# Intel Core i9-10980HK Detailed: 8-core Mobile Monstrosity that Boosts up to 5.30 GHz



## btarunr (Mar 27, 2020)

In no mood to cede mobile performance leadership to AMD and its Ryzen 9 4900HS processor, Intel is readying its new flagship mobile part, the Core i9-10980HK. Based on the 14 nm "Comet Lake-H" silicon, this chip packs an 8-core/16-thread CPU with a maximum boost speed (aka "Thermal Velocity Boost") of 5.30 GHz, while maintaining an aggressive power target of 45 W TDP. This should put the chip's performance somewhere between the desktop Core i7-9700K and the Core i9-9900K, both of which have TDP rated at 95 W, although the chip could perform very close to the latter at gaming, thanks to its 300 MHz higher boost frequency. Intel is expected to launch the 10th generation Core i9 H-series processors on April 2nd, around the same time when NVIDIA launches its mobile GeForce RTX 20 Super series. 





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Object55 (Mar 27, 2020)

good good, put all cards on the table


----------



## Hyrel (Mar 27, 2020)

Boost up to 5.3 GHz on a laptop? Just marketing bs, what's the point, it could be capable of boosting to 10 GHz but you'll still underclock it to like 3 GHz if you don't want it to throttle as soon as you start any game.


----------



## champsilva (Mar 27, 2020)




----------



## dicktracy (Mar 27, 2020)

And their competitor can barely overclock on a full blown desktop while requiring the infamous 1.5 volt!


----------



## windwhirl (Mar 27, 2020)

champsilva said:


>



Unless we have fully detailed specs of the devices used in such comparisons, they're mostly null and void for such purposes, specially since OEMs can configure TDP targets. See the following examples:







Same CPUs can have very different results.

And let's not get started on benchmark procedures or whether Userbenchmark is a good choice for evaluating performance.


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 27, 2020)

dicktracy said:


> And their competitor can barely overclock on a full blown desktop while requiring the infamous 1.5 volt!


Is that supposed to be sarcasm 


danbert2000 said:


> I doubt this 10980HK is going to be able to deliver consistent performance at all.


It's a desktop replacement, for sure not fit on a *notebook* unless you call those Eurocom or Clevo "luggages" that!


----------



## danbert2000 (Mar 27, 2020)

I just had a huge headache with my laptop with an i5-7300HQ processor where the "Intel Dynamic Platform and Thermal Framework" was throttling an already slow 3.1 GHz all core boost processor to 2.0 GHz. If my laptop was throttling so hard out of the box (before I used ThrottleStop and uninstalled the framework to get the laptop to stop power limiting), you have to wonder what kind of monster laptop would be needed to have this processor even aproach 5.3 GHz in games.

Intel is throwing up big numbers on the spec sheet but their processors are now more thermally constrained than AMD. I doubt this 10980HK is going to be able to deliver consistent performance at all.


----------



## notb (Mar 27, 2020)

Hyrel said:


> Boost up to 5.3 GHz on a laptop? Just marketing bs, what's the point, it could be capable of boosting to 10 GHz but you'll still underclock it to like 3 GHz if you don't want it to throttle as soon as you start any game.


The point is: for interactive, intermittent use this will provide very similar experience to a high-end desktop CPU.

Long, continuous tasks will obviously take longer and you'd get less fps in games, but many would be surprised by how small the gap is.


----------



## Turmania (Mar 27, 2020)

I think it would be wise to wait for reviews before judging it. So you don't look like a fool.


----------



## ARF (Mar 27, 2020)

Hyrel said:


> Boost up to 5.3 GHz on a laptop? Just marketing bs, what's the point, it could be capable of boosting to 10 GHz but you'll still underclock it to like 3 GHz if you don't want it to throttle as soon as you start any game.



5.3 GHz for a nanosecond or what?

Also, the fastest Ryzen is Ryzen 9 4900HS.
You should compare Core i9-10980HK with Ryzen 9 4900HS.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 27, 2020)

Let's see a 9900KS, a desktop processor, already at the limits of the node comes with a 5 Ghz boost clock out of the box. 

A mobile CPU, 5.3 Ghz ? 

The 1st of April is still a couple of days away.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 27, 2020)

dicktracy said:


> And their competitor can barely overclock on a full blown desktop while requiring the infamous 1.5 volt!


Welcome to my ignore list, as apparently the only thing you post is crap like this.


----------



## londiste (Mar 27, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> Let's see a 9900KS, a desktop processor, already at the limits of the node comes with a 5 Ghz boost clock out of the box.
> 
> A mobile CPU, 5.3 Ghz ?
> 
> The 1st of April is still a couple of days away.


On one core (and with additional notes at that), why not?


----------



## Jism (Mar 27, 2020)

Hyrel said:


> Boost up to 5.3 GHz on a laptop? Just marketing bs, what's the point, it could be capable of boosting to 10 GHz but you'll still underclock it to like 3 GHz if you don't want it to throttle as soon as you start any game.



Point me any game that demands a full 100% usage while playing it. Thing is; you cant. And most cores are like utilized for roughly 10% to 20% of it's 100%.

So in that case, you are within the power enveloppe and you can boost. AMD does the same thing. Consoles now do the same thing.


----------



## ARF (Mar 27, 2020)

Jism said:


> Point me any game that demands a full 100% usage while playing it.



Many games do, with the old 4C quads with HT, and the 8C i7-9700K, too:









						i7-9700k 100% CPU usage
					

My CPU (i7-9700k) is constantly at 100% usage while playing BF5. Thats why my game stutters sometimes and my mouse feels not precise. It would be nice if someone could help me to solve the problem. GPU: RTX 2070 Super RAM: 2x8GB 3200mhz CPU cooler: Corsair h100x




					answers.ea.com
				









						100 % CPU Usage in games 9700k
					

Hello Just found out that my cpu 9700k is at 100% usage while gaming and the gpu sits at 30 % i have an RTX 2070, seems like i have a broken cpu , thoughts ?




					linustechtips.com
				









						Question - I7-9700k at 100% CPU Usage In games
					

Hello, I recently built my new pc:  CPU: Intel Core i9-9700k Graphics Card: EVGA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti XC GAMING Motherboard: ASUS Prime Z390-A RAM:G.Skill Trident Z RGB 32 GB DDR4-3000 PSU:Corsair CXM 750 W  I’ve been streaming on twitch, I also would like to note that I OC my cpu to 5.0 GHz, and...




					forums.tomshardware.com
				


















						Question - 100% CPU usage while gaming
					

I've seen a lot of posts saying that it's ok to be running 100% CPU while gaming but I have a hard time wrapping my head thinking its really ok.   I haven't really had too many issues except small stutters every blue moon but every game I play (even tested older games like borderlands 2) runs my...




					forums.tomshardware.com
				








londiste said:


> On one core (and with additional notes at that), why not?



It should boost for nanoseconds, I don't see any technical difficulty. Actually, why didn't they introduce this feature years ago ?


----------



## mtcn77 (Mar 27, 2020)

Good old Intel. How is the melting thermal sink material(candle wax) playing along its development cycle, I wonder. Intel had this 'boost to phase change' goal set on its targets a few years back.


----------



## ratirt (Mar 27, 2020)

We don't see the power usage here for the Intel processor (maybe it has been removed and that laptop is cooled with nitrogen) but we know how AMD 4800H performs and that has been presented here. I'd rather wait for official benchmarks since we dont know how much power this Intel CPU here is using. 
5.3Ghz on a laptop and desktops have problems with sustaining 5.2 Ghz. Boost is relative to what it is in reality. When I see it, with full specs and information, I can say 'great'. 
As someone mentioned, 4800H is not the top model so there.


----------



## Jism (Mar 27, 2020)

ARF said:


> Many games do, with the old 4C quads with HT, and the 8C i7-9700K, too:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The games you point here are related to problems rather then a game running as it should.


----------



## ratirt (Mar 27, 2020)

Jism said:


> The games you point here are related to problems rather then a game running as it should.


Are they? It would seem that there is no other way. If there's 100% CPU usage that means game problem. As I recall, there are games more CPU bound than others and that is dependent on the game. So if you have 100% CPU usage may not be caused necessarily because a game has a problem.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 27, 2020)

londiste said:


> On one core (and with additional notes at that), why not?



Why not ?

One of these things would have to be miracle class silicon, look on silicon lottery and tell me how many 5.3 ghz 9900KS you find. Or how many 5.3 ghz CPUs you find in general. I can't even imagine how many wafers they'd have to scour in order to find one these that fit the power envelope and can do 5.3 ghz.

It's ridiculous, it's not even funny at this point. It's one last (hopefully) desperate yell for attention from Intel on their ever increasingly uninteresting products.


----------



## sergionography (Mar 27, 2020)

Melting laptops will be the new trend. Or laptops with cup holders to keep your coffee hot


----------



## moob (Mar 27, 2020)

champsilva said:


>


I thought it was pretty much agreed upon that userbenchmark was hot garbage? Why is anyone still using that site, much less as a source of anything?

They even link to one of the videos calling them out on being biased on their about page, which is a head-scratching move to say the least: https://www.userbenchmark.com/page/about


----------



## MDDB (Mar 27, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> look on silicon lottery and tell me how many 5.3 ghz 9900KS you find.


You know Silicon Lottery overclocks ALL cores, while this is supposed to be a 1-core boost.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 27, 2020)

Base clock? The i9-9980HK is 2.4GHz, so unless they've done some real magic with this it will essentially be the same.


----------



## NeuralNexus (Mar 27, 2020)

dicktracy said:


> And their competitor can barely overclock on a full blown desktop while requiring the infamous 1.5 volt!



This is straight bs! Not to mention that smaller nodes do not GAIN the benefit of higher clock speeds, like past nodes. IF Intel ever creates 10nm or even 7nm desktop parts...clock speeds won't hit no where near 5GHz


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 27, 2020)

MDDB said:


> You know Silicon Lottery overclocks ALL cores, while this is supposed to be a 1-core boost.



No, I didn't know that, I thought it was just one core as well.

On a less ironic note, you do realize that whether it's 1 or 8 cores, something like 5.3 Ghz is still an extreme clock speed which requires extreme silicon quality.

As I pointed out this is also supposed to be a mobile chip, that makes it even harder to find a piece of silicon that can do all of this, at least a 9900KS isn't power constrained. This is, *a lot*, you can't just have a CPU with let's say a 45W power limit and have one core hit 5.3 Ghz using probably at least 15-20W alone, this thing is beyond ridiculous. This is supposed to be unlocked but I can't imagine how one could make a laptop supporting these sort of thermals.

Calling this a proper competing product it's going to be a stretch.


----------



## Cheeseball (Mar 27, 2020)

Yeah, this will most likely be in a 15.6" or 17.3" desktop replacement (e.g. Dell G5/G7, Clevo, Eurocom) or even a 2020 MacBook Pro. But the difference from a 9980HK doesn't seem to be worth it.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 27, 2020)

i play division 2 a lot.. i dont get stutters or any problems.. i will leave realtemp running and see how hot my 9900K gets.. how hot it gets tells me how much its being used..

i do have HT off at 5 g.. 

trog

ps.. just played a division 2 mission.. the max temps realtempt showed my 5 g 9900k with HT off getting to was around 75C... nowhere near full load.. full load would have been around 95C..


----------



## Valantar (Mar 27, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> No, I didn't know that, I thought it was just one core as well.
> 
> On a less ironic note, you do realize that whether it's 1 or 8 cores, something like 5.3 Ghz is still an extreme clock speed which requires extreme silicon quality.
> 
> ...


This will likely hit 5.3 for a few seconds at most, and with anything more than 1 core loaded it will be much lower. When power or thermal limits kick in well be looking at mid 2GHz sustained to stay within 45W.


----------



## notb (Mar 27, 2020)

ratirt said:


> 5.3Ghz on a laptop and desktops have problems with sustaining 5.2 Ghz.


Why would it need to sustain it? That's not what boosting is about.


Valantar said:


> This will likely hit 5.3 for a few seconds at most, and with anything more than 1 core loaded it will be much lower. When power or thermal limits kick in well be looking at mid 2GHz sustained to stay within 45W.


Exactly. But that's what we should want. That's what makes PCs nice to use.

It's really, really weird that people on this group are so against boosting. Why?


----------



## Valantar (Mar 27, 2020)

notb said:


> Why would it need to sustain it? That's not what boosting is about.
> 
> Exactly. But that's what we should want. That's what makes PCs nice to use.
> 
> It's really, really weird that people on this group are so against boosting. Why?


I'm not against boosting - in fact I'd say I'm _very much _for it - but I'm against advertising astronomical boost clocks for 45W chips without also disclosing the base clock (particularly when that boost number is very likely to exceed TDP even for a single core). Unless you also include a base clock, it is borderline false advertisement, as the only information given is short-term, best-case-scenario numbers.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 27, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> No, I didn't know that, I thought it was just one core as well.
> 
> On a less ironic note, you do realize that whether it's 1 or 8 cores, something like 5.3 Ghz is still an extreme clock speed which requires extreme silicon quality.
> 
> ...


Only in a desktop replacement could this be a thing, as for 45watt ,ok.

@notb for once we agree, ie what boost is, shame you forget what boost is when AMD use it.


----------



## hat (Mar 27, 2020)

notb said:


> Why would it need to sustain it? That's not what boosting is about.
> 
> Exactly. But that's what we should want. That's what makes PCs nice to use.
> 
> It's really, really weird that people on this group are so against boosting. Why?



I've explained this before. The reason that we're "against boosting", in this scenario, is because it's simply *not going to happen*. Nobody cares if a laptop boosts to 5.3GHz for a fraction of a second, before power or thermal limits kick in, to load a word document or a web page 1/10 of a second faster than it would have if it just ran at base clock all the time. As such, the feature is useless... and who wants features that don't work? No, we don't get a working feature... instead we get "5.3GHz!!111!111" plastered everywhere, when in reality it can only reach that speed for a very short time, i.e. applications where 5.3GHz performance isn't necessary anyway. 

Now, take that same chip and put it in a desktop where power and thermal limits aren't woefully constrained like they are in a laptop, and you get a different story. Nobody complains about the 9900k boost clock, because it can actually reach it. Nobody complains about the boost feature on Nvidia graphics cards, because they actually do it. People complain about the advertised boost clocks on these laptops, because they _don't_ do it. That's the key difference.


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Mar 27, 2020)

I’m curious what the sustained performance will be, even not with all cores loaded. I have no issue with a chip using every last drop of performance that it can, but how does it compare to the Ryzen 4000 mobiles.


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Mar 27, 2020)

sergionography said:


> Melting laptops will be the new trend.* Or laptops with cup holders to keep your coffee hot*



As a coffee junkie, I approve of this idea


----------



## Steevo (Mar 28, 2020)

windwhirl said:


> Unless we have fully detailed specs of the devices used in such comparisons, they're mostly null and void for such purposes, specially since OEMs can configure TDP targets. See the following examples:
> View attachment 149485
> View attachment 149486
> 
> ...




Yeah a 15W 4800 VS a 45W Intel that will thermal throttle in seconds, how about the 4900 at 35W that is 30% faster and 10W less.

Intel is struggling to stay top dog and shills are keeping market innovation from happening by not supporting the superior product.


----------



## Pinktulips7 (Mar 28, 2020)

Hyrel said:


> Boost up to 5.3 GHz on a laptop? Just marketing bs, what's the point, it could be capable of boosting to 10 GHz but you'll still underclock it to like 3 GHz if you don't want it to throttle as soon as you start any game.


AMD Fanboy run run , it will destroy not only all AMD Desktop CPU and Laptop CPU unless AMD come up with 100 Cores CPU running at 7Ghz??? AMD Fan Boys like Cores than Foods...


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Mar 28, 2020)

Pinktulips7 said:


> *AMD Fanboy run run* , *it will destroy not only all AMD Desktop CPU and Laptop CPU unless AMD come up with 100 Cores CPU running at 7Ghz??? *AMD Fan Boys like Cores than Foods...



Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. Intel fan boy run run


----------



## Pinktulips7 (Mar 28, 2020)

Stop being Bitc## you KNOW intel rules the World not AMD???

Stop


----------



## hat (Mar 28, 2020)

Here's an interesting one... 18 posts over 7 years, nearly all of them bashing AMD. 18 posts in 7 years... did you get bored?


----------



## windwhirl (Mar 28, 2020)

First, please don't be so... obnoxious about your opinions and second, no need to use that foul language here, even if you "censor" it using hashmarks.


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Mar 28, 2020)

Pinktulips7 said:


> Stop being Bitc## you KNOW intel rules the World not AMD???
> 
> Stop



Aaaaand reported. Pleases me to know I struck a MASSIVE nerve though


----------



## yotano211 (Mar 28, 2020)

I've used the i9 9880hk in a Aero 15, a thin 15 inch laptop, and in a MSI GT75, a 17 inch, 2 inch thick laptop that weighs 10lb with dual 330w power supplies.
In the Aero 15 , I could get it upto 3.9ghz with a .130 undervolt, in the MSI GT75, I could go much higher at 4.7ghz with .140 undervolt. And that was on all 8 cores running BOINC at 100%.
I am sure this "new" processor will not be much better. Only way for Intel to get higher speeds is to finally release their 10nm processors in 2021.
The laptop I have now, it can barely do 3.3ghz, 100%, 6 cores. Cooling on it sucks.


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Mar 28, 2020)

*googles MSI GT75* 

 Good lawd...


----------



## bogmali (Mar 28, 2020)

Thread cleansed with all the non-sense and namecalling. Also, if you're going to report a post that needs LQ or deletion, don't reply to it or countering it with something that will also be LQ'd or deleted


----------



## Melvis (Mar 28, 2020)

5.3GHz on a single core hey? so good for software from 5+yrs ago that will last for a few seconds then thermal throttle, cool!


----------



## Minus Infinity (Mar 28, 2020)

Utter waste of time in a laptop. wouldn't matter if it hit 50GHz. So not only will they have to worry about AMD they'll be facing off against Apple's custom ARM processors for laptops and lose another huge chunk of sales next year.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 28, 2020)

I don't think OEMs will put half pound coolers in laptops. Nice try, Intel.

They can barely get them to effectively cool 28W tdp parts due to chintziness (about half are a failure and throttle to base immediately, no turbo).


----------



## Berfs1 (Mar 28, 2020)

Hyrel said:


> Boost up to 5.3 GHz on a laptop? Just marketing bs, what's the point, it could be capable of boosting to 10 GHz but you'll still underclock it to like 3 GHz if you don't want it to throttle as soon as you start any game.


Nah, base is 3.1 GHz, and I am 100% sure laptops with this processor (that have good cooling) will be able to do 4.5 on all 8 cores or more.



TheGuruStud said:


> I don't think OEMs will put half pound coolers in laptops. Nice try, Intel.
> 
> They can barely get them to effectively cool 28W tdp parts due to chintziness (about half are a failure and throttle to base immediately, no turbo).


However they are revealing better cooling solutions this year, so maybe it will work out! PS I am not a fan of 45W TDP chips doing more than double their TDP under stock settings cough cough intel.



yotano211 said:


> I've used the i9 9880hk in a Aero 15, a thin 15 inch laptop, and in a MSI GT75, a 17 inch, 2 inch thick laptop that weighs 10lb with dual 330w power supplies.
> In the Aero 15 , I could get it upto 3.9ghz with a .130 undervolt, in the MSI GT75, I could go much higher at 4.7ghz with .140 undervolt. And that was on all 8 cores running BOINC at 100%.
> I am sure this "new" processor will not be much better. Only way for Intel to get higher speeds is to finally release their 10nm processors in 2021.
> The laptop I have now, it can barely do 3.3ghz, 100%, 6 cores. Cooling on it sucks.


3.3 GHz on 6 cores? Do you have turbo disabled or really bad temps? Which processor you have rn?


----------



## watzupken (Mar 28, 2020)

I believe the TDP of 45W is only when the processor is running at its base speed, which I suspect is not going to be any higher than the previous 2 or 3 generations of Intel's mobile chip of similar class. Now even if a single core can hit 5.3Ghz, the power draw would have exceeded 45W for sure. Considering an all core 5Ghz on the desktop chip and it is drawing north of 250W, getting even a single chip to hit 5.3Ghz (although only 300Mhz difference) likely requires significant increase in power. To hit the advertised single core speed is also subjected to the cooling capability of the laptop. Most 45W mobile CPUs are hitting over 90 degs easily and throttling, so not sure how long it can hold a single core at 5.3Ghz. 

I do feel that Intel is pushing the aged Skylake architecture and 14nm to its max or even beyond max. I don't think they have ever intended for this to require that much power and to run at this sort of clockspeed in the first place. No matter what they do, if they are not able to get their 10nm out in full force (which I doubt), there is absolutely no way they can compete with AMD in the short run. This overclocking tactic is just so that can still hold on to the single core advantage, but if you look deeper beyond the clockspeed, it is absolutely inefficient when compared to the 7nm AMD chip. I also have doubts about the longevity of the chip considering the amount of power required and heat generated.


----------



## yotano211 (Mar 28, 2020)

Berfs1 said:


> Nah, base is 3.1 GHz, and I am 100% sure laptops with this processor (that have good cooling) will be able to do 4.5 on all 8 cores or more.
> 
> 
> However they are revealing better cooling solutions this year, so maybe it will work out! PS I am not a fan of 45W TDP chips doing more than double their TDP under stock settings cough cough intel.
> ...


The cooling on current laptop is really bad and I kinda like it hot in my house. I prefer the heat. i7 8750h, the specs are over there
<<<


----------



## watzupken (Mar 28, 2020)

Cheeseball said:


> Yeah, this will most likely be in a 15.6" or 17.3" desktop replacement (e.g. Dell G5/G7, Clevo, Eurocom) or even a 2020 MacBook Pro. But the difference from a 9980HK doesn't seem to be worth it.



It will have to be a desktop replacement for sure. I do have doubts whether the Macbook Pro can accommodate this processor since it is already struggling to tame the heat due to Apple's obsession with thin devices. 

And I agree that it will not be worth the upgrade over the last 2 generations.


----------



## yotano211 (Mar 28, 2020)

Gmr_Chick said:


> *googles MSI GT75*
> 
> Good lawd...


There is a  MSI GT76 with a desktop i9 9900k.


----------



## watzupken (Mar 28, 2020)

Berfs1 said:


> Nah, base is 3.1 GHz, and I am 100% sure laptops with this processor (that have good cooling) will be able to do 4.5 on all 8 cores or more.



I am skeptical that it will even do 3.8 to 4Ghz on all 8 cores to be honest. From what I observed, most laptops improve cooling by slapping more heatpipes, criss-crossing it everywhere to 2 heatsinks. While heat is quickly moved to the heatsink because of the heatpipes, the bottleneck is always the physical size of the heatsink and the blower (more heatsink). I've used a few gaming laptops before and despite the elaborate cooling solution, generally the CPU will hit high 80s to 90s easily under load. When this happens, even with the fan ramped up to 90 or 100%, the CPU will always throttle to the base speed. My observations are based on 4c/8t 45W processors few years back. So with 2x the cores and higher clockspeed + power, keeping 8 cores cool and running substantially higher clockspeed is not possible on a laptop no matter how you cut it. Otherwise, there will not be some laptops that comes with watercooling, like the one from Asus.



yotano211 said:


> There is a  MSI GT76 with a desktop i9 9900k.


Personally, laptops with top end desktop processors makes the least sense. I think you can read reviews of how they perform. Physically, laptops don't have the luxury of space for massive heatsink to cool the components. Laptops of this class generally comes with some high end graphics as well, which adds on to the cooling woes. Under load, the end result is that both the CPU and GPU will suffer due to extremely high temps and substantial throttling is to be expected.


----------



## yotano211 (Mar 28, 2020)

watzupken said:


> I am skeptical that it will even do 3.8 to 4Ghz on all 8 cores to be honest. From what I observed, most laptops improve cooling by slapping more heatpipes, criss-crossing it everywhere to 2 heatsinks. While heat is quickly moved to the heatsink because of the heatpipes, the bottleneck is always the physical size of the heatsink and the blower (more heatsink). I've used a few gaming laptops before and despite the elaborate cooling solution, generally the CPU will hit high 80s to 90s easily under load. When this happens, even with the fan ramped up to 90 or 100%, the CPU will always throttle to the base speed. My observations are based on 4c/8t 45W processors few years back. So with 2x the cores and higher clockspeed + power, keeping 8 cores cool and running substantially higher clockspeed is not possible on a laptop no matter how you cut it. Otherwise, there will not be some laptops that comes with watercooling, like the one from Asus.
> 
> 
> Personally, laptops with top end desktop processors makes the least sense. I think you can read reviews of how they perform. Physically, laptops don't have the luxury of space for massive heatsink to cool the components. Laptops of this class generally comes with some high end graphics as well, which adds on to the cooling woes. Under load, the end result is that both the CPU and GPU will suffer due to extremely high temps and substantial throttling is to be expected.


With an advanced user, I'm sure it will do 3.9-4.0ghz easily. But it will need a undervolt.



watzupken said:


> I am skeptical that it will even do 3.8 to 4Ghz on all 8 cores to be honest. From what I observed, most laptops improve cooling by slapping more heatpipes, criss-crossing it everywhere to 2 heatsinks. While heat is quickly moved to the heatsink because of the heatpipes, the bottleneck is always the physical size of the heatsink and the blower (more heatsink). I've used a few gaming laptops before and despite the elaborate cooling solution, generally the CPU will hit high 80s to 90s easily under load. When this happens, even with the fan ramped up to 90 or 100%, the CPU will always throttle to the base speed. My observations are based on 4c/8t 45W processors few years back. So with 2x the cores and higher clockspeed + power, keeping 8 cores cool and running substantially higher clockspeed is not possible on a laptop no matter how you cut it. Otherwise, there will not be some laptops that comes with watercooling, like the one from Asus.
> 
> 
> Personally, laptops with top end desktop processors makes the least sense. I think you can read reviews of how they perform. Physically, laptops don't have the luxury of space for massive heatsink to cool the components. Laptops of this class generally comes with some high end graphics as well, which adds on to the cooling woes. Under load, the end result is that both the CPU and GPU will suffer due to extremely high temps and substantial throttling is to be expected.


You can configure the gt76 with a 2070 or 2080. It depends on your needs and budget. There are people out there that actually need that speed in a small form factor. Usually power users on the go.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 28, 2020)

The interesting thing here is that for Intel to keep pushing frequencies higher on 14nm they (have so far, and are likely to keep) sacrifice efficiency to allow it to clock higher. The most radical changes between KBL and CFL in silicon were node adjustments to allow for higher voltages and higher clocks, which in turn sacrifices both power and die area. Nothing major, but that's what has allowed Intel to keep 14nm alive (and why the delta between base and turbo clocks has increased dramatically since KBL). Even for a top bin, if this reaches 5.3GHz stable on a single core under full load, that indicates that it is able to push voltages even higher than CFL, which would again mean even higher power draw.

Curious to see how this will pan out. It will no doubt be a powerhouse, but I'm guessing the current trend of extremely variable performance from a single chip depending on chassis design will only become worse.


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 28, 2020)

The bench on UserBenchmark (which really is a burst load by all accounts, its pretty brief on each component, just a matter of seconds) already shows an AVERAGE boost of 4.5 Ghz. A whoppin' 800 mhz below specced boost. Nice!

So, that's the gist of this CPU. 5.3 Ghz is a marketing slide number, and I really do love how Intel hints at heat itself calling it 'Thermal Velocity Boost'... what the fuck is that?! It quickly runs to 5.3 Ghz to heat up? Thanks, I guess?

Nah... I'm staying far away from this abysmal base clock. Precisely *because *laptops come with configured TDPs. Its going to be luck of the draw but no matter what setup you get, it will be a hot headed monster.


----------



## londiste (Mar 28, 2020)

Thermal Velocity Boost has been a "thing" for a couple generations already:








						Thermal Velocity Boost (TVB)  - Intel - WikiChip
					

Thermal Velocity Boost (TVB) is a microprocessor technology developed by Intel that attempts to enable temporary higher performance on top of Turbo Boost Technology by opportunistically and automatically increasing the processor's clock frequency.




					en.wikichip.org


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 28, 2020)

And it doesn't work quite the way of XFR, PBO et al from AMD. AMD's *boost* is much more refined arguably since the original Zen launch.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 28, 2020)

5.3 ghz.. yikes!!!




mtcn77 said:


> Good old Intel. How is the melting thermal sink material(candle wax) playing along its development cycle, I wonder. Intel had this 'boost to phase change' goal set on its targets a few years back.


They'll use sTIM I'd imagine.


But lets be careful, people, about the boost for intel. Glass houses and stones and all. 

Edit: as I post this... the post above landed...lol



R0H1T said:


> And it doesn't work quite the way of XFR, PBO et al from AMD. AMD's *boost* is much more refined arguably since the original Zen launch.


Wait, what? Did you forget that Ryzen 3000, most chips didn't reach the listed boost..ever? Do you remember each and every board getting a bios/microcode update, from amd, to correct that issue?

That said, I wouldnt call it more refined, either. In fact, I'd say the opposite considering the above and general variability of its boost. What do you mean by more refined?

Edit: Please note I'm not trying to start a pissing match here, but there seems to be a lot of confusion about amd tyzen overclocking prowess (or lack thereof) and intel turbo vs amd turbo. Zoinks....



trog100 said:


> ps.. just played a division 2 mission.. the max temps realtempt showed my 5 g 9900k with HT off getting to was around 75C... nowhere near full load.. full load would have been around 95C..


FYI, you can have a PC read 100% load but have wildly varying temperatures. Temperature depend on the type of load hitting it as well. Look how the stress tests differ, for example. Same with games. You could have varying temps at the same load %... it must depends on the game and what instruction sets, etc it is using.


----------



## QUANTUMPHYSICS (Mar 28, 2020)

Hyrel said:


> Boost up to 5.3 GHz on a laptop? Just marketing bs, what's the point, it could be capable of boosting to 10 GHz but you'll still underclock it to like 3 GHz if you don't want it to throttle as soon as you start any game.





A laptop with that kind of power in it would be a great friend to people who use a Laptop as a "Desktop Replacement".

Keep in mind that Youtubbers like myself streaming or doing 4K editing are always anxious to get more mobile power.

For example: when I take my laptop on vacation internationally to South East Asia or Africa, I rely on it for everything. I record videos, edit them and upload them from the laptop.
It also helps pass the time when I game on it.

Intel needs to keep cranking out powerful CPU just like this.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 28, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> 5.3 ghz.. yikes!!!
> 
> 
> They'll use sTIM I'd imagine.
> ...


Ryzen's boost system is more advanced in that it is far more dynamic and takes into account a series of relevant variables to push the most amount of performance out of a chip in any circumstances while staying within safe operating parameters. AMD's system also takes into account the characteristics of each core, meaning that the chip can boost higher for a low number of cores than what all cores on the chip are capable of at safe voltages - increasing performance beyond what a less dynamic system could do. Intel's system in comparison is much simpler; it essentially uses a table, with throttling triggers for thermals, current and a few other factors - and when it throttles, it throttles hard, before trying to boost back up (often leading to spiky thermals and uneven performance in laptops). TVB was added to the top of that table as a response to AMD's XFR, with the difference being that AMD never advertised XFR speeds as the chief boost speed of any chip. Then again, AMD has pretty much abandoned XFR at this point, as their boost system has matured and grown increasingly dynamic over the three generations of Ryzen, and the max boost speeds advertised by both companies is now roughly comparable. Still, AMD's marketing here is marginally less inaccurate, simply due to the smaller difference between base and boost clocks for their parts (which is again down to AMD's better efficiency). It's _slightly_ less disingenuous to market your chip as "up to 4.6GHz" with a 3.8GHz base clock than to advertise your chip as "up to 5GHz" with a 3.6GHz boost (9900k).

On the other hand, advertising like this - "up to 5.3GHz (with TVB)" with no mention of base clocks whatsoever is ... problematic. Especially for a thermal and power limited laptop chip that in most implementations will likely hit these speeds once in a blue moon.


As for overclocking prowess (and yes, this is getting quite off topic here) there are two main differences in play: Intel's 14nm process has gone through multiple revisions now with higher clocks being the main focus, which makes it extremely good at running at high clocks (especially as it didn't start out as an efficiency-first node). Part of this has been to make it safer to run at higher voltages, which of course hurts efficiency, but allows for higher sustained clocks as long as you're able to cool it. On the other hand TSMC's 7nm node doesn't do well past 1.3-1.35V (not being designed for it in the first place likely plays a large role in this), and Ryzen chips running all-core OC above those voltages tend to degrade quickly. The other factor is the relative simplicity of Intel's boost system compared to AMD's - as said above, AMD's system pushes single cores past what all cores on the chip can do, while Intel can't bin chips for their best cores due to their simple boost system. This - higher voltage tolerances and a less fine-grained boost system - of course means there's more performance left on the table with Intel chips than AMD chips, and that manual OC can gain you a lot on an Intel system while it's nearly impossible to significantly exceed the results achieved by AMD's automatic system with manual tuning (as to do that you would then need to test each core for clocks and voltages and have the ability to set values for each core individually, which AFAIK isn't possible).



QUANTUMPHYSICS said:


> A laptop with that kind of power in it would be a great friend to people who use a Laptop as a "Desktop Replacement".
> 
> Keep in mind that Youtubbers like myself streaming or doing 4K editing are always anxious to get more mobile power.
> 
> ...


For that kind of use you're likely to get noticeably better performance out of AMD's soon-to-appear 4000-series 8-core APUs. They don't boost nearly as high for single core loads, but they have higher base clocks and should thus perform better in sustained workloads - particularly due to ~7% better IPC of Zen 2 over Skylake and its derivatives. If this 10980HK indeed has a 3.1GHz base clock like someone mentioned above, the Ryzen 7 4800H will match it stride for stride at 2.9GHz, and due to better efficiency it's likely that the AMD chip in a similar chassis and with similar cooling to an Intel counterpart will boost higher and for longer. The 4900H at 3.3GHz base will be faster still. They won't perform as well in lightly threaded, bursty workloads, but they'll still be fast enough for those to not be an issue, while being faster and cooler running in anything more demanding.

It'll be very interesting to see some in-depth reviews of this next generation of chips from both companies, especially with regards to power consumption.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 28, 2020)

Valantar said:


> Ryzen's boost system is more advanced in that it is far more dynamic and takes into account a series of relevant variables to push the most amount of performance out of a chip in any circumstances while staying within safe operating parameters. AMD's system also takes into account the characteristics of each core, meaning that the chip can boost higher for a low number of cores than what all cores on the chip are capable of at safe voltages - increasing performance beyond what a less dynamic system could do. Intel's system in comparison is much simpler; it essentially uses a table, with throttling triggers for thermals, current and a few other factors - and when it throttles, it throttles hard, before trying to boost back up (often leading to spiky thermals and uneven performance in laptops). TVB was added to the top of that table as a response to AMD's XFR, with the difference being that AMD never advertised XFR speeds as the chief boost speed of any chip. Then again, AMD has pretty much abandoned XFR at this point, as their boost system has matured and grown increasingly dynamic over the three generations of Ryzen, and the max boost speeds advertised by both companies is now roughly comparable. Still, AMD's marketing here is marginally less inaccurate, simply due to the smaller difference between base and boost clocks for their parts (which is again down to AMD's better efficiency). It's _slightly_ less disingenuous to market your chip as "up to 4.6GHz" with a 3.8GHz base clock than to advertise your chip as "up to 5GHz" with a 3.6GHz boost (9900k).
> 
> On the other hand, advertising like this - "up to 5.3GHz (with TVB)" with no mention of base clocks whatsoever is ... problematic. Especially for a thermal and power limited laptop chip that in most implementations will likely hit these speeds once in a blue moon.
> 
> ...


Sorry, perhaps I took refined in a different way. I'm aware more variables go into amd boost than with Intel, surely others will benefit from that and the other info. 

When I think of refined, I think of something that works well for its purpose. AMD's boost, for several months, didn't work as advertised for a lot of users. Intel's has always just worked (I dont recall any snafus with it) and is a bit more simple. In they end, they both work fine. There is enough performance in today's cpus that for the most part, the number of threads and how they boost, be it static or AMD's method, aren't a big factor in performance. PBO is the best for most to overclock these things... for those who dont grind all c/t loads.

So...I see what you mean, and what the other guy likely meant. I just took refined as more of a well polished end product than simply being more complicated  means to the end.

I'd imagine when the chip has an Intel Ark page, a base clock will be listed.

For overclocking , intel's first 14nm chip overclocked well too...always better than amd from zen to zen2. AMD squeezes more out of their chips out of the box (that 'refined' boost you're talking about) so there is less headroom. But Intel CPUs clock higher all around, for now, and have more overclocking headroom over all core boost.

No long explanations required.


----------



## r9 (Mar 28, 2020)

For tasks that don't last more than 1ms.
It cuts the 1ms to 0.995 very noticeable by naked eye.


----------



## watzupken (Mar 29, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Sorry, perhaps I took refined in a different way. I'm aware more variables go into amd boost than with Intel, surely others will benefit from that and the other info.
> 
> When I think of refined, I think of something that works well for its purpose. AMD's boost, for several months, didn't work as advertised for a lot of users. Intel's has always just worked (I dont recall any snafus with it) and is a bit more simple. In they end, they both work fine. There is enough performance in today's cpus that for the most part, the number of threads and how they boost, be it static or AMD's method, aren't a big factor in performance. PBO is the best for most to overclock these things... for those who dont grind all c/t loads.
> 
> ...



I am not sure why AMD boost did not work as intended at the start, however, Intel's boost came with a significant penalty in the form of absurd power requirement. This is never mentioned by Intel who is still happily advertising it at 95W TDP. Further probe by many review sites prompted them to review that 95W = base clock, and boost = expect higher power requirements. What is shocking is that at the advertised boost, it was consuming more than double the TDP advertised. While AMD's boost snafu can be fixed and eventually fixed by a BIOs release, there is no fix to Intel's high power requirement to get to the boost speed.

Also, I performance is not always about higher clockspeed. This is apparent when you compare Intel's current chips with AMD's 3xxx series.

Intel's earlier chips overclock well, but unfortunately you will need to pay a substantial premium for an overclocking chip and a compatible overclocking motherboard. I feel Intel left a lot of performance on their earlier chips, lock it on purpose, just so that you must pay additional premium per 200 to 300 Mhz. Without taking sides, I feel you are just defending a company that is happy to take your money whenever there is any opportunity.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Mar 29, 2020)

Let's all take bets on how quick Apple will take one and shove it inside their macbooks without changing the cooling setup


----------



## Xajel (Mar 29, 2020)

R0H1T said:


> It's a desktop replacement, for sure not fit on a *notebook* unless you call those Eurocom or Clevo "luggages" that!



Nope, it has a 45W TDP, meaning it can fit in laptops, even thin ones like XPS 15, X1 Extreme & even MBP 16"...

The only issue is, Intel's mobile CPU's can't sustain higher clocks duo to thermal constraints, starting with i7/i9 8000th gen. a lot of reports that the i9's can performs lower than the i7 because when it was launched, most laptops were designed mainly for 35W TDP, those newer i9's came with 45W TDP and will soon throttle duo to heat. 9000th gen. i9 was better and some laptop manufacturers actually had sometime tweaking the cooling to better cope with it. But not all laptops, some peoples with some laptops -like the XPS 15- will undervolt the CPU to maintain the performance without throttling. MBP 16" was also better handling the 45W TDP.


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 29, 2020)

Xajel said:


> Nope, it has a 45W TDP, meaning it can fit in laptops, even thin ones like XPS 15, X1 Extreme & even MBP 16"...


45W TDP means nothing when you have 8c/16t & 1c boost of 5.3GHz unless you're claiming it will run north of 5GHz or even 4GHz (all core) for 5 mins at a stretch let alone 30 or 120 mins?


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 29, 2020)

watzupken said:


> I am not sure why AMD boost did not work as intended at the start, however, Intel's boost came with a significant penalty in the form of absurd power requirement. This is never mentioned by Intel who is still happily advertising it at 95W TDP. Further probe by many review sites prompted them to review that 95W = base clock, and boost = expect higher power requirements. What is shocking is that at the advertised boost, it was consuming more than double the TDP advertised. While AMD's boost snafu can be fixed and eventually fixed by a BIOs release, there is no fix to Intel's high power requirement to get to the boost speed.
> 
> Also, I performance is not always about higher clockspeed. This is apparent when you compare Intel's current chips with AMD's 3xxx series.
> 
> Intel's earlier chips overclock well, but unfortunately you will need to pay a substantial premium for an overclocking chip and a compatible overclocking motherboard. I feel Intel left a lot of performance on their earlier chips, lock it on purpose, just so that you must pay additional premium per 200 to 300 Mhz. Without taking sides, I feel you are just defending a company that is happy to take your money whenever there is any opportunity.


What does power use have to do with this? Both amd and intel go over their tdp at stock...they both measure their tdp differently. In the end, intel uses more power, true... but that isnt the point here.


Performance isnt always about higher clockspeed, correct again. IPC plays a role and amd is slightly ahead there. Where clock speed matters is making up that small difference.

There is a price premium on unlocked Intel chips. Yep. This is how Intel has done it for years (still waiting for you to tell me something new here...). You're clearly bitter over this..and I get it.

"Without taking sides"... lol, it's clear, your preference (and that's ok!). For the record, my money goes to the performance king for my uses. Since I cant utilize AMDs width right now (more c/t), Intel has my money. I'd rather pay a premium for a (even slightly) faster chip that suits my needs better than paying the same for something I cant utilize... or paying less for the same core/thread count and less performance (where it counts for me).

I get your plight...but AMD doesnt need a white knight and I'm not misguided. I feel plenty educated to make the best decision for my needs. If this costs more money to do so, so be it. I've worked hard and can afford to pay a $150+ premium on a PC that better suits my needs.

Anyway, a bit OT from the laptop intel chip (I digress), but the argument holds true there too...


----------



## ARF (Mar 29, 2020)

Leaked picture of the first Intel i9-10980HK Gaming laptop:


----------



## Valantar (Mar 29, 2020)

Xajel said:


> Nope, it has a 45W TDP, meaning it can fit in laptops, even thin ones like XPS 15, X1 Extreme & even MBP 16"...
> 
> The only issue is, Intel's mobile CPU's can't sustain higher clocks duo to thermal constraints, starting with i7/i9 8000th gen. a lot of reports that the i9's can performs lower than the i7 because when it was launched, most laptops were designed mainly for 35W TDP, those newer i9's came with 45W TDP and will soon throttle duo to heat. 9000th gen. i9 was better and some laptop manufacturers actually had sometime tweaking the cooling to better cope with it. But not all laptops, some peoples with some laptops -like the XPS 15- will undervolt the CPU to maintain the performance without throttling. MBP 16" was also better handling the 45W TDP.


That is just outright wrong. Intel H-series mobile CPUs have had ~45W TDPs since at least 2013. Before that the standard voltage (i.e. not ULV) M-series was IIRC 35W and 25W. Standard voltage died off around the Haswell era once U-series ULV chips became powerful enough that a middle ground category was no longer necessary. But no systems have been designed around 35W Intel CPUs for a long, long time. The problem with 8th-gen H-series CPUs wasn't the TDP, but that they started adding cores, driving actual power consumption under load up. Thermal solutions designed for previous 4c4/8t 45W CPUs could no longer handle the boost power draw of newer 6 and 8 core CPUs (as they pull far more than 45W while boosting), and the aggressive/simple nature of Intel's boost system causes it to loop between boosting high, then throttling to keep thermals in check, then trying to boost again once they are low enough. Of course there is always the possibility for an OEM to either make a bad cooling solution or to deliberately underspec it with the expectation of lower performance to make a thinner/lighter PC or some similar tradeoff (most H-series chips also have a 35W cTDP-down mode with lower clocks, but these are very rarely used). With the configurable PL1 and PL2 levels of current Intel chips OEMs can pretty much do whatever they want in terms of tuning power draw and thermals.

The issue here then is that they are now speccing an 8-core chip with absolutely insane turbo speeds at the same 45W - which it will of course stay at even under all-core loads when power or thermally limited - but which has the ability to consume 3-4 times that power if given free rein. This isn't a problem in and of itself, but coupled with the quest for ever-thinner laptop designs, you end up with terrible thermals and massive throttling issues. The problem with the MBP series, though, was that it throttled even below base clock, which is entirely unacceptable as it is then operating out of spec. As long as it is able to maintain base clocks under a full all-core load I see no problem, but massive boost speeds come with a significant risk of overloading the cooling system and sending it into a boost-throttle-boost loop which hurts performance significantly.


EarthDog said:


> Sorry, perhaps I took refined in a different way. I'm aware more variables go into amd boost than with Intel, surely others will benefit from that and the other info.
> 
> When I think of refined, I think of something that works well for its purpose. AMD's boost, for several months, didn't work as advertised for a lot of users. Intel's has always just worked (I dont recall any snafus with it) and is a bit more simple. In they end, they both work fine. There is enough performance in today's cpus that for the most part, the number of threads and how they boost, be it static or AMD's method, aren't a big factor in performance. PBO is the best for most to overclock these things... for those who dont grind all c/t loads.
> 
> ...


I don't think we disagree so much on the definition of "refined" as we disagree on the specific purpose of boost in a CPU (which again affects what is a refined boost system). I see boost as a system to extract the maximum amount of performance out of a part under any given circumstances, while it seems you are a bit more lenient, along the lines of just wanting it to be faster than base when possible. As such, in my view Intel's simple system functions rather poorly due to a) leaving significant performance on the table, b) treating all cores equally (as in not taking into account that some cores will inevitably be able to clock higher at a given voltage), and c) throttling too hard when it throttles, leading to spiky performance rather than gracefully scaling down to a sustainable clock speed under the cooling and power available. I absolutely agree that a simple system _can_ be more refined than a complex one, but in this case I think the simplicity of the system is detrimental to its ability to achieve its target.


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 29, 2020)

ARF said:


> Leaked picture of the first Intel i9-10980HK Gaming laptop:
> 
> View attachment 149663



I think they might dub it a new type of product.

'Ultracook'


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 29, 2020)

Valantar said:


> That is just outright wrong. Intel H-series mobile CPUs have had ~45W TDPs since at least 2013. Before that the standard voltage (i.e. not ULV) M-series was IIRC 35W and 25W. Standard voltage died off around the Haswell era once U-series ULV chips became powerful enough that a middle ground category was no longer necessary. But no systems have been designed around 35W Intel CPUs for a long, long time. The problem with 8th-gen H-series CPUs wasn't the TDP, but that they started adding cores, driving actual power consumption under load up. Thermal solutions designed for previous 4c4/8t 45W CPUs could no longer handle the boost power draw of newer 6 and 8 core CPUs (as they pull far more than 45W while boosting), and the aggressive/simple nature of Intel's boost system causes it to loop between boosting high, then throttling to keep thermals in check, then trying to boost again once they are low enough. Of course there is always the possibility for an OEM to either make a bad cooling solution or to deliberately underspec it with the expectation of lower performance to make a thinner/lighter PC or some similar tradeoff (most H-series chips also have a 35W cTDP-down mode with lower clocks, but these are very rarely used). With the configurable PL1 and PL2 levels of current Intel chips OEMs can pretty much do whatever they want in terms of tuning power draw and thermals.
> 
> The issue here then is that they are now speccing an 8-core chip with absolutely insane turbo speeds at the same 45W - which it will of course stay at even under all-core loads when power or thermally limited - but which has the ability to consume 3-4 times that power if given free rein. This isn't a problem in and of itself, but coupled with the quest for ever-thinner laptop designs, you end up with terrible thermals and massive throttling issues. The problem with the MBP series, though, was that it throttled even below base clock, which is entirely unacceptable as it is then operating out of spec. As long as it is able to maintain base clocks under a full all-core load I see no problem, but massive boost speeds come with a significant risk of overloading the cooling system and sending it into a boost-throttle-boost loop which hurts performance significantly.
> 
> I don't think we disagree so much on the definition of "refined" as we disagree on the specific purpose of boost in a CPU (which again affects what is a refined boost system). I see boost as a system to extract the maximum amount of performance out of a part under any given circumstances, while it seems you are a bit more lenient, along the lines of just wanting it to be faster than base when possible. As such, in my view Intel's simple system functions rather poorly due to a) leaving significant performance on the table, b) treating all cores equally (as in not taking into account that some cores will inevitably be able to clock higher at a given voltage), and c) throttling too hard when it throttles, leading to spiky performance rather than gracefully scaling down to a sustainable clock speed under the cooling and power available. I absolutely agree that a simple system _can_ be more refined than a complex one, but in this case I think the simplicity of the system is detrimental to its ability to achieve its target.


we'll agree to disagree.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 29, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> I think they might dub it a new type of product.
> 
> 'Ultracook'


Now that the ODD is gone from most laptops I would propose reintroducing a similarly sized cavity in these laptops, preferably teflon lined. Perfect size for a single-slice toaster. And laptop makers could make extra money selling accessories like cooking trays. Maybe a popcorn popper (with a side exhaust into a bag)? Egg fryer? Heating element for a single-cup coffee maker? Lots of opportunity here!

It's about time we get a portable version of this.


----------



## yeeeeman (Mar 29, 2020)

If this would be built on same 7nm process as AMD products, it would really be an interesting proposition for laptop.
Sure, with sufficient cooling this might boost to 5.3Ghz for short periods of time which in certain cases will make a big difference.
But in most other cases this CPU won't be able to boost that high.
It would actually be more logical from Intel to launch a 10 core model with lower frequencies. It would get the same/better performance as this one, but with better efficiency.


----------



## Kissamies (Mar 29, 2020)

Hyrel said:


> Boost up to 5.3 GHz on a laptop? Just marketing bs, what's the point, it could be capable of boosting to 10 GHz but you'll still underclock it to like 3 GHz if you don't want it to throttle as soon as you start any game.


Exactly. Probably boosts for a millisecond so monitoring programs can report that it had boosted to 5.3GHz..


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Mar 29, 2020)

These boosts are utterly worthless. It will end up just like my alienware laptop from yonks back, it "boosts" for all of 10 seconds the settles maybe 200 mhz above the much lower base clock. Utterly worthless in practice, as modern games load multiple cores preventing single core ultra boost due to power usage. 


NeuralNexus said:


> This is straight bs! Not to mention that smaller nodes do not GAIN the benefit of higher clock speeds, like past nodes. IF Intel ever creates 10nm or even 7nm desktop parts...clock speeds won't hit no where near 5GHz


Ignoring that 14nm is now clocking higher then 22nm for intel did, or that 12nm ryzen and 7nm ryzen both clock higher then 14nm ryzen. OOps.....


----------



## Tartaros (Mar 29, 2020)

This is goint to melt any laptop it's put on. But still, if they can really manage that 45tdp more or less stable, this could be a fine desktop cpu instead.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 29, 2020)

I am tired of reading Throttlestop posts about undervolting that has ceased to stop because of update/plundervolt...

poor Dev... I admire his devotion.

It is so hard to understand for some, that their laptop cooling solution ultimatelly sucks... accept your fate.

This product smells like same problem...


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Mar 29, 2020)

Ferrum Master said:


> I am tired of reading Throttlestop posts about undervolting that has ceased to stop because of update/plundervolt...
> 
> poor Dev... I admire his devotion.
> 
> ...


And accept that laptops are inherently less capable. Cooling a constant 45 watts with a tiny 40mm fan and thin little fins on a single heatpipe stuffed into a thin laptop with no direct venting for the fan to keep it "quiet" is going to hamper performance. 

At some point you rally do just graduate into building desktops. 45 watt+ CPUs and 100+ watt dGPUs are a monumental pain in the arse to cool in a thin chassis.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 29, 2020)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> Ignoring that 14nm is now clocking higher then 22nm for intel did, or that 12nm ryzen and 7nm ryzen both clock higher then 14nm ryzen. OOps.....


While both of those are true, GloFo 14nm was not a particularly high-clocking node (being based on Samsung's mobile/low power focused 14nm), and Intel 14nm has seen a series of revisions with explicit design goals being increased clocks (mostly through optimizing design libraries for higher voltages, which in turn lowers efficiency). Intel 14nm didn't clock particularly high at first, and TSMC 7nm still doesn't. Also, we are fast approaching a point where production nodes are small enough that their ability to handle the voltages needed for high clocks drops off significantly. This is why AMD's current chips still struggle with higher all-core clocks than ~4.3GHz even on well-binned chips - they simply can't handle the voltage necessary. This won't be getting better with upcoming smaller nodes either. High-power 10-16nm-class nodes are likely to be the highest clocking nodes we'll ever see.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Mar 29, 2020)

Valantar said:


> While both of those are true, GloFo 14nm was not a particularly high-clocking node (being based on Samsung's mobile/low power focused 14nm), and Intel 14nm has seen a series of revisions with explicit design goals being increased clocks (mostly through optimizing design libraries for higher voltages, which in turn lowers efficiency). Intel 14nm didn't clock particularly high at first, and TSMC 7nm still doesn't. Also, we are fast approaching a point where production nodes are small enough that their ability to handle the voltages needed for high clocks drops off significantly. This is why AMD's current chips still struggle with higher all-core clocks than ~4.3GHz even on well-binned chips - they simply can't handle the voltage necessary. This won't be getting better with upcoming smaller nodes either. High-power 10-16nm-class nodes are likely to be the highest clocking nodes we'll ever see.


And I remember hearing how we would never see hard drives larger then 10GB, that it just wasnt possible to put more sectors closer together without overwriting them, and how going below 100nm was going to pose such significant struggles with quantum tunneling that we'd never see them in consumer products, and how pushing memory speeds above 800 mhz was going to produce so much latency they would be useless, then how DDR4 would be useless due to latency, and now the peanut gallery is chanting on how DDR5 will be high latency and not worth it, and how with 28nm it was getting so difficult to produce large dies we'd never see a GPU over 600mm2 ever again, and yada yada yada yada.

Hey, remember how sub 20nm nodes would never be able to handle voltages over 1.2V? Remember how Moore's law was dead, and we'd never see significant performance/watt improvements over ivy bridge quad cores? I remember hearing all that garbage on forums and in tech news.

Much like samsung and intel's 14nm, just because TSMC 7nm doesnt do it well NOW doesnt mean it never will. 7nm EUV is supposed to allow for 15-20% higher clocks or reduced power consumption, on a node that supposedly was impossible to make back in 2010, when sub 10nm was written off for being too close to electron size.

Notice a pattern here? Now the chant is "high clocks will never happen again below 14nm!!!!". I'm not going to make that basis on ONE GENERATION of CPUs from AMD that dont hit 5 ghz, from an arch that has NEVER clocked up well. That is how many tech "predictions" end up eating elephant sized crow.


----------



## Berfs1 (Mar 29, 2020)

watzupken said:


> I am skeptical that it will even do 3.8 to 4Ghz on all 8 cores to be honest. From what I observed, most laptops improve cooling by slapping more heatpipes, criss-crossing it everywhere to 2 heatsinks. While heat is quickly moved to the heatsink because of the heatpipes, the bottleneck is always the physical size of the heatsink and the blower (more heatsink). I've used a few gaming laptops before and despite the elaborate cooling solution, generally the CPU will hit high 80s to 90s easily under load. When this happens, even with the fan ramped up to 90 or 100%, the CPU will always throttle to the base speed. My observations are based on 4c/8t 45W processors few years back. So with 2x the cores and higher clockspeed + power, keeping 8 cores cool and running substantially higher clockspeed is not possible on a laptop no matter how you cut it. Otherwise, there will not be some laptops that comes with watercooling, like the one from Asus.
> 
> 
> Personally, laptops with top end desktop processors makes the least sense. I think you can read reviews of how they perform. Physically, laptops don't have the luxury of space for massive heatsink to cool the components. Laptops of this class generally comes with some high end graphics as well, which adds on to the cooling woes. Under load, the end result is that both the CPU and GPU will suffer due to extremely high temps and substantial throttling is to be expected.


One way to help increase core clock is by lowering the cache ratio. Not a lot of laptop folks know how much this can impact, but lowering from 42x to 32x, reduced my temps by around 10C. Not a big difference eh? But how did it affect my performance? Virtually zero impact, so there isn't a reason to run it at full speed unless you have awesome cooling. Reduce the cache ratio if throttling, that will help you more than reducing core ratio.



yotano211 said:


> The cooling on current laptop is really bad and I kinda like it hot in my house. I prefer the heat. i7 8750h, the specs are over there
> <<<


Haha just noticed, alrighty, you should be able to run 41/41/40/40/39/39 on your 9750H max. Those are the turbo ratios for 1c/2c/3c/4c/5c/6c respectively. In your scenario, you SHOULD run your computer hotter (since you like heat), and also, max out your clock speeds. If it is capping at 3.3 GHz, I think there is some manual limit in place that can be overridden; use ThrottleStop to increase your clocks. Also I recommend undervolting your processor but by all means go for as high as it can clock! I have a 9750H and I have an undervolt of around -150mV, all cores go at 4.0 GHz as it is a slightly higher clocked 9750H, but temps go to almost 100C when cache is 39x-42x, and ~90C when cache is 32-33x.


----------



## John Naylor (Mar 29, 2020)

sergionography said:


> Melting laptops will be the new trend. Or laptops with cup holders to keep your coffee hot





hat said:


> I've explained this before. The reason that we're "against boosting", in this scenario, is because it's simply *not going to happen*. Nobody cares if a laptop boosts to 5.3GHz for a fraction of a second, before power or thermal limits kick in, to load a word document or a web page 1/10 of a second faster than it would have if it just ran at base clock all the time. As such, the feature is useless... and who wants features that don't work? No, we don't get a working feature... instead we get "5.3GHz!!111!111" plastered everywhere, when in reality it can only reach that speed for a very short time, i.e. applications where 5.3GHz performance isn't necessary anyway.
> 
> Now, take that same chip and put it in a desktop where power and thermal limits aren't woefully constrained like they are in a laptop, and you get a different story. Nobody complains about the 9900k boost clock, because it can actually reach it. Nobody complains about the boost feature on Nvidia graphics cards, because they actually do it. People complain about the advertised boost clocks on these laptops, because they _don't_ do it. That's the key difference.



Have you also explained that more clocks and smaller die sizes that "are plastered everhwere" do not increase gaming performance ?    ... or in pretty much everything else 98+% of what people do on a daily basis ?  Why are cores and die size  relevant when TPU testing shows CPU overclocking is relevant.  Sure, if you are a user trying to game on a 3.5 pound ultralight but again, on a properly designed and preferabley custom built lappie, no problem.   There's a very active overclocking community on the Clevo website with lapped CPUs, delidding,   cooler mods and high sustainable OCs from simple things to extreme.  Before Alienware was bought by Dell, they were simply Clevo custom built laptops.

When you say "Nobody complains about the 9900k boost clock, because it can actually reach it.", you should be aware that the fact is custom built laptopss have the option of using desktop CPUs 9900k so nobody should be complaining by your reasoning.   The cooling systems are designed to handle the load.

Clevo P775TM1-G 17" Laptop
9th Generation Intel® Core™ i9-9900K Processor (16M Cache, up to 5.00 GHz)
17.3" Full HD 144Hz Wide View Angle 72% NTSC Matte with G-SYNC Technology 
NVIDIA® GeForce™ RTX™ 2080 GPU with 8GB GDDR6 
32GB Dual Channel DDR4 3000MHz (PC4 24000) - 2 X 16GB
Windows® 10 Pro 64-Bit Edition Preinstalled, (with 64-Bit USB Recovery Media)
Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut Thermal Compound - CPU + GPU 
1TB SAMSUNG® 970 PRO™ M.2 PCIe NVMe V-NAND SSD (OS DRIVE)
1TB SAMSUNG® 970 PRO™ M.2 PCIe NVMe V-NAND SSD (SLOT 2)
SAMSUNG® 860 PRO™ 4TB SATA III 3-D Vertical SSD
Intel® Wi-Fi 6 AX200 M.2 AX + Bluetooth® 5 Combo Card

Clevo  PB71RF-G
9th Gen Intel® Core™ i7-9750H Processor (12M Cache, up to 4.50 GHz)
17.3" Full HD (1920 x 1080) 144Hz, Wide View Angle 72% NTSC Matte with G-SYNC Technology
NVIDIA® GeForce™ RTX™ 2070 with 8GB GDDR6 Video memory
32GB Dual Channel DDR4 3000MHz (PC4 24000) - 2 X 16GB
Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut Thermal Compound - CPU + GP1TB SAMSUNG® 970 PRO™ M.2 PCIe NVMe V-NAND SSD (OS DRIVE)
1TB SAMSUNG® 970 PRO™ M.2 PCIe NVMe V-NAND SSD (SLOT 2)
SAMSUNG® 860 PRO™ 4TB SATA III 3-D Vertical SSD
Intel® Wi-Fi 6 AX200 M.2 AX + Bluetooth® 5 Combo Card

Should also be aware that the performance difference between mobile and desktop CPUs / GPUs has considerably narrowed.  Let's look at some numbers:

Card:  Ranking - 3D Mark Ice Storm / 3D Mark Cloud Gate / 3D Mark Firestrike

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (Desktop) : Ranked 20th -  424385 / 126874 / 23373
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (Mobile): Ranked 23rd -   425550 / 116232 / 20036.5

Gaming performance as tested, ranges from 119 desktop / 118 mobile (Escape from Tarkov) to 184 / 154 (Doom Eternal)

Imagine that ... only 2 GPUs in the world faster than the 2070 Mobile and slower than the 2070 desktop... GTX 1080 and RTX 2070 Super.

We have been buying Clevo laptops exclusively for, I'd guess,  going on 20 years ...1) because nothing we've found performs better, 2) unequal freedom in component selection, 3) no artificial limitations on performance tweaking and 4) less expensive than gaming laptops from MSI.   After installing OS /  running RoG Real Bench and Furmark is the 1st thing done and when I put the effort in, have even managed to get a notable OC.


----------



## yotano211 (Mar 29, 2020)

Berfs1 said:


> One way to help increase core clock is by lowering the cache ratio. Not a lot of laptop folks know how much this can impact, but lowering from 42x to 32x, reduced my temps by around 10C. Not a big difference eh? But how did it affect my performance? Virtually zero impact, so there isn't a reason to run it at full speed unless you have awesome cooling. Reduce the cache ratio if throttling, that will help you more than reducing core ratio.
> 
> 
> Haha just noticed, alrighty, you should be able to run 41/41/40/40/39/39 on your 9750H max. Those are the turbo ratios for 1c/2c/3c/4c/5c/6c respectively. In your scenario, you SHOULD run your computer hotter (since you like heat), and also, max out your clock speeds. If it is capping at 3.3 GHz, I think there is some manual limit in place that can be overridden; use ThrottleStop to increase your clocks. Also I recommend undervolting your processor but by all means go for as high as it can clock! I have a 9750H and I have an undervolt of around -150mV, all cores go at 4.0 GHz as it is a slightly higher clocked 9750H, but temps go to almost 100C when cache is 39x-42x, and ~90C when cache is 32-33x.


MSI usually throttle their gaming laptop starting at 94C. 3.3ghz is with undervolt at 100%.



John Naylor said:


> Have you also explained that more clocks and smaller die sizes that "are plastered everhwere" do not increase gaming performance ?    ... or in pretty much everything else 98+% of what people do on a daily basis ?  Why are cores and die size  relevant when TPU testing shows CPU overclocking is relevant.  Sure, if you are a user trying to game on a 3.5 pound ultralight but again, on a properly designed and preferabley custom built lappie, no problem.   There's a very active overclocking community on the Clevo website with lapped CPUs, delidding,   cooler mods and high sustainable OCs from simple things to extreme.  Before Alienware was bought by Dell, they were simply Clevo custom built laptops.
> 
> When you say "Nobody complains about the 9900k boost clock, because it can actually reach it.", you should be aware that the fact is custom built laptopss have the option of using desktop CPUs 9900k so nobody should be complaining by your reasoning.   The cooling systems are designed to handle the load.
> 
> ...


I love Clevo laptops, my last Clevo laptop was a P370sm3. It had one of the 1st 120hz screens on any laptop. The Nvidia 970m sli was a nightmare to get it running correctly.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 30, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> 5.3 ghz.. yikes!!!
> 
> 
> They'll use sTIM I'd imagine.


Mobile chips are mostly bare dies. No IHS.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 30, 2020)

btarunr said:


> Mobile chips are mostly bare dies. No IHS.


Oof, yep!


----------



## Valantar (Mar 30, 2020)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> And I remember hearing how we would never see hard drives larger then 10GB, that it just wasnt possible to put more sectors closer together without overwriting them, and how going below 100nm was going to pose such significant struggles with quantum tunneling that we'd never see them in consumer products, and how pushing memory speeds above 800 mhz was going to produce so much latency they would be useless, then how DDR4 would be useless due to latency, and now the peanut gallery is chanting on how DDR5 will be high latency and not worth it, and how with 28nm it was getting so difficult to produce large dies we'd never see a GPU over 600mm2 ever again, and yada yada yada yada.
> 
> Hey, remember how sub 20nm nodes would never be able to handle voltages over 1.2V? Remember how Moore's law was dead, and we'd never see significant performance/watt improvements over ivy bridge quad cores? I remember hearing all that garbage on forums and in tech news.
> 
> ...


There are always new innovations moving things forwards, but the past decade has been one long story of major progress due in large part to better designs and more money for more ambitious designs (compared to the previous decades where a lot of development was slow simply because the companies involved couldn't afford more) on the one hand, with the behind-the-scenes stuff slowing down on the other. No matter if previous predictions have been wrong, there are serious innovations needed to make upcoming 5nm and 3nm nodes clock as high as current ones, let alone higher. I'm not saying it can't or won't happen, but it will be slow and expensive. We've been hearing of new materials revolutionizing IC production for two decades now, and none of them have really panned out yet. We're reaching the practical limits of some fundamental underpinnings of all silicon manufacturing - such as the use of copper for internal wiring - and have yet to really come to grips with replacing it, even if we theoretically know how this might be done. Another major factor is cost - HDDs are a good example of this. There has been massive progress in the HDD space in terms of capacity over the past decades, but prices per GB have stagnated, meaning the capacity increases don't actually benefit users. The biggest HDD I have is 6TB, simply because anything bigger gets stupidly expensive and price/GB actually rises. Similar developments will hit other sectors of the PC space too, with new innovations being so costly as to continuously drive prices upwards. I do think the HDD market is a worst case scenario (high base cost for materials and parts, other limitations shrinking the market, extreme commodification), and I don't think we'll ever see a situation where GPU or CPU price/perf stagnates for a decade, but as innovation slows prices will inevitably suffer. We're already at a point where a CPU can realistically perform adequately for mixed use (including gaming) for nearly a decade. GPUs make bigger strides, but that too will inevitably taper off as clocks and die sizes start hitting various limits. Then we'll have to look to exotic packaging for performance increases, which will boost prices, and is only a stopgap solution. There's always _something_ that can be done, but with every refinement and development made, there's less left to do, so improvements become slower and more expensive.


----------



## Vader (Mar 30, 2020)

Reviews are in for the 4900HS, these intel chips look silly now.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 30, 2020)

Vader said:


> Reviews are in for the 4900HS, these intel chips look silly now.


I haven't seen any like-for-like comparisons for gaming (same chassis won't happen, but same GPU would be nice), but for anything CPU-bound they look amazing. Of course It will definitely be interesting to see what 10th gen H-series chips being to the table to compete with this. Nonetheless that Asus G14 is a mighty attractive package.


----------



## champsilva (Mar 31, 2020)




----------



## Berfs1 (Apr 1, 2020)

Vader said:


> Reviews are in for the 4900HS, these intel chips look silly now.


Not to play devils advocate, but the i9-9880H is NOT intel's top chip, its the 9980HK. There is a rather large difference with the two, the 9980HK is binned AND unlocked. As far as I know, AMD's mobile chips are not unlocked.


----------



## ratirt (Apr 1, 2020)

Berfs1 said:


> Not to play devils advocate, but the i9-9880H is NOT intel's top chip, its the 9980HK. There is a rather large difference with the two, the 9980HK is binned AND unlocked. As far as I know, AMD's mobile chips are not unlocked.


I think AMD doesn't have locked or unlocked CPUs like Intel does. They are simply CPUs. Desktop CPUs don't have that and I'm sure mobile as well. Besides, who would OC a mobile processor in a laptop with so many constraints? Power envelope is important.


----------



## Berfs1 (Apr 1, 2020)

ratirt said:


> I think AMD doesn't have locked or unlocked CPUs like Intel does. They are simply CPUs. Desktop CPUs don't have that and I'm sure mobile as well. Besides, who would OC a mobile processor in a laptop with so many constraints? Power envelope is important.


(for Ryzen) Desktop consumer chips are for the most part unlocked. Desktop prosumer chips (pro) are locked. Mobile chips I think are locked, not 100% on that but from my datasheet all of them are locked (at least for Ryzen era). The reason overclocking a mobile processor makes sense is it helps increase performance when plugged in. obviously when unplugged you generally want to improve efficiency, but when plugged in, that's when overclocking would make sense.


----------



## champsilva (Apr 1, 2020)

ratirt said:


> I think AMD doesn't have locked or unlocked CPUs like Intel does. They are simply CPUs. Desktop CPUs don't have that and I'm sure mobile as well. Besides, who would OC a mobile processor in a laptop with so many constraints? Power envelope is important.



Epyc and mobile cpus are locked.


----------



## ARF (Apr 1, 2020)

Berfs1 said:


> (for Ryzen) Desktop consumer chips are for the most part unlocked. Desktop prosumer chips (pro) are locked. Mobile chips I think are locked, not 100% on that but from my datasheet all of them are locked (at least for Ryzen era). The reason overclocking a mobile processor makes sense is it helps increase performance when plugged in. obviously when unplugged you generally want to improve efficiency, but when plugged in, that's when overclocking would make sense.



Notebooks have no BIOSes that can overclock.
Also, if you don't want to fry your CPU/APU, better don't try overclocking on a notebook.
I am not sure but their cooling solutions must be worse than the worst BOX cooler.


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 1, 2020)

champsilva said:


> mobile cpus are locked.


Then what makes them cTDP and how is that altered?


----------



## ARF (Apr 1, 2020)

Caring1 said:


> Then what makes them cTDP and how is that altered?



I would guess by the specific OEM firmware?


----------



## Berfs1 (Apr 2, 2020)

ARF said:


> Notebooks have no BIOSes that can overclock.
> Also, if you don't want to fry your CPU/APU, better don't try overclocking on a notebook.
> I am not sure but their cooling solutions must be worse than the worst BOX cooler.


Not true, there are overclockable BIOSes that exist (though the BIOS itself may not have the features visible). For intel platforms, you can use ThrottleStop to overclock the processor, as well as Intel Extreme Tuning Utility (XTU), if your processor supports it. From my experience, the iGPU is overclockable only in XTU, but TS is better for everything else. For AMD systems however, Ryzen Master apparently doesn't work on mobile Ryzen chips (not 100% sure about that), so there isn't any way to modify it other than editing the power profile. If your manufacturer provides drivers, use those. Those can potentially allow tuning.


----------

