Sunday, April 12th 2020

Intel Core i9-10900F Can Allegedly Pull Up to 224 W

As if reports of Intel's latest mobile flagship Core i9-10980HK pulling up to 135 W power in short bursts to achieve its 5.30 GHz Thermal Velocity Boost (TVB) frequency weren't bad enough, it appears like the 10th generation Core desktop processors won't win Intel any prizes in the energy efficiency contests. According to tech Tweeter "@9550Pro," citing Chinese enthusiast @Wolstame, with a reasonably high hit-rate with tech rumors, Intel's upcoming Core i9-10900F processor can pull up to 224 Watts of power. The i9-10900F isn't even an unlocked chip like i9-10900K, but rather an iGPU-disabled version of the locked i9-10900.

The i9-10900F 10-core/20-thread processor allegedly has its PL1 value set at 170 W, and PL2 at 224 W. The latter is probably needed to give the chip's TVB algorithm power headroom to achieve either the chip's 5.30 GHz TVB max frequency, or its maximum all-core boost frequency of 4.50 GHz. The latter could be Intel's strategy to take on AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X and 3950X in multi-threaded benchmarks (run 10 cores at 4.50 GHz). Intel is possibly looking to price the i9-10900 series (i9-10900F, i9-10900, i9-10900KF, and i9-10900K) at price-points ranging between $450-500, if not more. With these power-draw figures, it's all but certain that Intel could recommend serious cooling solutions for the i9-10900 series, at least a 240 mm x 120 mm AIO. AMD recommends a 280 mm x 140 mm AIO for the 16-core 3950X.
Sources: Wolstame (Weibo), 9550Pro (Twitter)
Add your own comment

33 Comments on Intel Core i9-10900F Can Allegedly Pull Up to 224 W

#1
Melvis
This reminds me of the FX-9590 days gezzz

How the tables have turned!
Posted on Reply
#2
R0H1T
Hardly surprising, I bet balls to the wall (non extreme) OC, talking about unlocked chips, this thing will easily pull 250-300W at full tilt or probably even more?
Melvis
This reminds me of the FX-9590 days gezzz

How the tables have turned!
Yeah except their TDP was 220W, this has nothing of the sort :shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#3
phanbuey
reminds me of that saying....

10 lbs of ***t in a 5 lb bag... or in this case - 10 cores of heat in a 6 core process.
Posted on Reply
#4
londiste
So, it is running AIDA64 FPU stress test. 224W with 10 cores at 4.6 GHz.
This is not under 65C which would supposedly add the TVB boost.
Matches the expectations pretty nicely.

Based on Intel CPUs so far, this should not be an out-of-box configuration, especially for a non-K CPU.
Note the 150-170W PL1. 224W PL2 might be accurate enough, that has been reported before and Tau must also be set to a very high value.

Whether this is Intel or motherboard manufacturers' shenanigans is a good question and I guess we'll see. Ever since 8700K the K-models tend to stray from default power limits. Non-K models have been using defaults though. Defaults are PL1 = TDP, PL2 = 1.25 TDP and Tau = 8s.
Posted on Reply
#5
spnidel
R0H1T
Hardly surprising, I bet balls to the wall (non extreme) OC, talking about unlocked chips, this thing will easily pull 250-300W at full tilt or probably even more?

Yeah except their TDP was 220W, this has nothing of the sort :shadedshu:
tdp ratings mean jack shit if the CPU ends up pulling >220 watts
Posted on Reply
#6
GoldenX
Smells like DoA for the whole platform like this.
Another redundant socket change.
Another CPU series made in a process that was OK with only 4 cores.
Now with no included cooling? This was the moment to present new stock heatsinks to get some good PR.
Posted on Reply
#7
HD64G
Back when Piledriver FX CPUs had 225TDP, it was the true figure of their power consumption @4.7GHz. Now-a-days AMD and Intel CPUs consume more than the advertised TDP figures. TBH, my 2600X when configured properly in UEFI consume 95W max. But the auto-OC features built in the UEFI allow up to 125W when left as they are configured by default. With their upcoming CPU series Intel went to another dimension though: a 65W TDP CPU consuming up to 250W is much more than a fraud to any consumer. I hope all reviewers make justice for that terrible lies.
Posted on Reply
#8
steve360
The performance crown is all that matters to Intel.

Costs, efficiency and anything sub-14nm be damned.
Posted on Reply
#9
HD64G
steve360
The performance crown is all that matters to Intel.

Costs, efficiency and anything sub-14nm be damned.
Agreed. Now they have lost mobile and server performance crown so only in the high refresh-rate gamers they can rely to sell their old and hot tech for price they don't deserve.
Posted on Reply
#10
Tomgang
This is what happens when you stay on 14 NM for years while pushing the envelope higher and higher to get high core clock.

The downside is that power consumption and heat goes up. Seriously Intel, it's time to put 14nm to rest.
Posted on Reply
#11
Jism
HD64G
Back when Piledriver FX CPUs had 225TDP, it was the true figure of their power consumption @4.7GHz.
Piledriver could be tweaked tho; easily 65w off the socket if you simply undervolted the chip. And those 220W of power usage only comes out when you specific stress the CPU in intensive tasks, i.e Prime95. If you run games or something like it it was half consumption. But i agree; this is pretty much misleading. Nobody is going to buy a high-end CPU and dial it in at 65W.
Posted on Reply
#12
londiste
Jism
Piledriver could be tweaked tho; easily 65w off the socket if you simply undervolted the chip. And those 220W of power usage only comes out when you specific stress the CPU in intensive tasks, i.e Prime95. If you run games or something like it it was half consumption. But i agree; this is pretty much misleading. Nobody is going to buy a high-end CPU and dial it in at 65W.
AIDA64 FPU test is using AVX, AVX2 and/or AVX-512 depending on what is available. With current-day CPUs this should result in CPU hitting its power limit. When it comes to power draw, the result should be same as Prime95. Games and other lower load scenarios will result in something like half the consumption.
Posted on Reply
#13
hat
Enthusiast
Tomgang
This is what happens when you stay on 14 NM for years while pushing the envelope higher and higher to get high core clock.

The downside is that power consumption and heat goes up. Seriously Intel, it's time to put 14nm to rest.
Take this same design and put it on 7nm and power consumption may go down, but heat will probably rise. You would suddenly have to pull more heat out of a smaller die area. They need a better architecture as much as they need better process tech. The lake is dried up.
Posted on Reply
#14
CandymanGR
People still confuse TDP with power consumption? Really...
Posted on Reply
#15
HD64G
CandymanGR
People still confuse TDP with power consumption? Really...
A small difference (<20%) can exist between TDP and power consumption. Not double the figure. Then it is called misleading or even a fraud.
Posted on Reply
#16
KarymidoN
R0H1T
Hardly surprising, I bet balls to the wall (non extreme) OC, talking about unlocked chips, this thing will easily pull 250-300W at full tilt or probably even more?

Yeah except their TDP was 220W, this has nothing of the sort :shadedshu:
AMD TDP and intel TDP are really not the same thing... AMD calculates its TDP when the CPU is boosting (higher power draw/temp) while intel calculates it on base clock (lower power draw/temps)... alsot TDP its the same thing as power consumption...
Posted on Reply
#17
WeeRab
So..... Around £500 for the CPU. £200 for the new motherboard. (No PCIE 4.0) At least £100 for a cooling solution.
£800.
Are they being serious??
Posted on Reply
#18
Metroid
I wonder what this "up to" means for Intel. Volcano edition ehhe
Posted on Reply
#19
Dave65
That's why it has the optional twin fire extinguishers :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
Posted on Reply
#20
trparky
Is Intel going to provide a window air conditioner with the purchase of one of these chips? You're going to need it!

Look ma! I turned off the heat in my room and I'm still baking!

And if you think that these numbers by themselves look bad for the 10900F, just wait until you see this.

Intel: 10 cores, 224 Watts :twitch:
AMD: 16 cores, 145 Watts

Good God, Intel is fucked. :shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#21
Krzych
Is this supposed to be surprising/shocking or what? For years now overclocked 8c/16t draws slighly above 200W and 10c/20t exceeds 250W and there are no architecture/process changes with this lineup so there is no reason for it to change. And with clocks they are targeting this is almost an overclock.
Posted on Reply
#22
trparky
Krzych
Is this supposed to be surprising/shocking or what?
To some, especially the Intel fanboys, yes. To those of us who haven't been brainwashed with Intel marketing, not so much.
Posted on Reply
#23
$ReaPeR$
People will still but it. Because "it's the gaming king". People don't buy quality or performance, they buy the image and Intel is still 80% of the market. It's a literal dejavou of the Pentium era.
Posted on Reply
#24
Fluffmeister
People don't care about power consumption on this forum, so pull the sticks out of your arses.
Posted on Reply
#25
ARF
Fluffmeister
People don't care about power consumption on this forum, so pull the sticks out of your arses.
People on this forum will need money to pay the electricity bills, to adjust a high-end water cooling and high-end motherboard that can support this power draw.
I guess Intel should just skip this launch for the MSDT and instead redirect all the efforts towards promoting affordable and inefficient HEDT systems with the 10th generation lineup.

When AMD was nowhere with its Zambezi/Vishera, they simply stopped further development, and focused on Zen.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment