• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Intel's Energy-Efficient Core i9-9900T Pops up on Geekbench 4

Raevenlord

News Editor
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
3,755 (1.16/day)
Location
Portugal
System Name The Ryzening
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
Motherboard MSI X570 MAG TOMAHAWK
Cooling Lian Li Galahad 360mm AIO
Memory 32 GB G.Skill Trident Z F4-3733 (4x 8 GB)
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RTX 3070 Ti
Storage Boot: Transcend MTE220S 2TB, Kintson A2000 1TB, Seagate Firewolf Pro 14 TB
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG270UP (1440p 144 Hz IPS)
Case Lian Li O11DX Dynamic White
Audio Device(s) iFi Audio Zen DAC
Power Supply Seasonic Focus+ 750 W
Mouse Cooler Master Masterkeys Lite L
Keyboard Cooler Master Masterkeys Lite L
Software Windows 10 x64
We originally covered Intel's work on the (more) energy-efficient version of their Core i9-9900 processor back in January. However, it seems that the company has improved the i9-9900T's performance before final release. Initial specifications for the processor were expected to deliver a 1.70 GHz base clock (down from 3.60 GHz of the original i9-9900K), with 1~2 core Turbo Boost frequency down to 3.80 GHz. However, the Geekbench benchmarks show a different story, one that's much more appealing to users: Intel managed to keep the 35 W TDP target, but base clocks stand at a much more interesting 2.1 GHz and much improved Boost clocks of 4.4 GHz.

This is good news, as performance is sure to be better than initially expected. However, this seems like a necessary move from Intel - AMD's Ryzen 3000 processors would be staring hungrily to Intel's 9900T otherwise (and likely still are). The eight cores, 16 threads, 16 MB of cache and Intel UHD Graphics 630 are kept from the original part. The test scores pitting it against an Intel i9-9900KS show an expected drop in performance compared to the faster processor. The Core i9-9900T has an Intel-set pricing of $439.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
Intel's TDP is defined by "all core workload @ base Clock", so TDP is based on 2.1GHz@all-core.. boosting on several cores will be be much higher.. and nothing to say about running AVX workload on that thing, it will either be funny on the power draw side or drop clocks even lower. it would be interesting to see this against an artificially power limited R7 3700X



Thermal Design Power (TDP) represents the average power, in watts, the processor dissipates when operating at Base Frequency with all cores active under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload. Refer to Datasheet for thermal solution requirements.

Straight from ark.intel.com
 
i feel like there should be more interest in "T(and the competition's "T" parts and or equivelant) as this shows what the node can truly do, clocks per vcore and drive current needs to be a section in cpu reviews from here on out
 
Would love to pop this chip into a Clevo NB50TK1 or something to have a sick 8-core portable workstation. I have a 6500T in my W650KK1 and it runs reasonably cool for being in a laptop.

I really wish Clevo would start making laptops with AM4 sockets though...
 
Last edited:
A CPU for the overkill office machine.
 
i feel like there should be more interest in "T(and the competition's "T" parts and or equivelant) as this shows what the node can truly do, clocks per vcore and drive current needs to be a section in cpu reviews from here on out
Since you often can't buy the T SKU's as a consumer...
 
Scores are useless unless accompanied by details about how well 9900T adheres to its TDP.
 
it would be interesting to see this against an artificially power limited R7 3700X
That should be easy enough to do, at least Gigabyte BIOSes let you set a defined TDP for the CPU. Der8auer experimented with this, he ran a 3900x without a cooler (!) and with a Gigabyte chipset cooler on the CPU (and no chipset cooler):
 
That should be easy enough to do, at least Gigabyte BIOSes let you set a defined TDP for the CPU. Der8auer experimented with this, he ran a 3900x without a cooler (!) and with a Gigabyte chipset cooler on the CPU (and no chipset cooler):

I saw that video, but I meant something more serious (targeting and actual acceptable TDP like 40-45W - not for giggles, running chipset cooler on the cpu), and with a 3700X that has less cores to deal. Than compare power consumption/performance vs the 9900T
 
I saw that video, but I meant something more serious (targeting and actual acceptable TDP like 40-45W - not for giggles, running chipset cooler on the cpu), and with a 3700X that has less cores to deal. Than compare power consumption/performance vs the 9900T
Yup. Maybe a little offtopic but has there been any videos where 3600 or 3700X is limited to 65W, similar to the videos/reviews about 8700K/9900K locked at 95W?
 
ES edition has been out for a bit iirc
 
Back
Top