC was 240W on the 3900X. Stop trying to deny that this 12C/24T CPU is more efficient than Intel's garbage lately. I've owned 2x 9900K's for the record and they routinely pulled ~250-300W overclocked. Stock my 9900K could pull 200W while my 3900X will only hit 150-170W stock.
Pictures proving the above.
9900K was paired to an Asus Z390 Maximus XI Extreme, Bitspower Monoblock, Alphacool Nexxos 480mm *60mm rad in push / pull with Corsair ML120mm fans at 1900RPM, Aquacomputer D5 Next pump
3900X is paired to a Gigabyte X570 Aorus Xtreme, EK Velocity block, HW Labs GTS 360mm *30mm radiator in push only, Lian Li Borla BR Digital fans at 1700RPM, Aquacomputer D5 Next pump
Temps on my 3900X will drop another 5-6C once I get my Optimus Foundation block since it's the only one designed properly for Ryzen 3000
Now they're about to tip over the Cove!
Optimus makes the best CPU blocks for AMD, they're a new company based out of Chicago but they're products are game changing vs the crap EK has been making lately. I should know since I own 7-8 EK blocks.
Here's their website: https://optimuspc.com/
Their claims are accurate, no nonsense functionality first really is game changing.
How when I've never managed to hit even 300W with my 3900X with stupid amounts of voltage and current running through it when OC'd? That's absolutely made up BS.
Edit: I just ran Cinebench R15 multithread with the 3900X set with PBO and it peaked at 130W according to Ryzen Master.
300W draw on the just the CPU, at stock, would be more than a problem. It'd be your PC overheating until it ionizes the gasses around it, collapses into a star, then goes mini nova. I want whatever mushrooms you're on, don't be greedy and share.
Or Greed Lake where they've been bathing for years ...
Like someone said Intel was killed in 2019.
I would still buy a cheap 9900K just for the fun of making a hackintosh machine with a VEGA64 that I have. I'll just wait for prices to be slashed again wtih Ryzen 4xxx then I will get it for ~ 200-250.