• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

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

Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
5,571 (6.16/day)
Location
Poland
System Name skurwiel szatan
Processor i7 5775c @4.3GHz/1.385v/EDRAM @2GHz
Motherboard Z97X Gaming 5
Cooling Noctua D15S
Memory Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP 1600 CL8 @2133 9-9-9-27 1T
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio
Storage SU900 128 (OS)/850 PRO 256+256+ 512,860 EVO 500,XPG SX950U 480,M9Pe(Y) 512 (games)/4TB HDDs (3+1)
Display(s) Acer XB241YU+Dell S2716DG dual monitor setup
Case Full tower
Audio Device(s) W830BT headphones
Power Supply Superflower Leadex Gold 850W
Mouse G903 lightspeed+powerplay,G403 wireless + Steelseries DeX + Roccat rest
Keyboard HyperX Alloy SilverSpeed (w.HyperX wrist rest),Razer Deathstalker
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores A LOT
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.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
197 (0.14/day)
Location
Texas
System Name Berfs1
Processor i7-9750H (turbo clocked)
Motherboard Dell Precision 7540
Cooling Stock w/ ICD thermal compound
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB (2x8GB) @3200 MHz
Video Card(s) NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 @1465 MHz/2052 MHz (core/memory)
Storage XPG SX8200 Pro 512GB SSD
Display(s) 1080p @60 Hz 100% sRGB laptop screen
Power Supply Dell 240W charger
Mouse Logitech G403
Keyboard Logitech G910
Software Windows 10 Pro 64 bit
Benchmark Scores XTU - 2218 points CB15 - 1311 CB20 - 3203
it helps with noise levels


well,that's not true since boost is temp realted.



so TPU can't make a cpu review :rolleyes:
Performance wise it doesn’t matter. Fan speed sure, but not necessarily for performance. That’s an indirect comparison. Yes, boost is temp related but, I’m pretty sure you don’t just get more than 200 MHz from a 20C drop. Depends on chip and cooling and a lot of stuff. And explain how, a CPU a designed for 210W, has 2 extra cores, has higher frequencies, RUNS ON THE SAME ARCHITECTURE (yes 6-9th gen basically the same arch) as an 8700K (which is rated for I think 120-131W) runs cooler?
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
5,571 (6.16/day)
Location
Poland
System Name skurwiel szatan
Processor i7 5775c @4.3GHz/1.385v/EDRAM @2GHz
Motherboard Z97X Gaming 5
Cooling Noctua D15S
Memory Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP 1600 CL8 @2133 9-9-9-27 1T
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio
Storage SU900 128 (OS)/850 PRO 256+256+ 512,860 EVO 500,XPG SX950U 480,M9Pe(Y) 512 (games)/4TB HDDs (3+1)
Display(s) Acer XB241YU+Dell S2716DG dual monitor setup
Case Full tower
Audio Device(s) W830BT headphones
Power Supply Superflower Leadex Gold 850W
Mouse G903 lightspeed+powerplay,G403 wireless + Steelseries DeX + Roccat rest
Keyboard HyperX Alloy SilverSpeed (w.HyperX wrist rest),Razer Deathstalker
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores A LOT
Performance wise it doesn’t matter. Fan speed sure, but not necessarily for performance. That’s an indirect comparison. Yes, boost is temp related but, I’m pretty sure you don’t just get more than 200 MHz from a 20C drop. Depends on chip and cooling and a lot of stuff. And explain how, a CPU a designed for 210W, has 2 extra cores, has higher frequencies, RUNS ON THE SAME ARCHITECTURE (yes 6-9th gen basically the same arch) as an 8700K (which is rated for I think 120-131W) runs cooler?
cause 9900k is soldered,like every 9th gen K chip,while neither 9700k nor 8086k are.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
197 (0.14/day)
Location
Texas
System Name Berfs1
Processor i7-9750H (turbo clocked)
Motherboard Dell Precision 7540
Cooling Stock w/ ICD thermal compound
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB (2x8GB) @3200 MHz
Video Card(s) NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 @1465 MHz/2052 MHz (core/memory)
Storage XPG SX8200 Pro 512GB SSD
Display(s) 1080p @60 Hz 100% sRGB laptop screen
Power Supply Dell 240W charger
Mouse Logitech G403
Keyboard Logitech G910
Software Windows 10 Pro 64 bit
Benchmark Scores XTU - 2218 points CB15 - 1311 CB20 - 3203
Quite a lot of people run these with no manual OC. The CPU takes care of itself pretty well.

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.
Yea 95W and 3.6 GHz is totally realistic for a stock 9900K running stock bios settings. You have to disable turbo boost in order to get the 95W limit working all the time.

cause 9900k is soldered,like every 9th gen K chip,while neither 9700k nor 8086k are.
9700K is soldered, 8th gen is not. 9th gen locked cpus are not soldered, and 9600K may depend on the revision, not sure.
 
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
554 (0.15/day)
Location
Michigan
System Name Daves
Processor AMD Ryzen 1700 @ 4.00
Motherboard AsRock X370 Killer SLI/ac
Cooling Corsair H110i
Memory 16 GIG GSKILL Ripjaw @ 2400
Video Card(s) Gigabyte GTX 1070 G1
Storage Crucial M.2 250 Samsung 840 EVO 250-Samsung 850 Pro-WD 1 TB
Display(s) LG 27
Case NZXT
Audio Device(s) N/A
Power Supply EVGA 750
Mouse EVGA
Keyboard Corsair Strafe
Software Windows 10 Home
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.
As an AMD fan I can defend him, AMD is just as guilty in this, Linus and Gamers Nexus has videos on this.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2018
Messages
252 (0.53/day)
Letme be very clear, I dont care if its Intel or AMD, if a processor stated as 95w piece of a product, I expect that to be delivered and not exceeded. if the boost exceeds it, then the product is falsely advertised. I dont mind if they give tdp with its boost clocks even if its 150w as long as consumeres know what they are getting into and right both companies are no way near innocent.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
197 (0.14/day)
Location
Texas
System Name Berfs1
Processor i7-9750H (turbo clocked)
Motherboard Dell Precision 7540
Cooling Stock w/ ICD thermal compound
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB (2x8GB) @3200 MHz
Video Card(s) NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 @1465 MHz/2052 MHz (core/memory)
Storage XPG SX8200 Pro 512GB SSD
Display(s) 1080p @60 Hz 100% sRGB laptop screen
Power Supply Dell 240W charger
Mouse Logitech G403
Keyboard Logitech G910
Software Windows 10 Pro 64 bit
Benchmark Scores XTU - 2218 points CB15 - 1311 CB20 - 3203
Letme be very clear, I dont care if its Intel or AMD, if a processor stated as 95w piece of a product, I expect that to be delivered and not exceeded. if the boost exceeds it, then the product is falsely advertised. I dont mind if they give tdp with its boost clocks even if its 150w as long as consumeres know what they are getting into and right both companies are no way near innocent.
I agree with that, however intel DOES HAVE a turbo TDP, they just don’t state it. With AMD, it’s variable because it is a variable boost, while intel cpus have a boost table they follow. That’s why amd can’t really say a boost TDP cus there isn’t one. However, for EXPECTED USE, Intel’s power consumption is much more than 95W. AMD’s 3950X under expected loads are much closer to their TDP ratings. Oh and let’s not forget how many different times Intel changed their definition of TDP.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
5,571 (6.16/day)
Location
Poland
System Name skurwiel szatan
Processor i7 5775c @4.3GHz/1.385v/EDRAM @2GHz
Motherboard Z97X Gaming 5
Cooling Noctua D15S
Memory Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP 1600 CL8 @2133 9-9-9-27 1T
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio
Storage SU900 128 (OS)/850 PRO 256+256+ 512,860 EVO 500,XPG SX950U 480,M9Pe(Y) 512 (games)/4TB HDDs (3+1)
Display(s) Acer XB241YU+Dell S2716DG dual monitor setup
Case Full tower
Audio Device(s) W830BT headphones
Power Supply Superflower Leadex Gold 850W
Mouse G903 lightspeed+powerplay,G403 wireless + Steelseries DeX + Roccat rest
Keyboard HyperX Alloy SilverSpeed (w.HyperX wrist rest),Razer Deathstalker
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores A LOT
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
197 (0.14/day)
Location
Texas
System Name Berfs1
Processor i7-9750H (turbo clocked)
Motherboard Dell Precision 7540
Cooling Stock w/ ICD thermal compound
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB (2x8GB) @3200 MHz
Video Card(s) NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 @1465 MHz/2052 MHz (core/memory)
Storage XPG SX8200 Pro 512GB SSD
Display(s) 1080p @60 Hz 100% sRGB laptop screen
Power Supply Dell 240W charger
Mouse Logitech G403
Keyboard Logitech G910
Software Windows 10 Pro 64 bit
Benchmark Scores XTU - 2218 points CB15 - 1311 CB20 - 3203
pick one set of standards for every brand,will you.
I expected those intel temps from a D14 or D15, not a NH U12S. The NH U12S isn’t the worlds strongest cooler that could cool a 9900K at turbo at 57C. If you can keep the core speeds constant at least, then it would be more consistent. Perhaps deleting the 3.6/5.0 because that sounds like turbo was used, and disable turbo, and run 3.6 GHz constantly. At a constant voltage. That is a true test. And obviously lower temps are better, HOWEVER that only applies to the specific cpu. A 9700K at 75C doesn’t make it better than a 3900X at 80C, because then you need to look at leakage, and leakage can vary from cpu to cpu. That can affect power consumption pretty substantially, it can potentially make the cpu take another 5-10W just from the extra heat (going from, say, 60C to 80C on a high core count cpu)
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
5,571 (6.16/day)
Location
Poland
System Name skurwiel szatan
Processor i7 5775c @4.3GHz/1.385v/EDRAM @2GHz
Motherboard Z97X Gaming 5
Cooling Noctua D15S
Memory Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP 1600 CL8 @2133 9-9-9-27 1T
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio
Storage SU900 128 (OS)/850 PRO 256+256+ 512,860 EVO 500,XPG SX950U 480,M9Pe(Y) 512 (games)/4TB HDDs (3+1)
Display(s) Acer XB241YU+Dell S2716DG dual monitor setup
Case Full tower
Audio Device(s) W830BT headphones
Power Supply Superflower Leadex Gold 850W
Mouse G903 lightspeed+powerplay,G403 wireless + Steelseries DeX + Roccat rest
Keyboard HyperX Alloy SilverSpeed (w.HyperX wrist rest),Razer Deathstalker
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores A LOT
I expected those intel temps from a D14 or D15, not a NH U12S. The NH U12S isn’t the worlds strongest cooler that could cool a 9900K at turbo at 57C. If you can keep the core speeds constant at least, then it would be more consistent. Perhaps deleting the 3.6/5.0 because that sounds like turbo was used, and disable turbo, and run 3.6 GHz constantly. At a constant voltage. That is a true test. And obviously lower temps are better, HOWEVER that only applies to the specific cpu. A 9700K at 75C doesn’t make it better than a 3900X at 80C, because then you need to look at leakage, and leakage can vary from cpu to cpu. That can affect power consumption pretty substantially, it can potentially make the cpu take another 5-10W just from the extra heat (going from, say, 60C to 80C on a high core count cpu)
i prefer to trust TPU in matters like these.

if they can't get temp testing right,what are we even talking about.
the difference between 9700k and 3900x is 26 degrees,not 5 degrees.
it will affect noise levels substantially.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
2,004 (1.84/day)
Processor i5-8400
Motherboard ASUS ROG STRIX Z370-I GAMING
Cooling Alpenföhn Black Ridge
Memory 2*16GB DDR4-3200 CL16
Video Card(s) Gainward GeForce RTX 2080 Phoenix
Storage 1TB Samsung 970 Pro, 2TB Intel 660p
Display(s) ASUS PG279Q, Eizo EV2736W
Case Dan Cases A4-SFX
Power Supply Corsair SF600
Mouse Logitech G700
Keyboard Corsair K60
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.
Ryzen 3000 105W CPU-s have 142W power limit in usual circumstances. 65W CPU models will consume 88W.

Intel's K-models have motherboard-specific "optimized" settings that generally mean disabled power limits. Non-K models generally perform as per spec - 25% increased power limit for 8 seconds. For example, a 65W Intel non-K CPU will do 81W for 8 seconds at load.

Any Intel 14nm CPU will lose out to AMD's 7nm CPU in all-core loads, especially at 6+ cores. Frequencies in these circumstances will not favor Intel CPUs any more. Not because they are not capable of it but because they hit power limits.
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
2,535 (1.42/day)
System Name Wut?
Processor 3900X
Motherboard ASRock Taichi X570
Cooling Water
Memory 32GB GSkill CL16 3600mhz
Video Card(s) Vega 56
Storage 2 x AData XPG 8200 Pro 1TB
Display(s) 3440 x 1440
Case Thermaltake Tower 900
Power Supply Seasonic Prime Ultra Platinum
i prefer to trust TPU in matters like these.

if they can't get temp testing right,what are we even talking about.
the difference between 9700k and 3900x is 26 degrees,not 5 degrees.
it will affect noise levels substantially.
The 3rd gen temp numbers are slightly misleading. Average load temperatures are much lower than nano peak temps. I was super nervous until I looked at what the rolling load temp was.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
3,117 (2.38/day)
Yea 95W and 3.6 GHz is totally realistic for a stock 9900K running stock bios settings. You have to disable turbo boost in order to get the 95W limit working all the time.
Once again: TDP is a figure connected to heat dissipation, not power consumption. If you don't know this by now, there's no way I can convince you.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
2,004 (1.84/day)
Processor i5-8400
Motherboard ASUS ROG STRIX Z370-I GAMING
Cooling Alpenföhn Black Ridge
Memory 2*16GB DDR4-3200 CL16
Video Card(s) Gainward GeForce RTX 2080 Phoenix
Storage 1TB Samsung 970 Pro, 2TB Intel 660p
Display(s) ASUS PG279Q, Eizo EV2736W
Case Dan Cases A4-SFX
Power Supply Corsair SF600
Mouse Logitech G700
Keyboard Corsair K60
Once again: TDP is a figure connected to heat dissipation, not power consumption. If you don't know this by now, there's no way I can convince you.
That is a technicality and a matter of nickpicking on terminology. In practice, sticking to TDP would mean sticking to power limit as the vast majority of power consumed by CPU will be converted to heat. That is the entire point of being angry with Intel's (and current AMD's) idea of TDP - the stated amount does not match the actual heat output of the CPU.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
769 (0.73/day)
Location
Tanagra
Processor AMD 2700X
Motherboard Gigabyte B450M DS3H
Cooling Scythe Mugen 5
Memory G.Skill 16GB DDR4 @ 3200
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse RX 570 4GB
Storage Inland 512GB NVMe
Display(s) LG 27UL500-W
Case NZXT H510
Audio Device(s) My ears
Power Supply EVGA 500W
Software Windows 10
Don't Ryzen CPUs report their temps differently than Intel chips? I thought I recall Zen incorporating an array of temp sensors across the CPU as part of Precision Boost.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
3,117 (2.38/day)
That is a technicality and a matter of nickpicking on terminology. In practice, sticking to TDP would mean sticking to power limit as the vast majority of power consumed by CPU will be converted to heat. That is the entire point of being angry with Intel's (and current AMD's) idea of TDP - the stated amount does not match the actual heat output of the CPU.
No and this is a very common misunderstanding.
But you're right in one thing: pretty much all of energy consumed is emitted as heat.

So, you have a consumer CPU with TDP=65W. You run it as intended. It stays near base clocks most of the time and boost for few seconds from time to time. During that boost it consumes 200W.
So, what cooler do you need? A 95W one. Someone tested it on a 95W CPU and it was fine.
What PSU do you need? A 200W one (just for the CPU).
That's the difference.

You should not look at it as if Intel or AMD deceived you. They've sold you a CPU with 65W or 95W TDP. You can buy a cooler based on that TDP.
But they've also given you a bonus (not a lie!). Because they've made their CPUs so rapid and flexible, they can boost instantly for a short time when you need it in your typical consumer-ish PC using: to load a website, open a file, apply an effect in a photo editor etc. It's so short that the extra heat produced is tiny and your 95W cooler won't explode.
And if, during that short boost, your PSU can provide just 150W, not 200W? It won't explode either. The CPU knows when to stop pushing. It's all though out really well.

We test consumer CPUs by running hours of 100% load benchmarks, which is not how these CPUs are used in real life. Of course that's how we learn their performance limits (which is good), but the resulting average power consumption figures are unrealistic.
This is exactly the reason why workstation/server CPUs turn out (in similar tests) to be very conservative when it comes to TDP. Because their purpose is exactly to run at 100% all the time. That's how their TDP was calculated.

And now moving to 7nm Zen2 issue, which I really can't pass over.
The coolers we have today were tested on CPUs available before 7nm arrived.
It turns out that these CPUs, despite consuming under 150W, are so tightly packed that the heat concentration is much larger than we've seen earlier. That's why 3900X and 3950X are so hot.
And that's why AMD recommends to pair a CPU with TDP=105W with coolers that have TDP ratings 2-3 times larger.
So suddenly the TDP stops making any sense at all. It's lower than what these CPUs actually pull (140-150W) and has absolutely no meaning when it comes to choosing a sufficient cooler.

When Intel joins with desktop 10nm CPUs, the whole TDP rating will have to be adjusted. Dark Rock 4 will not be a 200W cooler anymore. It'll be called a 100W cooler, maybe less.
 

cdawall

where the hell are my stars
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
27,660 (5.60/day)
Location
Houston
System Name All the cores || Into the Blue
Processor 2990WX || 5960X
Motherboard Asrock X399M || Asus X99M WS
Cooling CPU-XSPC RayStorm Neo, 2x240mm+360mm, D5PWM+140mL, GPU-2x360mm, 2xbyski, D4+D5+100mL || TBD
Memory 4x8GB G.Skill Trident Z 3200 CL16 || EVGA 3200 2x8GB
Video Card(s) (2) EVGA SC BLACK 1080Ti's || EVGA 1080Ti FE
Storage 2x Samsung SM951 512GB, Samsung PM961 512GB || OCZ Vector 180 480GB
Display(s) Dell UP2414Q 3840X2160@60hz || TBD
Case Caselabs Mercury S5+pedestal || Supermicro S5 (GS5A-753K)
Audio Device(s) Fischer HA-02->Fischer FA-002W High edition/FA-003/Jubilate/FA-011 depending on my mood
Power Supply Seasonic Prime 1200w || Seasonic Snow Silent 750w
Mouse Thermaltake Theron, Steam controller || TBD
Keyboard Thermaltake Poseidon ZX, Steam controller || Corsair K70
Software W10P || W10P
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.
Load temps don’t really matter though. CPU stability is stability.

Love see people argument to TDP

Its easy

TDP intel = base clock
TDP amd = all core boost

Simple
AMD TDP is based off of P0 which is max clocks without boost per AMD.

here is a link confirming that information

 
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
464 (0.20/day)
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.
250W+ mainstream parts incoming. Yeah. Very "acceptable" indeed. My 3800X does not exceed 140W (according to HWInfo) even when overclocked to 4.5 Ghz. Comet Lake will problably double that for 5Ghz+ overclock on the 10c/20t part and will lose to Ryzen 4000 in performance regardless.

Ah and don't forget to buy your new motherboards too...
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
2,535 (1.42/day)
System Name Wut?
Processor 3900X
Motherboard ASRock Taichi X570
Cooling Water
Memory 32GB GSkill CL16 3600mhz
Video Card(s) Vega 56
Storage 2 x AData XPG 8200 Pro 1TB
Display(s) 3440 x 1440
Case Thermaltake Tower 900
Power Supply Seasonic Prime Ultra Platinum
Load temps don’t really matter though. CPU stability is stability.



AMD TDP is based off of P0 which is max clocks without boost per AMD.

here is a link confirming that information

How dare you bring manufacturer data into this discussion...
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
61 (0.05/day)
An 10 core 9900k running 5.2GHz+? With a iGPU? (accelerated video rendering). Yes please. Sucks I'll have to change out the mobo though.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
197 (0.14/day)
Location
Texas
System Name Berfs1
Processor i7-9750H (turbo clocked)
Motherboard Dell Precision 7540
Cooling Stock w/ ICD thermal compound
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB (2x8GB) @3200 MHz
Video Card(s) NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 @1465 MHz/2052 MHz (core/memory)
Storage XPG SX8200 Pro 512GB SSD
Display(s) 1080p @60 Hz 100% sRGB laptop screen
Power Supply Dell 240W charger
Mouse Logitech G403
Keyboard Logitech G910
Software Windows 10 Pro 64 bit
Benchmark Scores XTU - 2218 points CB15 - 1311 CB20 - 3203
No and this is a very common misunderstanding.
But you're right in one thing: pretty much all of energy consumed is emitted as heat.

So, you have a consumer CPU with TDP=65W. You run it as intended. It stays near base clocks most of the time and boost for few seconds from time to time. During that boost it consumes 200W.
So, what cooler do you need? A 95W one. Someone tested it on a 95W CPU and it was fine.
What PSU do you need? A 200W one (just for the CPU).
That's the difference.

You should not look at it as if Intel or AMD deceived you. They've sold you a CPU with 65W or 95W TDP. You can buy a cooler based on that TDP.
But they've also given you a bonus (not a lie!). Because they've made their CPUs so rapid and flexible, they can boost instantly for a short time when you need it in your typical consumer-ish PC using: to load a website, open a file, apply an effect in a photo editor etc. It's so short that the extra heat produced is tiny and your 95W cooler won't explode.
And if, during that short boost, your PSU can provide just 150W, not 200W? It won't explode either. The CPU knows when to stop pushing. It's all though out really well.

We test consumer CPUs by running hours of 100% load benchmarks, which is not how these CPUs are used in real life. Of course that's how we learn their performance limits (which is good), but the resulting average power consumption figures are unrealistic.
This is exactly the reason why workstation/server CPUs turn out (in similar tests) to be very conservative when it comes to TDP. Because their purpose is exactly to run at 100% all the time. That's how their TDP was calculated.

And now moving to 7nm Zen2 issue, which I really can't pass over.
The coolers we have today were tested on CPUs available before 7nm arrived.
It turns out that these CPUs, despite consuming under 150W, are so tightly packed that the heat concentration is much larger than we've seen earlier. That's why 3900X and 3950X are so hot.
And that's why AMD recommends to pair a CPU with TDP=105W with coolers that have TDP ratings 2-3 times larger.
So suddenly the TDP stops making any sense at all. It's lower than what these CPUs actually pull (140-150W) and has absolutely no meaning when it comes to choosing a sufficient cooler.

When Intel joins with desktop 10nm CPUs, the whole TDP rating will have to be adjusted. Dark Rock 4 will not be a 200W cooler anymore. It'll be called a 100W cooler, maybe less.
So if I understand this correctly, a 95W cpu has more cooling efficiency than a 65W chip? If that is the case, let’s compare the temps of the 9900KS vs the 9900K, since one has 127W and the other has 95W TDP. The 9900KS theoretically should offer lower temps correct?

An 10 core 9900k running 5.2GHz+? With a iGPU? (accelerated video rendering). Yes please. Sucks I'll have to change out the mobo though.
I don’t think the 10 core chips were supposed to come with iGPUs, I believe those were all F/KF cpus, but I may be wrong. Then again, if you need 10 cores, ur probs gonna get urself a GPU anyways.
 

eidairaman1

The Exiled Airman
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
29,039 (6.32/day)
Location
Republic of Texas (True Patriot)
System Name PCGOD
Processor AMD FX 8350@ 5.0GHz
Motherboard Asus TUF 990FX Sabertooth R2 2901 Bios
Cooling Scythe Ashura, 2×BitFenix 230mm Spectre Pro LED (Blue,Green), 2x BitFenix 140mm Spectre Pro LED
Memory 16 GB Gskill Ripjaws X 2133 (2400 OC, 10-10-12-20-20, 1T, 1.65V)
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon 290 Sapphire Vapor-X
Storage Samsung 840 Pro 256GB, WD Velociraptor 1TB
Display(s) NEC Multisync LCD 1700V (Display Port Adapter)
Case AeroCool Xpredator Evil Blue Edition
Audio Device(s) Creative Labs Sound Blaster ZxR
Power Supply Seasonic 1250 XM2 Series (XP3)
Mouse Roccat Kone XTD
Keyboard Roccat Ryos MK Pro
Software Windows 7 Pro 64
So if I understand this correctly, a 95W cpu has more cooling efficiency than a 65W chip? If that is the case, let’s compare the temps of the 9900KS vs the 9900K, since one has 127W and the other has 95W TDP. The 9900KS theoretically should offer lower temps correct?


I don’t think the 10 core chips were supposed to come with iGPUs, I believe those were all F/KF cpus, but I may be wrong. Then again, if you need 10 cores, ur probs gonna get urself a GPU anyways.
Think 5775...

Eitherway tdp is a metric used by the manufacturers for coolers. It's not a viable determination for us to buy a cpu.
The cpu by intel is a potato.
 
Top