Friday, December 27th 2019

Intel Enthusiast-Grade K Processors in the Comet Lake-S Family Rumored to Feature 125 W TDP

This piece of news shouldn't surprise anyone, except for the fact that Intel is apparently signing on a TDP of 125 W for even its K-series unlocked processors for their next-generation Comet Lake-S family. Intel's current Comet Lake 9900K CPU features a TDP of "only" 95 W - when compared to the rumored 125 W of the 10900K), whilst their current top offering, the i9-9900KS, features a 127 W TDP. Remember that Intel's 10900K should feature 10 cores and 20 threads, two extra cores than their current 9900K - this should explain the increased TDP, a mathematical necessity given that Intel can only count on marginal improvements to its 14 nm fabrication process to frequencies and power consumption of its CPUs.

A leaked slide from momomo on Twitter shows, if real, that Intel's future enthusiast-grade CPUs (likely i5-10600K, i7-10700K and i9-10900K) will feature this 125 W TDP, while other launches in that family will make do with the more traditional 65 W TDP (interesting to see that Intel has some 10-core CPUs with 65 W TDP, the same as their current 9900, despite two more cores). A footnote on the leaked slide shows that these K processors can be configured for a 95 W TDP, but this would likely come at a significant cost to operating frequency. Intel seems to be bringing a knife to a gunfight (in terms of core counts and TDP) with AMD's Ryzen 3000 and perhaps Ryzen 4000 CPUs, should those and Intel's future offerings actually coexist in the market.
Sources: user momomo @ Twitter, via Videocardz
Add your own comment

96 Comments on Intel Enthusiast-Grade K Processors in the Comet Lake-S Family Rumored to Feature 125 W TDP

#1
notb
It looks acceptable. With good pricing this will make Intel competitive in the mass "up to 8 cores" market for another year. That's all they can hope for until 7/10nm arrive.
Posted on Reply
#2
KarymidoN
since neither intel/amd can be trusted on TDP if it follows the trend prepare youselves for a power hungry chip... geez
Posted on Reply
#3
Jism
Misleading. Intel handles a different approach to calculating it's TDP in comparison to AMD. Intel's chips could easily exceed like 30 to 50% of it's TDP measured.
Posted on Reply
#4
KarymidoN
Jism
Misleading. Intel handles a different approach to calculating it's TDP in comparison to AMD. Intel's chips could easily exceed like 30 to 50% of it's TDP measured.
AMD also does the same thing, the point is intel is way more blatant, i believe Linus Tech Tips has a video testing that...
Posted on Reply
#5
hat
Enthusiast
Again, TDP is measured at base clock. If it's 125w at 3.6GHz or something, expect that figure to double when Turbo is active.
Posted on Reply
#6
Jism
KarymidoN
AMD also does the same thing, the point is intel is way more blatant, i believe Linus Tech Tips has a video testing that...
Hello Intel Defender. AMD's TDP is way more within specs compared to Intel. The 2700x for example is a 105W TDP chip but could exceed 140W once boost (unlimited) kicks in.
Posted on Reply
#7
KarymidoN
Jism
Hello Intel Defender. AMD's TDP is way more within specs compared to Intel. The 2700x for example is a 105W TDP chip but could exceed 140W once boost (unlimited) kicks in.
i'm far from a intel defender, have you checked my system specs? i use a 3700x myself. AMD is not 100% honest with their TDP either, its not that bad as intel, but still not honest.
Compare it like those were crimes: what AMD does in TDP is like stealing candy from a grocery store. Intel is like robbing a bank and shooting the police. their both crimes! but one is worst than the other.
Posted on Reply
#8
cucker tarlson
lol,another tdp debate.
why doesn't anyone pay attention to what actually matters




K-series will be entusiast only,I like the mainstream ones though.
+4.5ghz out of the box,HT on every chip.fast,cool and quiet.
Posted on Reply
#9
notb
Jism
Hello Intel Defender. AMD's TDP is way more within specs compared to Intel. The 2700x for example is a 105W TDP chip but could exceed 140W once boost (unlimited) kicks in.
TDP is calculated for cooling, not power consumption. You assume way too much and don't understand the idea you mock.

Also, AMD's cooling needs increased significantly in high core 7nm chips (because of concentration), while TDP stayed pretty much the same.
That's way more misleading than what Intel does.
Posted on Reply
#10
hat
Enthusiast
Jism
Hello Intel Defender. AMD's TDP is way more within specs compared to Intel. The 2700x for example is a 105W TDP chip but could exceed 140W once boost (unlimited) kicks in.
You're... pretty much saying the same thing the guy you quoted said.
Posted on Reply
#11
Berfs1
KarymidoN
since neither intel/amd can be trusted on TDP if it follows the trend prepare youselves for a power hungry chip... geez
AMD can be trusted with TDP. What those reviewers are saying on how much power the 3950X takes, UNDER A STRESS TEST, is 140-150W. Note that normal users aren’t expected to peg that cpu at 100%, and that’s why amd rates the power it is designed to use at 105W. Threadrippers are designed with 100% usage in mind, and so they rate it at 280W, and the chips actually adhere close to that.
Posted on Reply
#12
cucker tarlson
Berfs1
AMD can be trusted with TDP. What those reviewers are saying on how much power the 3950X takes, UNDER A STRESS TEST, is 140-150W. Note that normal users aren’t expected to peg that cpu at 100%, and that’s why amd rates the power it is designed to use at 105W. Threadrippers are designed with 100% usage in mind, and so they rate it at 280W, and the chips actually adhere close to that.
both are off,amd is a lot closer if I'm not mistaken,in the end TDP is pretty meaningless and it's all about operating temperatures.
it'd be harder to cool a 65w 3700x than a 95w 9700k at cause the former runs 8-12 degrees warmer.I've been watching countless videos on YT of 3700x/9700k in game comparisons and the difference is always there.
9th gen K-chips are pretty cool when operating at stock voltages and I have even higher hopes for 10th gen.
Posted on Reply
#13
nickbaldwin86
I am so excited for another chipset and socket!!!!
Posted on Reply
#14
Aldain
cucker tarlson
lol,another tdp debate.
why doesn't anyone pay attention to what actually matters




K-series will be entusiast only,I like the mainstream ones though.
+4.5ghz out of the box,HT on every chip.fast,cool and quiet.
You do know those are STOCK AMD CPU COOLERS vs intel non STOCK cooling... right???
Posted on Reply
#15
cucker tarlson
Aldain
You do know those are STOCK AMD CPU COOLERS vs intel non STOCK cooling... right???
lol,no they aren't
We used a Noctua NH-U12 to measure CPU temperature while running Blender. We picked an actual application as that better reflects real life than a stress-testing application like Prime95.
what are you crazy ? expect tpu to run a box cooler on ryzen and custom on intel :laugh:

nickbaldwin86
I am so excited for another chipset and socket!!!!
yup it sucks,though in your position it might be a good idea to get a used 8th/9th gen i7/i9
I know I'll consider that too.I've never bought a cpu new actually.
Posted on Reply
#16
qcmadness
cucker tarlson
what are you crazy ? expect tpu to run a box cooler on ryzen and custom on intel :laugh:
Since when Intel bundled coolers with 8700K, 9700K and 9900K?
Posted on Reply
#17
cucker tarlson
qcmadness
Since when Intel bundled coolers with 8700K, 9700K and 9900K?
lol,what are you talking about ?
I just quoted the testing setup,why would any reviewer test cpus on different coolers ?

and if 3900x reaches 80 degrees on custom cooling,their box cooler would throttle all through the whole review.
Posted on Reply
#18
Berfs1
cucker tarlson
both are off,amd is a lot closer if I'm not mistaken,in the end TDP is pretty meaningless and it's all about operating temperatures.
it'd be harder to cool a 65w 3700x than a 95w 9700k at cause the former runs 8-12 degrees warmer.I've been watching countless videos on YT of 3700x/9700k in game comparisons and the difference is always there.
9th gen K-chips are pretty cool when operating at stock voltages and I have even higher hopes for 10th gen.
Ok here is a problem. You aren’t comparing temperature at a given wattage. Also, who the f*ck runs a 9900K at 3.6 GHz? 4.7 GHz is the all core turbo and the TDP for that is 210W. Intel won’t tell you that but they will say “oh yea our balls are bigger and we can overclock past amd oh yea” meanwhile no one buys a 9350KF over a 9400 cus the extra cores are more helpful. Long story short, Intel’s performance numbers are super misleading.
Posted on Reply
#19
cucker tarlson
Berfs1
Ok here is a problem. You aren’t comparing temperature at a given wattage. Also, who the f*ck runs a 9900K at 3.6 GHz? 4.7 GHz is the all core turbo and the TDP for that is 210W. Intel won’t tell you that but they will say “oh yea our balls are bigger and we can overclock past amd oh yea” meanwhile no one buys a 9350KF over a 9400 cus the extra cores are more helpful. Long story short, Intel’s performance numbers are super misleading.
how are temperature and performance numbers misleading ?
Posted on Reply
#20
Berfs1
cucker tarlson
lol,another tdp debate.
why doesn't anyone pay attention to what actually matters




K-series will be entusiast only,I like the mainstream ones though.
+4.5ghz out of the box,HT on every chip.fast,cool and quiet.
Temperature doesn’t matter if it doesn’t help bring better performance. Run a 3700X at 60C or 80C, you get about the same performance. Also, I guarantee you a 9900K doesn’t run lower temps than an 8700K.
Posted on Reply
#21
cucker tarlson
Berfs1
Temperature doesn’t matter if it doesn’t help bring better performance.
it helps with noise levels

Berfs1
Run a 3700X at 60C or 80C, you get about the same performance.
well,that's not true since boost is temp realted.

Berfs1
Also, I guarantee you a 9900K doesn’t run lower temps than an 8700K.
so TPU can't make a cpu review :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#23
Berfs1
cucker tarlson
how are temperature and performance numbers misleading ?
Intel says their chips are better than AMD’s. Here’s the problem. NOT ONLY do they say in the footnotes that the apps are optimized for intel cpus, they ALSO won’t mention the TDP that is in place when running all that turbo stuff. 210W. Versus AMD’s 105W all-time TDP. For intel, in turbo mode they have a different TDP that they never mention in public docs, and the only way to truly find out is through XTU, and it shows how much more power intel cpus take for those performance numbers. Yes my AMG V12 Engine does 660hp. Peak. I don’t want to tell you how trash it is compared to a v8 for all other RPMs, cus we only focus on maximum performance right? (Btw i don’t have an AMG V12, it was just an example. Normally, V8s offer more consistent performance than V12s)
Posted on Reply
#24
notb
Berfs1
Ok here is a problem. You aren’t comparing temperature at a given wattage. Also, who the f*ck runs a 9900K at 3.6 GHz?
Quite a lot of people run these with no manual OC. The CPU takes care of itself pretty well.
4.7 GHz is the all core turbo and the TDP for that is 210W.
No. TDP is given in specs and that's it. It's measured by Intel for a non-overclocked processor under some "real life scenario".
The 210W figure at 4.7 GHz all core is power consumption.
Posted on Reply
#25
cucker tarlson
Berfs1
Intel says their chips are better than AMD’s. Here’s the problem. NOT ONLY do they say in the footnotes that the apps are optimized for intel cpus, they ALSO won’t mention the TDP that is in place when running all that turbo stuff. 210W. Versus AMD’s 105W all-time TDP. For intel, in turbo mode they have a different TDP that they never mention in public docs, and the only way to truly find out is through XTU, and it shows how much more power intel cpus take for those performance numbers. Yes my AMG V12 Engine does 660hp. Peak. I don’t want to tell you how trash it is compared to a v8 for all other RPMs, cus we only focus on maximum performance right? (Btw i don’t have an AMG V12, it was just an example. Normally, V8s offer more consistent performance than V12s)
well,everty manufacturer tells us their is better.
I prefer to look at performance and temperatures over tdp.it's the tdp that serves the purpose of better performance and temp/noise,it's not a metrics one should pursue on its own.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment