# Core i9-7900X Skylake-X Review Shows Up



## R-T-B (Jun 16, 2017)

An Intel Core i9-7900X has appeared for a full review at the site Hexus.net. Spoiler alert, it clocks to 4.7 GHz on all ten cores with relative ease (only taking 1.25 V, apparently, though it racked up nearly 100°C in Cinebench at that voltage).

The review praised Intel's overclocking headroom and general muscle in a mostly positive review. Still, not all is rosy in Intel land. They found performance per watt to not have improved much if at all, criticized the high price tag, and Hexus.net had the following to say about the overall experience:

"X299 motherboards don't appear to be quite ready, there are question marks surrounding the Skylake-X processors due later this year, and at the lower end of the Core X spectrum, Kaby Lake-X is nothing short of puzzling."



It would seem AMD is not the only major chip-maker who can have motherboards ill prepared at launch time, even the mighty Intel may have teething issues yet.

You can read the full review (which is mostly positive, by the way) in the source link below.

Oh, and a special shoutout to our own @the54thvoid for discovering this article.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## ironwolf (Jun 16, 2017)

One of the comments on the article was pure gold:



> This looks like an Emergency Edition processor


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 16, 2017)

Just finished reading. Meh, not impressed at all. Sure it can overclock high, but that power consumption. Man, I would take a RyZen over this power hungry CPU any time. And Threadripper will probably walk all over these "emergency edition processors"

Looks like RyZen put Intel back to the good old days of GHz race. When they loose in efficiency, the clock rate goes up.

Don't know how much more IPC improvement Intel can dig out of the X86. Unless they pull another story of Core2Duo of course.


OK wait a minute. If I am reading those charts correctly, the IPC of 7900X is actually worse comparing to 6950X? Can reduced L3 Cache size have such big impact on performance??

Man Intel is failing so hard after RyZen launch.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 16, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> OK wait a minute. If I am reading those charts correctly, the IPC of 7900X is actually worse comparing to 6950X? Can reduced L3 Cache size have such big impact on performance??



Apparently, yes.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 16, 2017)

In B 4

"Well power consumption doesn't matter on HEDT platforms" and "If you can afford it then better cooling isn't an issue"


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 16, 2017)

OK some quick search give me this. Yep, a HUGE shrink of L3 Cache.

So Intel is actually going backwards in IPC. Whoever made this decision in Intel needs to be fired 100 times.

"How are we gonna compete aganist RyZen"
"I dunno, maybe make our processors even worse?"
"Brilliant idea!"

Does Intel's ass control its brain these days?








Steevo said:


> In B 4
> 
> "Well power consumption doesn't matter on HEDT platforms" and "If you can afford it then better cooling isn't an issue"



Same. Really wanna see how Intel PR and fanboys are gonna spin this story.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 16, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> OK some quick search give me this. Yep, a HUGE shrink of L3 Cache.
> 
> So Intel is actually going backwards in IPC. Whoever made this decision in Intel needs to be fired 100 times.
> 
> ...




I think the simple answer is, Intel doesn't want to cannibalize their server chips, and large unified cache designs take a lot of power to run even at idle and would exacerbate their power draw and thermal issues to an even larger degree.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 16, 2017)

Steevo said:


> I think the simple answer is, Intel doesn't want to cannibalize their server chips, and large unified cache designs take a lot of power to run even at idle and would exacerbate their power draw and thermal issues to an even larger degree.



yeah yeah whatever. Worse IPC is worse. No matter how Intel wanna spin it they failed hard.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 16, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> yeah yeah whatever. Worse IPC is worse. No matter how Intel wanna spin it they failed hard.



To be fair, cache is one of the biggest limiting factors in clocks/overclocks because it runs hot.

Maybe Intel really is going all netburst on us again, sacrificing IPC for clocks.  Dunno.  They aren't there yet but they are certainly moving the wrong way IMO.

EDIT:  And if clocks were the goal, WHY THE HECK DID THEY USE A TIM?!?!?!


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 16, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> To be fair, cache is one of the biggest limiting factors in clocks/overclocks because it runs hot.
> 
> Maybe Intel really is going all netburst on us again, sacrificing IPC for clocks.  Dunno.  They aren't there yet but they are certainly moving the wrong way IMO.
> 
> EDIT:  And if clocks were the goal, WHY THE HECK DID THEY USE A TIM?!?!?!



The 7900X is not priced at the same point or higher than the 6950X, so it is NOT meant to be its replacement. That replacement is not coming for several months. That's why we already have info about a coming 18-core CPU, the 7980XE.

As to TIM, going form 3.3 GHz on 6950X to 4.0 GHz on 7900X seems like a 700 MHz increase to me... and is well within the capabilities of that TIM. Enthusiasts that want better cooling and push the chip past the 297W limit can pop the top, and void the warranty, no big deal.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 16, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> The 7900X is not priced at the same point or higher than the 6950X, so it is NOT meant to be its replacement. That replacement is not coming for several months. That's why we already have info about a coming 18-core CPU, the 7980XE.



Fair enough.  I wonder if the 7980XE will be soldered, per chance?



> no big deal.



That's relative, of course.  It was a big deal to me.  They lost a customer over it.  I'm sure I'm not the only one either.

At the same time, I'd be deeply surprised if they cared.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 16, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> That's relative, of course.  It was a big deal to me.  They lost a customer over it.  I'm sure I'm not the only one either.
> 
> At the same time, I'd be deeply surprised if they cared.




300W is a lot of power to push through such a small piece of glass, and the TIM is capable. It's even noted in the whitepaper that the chip can handle 300W. There's actually a whole lot about this chip that remains undisclosed, like, well, how about the FIVR? Hot temps? Perhaps the TIM has nothing to do with it?

Max rated voltage of 2.15V, 1.35V for VCCIO and VCCSA, 1.4V for vDIMM.

To me, this is far from a proper review, because such info was missed. It's hard to make accurate judgements about anything when you don't have all the information. That TIM is actually doing a hell of a job, and these two reviewers that posted these reviews today missed it.


But of course, that's why you're _here_.



Also note the lack of disclosure about which board they have... You cannot make accurate assessments about this platform under these circumstances.


----------



## claes (Jun 16, 2017)

bit-tech up as well: https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2017/06/16/intel-core-i9-7900x-and-x299-chipset-revie/1


----------



## VSG (Jun 16, 2017)

All I will say is we should wait for other reviews to show up, especially from those who have taken more time to test the platform rather than prematurely release reviews.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 16, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> 300W is a lot of power to push through such a small piece of glass, and the TIM is capable. It's even noted in the whitepaper that the chip can handle 300W. There's actually a whole lot about this chip that remains undisclosed, like, well, how about the FIVR? Hot temps? Perhaps the TIM has nothing to do with it?
> 
> Max rated voltage of 2.15V, 1.35V for VCCIO and VCCSA, 1.4V for vDIMM.
> 
> ...




Indeed.  They leave more questions than answers in my mind, frankly.



VSG said:


> All I will say is we should wait for other reviews to show up, especially from those who have taken more time to test the platform rather than prematurely release reviews.



Indeed.  I just didn't expect a review this early, and thought it better to keep readers in the know than not.  I personally eagerly await a very thourough review from TPU, when/if they are able.


----------



## BrainCruser (Jun 16, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> OK some quick search give me this. Yep, a HUGE shrink of L3 Cache.
> 
> So Intel is actually going backwards in IPC. Whoever made this decision in Intel needs to be fired 100 times.
> 
> ...



They are rearanging the interconnect inside the core from a ringbus which tops out at around 8-10 cores, to a grid that can handle hundreds of cores(it does actually handle that much cores in the xeon phi). 
The grid approach is pretty standard in processors, ARM uses it all the time.

If you remember when sandybridge came out and intel jumped like 15-20% in IPC, That was when the ringbus was introduced. Now it topped out and limited them so they went back.


----------



## Gasaraki (Jun 16, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> OK some quick search give me this. Yep, a HUGE shrink of L3 Cache.
> 
> So Intel is actually going backwards in IPC. Whoever made this decision in Intel needs to be fired 100 times.
> 
> ...



The L3 cache has shrink but the L1 and L2 cache has increased in size.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 16, 2017)

BrainCruser said:


> They are rearanging the interconnect inside the core from a ringbus which tops out at around 8-10 cores, to a grid that can handle hundreds of cores(it does actually handle that much cores in the xeon phi).
> The grid approach is pretty standard in processors, ARM uses it all the time.
> 
> If you remember when sandybridge came out and intel jumped like 15-20% in IPC, That was when the ringbus was introduced. Now it topped out and limited them so they went back.



Still doesn't explainaway the strange dip in IPC.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 16, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> I just didn't expect a review this early, and thought it better to keep readers in the know than not.  I personally eagerly await a very thourough review from TPU, when/if they are able.


I did not expect anything either, to be honest but it's cool, because this is useful in ways that are beyond imagination when it comes to credibility. 

You know, like those performance dips; yeah, they could be cache, but they could also be a bit of throttle. Also, the high temps and voltage wall could be the TIM, or it could be the FIVR, or that they did not adjust its voltage properly. Obviously these sites needs hits or they'd not have posted such reviews.  I am in shock about it all, to be honest.

I'll have samples of these chips and boards, as well as memory for the platform real soon. Not sure if W1zz has planned CPU review yet. If anything, this just makes me a bit more interested to see what's what.


----------



## Kakdave (Jun 16, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Still doesn't explainaway the strange dip in IPC.


Early BIOS???


----------



## BrainCruser (Jun 16, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Still doesn't explainaway the strange dip in IPC.



Wait for someone to measure the cache latencies. They should be completely rearanged.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 16, 2017)

BrainCruser said:


> Wait for someone to measure the cache latencies. They should be completely rearanged.


Astute comment, that.


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 16, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> The 7900X is not priced at the same point or higher than the 6950X, so it is NOT meant to be its replacement. That replacement is not coming for several months. That's why we already have info about a coming 18-core CPU, the 7980XE.
> 
> As to TIM, going form 3.3 GHz on 6950X to 4.0 GHz on 7900X seems like a 700 MHz increase to me... and is well within the capabilities of that TIM. Enthusiasts that want better cooling and push the chip past the 297W limit can pop the top, and void the warranty, no big deal.



To push the chip you need to break the HS off of it? I am an enthusiast... i like to be able to resell my chips without having to scrub the freaking liquid metal off the die, or have to disassemble and reassemble the damn thing and glue it back on with silicon.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 16, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> To push the chip you need to break the HS off of it? I am an enthusiast... i like to be able to resell my chips without having to scrub the freaking liquid metal off the die, or have to disassemble and reassemble the damn thing and glue it back on with silicon.


No, you don't. But if you want to push to extreme levels, then yes, you do, as you do now with many chips. Those that want what the CPU is capable of for 24/7 use will most definitely be able to get that without any problems. My 6950X chips have issues pushing past 4.4 GHz, and they don' clock ram well, so this 7900X seems like a decent chip to me, especially since it costs LESS than the 6950X, but offers just as many cores.


----------



## notb (Jun 16, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> OK some quick search give me this. Yep, a HUGE shrink of L3 Cache.
> 
> So Intel is actually going backwards in IPC. Whoever made this decision in Intel needs to be fired 100 times.


I guess the 14nm is already exploited as far as IPC goes. They wanted high clocks, so they sacrificed some IPC (most likely by limiting cache). In the end this CPU is still faster. Isn't that what we want? Fast CPUs? 

The most important thing in this CPU is that it matches 7700K in single-thread performance.
Yes, more cores is the future, so this CPU is future-proof in the same way Ryzen 7 or Threadripper are future-proof. But *this CPU doesn't have any penalty for the present* while Zen does.
It will be near the leaders in games and in vast number of single-thread tasks. It'll be just as good in applications that only use 3 or 4 threads.



xkm1948 said:


> Same. Really wanna see how Intel PR and fanboys are gonna spin this story.


The power consumption is significant (way to high for me for sure), but not something that we haven't seen before. It'll get better in time (improved node, optimizations).
Based on how Intel usually improves their architecture, it's very likely that in 1-2 years a successor of this CPU will match Ryzen 7 power consumption, while I wouldn't be so sure about Ryzen 7's successor matching 7900X performance...


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 16, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> Just finished reading. Meh, not impressed at all. Sure it can overclock high, but that power consumption. Man, I would take a RyZen over this power hungry CPU any time. And Threadripper will probably walk all over these "emergency edition processors"
> 
> Looks like RyZen put Intel back to the good old days of GHz race. When they loose in efficiency, the clock rate goes up.
> 
> ...


4.7ghz is less than claimed before though, but temps are at least not too dangerous. I wpuld rather have a nice, cool, efficiënt ryzen cpu than a student alternative to an induction furnace!


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 16, 2017)

notb said:


> I guess the 14nm is already exploited as far as IPC goes. They wanted high clocks, so they sacrificed some IPC (most likely by limiting cache). In the end this CPU is still faster. Isn't that what we want? Fast CPUs?
> 
> The most important thing in this CPU is that it matches 7700K in single-thread performance.
> Yes, more cores is the future, so this CPU is future-proof in the same way Ryzen 7 or Threadripper are future-proof. But *this CPU doesn't have any penalty for the present* while Zen does.
> ...


I expect 10-15+% performance increase from ryzen 2.0 because of higher clocks and improved ipc. Hopefully overclocked speeds will reach 4.6-4.7ghz. Still, 4-4.1ghz is more than enough for me.


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 16, 2017)

Im happy to see AMD do so well...  hoping the 7820 and 7800 do better in games but doesn't seem like it.


----------



## Basard (Jun 16, 2017)

I love how the new release of any technology these days is accompanied by "Our fastest chip ever!!" as if they were going to make a newer chip that was slower than the old ones.


----------



## [XC] Oj101 (Jun 16, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Fair enough.  I wonder if the 7980XE will be soldered, per chance?



It isn't.


----------



## Lucas_ (Jun 16, 2017)

hahahaha .


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 16, 2017)

[XC] Oj101 said:


> It isn't.


Figured.


----------



## Zotz (Jun 17, 2017)

"it clocks to 4.7 GHz on all ten cores with relative ease"...

I understand what you meant to say, but you're giving a false general impression.  It's not "relative ease" if it results in a 100C die temp (with, presumably, a decent cooler).  If Intel has cheaped out (yet again) and gimped the thing with a poor heat bridge, they shouldn't get a pass on it.


----------



## dwade (Jun 17, 2017)

The powerconsumption on the Bit-Tech review is much lower than the Hexus one. Looks like it's an engineering sample on the Hexus review.


----------



## efikkan (Jun 17, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> OK some quick search give me this. Yep, a HUGE shrink of L3 Cache.
> 
> So Intel is actually going backwards in IPC. Whoever made this decision in Intel needs to be fired 100 times.


Skylake-X features a redesigned cache hierarchy. The old L3 cache had a duplicated L2 cache in L3, but since nearly none of L2 data is ever shared between cores, ~90% of this is waste, meaning ~90% of 256kB per core is wasted.

Intel opted for quadrupling the L2, while reducing the L3 and making it non-inclusive, making the overall cache hierarchy more efficient and improve the hit rate. This makes an increase in IPC.


----------



## NicklasAPJ (Jun 17, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> OK some quick search give me this. Yep, a HUGE shrink of L3 Cache.
> 
> So Intel is actually going backwards in IPC. Whoever made this decision in Intel needs to be fired 100 times.
> 
> ...



They going UP in IPC with giveing the CPU more L2 Cache instead.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 17, 2017)

NicklasAPJ said:


> They going UP in IPC with giveing the CPU more L2 Cache instead.


I don't think the right terminology is in use here. 

Because of Intel cache changes, AMD will benefit when code adjusts.

It's funny, I seem to find myself almost arguing against "popular" opinion in these threads, no matter if AMD or Intel is the main subject.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 17, 2017)

Zotz said:


> "it clocks to 4.7 GHz on all ten cores with relative ease"...
> 
> I understand what you meant to say, but you're giving a false general impression.  It's not "relative ease" if it results in a 100C die temp (with, presumably, a decent cooler).  If Intel has cheaped out (yet again) and gimped the thing with a poor heat bridge, they shouldn't get a pass on it.



I simply meant the OC was not technically diffilcult to attain, but thank you for the feedback and (valid) point.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 17, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> I simply meant the OC was not technically diffilcult to attain, but thank you for the feedback and (valid) point.


It shouldn't be, when 4.5 GHz is the max stock Turbo 3.0 bin. Technically, that's only 200 MHz.

I digress, Turbo 3.0 is only on one core, and that core is chosen by the factory, so that OC is a bigger achievement than I might seem to insinuate, but that said, Turbo 2.0 is 4.3 GHz, so it's only 400 MHz.

Also, credit to VSG:

https://www.intel.com/content/dam/w...tasheets/6th-gen-x-series-datasheet-vol-1.pdf


----------



## efikkan (Jun 17, 2017)

Turbo Boost 3.0 is maximum sustained boost for two selected cores, tested at the factory. This information is available for the OS scheduler, requiring a later OS featuring this, which is why you'll see the products feature both Turbo Boost 2.0 and 3.0 speeds, depending on software configuration.

Even though OC is quite possible on these chips, it becomes pretty useless when it's already having such high clocks across all cores and even higher boost. For CPUs costing >= $1000, sacrificing warranty, life expectancy etc. for a few percent is just pointless. Most buyers of CPUs in this range are looking for a workstation to last them 5-6 years, so bumping the voltage of the CPU is out of the question. One of the largest achievements since the days of Sandy Bridge-E is that we no longer have to choose between good single thread and multithreading performance, these large chips are really working well on all workloads.


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 17, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Turbo Boost 3.0 is maximum sustained boost for two selected cores, tested at the factory. This information is available for the OS scheduler, requiring a later OS featuring this, which is why you'll see the products feature both Turbo Boost 2.0 and 3.0 speeds, depending on software configuration.
> 
> Even though OC is quite possible on these chips, it becomes pretty useless when it's already having such high clocks across all cores and even higher boost. For CPUs costing >= $1000, sacrificing warranty,* life expectancy etc. for a few percent is just pointless.* Most buyers of CPUs in this range are looking for a workstation to last them 5-6 years, so bumping the voltage of the CPU is out of the question. One of the largest achievements since the days of Sandy Bridge-E is that we no longer have to choose between good single thread and multithreading performance, these large chips are really working well on all workloads.



It's not a few % in many cases -- with the 7900x it really is a few % and so i agree with you ... but in some cases:






that's a $700 performance difference.  If the 7900X did 5ghz easily and stayed cool you would bet that Digital Storm and Alienware would throw pre-sales boom parties.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 17, 2017)

IPC performance/core is hilarious on this one. Epic fail!


----------



## Aenra (Jun 17, 2017)

Read the reviews.. some of you guys cherry picked from the results according to your.. side? 

It does look as if the new cache size plays a role, but _only_ at select applications and _only_ when (obviously) comparing stock frequencies. You run those chips near or as high they can go, you're still on top with the 7900X, anyway you look at it.

(Also.. when a potential *reviewer* comes and posts about the TIM being a non-issue and how paying fortunes does _not_ entitle us to even the mere basics because "it's already enough".. and he says that while knowing this thing can reach 100C.. Anyway. I'm sure we'll have people reading that review as well, so why not i guess).

My thinking right now is that this is a purposefully obfuscated launch, meant to disguise the simple fact that no one wins.

You had a Broadwell-E and wanted to upgrade? More like a sidegrade.
You had a 4core and wanted to upgrade? More like sidegrade.
You had neither and about time for something new? Better? You check it out, you see that in the end, Intel is still ripping you off.

- You can buy a 6900K or a 6950X (older gen) or you can.. buy something that clocks a bit higher, has same lanes (not more), but a _reduced_ cache, meaning if you don't OC it a lot, the older gen is actually better for you, lol...

- Or you can buy something both new and better in everything (it being the point, right?). Wait until October, buy an 18c monster, disable some of its cores; that way (and _only_ that way) you have same/higher cache than the B-Es had _and_ a higher clock (hence my saying disabling cores, ie paying for nothing. But no other way to have an improvement in both).
That's the only true "better", compared to the previous gen. Anything else is picking what's more important to you and it's a picking that is not even contained within the same multi-core gen.. fail.

And once again, the "true" improvement here costs the typical Intel bucks. 2K-ish for the CPU, 500ish for the mobo.
So in the end, same old, same old. I don't see the price cutting. It's a deception, fooling those (victims) that only care about saying "i have an Intel 8core, not an AMD one". Those that care about the things we care? We're where we've always been, prices-wise.
That's my review ^^


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 17, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> 4.7ghz is less than claimed before though, but temps are at least not too dangerous. I wpuld rather have a nice, cool, efficiënt ryzen cpu than a student alternative to an induction furnace!





Hugh Mungus said:


> I expect 10-15+% performance increase from ryzen 2.0 because of higher clocks and improved ipc. Hopefully overclocked speeds will reach 4.6-4.7ghz. Still, 4-4.1ghz is more than enough for me.



Dude start using the multiquote button to insert quotes in your posts, it helps keep the forums on topic and organized.


----------



## Aenra (Jun 17, 2017)

And don't stick to that 4.7, i am certain the limit's much higher.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 17, 2017)

Im confused...


----------



## Aenra (Jun 17, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Im confused...



In as far as? 

edit: aaah, i know; you saw me having tagged you, came here, saw nothing, lol.. O.K., my bad. I quoted an excerpt showing your 6950X doing better than the new i9 equivalent, but then i read the reviews myself, edited post and somehow deleted my original one. I've quit smoking, ain't myself lately ^^


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 17, 2017)

Zotz said:


> "it clocks to 4.7 GHz on all ten cores with relative ease"...
> 
> I understand what you meant to say, but you're giving a false general impression.  It's not "relative ease" if it results in a 100C die temp (with, presumably, a decent cooler).  If Intel has cheaped out (yet again) and gimped the thing with a poor heat bridge, they shouldn't get a pass on it.


One had a nh-d15s!!!!!



dwade said:


> The powerconsumption on the Bit-Tech review is much lower than the Hexus one. Looks like it's an engineering sample on the Hexus review.


Entire system and just the chip probably.


----------



## johnspack (Jun 17, 2017)

To be expected.  Intel is running scared.  Tiny bit of competition.  Ryzen v2 will be even bigger competition.  Hurry the hell up guys,  I need a $500 20 core cpu soon!


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 17, 2017)

Aenra said:


> (Also.. when a potential *reviewer* comes and posts about the TIM being a non-issue and how paying fortunes does _not_ entitle us to even the mere basics because "it's already enough".. and he says that while knowing this thing can reach 100C.. Anyway. I'm sure we'll have people reading that review as well, so why not i guess).



I don't review CPUs, and I don't care if a CPU "overheats" because I know that they have built-in protections that keep them away from anything dangerous, so really, they actually never overheat. As a reviewer, I know better than to worry about it. Anyone telling you anything different is fear-mongering. CPUs, for me are mere tools I use to do other reviews, and I know my tools well.

Remember so many years ago when everyone was saying OC is dead? That Intel killed it? They weren't lying... but understanding what that meant is a complex subject that it seems only few understand. It's completely baffling to me as a reviewer that enthusiasts don't get it, but, then we get reviews like we did today, and all I can say is "oh well".

Why is 100 C a problem? I fail to understand, because I see zero evidence that shows this to be a real problem. You know there are CPUs that don't even shut down until past 100 C ? If this particular number was a problem, you'd think they'd shut down before that... but they don't.


----------



## Aenra (Jun 17, 2017)

One thing at a time 

You have every right not to care about CPU overheating, throttling, global warming, nukes, cooking, or Islam; every right in the book. Care or care not, that's your call.
The problem arises when your subjective, personal opinions get tangled up with facts, ie what a review should usually be all about.

Now before you'll remind me yet again how you don't tend to review CPUs, i will re-re..mind you that this is a matter of mentality. It encompasses everything, it will as such interfere with what would/could otherwise be an excellent piece of work, helpful and informative. Be it for a CPU review which you don't do or for a mobo review, which you _do_ do. Get my point now? Mentality is mentality. I see you having the wrong one, i'm worried. You get to influence others with what you post, i don't.
(hopefully this puts my original post into a better perspective, though in all honesty, i'd not have expected to need expand on it further)

As to the TIM in i9s specifically?
I wanted to say "if you don't get it, i don't know what else to say", but..
- think of the cost to have them soldered, when they are produced in batches of hundreds of thousands, if not more.. almost non-existing.
- for an almost non-existing additional cost, they make a move that pretty much guarantees insane temps (compared to the opposition's), lower lifespan (all that heat) and/or throttling (lower performance than what you paid for) on an expensive as hell CPU (one out of which they make a fortune already, would have even if soldered).
- somehow, none of the above is an issue and we should all say thank you? And if for some reason you wanna go 101% yuppie on me (take it or leave it, mah market) and insist we should?
i) this time around we have competition, and the competition offers it soldered; for a good reason.
ii) when you dub something High End and 'enthusiast-oriented', you should make sure it's actually _in spec_ with what an enthusiast would expect. You ever bought a Ferrari with a bad radiator? "You have money dude, drive it below 100mph or go buy your own radiator and F off!"
No, not how it goes.

Enthusiast does NOT mean "i'm a victim, sell me anything you damn please and i'll pay extra to make it feasible".
Enthusiast means "i pay extra for better quality/higher performance" (throttling is not an enthusiast's thing, 100Cs are also not an enthusiast's spec, as they prohibit OCing).

As usual, just my opinion, i know in advance most disagree, no worries there


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 17, 2017)

You know, your opinion is important, and very valid, and I do respect that. In the end, I think that our differing opinions on things is great, and I think it's awesome that in the end, although we might be at opposite ends of the spectrum, we still manage to find products that fit our needs too.

There are problems with using the solder they do, that in my eyes, make it a non-enthusiast solution. These problems, when they arise, are irreversible, and the problem that I refer to, that I am purposely not mentioning, is widely documented with CPUs, but never actually correctly attributed to this problem. I have chosen to not be the person that brings this into the public domain. I have tried this before with other things, like micro-stuttering, or overheating M.2 devices, and it always takes too long for people to see and I'd rather not argue about these things at this point.


I have yet found a way to convey this effectively, but the best I can say is that I think that pasted TIM is great because that as an enthusiast, you have the option of play with things like the TIM under the IHS if you want, and that that is only possible because of them using a paste-based TIM in the first place. If these chips were soldered, you'd actually have LESS options, I think.

I know people want solder on their chips, and the fact that it can act as a better cooling solution and that it costs little cannot be argued, but for me, it's all about ensuring that the end users have OPTIONS, and I think that this stance of that "only solder for high-end CPUs", which removes this option, makes it less of an enthusiast-oriented product, and as such, of lesser value.


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Jun 17, 2017)

ironwolf said:


> One of the comments on the article was pure gold:



I've recently bought a 3.4EE GHz Gallatin core  the original emergency edition cpu xD


----------



## trog100 (Jun 17, 2017)

100 C isnt a problem.. only in the eyes of the average enthusiast who as well as running their chips as fast as possible also like to run them as cool as possible.. 

i put a heat gun on the back of my motherboard directly at the place the cpu socket sits.. i was thinking about putting a fan there.. with the cpu at full temperature the back of the board was close to room ambient.. 

that 100 C is very localized  and only at the very heart of the cpu cores.. there must be a world full of  (none enthusiast) 100 C intel cpus.. all running fine and as you say if they were not intel would have set the throttle point lower.. 

trog



cadaveca said:


> I don't review CPUs, and I don't care if a CPU "overheats" because I know that they have built-in protections that keep them away from anything dangerous, so really, they actually never overheat. As a reviewer, I know better than to worry about it. Anyone telling you anything different is fear-mongering. CPUs, for me are mere tools I use to do other reviews, and I know my tools well.
> 
> Remember so many years ago when everyone was saying OC is dead? That Intel killed it? They weren't lying... but understanding what that meant is a complex subject that it seems only few understand. It's completely baffling to me as a reviewer that enthusiasts don't get it, but, then we get reviews like we did today, and all I can say is "oh well".
> 
> Why is 100 C a problem? I fail to understand, because I see zero evidence that shows this to be a real problem. You know there are CPUs that don't even shut down until past 100 C ? If this particular number was a problem, you'd think they'd shut down before that... but they don't.


----------



## Vlada011 (Jun 17, 2017)

Amazing CPU. Bad because price difference is big from 8 to 10 cores as 10 and 16 cores model.


----------



## sutyi (Jun 17, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> You know, your opinion is important, and very valid, and I do respect that. In the end, I think that our differing opinions on things is great, and I think it's awesome that in the end, although we might be at opposite ends of the spectrum, we still manage to find products that fit our needs too.
> 
> There are problems with using the solder they do, that in my eyes, make it a non-enthusiast solution. These problems, when they arise, are irreversible, and the problem that I refer to, that I am purposely not mentioning, is widely documented with CPUs, but never actually correctly attributed to this problem. I have chosen to not be the person that brings this into the public domain. I have tried this before with other things, like micro-stuttering, or overheating M.2 devices, and it always takes too long for people to see and I'd rather not argue about these things at this point.
> 
> ...



If they were soldered you would have no "need" to replace the TIM. Having bad themalpaste under the IHS is a not an extra option for the customer... it's an annoyance.
That is regardless if said customer is actually willing to void the warranty to replace the terribad TIM or not. It is annoying to have higher temps due to it and it is tedious to replace it.

Intel should be putting decent themalpaste under the hood at least for the K and X line of processors at bare minimum. Then the thinkering lot would still have the "option" to delid if they feel like it, but everybody else _(98% of the target audience or there abouts)_ could have semi decent temps with high-end cooling and what not.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 17, 2017)

Isnt it weird how even with this 'sub par' TIM a 3.3 ghz 140W cpu can reach 4.7ghz(+) using a non 24/7 voltage of 1.5 and at least manage a cinebench run with all cores using an aio cooler?????? Just something to think about... 

I wonder what clocks can be reached with a custom loop.....oh i wonder....

I also wonder how much a delid will drop temps....(that part, i dont know).



Aenra said:


> One thing at a time
> 
> You have every right not to care about CPU overheating, throttling, global warming, nukes, cooking, or Islam; every right in the book. Care or care not, that's your call.
> The problem arises when your subjective, personal opinions get tangled up with facts, ie what a review should usually be all about.
> ...


4.7 ghz from 3.3 on high end air/aio in a review already ...and amd cant break 4ghz from 3.6 with less cores...with solder.

You say 'insane temps COMPARED TO AMD'. I ask you what relevance their temps have over intels different silicon and fab process? My answer, none. Who cares about AMDs lower temps. We can see it doesnt help at all with amds overclocking...i mean, it cant get past its own boost in most cases.

Its clear, in the reviews weve seen, it doesnt seem to matter much..


----------



## VSG (Jun 17, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I wonder what clocks can be reached with a custom loop.....oh i wonder....
> 
> I also wonder how much a delid will drop temps....(that part, i dont know).



I really want to do a follow-up to my i7-7700K de-lidding article with Skylake-X but of course those CPUs cost a lot more and there's no retail de-lidding solution yet.


----------



## sutyi (Jun 17, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Isnt it weird how even with this 'sub par' TIM a 3.3 ghz 140W cpu can reach 4.7ghz(+) using a non 24/7 voltage of 1.5 and at least manage a cinebench run with all cores using an aio cooler?????? Just something to think about...
> 
> I wonder what clocks can be reached with a custom loop.....oh i wonder....
> 
> ...



Sadly the TIM isn't quote on quote sup bar, it just simply is and has been for quite a while now. Reviews had 1.22-1.25V on the core (dunno where that 1.5V came from in your post?) any higher than that resulted in thermal throttling with three digit temp in the 100°C+ region on pretty beefy AIOs with 240-280mm rads.

As for AMDs lack of a mature manufacturing node at GloFo that would allow for a more decent OC headroom makes no excuse for Intel to skimp on a few cents of better TIM paste, especially on a 1K USD part.


----------



## Aenra (Jun 17, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I ask you what relevance their temps have over intels different silicon and fab process?



In regard to the voltage -> freq (which you also mentioned but for the sake of economy am not quoting), i have no complaints, on the contrary. I would even say that knowing "reviewers", there's a good chance one can expect a lot more before hitting the ceiling; something which we suspected already, i don't think you'll find anyone saying differently. Well, unless they're some fanboy anyway ^^
Not even sure why you're mentioning this, it's a grand positive, we're all aware of it.. but it does not invalidate what i said; be it about X299 'obfuscation', be it about the illusion of lowering prices for the enthusiast segment, be it about dubbing it enthusiast in the first place and selling it non-soldered.

As to the temps relevance?
Why would i go your way of thinking? Who cares about the fab? Does it or does it not reach (and would have exeeded had they not stopped it) 100C at a measly 1.25v!? I stick to the fact; i know there's a why, i know i could compare so as to reach that why, but the fact remains. It does.
Show me an AMD Threadripper that reaches 100C at 1.25. Please do. I bet they won't.

Now you may not mind, hell, you may go and buy Derbauer's delid tool, plus liquid metal, plus paste, with a smile on your face, blissfully aware you're paying all that extra when they could have just had it soldered but hey, you like it like that.
Does that make it right? Or O.K.?

(and don't forget the rest.. if you don't.. lifespan, danger of damaging your chip, warranty void and all it entails, etc. etc.)

Said it before, eXXXtreme is fine, to each their own. But this? This is them taking you for a fool, nothing more than just that. They give you less and ask for more and here you are, excusing them. Buy it and bitch about it, i respect. Buy it and excuse them on top of it? Nah.
No offense


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 17, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Isnt it weird how even with this 'sub par' TIM a 3.3 ghz 140W cpu can reach 4.7ghz(+) using a non 24/7 voltage of 1.5 and at least manage a cinebench run with all cores using an aio cooler?????? Just something to think about...
> 
> I wonder what clocks can be reached with a custom loop.....oh i wonder....
> 
> ...


It's a 3.3 baseclock and 4.5ghz boost on 2 cores. Essentially it's a 4ghz cpu on average. Besides, it's meant to be oc-ed, der8auer told us 4.8ghz was possible on stock TIM on water, and bit-tech gets 4.7ghz, but it gets insanely hot and they deop it to 4.6ghz to keep it below 9t degrees. Cpu's will run at 100 or even 110 degrees sometimes, but only god knows how long it will last at those temperatures! It's unlikely it will last 4-5 years, like all my cpu's and sometimes gpu's need to last in most people's pc's.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 17, 2017)

Aenra said:


> In regard to the voltage -> freq (which you also mentioned but for the sake of economy am not quoting), i have no complaints, on the contrary. I would even say that knowing "reviewers", there's a good chance one can expect a lot more before hitting the ceiling; something which we suspected already, i don't think you'll find anyone saying differently. Well, unless they're some fanboy anyway ^^
> Not even sure why you're mentioning this, it's a grand positive, we're all aware of it.. but it does not invalidate what i said; be it about X299 'obfuscation', be it about the illusion of lowering prices for the enthusiast segment, be it about dubbing it enthusiast in the first place and selling it non-soldered.
> 
> As to the temps relevance?
> ...


Yikes...

1. "Reviewers" or not, 1.5V is too high for 24/7 so i doubt there is much/any left in the tank there. I alluded to that but the subtle point was missed.

2. Does what reach 100c at 1.25v? Did i miss something? I was seeing 7900x at 4.7ghz and 1.5V run cinebench with all cores and threads using an aio...not sure where you are getting 1.25v and 100c.

3. Explain to me why i need to delid when it can reach 4.7ghz using a non 24/7 voltage and pass cinebench? I bet many will clock 4.5ghz 1.35V and be fine under an aio... maybe its 90c... but, they are ok to run like that. Again, you cant compare amd temps to intel...THAT is why you want to go down my road...one of thinking, logic, and relevance, instead of opinions on based on loose footing (at best...no offense).

But i do think you are misunderstanding me. I think the solder tim should be there too...my point is simply that its not remotely as big of a deal as many, read: you (and others), are making it out to be.



Hugh Mungus said:


> It's a 3.3 baseclock and 4.5ghz boost on 2 cores. Essentially it's a 4ghz cpu on average. Besides, it's meant to be oc-ed, der8auer told us 4.8ghz was possible on stock TIM on water, and bit-tech gets 4.7ghz, but it gets insanely hot and they deop it to 4.6ghz to keep it below 9t degrees. Cpu's will run at 100 or even 110 degrees sometimes, but only god knows how long it will last at those temperatures! It's unlikely it will last 4-5 years, like all my cpu's and sometimes gpu's need to last in most people's pc's.


it will last through its warranty at least... again, if it was harmful to run that hot, intel would have lowred the throttling temp. As it stands, thats 100c...and shutdown is, guessing here, 110c.

4ghz on Average, yet weve seen 4.7 and 4.8 so far... im sure 4.5ghz is in the cards with aio cooling and reasonable voltages...


----------



## trog100 (Jun 17, 2017)

sounds very much like my 4 core 8 thread 7700K behaves.. in this sense i recon its doing well to get where it does.. he he..

trog


----------



## Aenra (Jun 17, 2017)

@EarthDog You're right, let me put it differently 

What IS a big deal for me is people's lack of complaining. The more lax their judgement on practices such as this one, the more they encourage Intel to keep screwing them. It's why i said buy it.. buy it if you want. But bitch about the TIM; don't excuse it, don't adopt a mentality of "yea yeah, but at least i can fix it".
It's a bad practice and these should always be condemned; end of the day, it's in our best interest.
edit: and let's not forget, not everyone knows what all this means. They will just buy a CPU that overheats and won't even know why, lol

Also, unless i am mistaken, the voltage was 1.25, not 1.5? If it was 1.5, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. One reviewer, he even mentions how they started with 1.3 out of the box, then lowered it down as it was stable even at 1.25.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 17, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Yikes...
> 
> 1. "Reviewers" or not, 1.5V is too high for 24/7 so i doubt there is much/any left in the tank there. I alluded to that but the subtle point was missed.
> 
> ...


Bit-tech for real results with an AIO. Shut-down at 110 and 100 degree temps aren't good for durability. The cpu probably won't last 4-5 years.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 17, 2017)

Aenra said:


> @EarthDog You're right, let me put it differently
> 
> What IS a big deal for me is people's lack of complaining. The more lax their judgement on practices such as this one, the more they encourage Intel to keep screwing them. It's why i said buy it.. buy it. But bitch about the TIM; don't excuse it, don't adopt a mentality of "yea yeah, but i at least i can fix it".
> 
> Also, unless i am mistaken, the voltage was 1.25, not 1.5. If it was 1.5, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.


screenshot of cpuz showed 1.5..but that could be wrong and i could be mistaking.

Enjoy your soapbox...ill watch from here. 



Hugh Mungus said:


> Bit-tech for real results with an AIO. Shut-down at 110 and 100 degree temps aren't good for durability. The cpu probably won't last 4-5 years.


i know it was an aio...i said that.

Heh, ive run EVERY SINGLE ONE of my intel chips 10c away from their throttle points, overclocked heavily, all thier lives, folding for months on end with some. Certainly it shortens lifespan, but if you use realstic voltages, running 90c isnt an issue through the cpus useable life.

Edit: the hexus review was 1.25v and 4.7 ghz...i see that now. At least the voltage isnt out of line! But that doesnt change what i said... id bet an aio could handle 4.5ghz and 1.2v on all cores. Would it be better, with better tim? Surely. We also need to gather there is 10 cores and 140w(+) there... so voltage considerations do need tempered as these monsters scale up power use and heat quickly with all cores.


----------



## Aenra (Jun 17, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Enjoy your soapbox



That's what you got out of this..? Do appreciate the honesty though


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 17, 2017)

Aenra said:


> That's what you got out of this..? Do appreciate the honesty though


Yes... thats what i got out of your rant.

I see a person upset with intels choice of paste, trying to compare it to amd on on side, but ignore it on another. Even with intels 'sub par' paste, its overclocking AT LEAST 1ghz over its stock form. Amd with its 'great paste' cant overclock 500 mhz with it. I see someone trying to compare temps on two different types of silicon fabrication like they are equal... so again loose footing to stand on... and feels soapboxey/ranting while not comparing apples to apples or coming from a place of true understanding given the nuggets of info we have. Sorry for that blunt honesty. 

Surely, its all about perspective.


----------



## Aenra (Jun 17, 2017)

Don't be sorry, i appreciate this more than anything. If only we could all be blunt, because occasionally we can't here sadly. Anyway, no offense taken 

Now as to my "rant".. this is the second time you use that term with me. I find it just as inappliccable now as it was before.
I'm not 12, i'm not bashing, i'm not driven by some fanboying agenda. Are you incapable of seeing the gray in life? I don't bash Intel, i'm running one right now. I don't ignore the positives, highlighted them myself. Don't mean there aren't negatives, don't mean i won't mention them.

And the TIM is just one of them, you focused on it and i as such replied further in light of it, but that's not my sole issue.
Plus, you either failed or are unwilling to comprehend that my criticism in this specifically relates to mentality/thinking. Something in which you only prove me right, the way you've responded thus far.

Stop mixing it's excellent OC headroom with the fact that they went stingy simply because they know they can.
And while you're free not to care, perhaps you could also come to see how for most people, a 7700 deja vu isn't particularly a positive thing; or should i say, shouldn't have been.

Anyway, the end. Your money, not mine end of the day ^^


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 17, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Surely, its all about perspective.


 We'll have to agree to disagree... though it was a lopsided discussion.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 17, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> An Intel Core i9-7900X has appeared for a full review at the site Hexus.net. Spoiler alert, it clocks to 4.7 GHz on all ten cores with relative ease (only taking 1.25 V, apparently, though it racked up nearly 100°C in Cinebench at that voltage).
> 
> The review praised Intel's overclocking headroom and general muscle in a mostly positive review. Still, not all is rosy in Intel land. They found performance per watt to not have improved much if at all, criticized the high price tag, and Hexus.net had the following to say about the overall experience:
> 
> ...



Literally the same as AMD launch then. Motherboards with issues and questionable performance from higher end CPUs that werent benchmarked yet.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 17, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Yes... thats what i got out of your rant.
> 
> I see a person upset with intels choice of paste, trying to compare it to amd on on side, but ignore it on another. Even with intels 'sub par' paste, its overclocking AT LEAST 1ghz over its stock form. Amd with its 'great paste' cant overclock 500 mhz with it. I see someone trying to compare temps on two different types of silicon fabrication like they are equal... so again loose footing to stand on... and feels soapboxey/ranting while not comparing apples to apples or coming from a place of true understanding given the nuggets of info we have. Sorry for that blunt honesty.
> 
> Surely, its all about perspective.


AMD's ryzen is a budget, slow, quality alternative to intel. That's why it's funny ryzen is soldered and intel cpu's aren't!  

Also, intel stock clocks should've been higher, but they couldn't be because of the terrible TIM. 3.6ghz base at least. BTW, threadripper should have higher baseclocks on some cpu's and is kinda going to be ryzen 1.5 because AMD had longer to optimize it, so nobody knows if they will overclock better or not.

I9 buyers, enjoy your fast turds that are barely faster than equivelant broadwell-e i7's! Threadripper buyers, enjoy your lovely cool and efficiënt cpu and please, please, please don't use it for 1080p gaming! You know better than that!


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 17, 2017)

That's pure speculation...your middle paragraph...

But as far as threadripper being Ryzen 1.5... only time will tell, but since its the same damn thing just another CCX, the writing is on the wall...some can read it, some think its hieroglyphics. Some that think they can read it, can't. So... there's that!


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 17, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> That's pure speculation...your middle paragraph...
> 
> But as far as threadripper being Ryzen 1.5... only time will tell, but since its the same damn thing just another CCX, the writing is on the wall...some can read it, some think its hieroglyphics. Some that think they can read it, can't. So... there's that!


Middle paragraph isn't speculation. Intel has to cater for a wide range of people that all use different coolers, big and small. If a better TIM was used, stock clocks could've been higher without the cpu throttling with a half decent air cooler.

Also, apparently there is 3200mhz memory support and AMD will have changed a few things since they had to add pcie lanes and cache anyway amd getting ccx's to work welm together requires some work. Why wouldn't AMD have improved a few things if they had months to do so? Basically threadripper will be slightly improved ryzen ccx's and some stuff.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 17, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> Middle paragraph isn't speculation. Intel has to cater for a wide range of people that all use different coolers, big and small. If a better TIM was used, stock clocks could've been higher without the cpu throttling with a half decent air cooler.




No. Just no. Better TIM might have lowered temps a little, but not enough to affect power consumption in such a way as to affect clocking ability. It simply doesn't work that way. What sort of power drop are you expecting from changing paste? higher clocks = higher power use; so how many watts per 100 MHz these CPUs use?


I will gladly take my 7900X and de-lid and prove that. I've got more than one. Heck, I'll do them all just to prove a point. I don't pay for this stuff, so I don't give a flying ... I just need to keep one with its top because I swap boards like every week working on reviews.


I'd be happy if I never saw another CPU with solder. I'd much rather buy a CPU that can work just fine with paste and can run a little bit hot, but is fine, compared to a CPU that requires solder right out of the box. The one with the paste, that can be subjected to those "harsh" conditions, is all that much of a higher quality.


Hey, maybe these CPUs are ones that makes me say de-lid is worth it. I don't see it as worth it with the mainstream Intel CPUs, but if it truly matters with these, I have no problem saying so.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 17, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> No. Just no. Better TIM might have lowered temps a little, but not enough to affect power consumption in such a way as to affect clocking ability. It simply doesn't work that way. What sort of power drop are you expecting from changing paste? higher clocks = higher power use; so how many watts per 100 MHz these CPUs use?
> 
> 
> I will gladly take my 7900X and de-lid and prove that. I've got more than one. Heck, I'll do them all just to prove a point. I don't pay for this stuff, so I don't give a flying ... I just need to keep one with its top because I swap boards like every week working on reviews.
> ...


Mostly ignoring, except I want to say one thing: AMD ryzen doesn't NEED solder and it doesn't NEED a good stock cooler and yet AMD just gives them for free (except the cooler in some cases of course)!


----------



## Kyuuba (Jun 17, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> it will last through its warranty at least... again, if it was harmful to run that hot, intel would have lowred the throttling temp. As it stands, thats 100c...and shutdown is, guessing here, 110c.
> 
> 4ghz on Average, yet weve seen 4.7 and 4.8 so far... im sure 4.5ghz is in the cards with aio cooling and reasonable voltages...


The problem is that those high temps will degrade the overclocking potential overtime, let's say if the CPU could achieve 4.7 ghz sitting on 1.25v it will start having BSODs and you'll need a higher voltage to make it stable leading to a even more higher temperatures, makes sense why they did this though, if it was soldered people could achieve easily 400+ watts tdp and that could technically burn the entire motherboard, there's a lot involved.


----------



## efikkan (Jun 17, 2017)

This overclocking outrage is nonsense, it's still better at overclocking that the (upcoming) counterparts from AMD.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 17, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> The one with the paste, that can be subjected to those "harsh" conditions, is all that much of a higher quality.



Are you saying soldered CPUs can't put up with the same thermal strain as a paste cpu?

This is a legit question by the way.  I've heard rumors about "microcracks" and such and am unsure what to think on that front.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 17, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Are you saying soldered CPUs can't put up with the same thermal strain as a paste cpu?
> 
> This is a legit question by the way.  I've heard rumors about "microcracks" and such and am unsure what to think on that front.


Solder is perfectly fine under cpu temperatures. 

Intel TIM is worse for power consumption as well btw. Less heat conductivity, means more heat, which means lower efficiency which means more power is required.


----------



## efikkan (Jun 17, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> Intel TIM is worse for power consumption as well btw. Less heat conductivity, means more heat, which means lower efficiency which means more power is required.


What?
How does conductivity negatively impact efficiency?
And BTW, i9-7900X overclocks just fine.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 17, 2017)

efikkan said:


> What?
> How does conductivity negatively impact efficiency?
> And BTW, i9-7900X overclocks just fine.


Can we just ignore the overclocks for a second? Intel cpu's would overclock better if they had been soldered and could have higher baseclocks. Lower heat conductivity-> less heat transfer-> higher resistance-> more power required for same result. Simple.


----------



## VSG (Jun 17, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> I will gladly take my 7900X and de-lid and prove that. I've got more than one. Heck, I'll do them all just to prove a point. I don't pay for this stuff, so I don't give a flying ... I just need to keep one with its top because I swap boards like every week working on reviews.



Well, I for one would like to see this. If you are serious, let me know and let's see what we can make happen.


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Jun 17, 2017)

Sorry, CMIIW, is it Core i9 have ever shown on intel roadmap?

If not, can't wait for next Core i11 with LakeLakeXxX codename, it will be much better for sure.


----------



## opojare (Jun 17, 2017)

Rahmat Sofyan said:


> Sorry, CMIIW, is it Core i9 have ever shown on intel roadmap?
> 
> If not, can't wait for next Core i11 with LakeLakeXxX codename, it will be much better for sure.


Roadmap is where companies introduce architecture/product codename.
Core i-X, Geforce GTX-XXX, R-X are brand names. Whatever catchy name marketing team deemed the best.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 18, 2017)

VSG said:


> Well, I for one would like to see this. If you are serious, let me know and let's see what we can make happen.


Of course I'm serious. I'm sure I can afford to; it just so happens I have these laying around doing nothing...  We'll chat.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 18, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> Intel cpu's would overclock less well if they had been soldered


Perhaps you meant to say the opposite... because the opposite is true. Well, not by much but... yeah.



cadaveca said:


> No. Just no. Better TIM might have lowered temps a little, but not enough to affect power consumption in such a way as to affect clocking ability. It simply doesn't work that way. What sort of power drop are you expecting from changing paste? higher clocks = higher power use; so how many watts per 100 MHz these CPUs use?
> 
> 
> I will gladly take my 7900X and de-lid and prove that. I've got more than one. Heck, I'll do them all just to prove a point. I don't pay for this stuff, so I don't give a flying ... I just need to keep one with its top because I swap boards like every week working on reviews.
> ...


QFT...

Wondering what I will do with mine... they just got here today... 



Kyuuba said:


> The problem is that those high temps will degrade the overclocking potential overtime, let's say if the CPU could achieve 4.7 ghz sitting on 1.25v it will start having BSODs and you'll need a higher voltage to make it stable leading to a even more higher temperatures, makes sense why they did this though, if it was soldered people could achieve easily 400+ watts tdp and that could technically burn the entire motherboard, there's a lot involved.


Zzzzzzzzzz, you overclock, there are risks. But as I said, I'll gladly run it up there all day long as I have done before. It will last its warranty period... not worried. I don't keep these for more than a few years anyway.


----------



## Scrizz (Jun 18, 2017)

lol the amount of ignorant BS coming out of some people's mouths.




@cadaveca I Haven't played with you since BC2/BF3. can't wait to see what you get with those chips


----------



## Aenra (Jun 18, 2017)

Scrizz said:


> lol the amount of ignorant BS coming out of some people's mouths.



Then educate. No irony; as i type it.


----------



## Scrizz (Jun 18, 2017)

Aenra said:


> Then educate. No irony; as i type it.





These aren't things that can be explained in a simple post or article.
The problem is the people that think they are "experts" because they read about it in some online "article" and then spreading all the misinformation as fact.
I'm not pointing any fingers here just stating what I see.


----------



## Kyuuba (Jun 18, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Zzzzzzzzzz, you overclock, there are risks. But as I said, I'll gladly run it up there all day long as I have done before. It will last its warranty period... not worried. I don't keep these for more than a few years anyway.


Same, that's why i buy FE cards with a full speed fan curve instead of customs


----------



## R0H1T (Jun 18, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> No. Just no. Better TIM might have lowered temps a little, but not enough to affect power consumption in such a way as to affect clocking ability. It simply doesn't work that way. What sort of power drop are you expecting from changing paste? higher clocks = higher power use; so how many watts per 100 MHz these CPUs use?
> 
> 
> I will gladly take my 7900X and de-lid and prove that. *I've got more than one. Heck, I'll do them all just to prove a point. I don't pay for this stuff, so I don't give a flying* ... I just need to keep one with its top because I swap boards like every week working on reviews.
> ...


Oh I'll gladly pay for a death match, OCed to the extreme (review) 

Your point makes no sense as Intel did solder as recently as 6950x or SB for mainstream processors.

If you have to delid a CPU, in order to cool it, I'd say definitely not worth it since someone obviously short changed you. It's like saying you bought a Titan (GPU) & *had to* change the cheapo thermal paste because it ran obscenely hot when OCed, I'm sure many people don't like fiddling with their warranties either.


----------



## Aenra (Jun 18, 2017)

Scrizz said:


> I'm not pointing any fingers here just stating what I see.



Would be fine even if you did, facts are facts, gotta come first 
But seriously, at least specify who's wrong in what, helps keep the conversation relevant (and those interested, to google and inform themselves properly).


----------



## notb (Jun 18, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> Can we just ignore the overclocks for a second? Intel cpu's would overclock less well if they had been soldered and could have higher baseclocks. Lower heat conductivity-> less heat transfer-> higher resistance-> more power required for same result. Simple.



Why do you insist on the higher base clocks?
Ryzen is soldered, cool and efficient. Yet, it hits the wall very quickly.
In fact AMD has been having issues at high temp for years. There's a comparison of stock coolers at SPCR which showed (among other things) that A10 APU started throttling at 50*C, while i7 was fine up to 75-80*C.

Generally speaking, why are people so afraid of 100*C? Is it because water's boiling point? Don't worry - CPUs are not made of H2O...


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 18, 2017)

R0H1T said:


> Your point makes no sense as Intel did solder as recently as 6950x or SB for mainstream processors.




Sure. 2600K for mainstream. as we got better and better, the solder went bye-bye. Now it's time for this to come to the high-end and server markets, now that it's been field tested and proven effective.

And I'll add this: not one person that I have seen is asking for solder on GPUs, which tend to take up the same relative die space at the high-end, and push similar power consumption too compared to 7900X on full OC. Paste works just fine in GPUs, and CPUs are no different, never mind CPUs that are in most instances, going to be pulling less than 150W. This is the most hilarious topic ever, paste vs solder. Solder isn't needed, and is a waste of your hard-earned dollars, as evidenced by billions of GPUs sold over decades, never mind modern CPUs.

That's what I want, CPUs that can take the same abuse GPUs do, bare bloody die. I want 300W 4096 core CPUs, but not everyone can be so forward-thinking.


And yes, I de-lidded GPUs, too. So what.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 18, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> Sure. 2600K for mainstream. as we got better and better, the solder went bye-bye. Now it's time for this to come to the high-end and server markets, now that it's been field tested and proven effective.
> 
> And I'll add this: not one person that I have seen is asking for solder on GPUs, which tend to take up the same relative die space at the high-end, and push similar power consumption too compared to 7900X on full OC. Paste works just fine in GPUs, and CPUs are no different, never mind CPUs that are in most instances, going to be pulling less than 150W. This is the most hilarious topic ever, paste vs solder. Solder isn't needed, and is a waste of your hard-earned dollars, as evidenced by billions of GPUs sold over decades, never mind modern CPUs.
> 
> ...



People complain if it's bad thermal paste as well, although generally speaking it's good enough nowadays for nobody to care. Also, gpu's don't have lids and the paste is applied directly to the die, cutting out the terrible intel TIM middle man.



notb said:


> Why do you insist on the higher base clocks?
> Ryzen is soldered, cool and efficient. Yet, it hits the wall very quickly.
> In fact AMD has been having issues at high temp for years. There's a comparison of stock coolers at SPCR which showed (among other things) that A10 APU started throttling at 50*C, while i7 was fine up to 75-80*C.
> 
> Generally speaking, why are people so afraid of 100*C? Is it because water's boiling point? Don't worry - CPUs are not made of H2O...


Cpu's aren't made of water, no. However, higher temps mean higher energy bills, lower oc's and a much higher chance of your cpu breaking, or even your mobo because your cpu needs to pull too much power.

AMD fixed their temps, so that's a rubbish point. Only old APU's and cpu's still have high temps, but they're now the extremely low budget options not many will buy except maybe for people just wanting a pc to work. Besides, raven ridge is coming to save the dat on the APU front and mobilr in general will be fixed with ryzen mobile.

AMD also manages to squeeze the most out of their cpu's at their rated tdp's, without extremely high temps. That's only possible because they use solder, not a sh*tty TIM. An 1800x for example doesn't need to be overclocked to get 95%+ out of your cpu because of that and a 1700 will just about work in a laptop paired with a 65w rx580.

I'm just stating the obvious. You can be an intel fanboy on mars if you like, but honestly being a fanboy of intel and not AMD right now just makes you look like you are the sort of person willing to buy an intel cpu made of cheese if it performs better than AMD's, even though it will melt. I don't care that you want to buy intel, but LOVING their new enthousiasts products?! That's just weird.


----------



## R0H1T (Jun 18, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> Sure. 2600K for mainstream. as we got better and better, the solder went bye-bye. Now it's time for this to come to the high-end and server markets, now that it's been field tested and proven effective.
> 
> And I'll add this: not one person that I have seen is *asking for solder on GPU*s, which tend to take up the same relative die space at the high-end, and push similar power consumption too compared to 7900X on full OC. Paste works just fine in GPUs, and CPUs are no different, never mind CPUs that are in most instances, going to be pulling less than 150W. This is the most hilarious topic ever, paste vs solder. *Solder isn't needed*, and is a waste of your hard-earned dollars, as evidenced by billions of GPUs sold over decades, never mind modern CPUs.
> 
> ...


I'm not asking for solder on a GPU, it was just an analogy to show that a Titan buyer too would be pissed if the GPU maker chose el cheapo TIM instead of a better & viable alternative.

Sure it isn't, heck why do we need a *lid*, just to delid some of these mini furnaces later on? Because it makes better sense for the CPU maker to not sell them bare die, for all sorts of screw ups the retail buyer could do at his end.
So what does Intel do ~ you want more than 28 lanes shell out a grand, you want solder cough up 4k (xeon) or need ECC get a Xeon.

Their upsell is ridiculous, even by Apple standards. Not sure that's a good thing any which way you look at it.


----------



## trog100 (Jun 18, 2017)

solder or paste isnt about chips running cooler its about an extra couple of hundred over clocking mhz speed from any given cpu before what seems to be a highly speculative temp ceiling is hit..

the problem now isnt the cooler.. its getting adequate heat transfer from chip to cooler.. as chips get smaller the problem gets greater.. heater spreaders are also load spreaders they enable huge coolers to be attached to tiny chips.. a gpu chip is bigger so the problem isnt there..

but in the end it all only comes down to at most a couple of hundred extra mhz from any given chip before that highly speculative heat ceiling is hit.. a huge fuss about f-ck all..

trog


----------



## pantherx12 (Jun 18, 2017)

A lot of people seem to be ragging on this but 10 cores at 4.7 in a monolithic design is epic.

With that sort of IPC and clock speed I don't think Intel have anything to worry about just yet.

I predict their 16 and 18 core models to be able to match thread ripper clocks and therefore be the more powerful chips to buy.

But are they worth double AMD chips?

Not for me so I'll be going AMD for Christmas probably.

But for professionals Intel is probably still the way forward.




Honestly some are you are straight up ignoring the basic facts.

This thing is a 7700 k with 6 more cores, any of you that thought the 7700k was the best cpu ( especially for gaming) then you should be having wet knickers over this CPU.

Sure it's expensive as hell but our pay a premium for performance, all of you are jumping to the conclusion that this doesn't used a solder chip either, based on what? The temperatures at 4.7ghz with 10 cores in a monolithic package?  Guys, I hate to brake it to you but that is going to get toasty no matter what, even if they used diamond heat spreaders and crap like that. This is a bigger chip that the i7 chips that don't use solder so in all likelihood this is a soldered part, but it's 10 cores at silly speeds so gets hot.

Run the thing at Ryzen speeds and it will run incredibly cool I recon.


----------



## sinnedone (Jun 18, 2017)

How does the bolded text make any sense?

Let's say you delid your CPU,(voiding warranty) use some sort of liquid metal between the IHS and die and benefit 20 degrees lower temps. Now let's say that if soldered the same chip would now run 20 degrees or so cooler.

Why would you rather buy a CPU with just paste instead of being soldered adding to your own personal cost and voiding warranty for what at the end would be the same result?




cadaveca said:


> No. Just no. Better TIM might have lowered temps a little, but not enough to affect power consumption in such a way as to affect clocking ability. It simply doesn't work that way. What sort of power drop are you expecting from changing paste? higher clocks = higher power use; so how many watts per 100 MHz these CPUs use?
> 
> 
> I will gladly take my 7900X and de-lid and prove that. I've got more than one. Heck, I'll do them all just to prove a point. I don't pay for this stuff, so I don't give a flying ... I just need to keep one with its top because I swap boards like every week working on reviews.
> ...


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 18, 2017)

pantherx12 said:


> A lot of people seem to be ragging on this but 10 cores at 4.7 in a monolithic design is epic.
> 
> With that sort of IPC and clock speed I don't think Intel have anything to worry about just yet.
> 
> ...


Intel said they aren't soldered, basically could have made this chips last year or sooner, 4.8ghz is possible, but then you need to put so much voltage through it, even 280mm radiators might not be enough to prevent throttling and with better thermal paste or solder base clocks could've been high enough for there to be no reason to overclock and void your warranty (overclocking in general voids your warranty, so AMD pushing ryzen to near-max from the factory is great and only possible because of the chips being soldered).

3.5-3.6ghz base is the minimum really nowadays 1440p+, which most HEDT buyers will game at and intel only manages 3.3 base. Yes, boost speeds are great,but in heavily multithreaded games it may struggle and you need a pretty good cooler just to prevent throttling from max boost, so mini-itx, an enthousiast favorite, is going to be a problem, unlike with ryzen 7 or probably the lower end threadrippers.

Intel really f-ed over its customers with that terrible thermal paste basically. Could've been 10% faster stock, but no, 1/10th of a cent for decent thermal paste was too much.

Slight disclaimer: it's nigh impossible for intel to tell of you oc-ed, unless they store it's highest clockspeed on-chip or you fry the cpu.


----------



## AndreiD (Jun 18, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> People complain if it's bad thermal paste as well, although generally speaking it's good enough nowadays for nobody to care. Also, gpu's don't have lids and the paste is applied directly to the die, cutting out the terrible intel TIM middle man.
> Cpu's aren't made of water, no. However, higher temps mean higher energy bills, lower oc's and a much higher chance of your cpu breaking, or even your mobo because your cpu needs to pull too much power.
> AMD fixed their temps, so that's a rubbish point. Only old APU's and cpu's still have high temps, but they're now the extremely low budget options not many will buy except maybe for people just wanting a pc to work. Besides, raven ridge is coming to save the dat on the APU front and mobilr in general will be fixed with ryzen mobile.
> AMD also manages to squeeze the most out of their cpu's at their rated tdp's, without extremely high temps. That's only possible because they use solder, not a sh*tty TIM. An 1800x for example doesn't need to be overclocked to get 95%+ out of your cpu because of that and a 1700 will just about work in a laptop paired with a 65w rx580.
> I'm just stating the obvious. You can be an intel fanboy on mars if you like, but honestly being a fanboy of intel and not AMD right now just makes you look like you are the sort of person willing to buy an intel cpu made of cheese if it performs better than AMD's, even though it will melt. I don't care that you want to buy intel, but LOVING their new enthousiasts products?! That's just weird.


 

The TIM they use in Skylake-X is actually of very good quality, der8auer delided a few of them already and from what he says he only gets a ~10C improvement by using liquid metal, which is in line with the ~9C he got by _removing the Indium solder sheet from a 5960X_ then adding liquid metal. If the layer of polymer TIM is thin enough then it should perform similarly to a thicker sheet of indium, without some of the reliability issues.          
Intel material science engineers actually published a few studies about a decade ago on indium solder TIM and its potential reliability issues, here's the summary of one of them. 
And if the temps are within spec then they shouldn't be an issue for CPU longevity, Intel CPUs start throttling anyway before exceeding that spec. The biggest issue is usually voltage since that can actually damage the little transistors inside the chip over time, even if temperatures are kept low.        

Also AMD's lower TDPs are an architectural and node trait, nothing to do with using indium solder. And I'm not sure about that laptop with the R7 1700 being paired with an RX580 since that GPU is by far one of the worst on the market right now when it comes to perf/W.       

People really need to stop spreading fud, I can understand that you're a fan of a publicly traded multi billion $ corporation, but that doesn't mean that you should spread fud.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 18, 2017)

AndreiD said:


> The TIM they use in Skylake-X is actually of very good quality, der8auer delided a few of them already and from what he says he only gets a ~10C improvement by using liquid metal, which is in line with the 10C he got by _removing the Indium solder sheet from a 5960X_ then adding liquid metal. If the layer of polymer TIM is thin enough then it should perform similarly to a thicker sheet of indium, without some of the reliability issues.
> Intel material science engineers actually published a few studies about a decade ago on indium solder TIM and its potential reliability issues, here's the summary of one of them.
> And if the temps are within spec then they shouldn't be an issue for CPU longevity, Intel CPUs start throttling anyway before exceeding that spec. The biggest issue is usually voltage since that can actually damage the little transistors inside the chip over time, even if temperatures are kept low.
> 
> ...


Well, than intel just sucks.

And the rx580 runs at 1100-1200mhz I believe and only has 4gb ram to keep costs and temp down. I assume some things have been changed in polaris to keep power usage down other than lowering clockspeeds. O, and the gl702zc has a b350 chip and the disclaimer you can't oc has been removed, so mayeb you could get it running at 3.7ghz on all cores. Just a shame there is no thunderbolt port for egpu's, because than I would've pre-ordered one. Still better than a max-q/mobile 3gb 1060 on average probably in new, relevant games and it migjt even beat a max-q/mobile 6gb 1060.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 18, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> Well, than intel just sucks.
> 
> And the rx580 runs at 1100-1200mhz I believe and only has 4gb ram to keep costs and temp down..


1. Lol @ intel just sucks...
2. Ram doesnt really get hot man..that isnt it.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 18, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> 1. Lol @ intel just sucks...
> 2. Ram doesnt really get hot man..that isnt it.


Maybe just to squeeze out that much more from the gpu for 65w. I dunno. I'm hoping for 8-core mobile ryzen cpu's to drop tdp a bit or achieve higher clocks and maybe they finally coupled infinity fabric loose from ram in mobile cpu's and raven ridge.

There is one intel thing I'm excited about btw, and that is the 15w quad-cores! Something spicy, but not hot in contrast with the expensive enthousiast cpu's!


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 18, 2017)

So much hope for zen2... its not happening with zen.


----------



## efikkan (Jun 18, 2017)

You AMD fans needs to stop this BS and return to the real world.
Even the source of most of the AMD hype, Wccftech, recognized the i7-7900X offered "Features Great OC Headroom, Insane Multi-Tasking Performance and Excellent IPC".

Skylake-X is better than AMD at overclocking, offers IPC improvements, more cores, and higher clocks. Still all the fanboys claims it's a disaster. The amount of Intel hate in this forum is really sad.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 18, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> So much hope for zen2... its not happening with zen.


Zen is great, zen2 will be greater! Still, 4ghz is plenty for 1440p in most cases and 4ghz-ish seems to be the most common boost/oc speed for -x ryzen. Unless you really want to just buy a new gpu at a later date, even though ddr5 is coming, and multi-core support barely increases, ryzen will serve you just fine for a fraction of the cost of the faster intel equivelant.

Also, barely any ipc improvements from broadwell-e to skylake-x, insane tenps to go with the insane overclock from the insanely low baseclock. O, and raid keys and a mere 28 lanes if you care about that stuff.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 18, 2017)

You crack me up...

Insane temps...insanely low base clocks (300mhz below ryzen).. hahahalolol jesus man... just ask amd to marry you already and get it over with... holy shit. Lol!


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 18, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> You crack me up...
> 
> Insane temps...insanely low base clocks (300mhz below ryzen).. hahahalolol jesus man... just ask amd to marry you already and get it over with... holy shit. Lol!


Nah. I haven't been scorched by AMD's love!


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 18, 2017)

"If you're not first, you're last" - Ricky Bobby


----------



## HTC (Jun 18, 2017)

How will the smaller cache affect this CPU when compared with threadripper (with similar amount of cores) since it should have 32 MB (double that of R5/7, right)?

Since in *certain workloads* the cache's size has negative effects on performance, even @ overclocked speeds (compared to the 6950X), the disparity in cache size should give threadripper the advantage, despite it's lower clocks, no?


----------



## Vlada011 (Jun 18, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> Nah. I haven't been scorched by AMD's love!



It's not important base clock, important is Turbo Boost 3.0. Intel guarantee you that every sample will work on 4.5GHz.
That's most important, all Intel processors when you install work on Turbo Boost, It's enabled by default. OK i9-7900X will work maybe on 4.3GHz Turbo Boost 2.0 but he is stable and on 4.5GHz.

If you look on that way who would buy i7-5960X when single threaded performance as weaker than i7-3770K.
But of course no one keep him on 3.0GHz, that's funny, People keep him on 4.0-4.5GHz, over 30% better perfomance in single and multi than default.
Only AMD look Intel's result on 3.0GHz and base frequency when compare with their processors. Because AMD OC 200MHz and Intel 1000-1500MHz.
Difference between i7-6900K and 1800X after you overclock both is much different than default setting because Intel have low frequency.
No one use such processors to work on 3.0-3.5GHz that's killing fps in games. Better fps have CPU with 4 cores on 4.5GHz than. But after you overclock Xtreme on 4.0GHz + you get something completely different.
Because of that I thin Intel Turbo Boost 3.0 is great.
To be honest I would not overclock i9-7900X first days.
i7-5820K need to be manually overclocked to be comparable with i7-6700K in single apps. but i9-7900X is out of box ready for gaming, only enable Turbo Boost 3.0.
I would keep Adaptive clock, on High Performance Plan 4.5GHz and on Balanced idle frequency.

Only is problem because I can't see reason to upgrade from six core to six core. Again I will be slower than 1800X than. That's not worth paying premium motherboard for that.
I search for some i9-7900X without warranty or maybe i7-7820X or ES. Than immediately I buy CPU and sell my platform to buy Rampage VI Extreme.


----------



## trparky (Jun 18, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> I don't review CPUs, and I don't care if a CPU "overheats" because I know that they have built-in protections that keep them away from anything dangerous, so really, they actually never overheat.


It may not be a problem in the short term but in the long term it's going to result in less overall life of the processor. The fact that these chips are showing signs of being at 100c under full load is very disconcerting, 100c is water boiling temperatures. I see this as a major step backwards back to the days of the Intel Pentium 4 Prescott chips that doubled as a space heater. No need to have a space heater in those cold January months (North America), just get yourself an Intel Pentium 4 Prescott chip and you'll be toasty warm.



cadaveca said:


> TIM is great because


Until it turns to shit under the IHS and it can't conduct heat properly which is exactly what we've seen on recent Intel chips as they age. I'm sure that we wouldn't be talking about the TIM if Intel had chosen to use a quality TIM such as Arctic Silver or Thermal Grizzly. But no, they had to use the cheapest shit on the market and practically force us to void the damn CPU warranty to get anywhere close to decent running load processor temps.



Hugh Mungus said:


> Zen is great, Zen v2.0 will be greater!


If Ryzen v2.0 is manufactured on the new GlobalFoundries 7nm process that many of us think it will be, Ryzen v2.0 will not only be better than Ryzen v1.0 but it will thoroughly kick Intel's ass all the way to the moon and back. Ryzen's architecture can scale, it's showing how it can scale with the introduction of Threadripper and EPYC. The thing that's holding Ryzen back now is the lack of quality silicon (the really good stuff is being reserved for Threadripper and EPYC) and the fact that it's still 14nm. If they can get it down to 7nm they will really be able to clock these things high, quite possibly as high a 5 GHz out of the box, hence my statement about them kicking Intel's ass to the moon and back.

In a lot of ways I don't just want AMD to hurt Intel, *I want AMD to make them bleed*. I want them to gut punch Intel so hard they'll be pissing blood for the next week. For too damn long Intel has been screwing us over, I want them to not only hurt but I want them doubled over in agony as AMD stands over them yelling "Does that hurt?! Yeah! I bet it does!" I want them to go Rocky all over Intel.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 18, 2017)

trparky said:


> It may not be a problem in the short term but in the long term it's going to result in less overall life of the processor. The fact that these chips are showing signs of being at 100c under full load is very disconcerting, 100c is water boiling temperatures. I see this as a major step backwards back to the days of the Intel Pentium 4 Prescott chips that doubled as a space heater. No need to have a space heater in those cold January months (North America), just get yourself an Intel Pentium 4 Prescott chip and you'll be toasty warm.
> 
> 
> Until it turns to shit under the IHS and it can't conduct heat properly which is exactly what we've seen on recent Intel chips as they age. I'm sure that we wouldn't be talking about the TIM if Intel had chosen to use a quality TIM such as Arctic Silver or Thermal Grizzly. But no, they had to use the cheapest shit on the market and practically force us to void the damn CPU warranty to get anywhere close to decent running load processor temps.
> ...


I got thinking and isn't the max recommended temp for nost thermal pastes something like 80-90c with a PEAK of 100-110 in noctua's case? How long untill your i9 starts throttling or the system starts crashing if you can't fit a 280mm AIO and maybe don't even oc and only can fit a mid-range/snall cooler in your system? Might as well call it the supernova lineup because intel's sucking you into a symbolic blackhole which will explode magnificently!


----------



## trparky (Jun 18, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> Isn't the max recommended temp for most thermal pastes something like 80-90c with a PEAK of 100-110 in Noctua's case?


Exactly and that's premium thermal compound that you're talking about there. Intel isn't using that kind of stuff, they're using the cheapest shit that they can get in bulk. It's like these damn things are manufactured to fail with cheap-ass shit TIM.

There was a video that I watched on YouTube where someone took a year old Intel chip that was running a bit too hot for his liking so he took the chip and de-lidded it and sure enough, the cheap-ass shit TIM that Intel was using for his chip damn near crumbled as he scraped it away. That tells you something!


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 18, 2017)

trparky said:


> Exactly and that's premium thermal compound that you're talking about there. Intel isn't using that kind of stuff, they're using the cheapest shit that they can get in bulk. It's like these damn things are manufactured to fail with cheap-ass shit TIM.
> 
> There was a video that I watched on YouTube where someone took a year old Intel chip that was running a bit too hot for his liking so he took the chip and de-lidded it and sure enough, the cheap-ass shit TIM that Intel was using for his chip damn near crumbled as he scraped it away. That tells you something!


So temps are bad and will only get worse!  Considering a high-end air cooler gets 93c in prime95 at stock speeds and 73c in handbrake, it's not looking good for oc-ers with air coolers and a 240mm radiator doesn't fair to welk at 4.6ghz and a 280mm struggles with 4.7ghz! Guess your oc will only last a year and then you'll have to void your warranty in such a way you're definitely not getting a replacement if something goes wrong!


----------



## trparky (Jun 18, 2017)

Exactly. These chips are practically designed to fail because of Intel's stupidity.

New PC sales have been down for the last couple of years, what better way to force people to buy new PCs thus have to buy new CPUs than to purposely design their new CPUs to prematurely fail?


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 18, 2017)

The things people make such a big deal about are truly perplexing sometimes...

Designed to fail...lol

Insane temps... lol

Thinking one video in youtube about paste borking is The Gospel and it happens on all/most/many...lol

Thinking this is going to prevent an average consumer or most enthusiasts from buying it... lol

Come on guys... use your head for a second would ya?


----------



## trparky (Jun 18, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Insane temps


I don't know about you but I buy things to last, I expect my hardware to last for more than two years. With the way that recent Intel chips have been made there's no way that's even remotely possible without de-liding them thus voiding your warranty (which I have no desire to do so).

Sure, I understand that the chip is designed to run at high temperatures but that doesn't mean it's healthy for them to be constantly running at such high temperatures. 100 degrees Celsius is hot, damned hot; too damn hot for a chip to be running at. I don't care if it can "handle" it, it's way too damn hot.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 18, 2017)

trparky said:


> I don't know about you but I buy things to last, I expect my hardware to last for more than two years. With the way that recent Intel chips have been made there's no way that's even remotely possible without de-liding them thus voiding your warranty (which I have no desire to do so).
> 
> Sure, I understand that the chip is designed to run at high temperatures but that doesn't mean it's healthy for them to be constantly running at such high temperatures. 100 degrees Celsius is hot, damned hot; too damn hot for a chip to be running at. I don't care if it can "handle" it, it's way too damn hot.


how does one respond to this post? You admit its ok... then the next damn sentence you dont care if intel says its ok.i told you earlier they will last their warranty... i know this as much as you know it will last two years. Difference is, if done it for years with multiple generations and you/others are holding on to misinformed opinions..

Point is, run it where its 90c peak like the advice those in the know always say. You are still getting a faster cpu with more overclocking headroom than the cannot-actually-compare-to amd temps.

Im mean facts are in front of you about the temp being ok... i cant help anyone belive it.  Leads horse to water...

Its just funny to see personal preference cloud judgement and form opinion..then the opinion spread fud.


----------



## efikkan (Jun 18, 2017)

HTC said:


> How will the smaller cache affect this CPU when compared with threadripper (with similar amount of cores) since it should have 32 MB (double that of R5/7, right)?
> 
> Since in certain workloads the cache's size has negative effects on performance, even @ overclocked speeds (compared to the 6950X), the disparity in cache size should give threadripper the advantage, despite it's lower clocks, no?


Skylake-X quadruples the L2 cache while reducing the L3 cache. The L2 cache is much faster, and with the previous inclusive L3 cache, all the L2 cache is duplicated in the L3 just in case another core needs it. In real live >90% of this is waste, so the reduction in L3 is not nearly as dramatic as it sounds. The overall cache hierarchy is clearly more efficient for Skylake-X.

Intel has been using 256kB L2 cache for many years, while AMD is using 512kB. Most people are under the misconception that the cache hierarchy is storing the "important stuff", but in reality it's just a streaming buffer. The entire contents of the L2 cache is swapped out thousands of times per second. A larger L2 cache makes the CPU able to more eagerly prefetch data, which in turn improves the hit rate which reduces stalls of the CPU. This should help nearly use case, but probably especially data intensive use cases like video encoding.

These changes are definitely a step in the right direction. But that's not to say that we can expect similar gains from simply increasing the L2 cache, since the gains for each increase will be less.


----------



## trparky (Jun 18, 2017)

But how long can the chip withstand those temperatures? We've already seen that the cheap shitty TIM that Intel uses in their chips turns to clay after some time due to extreme temperature fluctuations. Eventually the TIM won't be able to conduct the heat properly and you're going to eventually lose the ability to overclock the chip due to the inability to get rid of the heat fast enough. It may be OK for the chip to run at 90c in the short term but in the long term it's going to be very bad news.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 18, 2017)

Ive went over it before in the thread and my previous post (anyone reading them or has this degraded into trolling? Feels like i make points that are missed completely, lol!)...as ive said, ive run chips 100% at close to 90c for YEARS. That doesnt mean some wont fail, but its not even remotely close to the doosmday prophecy about it a few of you have running high temps the silicon is designed for.

For someone that doesnt f@h where cpu is running like that 24/7, in the vast majority of cases, it will easily last well past its warranted life.


----------



## trparky (Jun 18, 2017)

Some of us aren't very comfortable having our CPUs running that damn hot. I get scared when my CPU starts running hotter than 70c.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 18, 2017)

trparky said:


> Some of us aren't very comfortable having our CPUs running that damn hot. I get scared when my CPU starts running hotter than 70c.


Ok, this is an exercise in insanity, continuing.

Good luck guys. Enjoy your cool running CPUs while spreading fud and showing ignorance through your opinion on the matter.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 18, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Ive went over it before in the thread and my previous post (anyone reading them or has this degraded into trolling? Feels like i make points that are missed completely, lol!)...as ive said, ive run chips 100% at close to 90c for YEARS. That doesnt mean some wont fail, but its not even remotely close to the doosmday prophecy about it a few of you have running high temps the silicon is designed for.
> 
> For someone that doesnt f@h where cpu is running like that 24/7, in the vast majority of cases, it will easily last well past its warranted life.


Which cpu's though?


----------



## notb (Jun 18, 2017)

trparky said:


> Some of us aren't very comfortable having our CPUs running that damn hot. I get scared when my CPU starts running hotter than 70c.


But why does this scare you?
Why do you think 70*C is "hot" for a CPU?


----------



## HTC (Jun 18, 2017)

notb said:


> But why does this scare you?
> *Why do you think 70*C is "hot" for a CPU?*



I think the problem with that is that the temps inside the case will increase, leading to a temp increase in every component inside of the case. Sure: the CPU can take it easily enough but the rest of components may not have such a high tolerance.

It's the reason why reference GPUs, though generally noisier then AIB GPUs are sometimes preferred: because they expel the hot air directly off the case instead of into the case (to be extracted by case fans afterwards).

As an example: when i play a game for an extended period, my HDD's temps increase by around 8ºC, even though i have a 20 cm intake fan in front of the HDDs and 2 exaust top fans + 1 back exaust fan (all 12 cm). Why? Because my GPU is an AIB one and dumps the hot air inside the case, thus increasing the ambient temp inside the case.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 18, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> Which cpu's though?


Nehalem(X58) on forward. Sandybridge...Ivybridge...Haswell...Broadwell...Haswell-E...Devil's Canyon...Broadwell-E...Skylake.

Obviously some of those arent past their warranty, but, Im guessing you get the picture. 



HTC said:


> I think the problem with that is that the temps inside the case will increase, leading to a temp increase in every component inside of the case. Sure: the CPU can take it easily enough but the rest of components may not have such a high tolerance.
> 
> It's the reason why reference GPUs, though generally noisier then AIB GPUs are sometimes preferred: because they expel the hot air directly off the case instead of into the case (to be extracted by case fans afterwards).
> 
> As an example: when i play a game for an extended period, my HDD's temps increase by around 8ºC, even though i have a 20 cm intake fan in front of the HDDs and 2 exaust top fans + 1 back exaust fan (all 12 cm). Why? Because my GPU is an AIB one and dumps the hot air inside the case, thus increasing the ambient temp inside the case.


True... but big deal! 

It's not like those components are going out of their spec either! A few C warmer doesn't hurt most components...


----------



## Kyuuba (Jun 18, 2017)

trparky said:


> But how long can the chip withstand those temperatures? We've already seen that the cheap shitty TIM that Intel uses in their chips turns to clay after some time due to extreme temperature fluctuations. Eventually the TIM won't be able to conduct the heat properly and you're going to eventually lose the ability to overclock the chip due to the inability to get rid of the heat fast enough. It may be OK for the chip to run at 90c in the short term but in the long term it's going to be very bad news.


Don't worry, it will last more than 4 years running as is, i still have a 4770K that always ran 80+ degrees, still just fine man, these chips are designed for that, don't panic.


----------



## HTC (Jun 18, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Nehalem(X58) on forward. Sandybridge...Ivybridge...Haswell...Broadwell...Haswell-E...Devil's Canyon...Broadwell-E...Skylake.
> 
> Obviously some of those arent past their warranty, but, Im guessing you get the picture.
> 
> ...



While true, an increase of over 20% in *mechanical HDDs* is quite allot.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 18, 2017)

Kyuuba said:


> Don't worry, it will last more than 4 years running as is, i still have a 4770K that always ran 80+ degrees, still just fine man, these chips are designed for that, don't panic.


Not quite nigh 100 degrees though is it? Intel paste has always been a slight issue, but now it's a major issue because of the even higher temps, and we're only at 10 cores of the 18!


----------



## Vlada011 (Jun 18, 2017)

trparky said:


> Some of us aren't very comfortable having our CPUs running that damn hot. I get scared when my CPU starts running hotter than 70c.



On my ex platform Ivy Bridge paste was under IHS and CPU was much hotter on 4.5GHz than i7-5820K on 4.2GHz. 
I compare because they worked on same voltage 1.200V. But hot air from H100 (exhaust) is hotter with i7-5820K than with i7-3770K.
That mean that with thermal paste transfer of heat from CPU to H100 block/liquid/radiator was not well and a lot of heat stayed inside in CPU and H100 was able to remove only small amount of heat 40-50% example compare to 70-80% with i7-5820K. This numbers are not exactly accurate but example... And no matter what you do before change something under IHS or maybe even than you can't get better temps with much expensive coolers, I mean you get better temps but maybe 20C. No way to processor stay 60C on huge ammount of voltage and clock if liquid is cold in some expensive custom loop. Only way is to freeze CPU with LN2 or phase change or dice.

I think that's biggest mistake for X299 thermal paste. 
Because some people are confused, they want to OC, but what to do, they remove IHS, and than what, how much paste, how to do that... You need to be far more precise than installatin paste on IHS and CPU block over that. Than questions after installation... Did I done everything nice, maybe die no contact with IHS any more, maybe is to much paste... What will happen if CPU die, people used on Intel OC warranty, to pay 30$ more and OC. 

Positive thing is because Intel go with Intel Turbo Boost 3.0 and that mean CPU specification is 4.3 and 4.5GHz and everyone know with such high Turbo space for OC is 200-300MHz.
And many people will not OC, imagine Turbo 3.9 GHz and people try to reach 4.6-4.7GHz with paste. 
That would be bad. Intel is not probably so stupid to say Turbo Boost 3.0 if CPU throttle and can't cool down with AIO cooler on fabric Turbo frequency.

From other side Ivy Bridge worked one night and more 15h test on more than 90-90C, he behave like 50C.
Nothing, no problems at all. I can't guarantee that now CPU could work on such high temperatures without throttle.
I didn't OC mine Haswell-X over 4.2GHz because I want to stay on 60-65C and don't want fans on high performance to work on more than 2000 RPM.
It would be bad if people figure out that i9-7900X work on 80C on 4.5GHz. I think they change something, because i7-5960X and i7-6950X are hot as hell on 4.5GHz.
Only people with watercooling and 280mm AIO with good samples are capable to keep on such clock and small voltage, and flux solder help a lot in that case.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 18, 2017)

HTC said:


> While true, an increase of over 20% in *mechanical HDDs* is quite allot.


Instead of random statements, here is one backed up with data...





> Overall, there is not a correlation between operating temperature and failure rates. The one exception is the Seagate Barracuda 1.5TB drives, which fail slightly more when they run warmer.


https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-temperature-does-it-matter/



Hugh Mungus said:


> Not quite nigh 100 degrees though is it? Intel paste has always been a slight issue, but now it's a major issue because of the even higher temps, and we're only at 10 cores of the 18!


NOBODY here is saying run it at 100...Ive said over and over 90C.

I like how you keep repeating the same thing OVER AND OVER without a bit of data to support your thoughts... maybe people will believe it eventually...


----------



## Fasola (Jun 18, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Instead of random statements, here is one backed up with data...
> https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-temperature-does-it-matter/
> 
> NOBODY here is saying run it at 100...Ive said over and over 90C.
> ...


Irrelevant, as you're not going to get those backblaze temperatures in your case with a toasty 90C CPU unless you're pushing some serious air. And what if you're using several drives and/or living somewhere with really hot summers.


----------



## HTC (Jun 18, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Instead of random statements, here is one backed up with data...
> https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-temperature-does-it-matter/
> 
> NOBODY here is saying run it at 100...Ive said over and over 90C.
> ...



My HDDs reached 44ºC: a bit too hot for my liking.

Since then, the ambient temp has increased (expected since we're nearing the Summer): as such, should i game for an extended period, the temps would probably exceed that.






Disregard the 49ºC in the pic: there was something wrong with the temp sensor in the program @ the time.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 18, 2017)

Fasola said:


> Irrelevant, as you're not going to get those backblaze temperatures in your case with a toasty 90C CPU unless you're pushing some serious air. And what if you're using several drives and/or living somewhere with really hot summers.


relevent.. no correlation in temps.

If you are using several drives, do something about it cooling wise IF NEEDED.

Everything is to 'people's liking and preference'...which is fine, but still within operating parameters which seems lost. 90c is dubbed 'insane' yet its within operating parameters... 44c hd is too hot for someones liking...but within operating parameters...

I worry when i break those values for extended periods, but here nobody has even hit them.


----------



## Fasola (Jun 18, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> relevent.. no correlation in temps.
> 
> If you are using several drives, do something about it cooling wise IF NEEDED.
> 
> ...


Irrelevant, because even the top temperature in their test is way below the point where warning signs pop-up for hard drives (HDD Sentinel says it's 43).

Yeah, do something, like get a CPU that runs cooler/can transfer heat properly.

I've hit 61 while doing a build in the summer with many hard drives. I was still testing stuff with the open case with no case fans mounted and I just forgot to check temperatures.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 18, 2017)

Relevant.. i dont care what 3rd party software says... read the white papers for the drives for operating temps.

61C... cool.. well, not cool, lol!? I mean, i can fight your side too, but, the reality is, fringe siutations (open air stack of drives no fans) need other methods.. for normal operations though, not so much.


----------



## trparky (Jun 18, 2017)

90c may be within operating parameters but I can't imagine that that's very good for the processor over extended periods of time. Remember, heat is the enemy of electronics. Any time you're running that close to the limits you put undue stress on the components and that shortens the life of the component.


----------



## notb (Jun 18, 2017)

HTC said:


> I think the problem with that is that the temps inside the case will increase, leading to a temp increase in every component inside of the case. Sure: the CPU can take it easily enough but the rest of components may not have such a high tolerance.


They won't. AMD and Intel CPUs are emitting similar heat, it will result in similar temperature inside the case.
The only advantage you get from soldering is that the heat is transferred quickly from the chip to IHS. That's important for the chip, but fairly irrelevant for everything else inside the case.

Current Intel CPUs run hotter than AMD's (because of TIM), but tolerate much higher temperature as well.



HTC said:


> As an example: when i play a game for an extended period, my HDD's temps increase by around 8ºC, even though i have a 20 cm intake fan in front of the HDDs and 2 exaust top fans + 1 back exaust fan (all 12 cm). Why? Because my GPU is an AIB one and dumps the hot air inside the case, thus increasing the ambient temp inside the case.


No. It's because of how the airflow looks in your case. 
Your GPU is pushing a lot of hot air downwards, but - as you've said - the fans in your case suck air in front and push it out in the top-rear part.
Essentially, the hot air from the GPU is first sucked towards the HDDs - hence making them warmer.


----------



## Fasola (Jun 18, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Relevant.. i dont care what 3rd party software says... read the white papers for the drives for operating temps.
> 
> 61C... cool.. well, not cool, lol!? I mean, i can fight your side too, but, the reality is, fringe siutations (open air stack of drives no fans) need other methods.. for normal operations though, not so much.


Yeah, I'll still be sceptical of a study with temperatures nowhere near my own.

61C was just an example to your nobody hits 44 comment. The drive in question is an older one (operating range 0-60C) and does run several degrees hotter than the rest, even when not stacked and with a dedicated fan blowing. During the day it stays at around 43-45 and it hasn't been the hottest of summers. There's some tweaking to be done with the fans and I'll probably have to forego any pretense of silence for now.

Anyway, my point is that every little bit helps, and with paste, they've added another element into the whole cool/silent PC equation just to save a little money on very expensive hardware.


----------



## notb (Jun 18, 2017)

trparky said:


> 90c may be within operating parameters but I can't imagine that that's very good for the processor over extended periods of time. Remember, heat is the enemy of electronics. Any time you're running that close to the limits you put undue stress on the components and that shortens the life of the component.



How do you know it's "that close to the limits"? It's below the safety threshold - that's all we should care about.

BTW: what's the threshold for Ryzen / Threadripper? I'm looking for the Intel's Tcase analogue.


----------



## HTC (Jun 18, 2017)

notb said:


> They won't. AMD and Intel CPUs are emitting similar heat, it will result in similar temperature inside the case.
> The only advantage you get from soldering is that the heat is transferred quickly from the chip to IHS. That's important for the chip, but fairly irrelevant for everything else inside the case.
> 
> Current Intel CPUs run hotter than AMD's (because of TIM), but tolerate much higher temperature as well.
> ...



But the HDDs are between the intake fan and the GPU: how can the air be sucked in the direction of an *intake* fan? Shouldn't it go in the other direction?


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 18, 2017)

HTC said:


> I think the problem with that is that the temps inside the case will increase, leading to a temp increase in every component inside of the case. Sure: the CPU can take it easily enough but the rest of components may not have such a high tolerance.





EarthDog said:


> True... but big deal!



*Heat output is measured in watts not degrees.*

The same cpu running at the same speed and workload will put out the same amount of heat regardless if the cooling system can get it down to 60C or as high as 90C. The difference in degrees between ambient temperature and the die temperature is just a measure of how efficient the cooling system(TIM or solder included) is at removing the heat from the die. *Its not a measure of heat output.* And thus wont heat the inside of the case any more or less.


----------



## trparky (Jun 18, 2017)

notb said:


> How do you know it's "that close to the limits"? It's below the safety threshold - that's all we should care about.


Historically 100c was the limit at which the chip automatically throttles. Running at 90c under load doesn't leave much room for any error in possible cooling setups. And we're not even talking about AVX instructions that are known to really heat the chip up.


----------



## claes (Jun 19, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> *Heat output is measured in watts not degrees.*
> 
> The same cpu running at the same speed and workload will put out the same amount of heat regardless if the cooling system can get it down to 60C or as high as 90C. The difference in degrees between ambient temperature and the die temperature is just a measure of how efficient the cooling system(TIM or solder included) is at removing the heat from the die. *Its not a measure of heat output.* And thus wont heat the inside of the case any more or less.


So much this!!!

A 95W CPU running at 100* is going to put out the same heat as a 95W CPU running at 15* (assuming both are consuming 95W/at load).

(Also, 200mm fans are useless in a PC - dunno why so many TPU users are under any other impression)


EarthDog said:


> Instead of random statements, here is one backed up with data...
> https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-temperature-does-it-matter/


While this is true, Backblaze's disks, on average, run at a maximum 31*, with a few disks running as high as 38*, so it doesn't really tell us what happens to a disk at >40*

If you look to Google's and Microsoft's results you'll still find little correlation (except at cold temperatures; see links at BB source), but you will see that drives at high temperatures fail sooner than drives at low temperatures in the case of Google, and in Microsoft's case, where drives were allowed to run closer to their operating limit, there's a more obvious correlation at high temperatures.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 19, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> *Heat output is measured in watts not degrees.*
> 
> The same cpu running at the same speed and workload will put out the same amount of heat regardless if the cooling system can get it down to 60C or as high as 90C. The difference in degrees between ambient temperature and the die temperature is just a measure of how efficient the cooling system(TIM or solder included) is at removing the heat from the die. *Its not a measure of heat output.* And thus wont heat the inside of the case any more or less.


+1.. tell me something I don't know!!! Great post!



trparky said:


> 90c may be within operating parameters but I can't imagine that that's very good for the processor over extended periods of time. Remember, heat is the enemy of electronics. Any time you're running that close to the limits you put undue stress on the components and that shortens the life of the component.


LOLOLOL.. cant take it anymore...

"within operating parameters..."

Can't imagine that's good for the processor...


SAY WHAT?!


Since the temps there were low... here is a wiki article from google's data showing the same trends with higher temps. 
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Minimizing_Hard_Disk_Drive_Failure_and_Data_Loss/Environmental_Control


----------



## trparky (Jun 19, 2017)

OK, let's stick you in the middle of Death Valley with a 140 F temperatures. Sure, humans can survive at higher temperatures so long as we remain hydrated but it will be pushing our systems to the critical point. You won't be a very happy camper. Or if you run an engine at high temperatures, sure the engine can handle the temperatures but eventually the heat will cause metal fatigue and it'll blow itself apart.

I tend to err on the side of caution, I never push things to the breaking point.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 19, 2017)

A breaking point is 100C where it throttles. We say to keep away from there (by 10%). The REAL breaking point is 110C when it shuts down to protect itself. Popular, and correct, advice is to keep it under 90C while stress testing. Stress testing is, outside of F@H type applications an unrealistic operating situation. Rendering and such tends to be less, gaming WAY less... etc. Most nothing can match a P95 run (which uses the AVX extensions). AIDA64 using FPU only is a few C behind P95..


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 19, 2017)

claes said:


> So much this!!!
> 
> A 95W CPU running at 100* is going to put out the same heat as a 95W CPU running at 15* (assuming both are consuming 95W/at load).
> 
> ...


Actually cooler chips produce less heat and can consume less power since the resistance is lower in a cool chip than a hot one.

Also, the problem isn't necessarily the chip temps, but the TIM temps. 90c+ isn't good for cheap TIM like intel uses and you'll have to dial back an overclock or even stock clocks eventually or you'll have to void your warranty in an obvious way by delidding and replacing the TIM.


----------



## trparky (Jun 19, 2017)

And what do you think will happen when the TIM breaks down like we have seen happen? The chip will either burn up or end up throttling itself every time it gets even a bit of load on it. The TIM will break down, we know this. Even if it's not catastrophic failure it still won't be good for the end user.


----------



## mac007 (Jun 19, 2017)

intel has its problems too..... remember DDR3 problem and cooler problem


----------



## notb (Jun 19, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> Actually cooler chips produce less heat and can consume less power since the resistance is lower in a cool chip than a hot one.


Are you aware of just how small this effect is? It's usually a lot less than 1 W/K (ΔP/ΔT).



Hugh Mungus said:


> Also, the problem isn't necessarily the chip temps, but the TIM temps. 90c+ isn't good for cheap TIM like intel uses and you'll have to dial back an overclock or even stock clocks eventually or you'll have to void your warranty in an obvious way by delidding and replacing the TIM.


Again, why do you insist that 90*C is bad for TIM or anything inside a PC? We're talking about electronics - they are really designed to handle this.

TIM is a standard solution in electronics - not just CPUs. Even for those *designed *to work at temperatures above 100*C.
And since you're so afraid about epoxies, ceramics and polymers working at 100*C, I really don't know how you 're even able to make tea, let alone cook or bake. 



trparky said:


> And what do you think will happen when the TIM breaks down like we have seen happen? The chip will either burn up or end up throttling itself every time it gets even a bit of load on it. The TIM will break down, we know this. Even if it's not catastrophic failure it still won't be good for the end user.


The issue here is that people really don't see this "breaking down". CPUs work perfectly well for years if not pushed over what they've been designed for.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jun 19, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> yeah yeah whatever. Worse IPC is worse. No matter how Intel wanna spin it they failed hard.



Exactly my friend!   


This is that "Secret tech Intel is hiding away in a vault for AMD" everyone was talking about.   The miracle secret CPU is an overheating Broadwell part with less IPC.  WOW.


----------



## R0H1T (Jun 19, 2017)

Okay let's get this straight, the OC potential of SKLx is just a headline grabbing bullet point. In the prosumer space very rarely do people, or corporations, run (almost) server grade processors out of spec, delidding is totally out of the picture as well.

At this point in time, the base clocks & turbo speeds will determine how attractive Intel's offering is for the intended audience. TR has *solder*, *HT*, *price* & potentially (default) clock speeds in its favor, not to mention *ECC* which is a big selling point in this space.

If AMD don't mess up all of'em there's still a good reason to buy AMD, 64x PCIe 3.0 lanes & so TR should still be heck of a lot competitive regardless of what SKLx max OC is. You *don't OC* your *production machines*, that's what 99% of people won't ever do their source of livelihood.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 19, 2017)

notb said:


> Are you aware of just how small this effect is? It's usually a lot less than 1 ΔP/ΔT.
> 
> 
> Again, why do you insist that 90*C is bad for TIM or anything inside a PC? We're talking about electronics - they are really designed to handle this.
> ...


Cheap and some expensive thermal paste isn't designed to run near 100c, it's designed to run at 80-90 max. Even nt-h1 only can handle 100-110c PEAK temps and that's a GOOD thermal paste. No way the stuff intel's using is designed to handle nigh 100c temps and it will probably even degrade relatively quickly at 80-90c. We saw that the 6700k had somewhat decent paste and the new 7700k stuff is worse, so I haven't got high hopes for the skylake-x TIM lasting too long.


----------



## notb (Jun 19, 2017)

R0H1T said:


> If AMD don't mess up all of'em there's still a good reason to buy AMD, 64x PCIe 3.0 lanes & so TR should still be heck of a lot competitive regardless of what SKLx max OC is. You *don't OC* your *production machines*, that's what 99% of people won't ever do their source of livelihood.


If you don't OC, what exactly does soldered IHS give you? Intel's TIM is not failing at factory clocks.


Hugh Mungus said:


> Cheap and some expensive thermal paste isn't designed to run near 100c, it's designed to run at 80-90 max.


Man! Where do you get all this stuff?


Hugh Mungus said:


> Even nt-h1 only can handle 100-110c PEAK temps and that's a GOOD thermal paste.


Do you really think that a consumer overpriced product for computer geeks is a "good thermal paste" overall?
What about materials used in industry and science?

Moreover, finding this took me literally 2 minutes:
https://www.lairdtech.com/products/tgrease-2500

EDIT:
I've just checked Arctic Silver: Ceramique and 5 are both good up to 130*C.https://www.lairdtech.com/products/tgrease-2500


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 19, 2017)

notb said:


> If you don't OC, what exactly does soldered IHS give you? Intel's TIM is not failing at factory clocks.
> 
> Man! Where do you get all this stuff?
> 
> ...


3.8 W/Mk!!!! Wow, that's rubbish! Even intel stuff might be better!


----------



## R0H1T (Jun 19, 2017)

notb said:


> If you don't OC, what exactly does *soldered* IHS give you? Intel's TIM is not failing at factory clocks.


Lower temps with warranty, unless you're arguing Intel's paste is the best TIM they can afford?
Also something called VFM, though it's subjective for every other person, I'd like to think that the successor to 6950x shouldn't be any worse of a package (figuratively & literally) than it's predecessor.


----------



## notb (Jun 19, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> 3.8 W/Mk!!!! Wow, that's rubbish! Even intel stuff might be better!


Hahaha :-D.
That's an industrial product. If they claim 3.8, it most likely is 3.8.
It's a bit different with consumer products. Check this report:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/42972.pdf
Arctic Silver 5 - a paste praised by computer enthusiasts and reviewers - while rated at 8.7 W/mK - only managed 0.94 W/m in a controlled experiment. Another consumer product from Thermaxtech was just as awful.
Industrial-grade compound from Dow Corning (Intel's supplier) performs just as promised: 4.0 W/mK.

You can't compare specification of consumer and industry products. In consumer stuff it's usually a best-case scenario. In industry/science it's always realistic and hard conditions (including worst-case stress testing).
Just to give you an example: most MTTF figures for consumer PC fans (including CPU and GPU coolers) are at "room temperature" (usually 25*C). Think about it. ;-)


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 19, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> Actually cooler chips produce less heat and can consume less power since the resistance is lower in a cool chip than a hot one.
> 
> Also, the problem isn't necessarily the chip temps, but the TIM temps. 90c+ isn't good for cheap TIM like intel uses and you'll have to dial back an overclock or even stock clocks eventually or you'll have to void your warranty in an obvious way by delidding and replacing the TIM.





trparky said:


> And what do you think will happen when the TIM breaks down like we have seen happen? The chip will either burn up or end up throttling itself every time it gets even a bit of load on it. The TIM will break down, we know this. Even if it's not catastrophic failure it still won't be good for the end user.


LOL, they are still going.  Its amazing... its like... Sew/litwicki24 posts... 

The answers are all right there, but, the same words keep getting spit out...


----------



## Duality92 (Jun 19, 2017)

The only thing I have to say is they state overclocking headroom, but this processor already turbo's at 4.5 GHz, so overclocking it to 4.7 should almost be a given. That's only a 4.4% overclock over turbo.

Ryzen, 1700 for example, turbo's to 3.7 GHz, but can be clocked to 4.1 (or 4.0 worst case). That's a 8.1% overclock (for 4.0) and 10.8%. I feel that Ryzen has better overclocking room here?

Last processors with "real" overclocking headroom was, Vishera. FX-8320, Turbo to 4.0, but clocked to 5.0, that's 25% and Sandy Bridge, 2500K, turbo to 3.7, overclocked to 5.0 GHz, 35% overclock. I don't see anything out lately going NEAR this.

*These numbers are assuming processors can hit their turbo clocks on stock voltage, which I've never seen not happen*


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 19, 2017)

Ryzen can't get past their own XFR either...its 4/4.1... If you are going to do that, at least compare where all cores leave off (like to  like) or go with XFR clocks and max turbo boost.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 19, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Ryzen can't get past their own XFR either...its 4/4.1... If you are going to do that, at least compare where all cores leave off (like to  like) or go with XFR clocks and max turbo boost.


Just use the average max speed to compare to all-core oc, although you should keep in mind i9 baseclocks are really low.

Really though we should ignore core clocks and overclocks and only look at stock/oc-ed performance and stock 7900x performance is meh, and oc-ed it's great, but who knows how long that intel TIM will last (sadly if it really does suck so much it will essentially become dry toothpaste, you'll only know after a few months-years).


----------



## trparky (Jun 19, 2017)

notb said:


> The issue here is that people really don't see this "breaking down". CPUs work perfectly well for years if not pushed over what they've been designed for. ... Intel's TIM is not failing at factory clocks.


Then why are there so many people de-lidding these things? All I heard about is people de-lidding them. Lots of YouTube videos telling people how to do it. Lots of online tutorials. Specialty shops are even selling tools that do it for you, just put the CPU in, turn the crank, and you're done. Obviously lots of people are doing this and there's a high demand for knowing how to do it so there must be a problem.

Again, the TIM has been known to be absolute shit for some time now. *We know this!* People have taken their CPUs apart to find that the TIM is cheap shit. Again we would not be having this problem if Intel used some decent TIM like Arctic Silver, Thermal Grizzly, or any one of the hundreds of other enthusiast TIMs that one can get in the enthusiast space. But no, as we have said before, they instead chose to use the cheapest fucking garbage that they could find. It would probably cost them only one more cent to use some quality stuff under the IHS but noooooo... they have to save one cent and use garbage.


----------



## efikkan (Jun 19, 2017)

Overclocking, even for normal enthusiasts is becoming pretty pointless these days, where the OC potential is marginal without extreme cooling, for both vendors. It's nice that we still have the option, even though it's becoming less relevant.


----------



## trparky (Jun 19, 2017)

Then they need to get rid of the K-series of chips because the K-series has the unlocked multiplier than practically *begs* you to overclock the chip. People pay premium prices for these chips for the right to overclock them and then all of a sudden Intel tells us "You shouldn't overclock them" all because they were stupid idiots and cheaped out in the manufacturing of them? Well I have words for that kind of treatment... Fuck you Intel!


----------



## Steevo (Jun 19, 2017)

notb said:


> If you don't OC, what exactly does soldered IHS give you? Intel's TIM is not failing at factory clocks.
> 
> Man! Where do you get all this stuff?
> 
> ...




They are good to that temperature, but that is rated when the CPU is laying flat or horizontal, not vertical, and phase change compounds WILL tend to run out of the spaces given that it becomes a liquid at those temperatures and gravity works. Its the same reason they tell you to store Arctic Silver products in the fridge with the tip down as the mixture will settle out. Considering the temperature decrease many see with delidding there is no doubt that Intel is purposefully using poor quality TIM to reduce the life expectancy or performance over time.... gotta get the users to upgrade somehow.


----------



## notb (Jun 19, 2017)

trparky said:


> Then why are there so many people de-lidding these things?


Usually because they want to call themselves "enthusiasts". Being "an enthusiast" of something simply means doing pointless, insensible things.
Just to give you an example: someone doing extreme OC under liquid nitrogen is a hero for many people on this forum. However, for most population on Earth he's just a moron.



trparky said:


> Lots of YouTube videos telling people how to do it. Lots of online tutorials. Specialty shops are even selling tools that do it for you, just put the CPU in, turn the crank, and you're done. Obviously lots of people are doing this and there's a high demand for knowing how to do it so there must be a problem.


No offence, but the way you're drawing conclusions shows just how bad is the state of humanity today. Even without mentioning YouTube this would look stupid enough.



trparky said:


> Again, the TIM has been known to be absolute shit for some time now. *We know this!*


So share it with the rest.


trparky said:


> People have taken their CPUs apart to find that the TIM is cheap shit. Again we would not be having this problem if Intel used some decent TIM like Arctic Silver, Thermal Grizzly, or any one of the hundreds of other enthusiast TIMs that one can get in the enthusiast space.


In one of my posts above you'll find a report comparing few TIMs - Arctic Silver 5 is on a list. It shows just how bad this material is - yet "computer enthusiasts" praise it (it clearly wins many comparison tests).
But if the TIM Intel uses is similar to the one from the report, it's clearly better than Arctic Silver and most likely better than anything that "enthusiasts" can buy in "enthusiast space". Surely, soldering or liquid metal will improve thermal conductivity (at a cost of other properties), but replacing what Intel has with a consumer TIM could be an awful idea.
I still hope you'll point me to a sensible research of Intel's TIM properties...


----------



## trparky (Jun 19, 2017)

Steevo said:


> Considering the temperature decrease many see with delidding there is no doubt that Intel is purposefully using poor quality TIM to reduce the life expectancy or performance over time.... gotta get the users to upgrade somehow.


*Exactly!* People have delidded their processors and put various forms of enthusiast TIMs under the IHS and have seen dramatic reductions in overall processor temperatures. One person used some kind of liquid metal and was able to overclock his Core i7 far higher than he was ever able to before he delidded it and replaced the TIM.

I see this as a conspiracy to drive more sales. As many of us know, new PC sales are in the dumpster. It's the lowest we've seen in years. Nobody seems to have a need to buy new computers due to any number of variables that come into play. What better way than to purposely cheap out on the manufacturing of these processors to drive more sales. It's Corporate Bullshit 1010, it's been done for decades. Cut quality to the bare minimum to make people buy new products. You can thank the pencil pushing, know-nothing, shit for brains MBAs for this kind of corporate bullshit.


----------



## Duality92 (Jun 19, 2017)

Worst thing is, it's not really the TIM the problem, the TIM itself isn't half bad, the problem is the gap between the IHS and die, this even proved by VSG.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Delidding_the_Intel_Core_i7_7700K/


----------



## Kyuuba (Jun 19, 2017)

trparky said:


> Then why are there so many people de-lidding these things? All I heard about is people de-lidding them. Lots of YouTube videos telling people how to do it. Lots of online tutorials. Specialty shops are even selling tools that do it for you, just put the CPU in, turn the crank, and you're done. Obviously lots of people are doing this and there's a high demand for knowing how to do it so there must be a problem.
> 
> Again, the TIM has been known to be absolute shit for some time now. *We know this!* People have taken their CPUs apart to find that the TIM is cheap shit. Again we would not be having this problem if Intel used some decent TIM like Arctic Silver, Thermal Grizzly, or any one of the hundreds of other enthusiast TIMs that one can get in the enthusiast space. But no, as we have said before, they instead chose to use the cheapest fucking garbage that they could find. It would probably cost them only one more cent to use some quality stuff under the IHS but noooooo... they have to save one cent and use garbage.


If soldered you would want to OC the chip beyond its limits breaking the designed TDP it was meant for, or you are begging for a burned not only cpu but motherboard.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 19, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> Just use the average max speed to compare to all-core oc, although you should keep in mind i9 baseclocks are really low.
> 
> Really though we should ignore core clocks and overclocks and only look at stock/oc-ed performance and stock 7900x performance is meh, and oc-ed it's great, but who knows how long that intel TIM will last (sadly if it really does suck so much it will essentially become dry toothpaste, you'll only know after a few months-years).


lol again...

If we ignore overclocking, there is ZERO point to talk about the paste...none. it even allows overclocking.
As stated ad nauseam, the paste will last throigg the useful life of the processor.  Ypu guys keep thinoong its going to fall apart and outsode of VERY RARE circumstances, production flaws which has little to do with the paste, ir doesnt breakdown

The way you two describe it, people should be shitting their pants their tim is going to go bad, but its quite simply not true. You are using correlation to determine causation which, if people actually understood how things work, isnt the case. 

You two are going on and on and on with absolutely zero merit... pure speculation and a lack of understanding...


----------



## trparky (Jun 19, 2017)

Maybe not soldered but perhaps better TIM being used instead of the garbage shit that they're using now. Many of us want quieter systems and that means that the processor has to run at lower temperatures so as to not cause the fans to ramp up really high. There was a story a couple of weeks back where many people were seeing their fans ramp up really fast with their Core i7 7700k chips for no good reason and they didn't even overclock them. I can't help but to think that it's because of the shitty TIM that Intel used. The processor is running hot because the TIM can't draw the heat away fast enough which then causes the fans to ramp up fast.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 19, 2017)

trparky said:


> Maybe not soldered but perhaps better TIM being used instead of the garbage shit that they're using now. Many of us want quieter systems and that means that the processor has to run at lower temperatures so as to not cause the fans to ramp up really high. There was a story a couple of weeks back where many people were seeing their fans ramp up really fast with their Core i7 7700k chips for no good reason and they didn't even overclock them. I can't help but to think that it's because of the shitty TIM that Intel used. The processor is running hot because the TIM can't draw the heat away fast enough which then causes the fans to ramp up fast.


Totally not what was happening. But interesting take.  BTW, CPU's don't control fans, the boards they are installed into do. These boards need to be tuned to each fan as an individual, or ramping up speeds is not done properly. This must be done by the end user since board makers have no idea which fans end user may install.


----------



## trparky (Jun 19, 2017)

So explain why many Core i7 7700k users were seeing sudden 90c spikes? Again, shitty TIM.


----------



## Kyuuba (Jun 19, 2017)

trparky said:


> So explain why many Core i7 7700k users were seeing sudden 90c spikes? Again, shitty TIM.


Never seen such thing like that on mine even overclocked, with the current OC the highest spike is 76ºC.


----------



## trparky (Jun 19, 2017)

https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/paul-taylor/core-i7-7700k-temperature-spikes-enrage-users/
https://communities.intel.com/thread/110728
https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/05/intel-dismisses-concerns-over-core-i7-7700k-temperature-problems/
https://www.reddit.com/r/techsupport/comments/5mk7b7/i7_7700k_temperature_spiking/

And the article posted right here at TechPowerUp...
https://www.techpowerup.com/233018/...ed-on-intels-core-i7-7700-i7-7700k-processors


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 19, 2017)

trparky said:


> So explain why many Core i7 7700k users were seeing sudden 90c spikes? Again, shitty TIM.


you are aware that better tim wouldnt curb thpse spikes much...right? You also know that temps would spike very close to the same temps with better tim, right?

Stop grasping at straws and give it up already. This is really getting tiresome between you two and your meritless stance and throwing crap up on the wall to support it. Some members are better off learning than sharing bullshit info to form an opinion, a wrong one, and call it The Gospel. Too kany clueless noobs here at tpu... oye.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 19, 2017)

trparky said:


> So explain why many Core i7 7700k users were seeing sudden 90c spikes? Again, shitty TIM.


User error, because they read posts like yours and think they might be right. ROFL.

I don't buy PC hardware, so I think it's all awesome, and enjoy it all, Intel or AMD. I like OC'ing, and both do it, and do it well, and in different ways. The rest, and complaining, man, I got hardware to tweak instead, but it's always fun to take a breath from palying with this hardware and see what people are saying, and have a laugh. I enjoy overcoming the problems presented by hardware, since that's EXACTLY what OC'ing and tweaking is all about.

They used shit TIM? AWESOME! More overhead if you fix it! Why is that a negative?? I'll never know. Enthusiasts can get all enthusiast-like and replace the TIM. Solder? They can't do nothing, game over.

We don't complain about problems, we overcome them! So anyone OC'ing, and complaining about what they run into has an internal struggle they must finish before they can get the results they desire! No fancy TIM or solder can fix that.


I got some X299-ready memory in the mail today. I guess I'll have to fire up the X299 rig and play with and have some fun. Life sucks, don't it?


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 19, 2017)

Kyuuba said:


> If soldered you would want to OC the chip beyond its limits breaking the designed TDP it was meant for, or you are begging for a burned not only cpu but motherboard.


If soldered the temps would be lower, you would need less voltage for the same oc and you could reach a higher oc at the same voltage. You won't push the cpu past its limits unless you oc professionally maybe.


EarthDog said:


> lol again...
> 
> If we ignore overclocking, there is ZERO point to talk about the paste...none. it even allows overclocking.
> As stated ad nauseam, the paste will last throigg the useful life of the processor.  Ypu guys keep thinoong its going to fall apart and outsode of VERY RARE circumstances, production flaws which has little to do with the paste, ir doesnt breakdown
> ...


With better paste or solder stock clocks could be higher and you would be able to oc less. I also stand by my point that overclocks should be ignored except in bencharks so you see what you get stock and what oc-ed. The oc itself is unimportant and comparing overclockability is just silly since the 7900x in this case probably has a lower baseclock than -x threadrippers will have and the boost 3.0 feature apparently doesn't work too well.

I may not know too well how a cpu actually works, but I know intel TIM going grainy isn't good and it has in the past with better TIM and lower temps, so it's definitely a point of concern.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 19, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> If soldered the temps would be lower, you would need less voltage for the same oc and you could reach a higher oc at the same voltage. You won't push the cpu past its limits unless you oc professionally maybe.
> With better paste or solder stock clocks could be higher and you would be able to oc less. I also stand by my point that overclocks should be ignored except in bencharks so you see what you get stock and what oc-ed. The oc itself is unimportant and comparing overclockability is just silly since the 7900x in this case probably has a lower baseclock than -x threadrippers will have and the boost 3.0 feature apparently doesn't work too well.
> 
> I may not know too well how a cpu actually works, but I know intel TIM going grainy isn't good and it has in the past with better TIM and lower temps, so it's definitely a point of concern.


As was said earlier, the difference voltage is nearly non existent from a 10-15c drop. Not sure why you think its even worth mentioning...its certainly not. Now ambient to dry ice or ln2, you have a point. But that is also a 150-250C difference, not 10-20.

So, if solder raises st9ck clocks, why is the 6950x, soldered, have lower clocks than 7900k?????

It gets grainy now??? Wtf??? 

Nearly everything out of you and your boy trparky mouth has been bunked but here we are days into the same conversation with your same bunked points being brought up...im losing faith in humanity now...


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 19, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> As was said earlier, the difference voltage is nearly non existent from a 10-15c drop. Not sure why you think its even worth mentioning...its certainly not. Now ambient to dry ice or ln2, you have a point. But that is also a 150-250C difference, not 10-20.
> 
> So, if solder raises st9ck clocks, why is the 6950x, soldered, have lower clocks than 7900k?????
> 
> ...


6950x clocks are lower, because it's not one, but two generations old. If you don't even get that, there's no point trying to talk any sense into you.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 19, 2017)

trparky said:


> 90c may be within operating parameters but I can't imagine that that's very good for the processor over extended periods of time.



On the contrary those are operation temperatures because they have been tested to be fine at that temp for extended periods of time. Thats what "Operational Temperatures" are.


----------



## trparky (Jun 19, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> im losing faith in humanity now


Join the club.



Solaris17 said:


> On the contrary those are operation temperatures because they have been tested to be fine at that temp for extended periods of time. Thats what "Operational Temperatures" are.


Yet in the past we enjoyed (relatively) cool running processors with temperatures well below 60c even under load. I swear we're going back to the old days of the Pentium 4 and the "Heat Pump on a Chip".


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 19, 2017)

Solaris17 said:


> On the contrary those are operation temperatures because they have been tested to be fine at that temp for extended periods of time. Thats what "Operational Temperatures" are.


90c maybe, but 100c? It's definitely not going to help the cpu's lifespan and we still don't know how intel's latest rubbish TIM will hold up. It has gone from paste to some strange crumbly stuff in the past and this stuff may be even worse than what was used on the 7700k (can't really tell since the 7900x isn't that efficient anyway).


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 19, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> 6950x clocks are lower, because it's not one, but two generations old. If you don't even get that, there's no point trying to talk any sense into you.


well aware of that.. thanks. 

There isnt talking sense into me in this case. I make sense, and supported any assertion i needed to. Its trying to teach you two rodeo clowns to listen and comprehend that is the real issue here... and frankly, its goddamn useless. Its a shame really, this is a place to learn, yet, people aren't receptive to it and stuck in their ways...but lord knows you will throw that comment right back at me realizing nothing of which i and many others posts is true. Its a shame, really. Opinions can be wrong. 



trparky said:


> Join the club.
> 
> 
> Yet in the past we enjoyed (relatively) cool running processors with temperatures well below 60c even under load. I swear we're going back to the old days of the Pentium 4 and the "Heat ump on a Chip".


join the club...hahaha, wow... 

they were different damn processors and different generations ago... dies were larger and could dissipate more heat to name one, MAJOR difference...


----------



## Kyuuba (Jun 19, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> If soldered the temps would be lower, you would need less voltage for the same oc and you could reach a higher oc at the same voltage. You won't push the cpu past its limits unless you oc professionally maybe.
> With better paste or solder stock clocks could be higher and you would be able to oc less. I also stand by my point that overclocks should be ignored except in bencharks so you see what you get stock and what oc-ed.


It's not about temperatures, it's the voltage limit since there's no cap(reason to go beyond decent overclocks)  on TIM/Solder, if soldered that would allow you as a user to push further, as with liquid metal you are pretty much removing any barrier to do so and that's why you lose warranty because you're technically burning your cpu. Intel won't be telling people ''hey if you delid your cpu you can burn it'' i understand that you can be the guy who knows what you're doing but among the millions you're probably 1 of 10000 who care enought and prevent bad things from happening, the common scenario is this ''You have succesfully oced the cpu to let's say 4.7 ghz at 60ºC then you try a higher value because you find out that there's plenty headroom to go further, you try again 5.0 at 76ºC'' by that you have reached the voltage/TDP limits you wouldn't reach with the crappy TIM because that's the limiting factor Intel have put on the CPU for security reasons, the company cares about their product safety not your enthusiast behavior.


----------



## trparky (Jun 19, 2017)

Kyuuba said:


> the company cares about their product safety not your enthusiast behavior.


Then why even make an enthusiast product that practically begs to be overclocked? When I look at a processor's box and it says "Unlocked Multiplier" that right there tells me that I can overclock it. If they don't want us doing that then I propose dropping the whole enthusiast lineup altogether.


----------



## R0H1T (Jun 19, 2017)

Some good & some not so good news ~


Kyuuba said:


> It's not about *temperatures*, it's the *voltage limit* since there's no cap(reason to go beyond decent overclocks)  on TIM/Solder, if soldered that would allow you as a user to push further, as with liquid metal you are pretty much removing any barrier to do so and that's why you lose warranty because you're technically burning your cpu. Intel won't be telling people ''hey if you delid your cpu you can burn it'' i understand that you can be the guy who knows what you're doing but among the millions you're probably 1 of 10000 who care enought and prevent bad things from happening, the common scenario is this ''You have succesfully oced the cpu to let's say 4.7 ghz at 60ºC then you try a higher value because you find out that there's plenty headroom to go further, you try again 5.0 at 76ºC'' by that you have reached the voltage you wouldn't reach with the crappy TIM because that's the limiting factor Intel have put on the CPU for security reasons, the company cares about their product safety not your enthusiast behavior.


I have a feeling anyone wanting 5GHz on his SKL-X will run into a thermal wall much before any voltage fries his/her processor.





> As mentioned, we had to use Alphacool's Eiszeit Chiller 2000 to achieve usable overclocking results. More conventional thermal solutions just wouldn't cut it. *All-in-ones like Corsair's H100i and Enermax's LiqTech 240 hit their limits at stock frequencies* under Prime95. *The custom loop threw in the towel at 4.6 GHz.*
> 
> *Why can't those liquid coolers keep up with a CPU like the -7900X*? Back in the day, a normal all-in-one was good enough to keep the Core i7-5960X running cool, even overclocked to 4.8 GHz. We measured power consumption numbers of up to 250W back then. So, why did we have to force a constant 20°C in the loop to even start experimenting?


SKL-X is definitely much better VFM than BDW-E but that's not much to write about.


----------



## Kyuuba (Jun 19, 2017)

trparky said:


> Then why even make an enthusiast product that practically begs to be overclocked? When I look at a processor's box and it says "Unlocked Multiplier" that right there tells me that I can overclock it. If they don't want us doing that then I propose dropping the whole enthusiast lineup altogether.


Agree with you here, that's a false advertisement from Intel or else the fact that the X or K skus have a higher turbo boost by degault, values compared to non X/K parts.


----------



## Fasola (Jun 19, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> I don't buy PC hardware, so I think it's all awesome, and enjoy it all, Intel or AMD. I like OC'ing, and both do it, and do it well, and in different ways. The rest, and complaining, man, I got hardware to tweak instead, but it's always fun to take a breath from palying with this hardware and see what people are saying, and have a laugh. I enjoy overcoming the problems presented by hardware, since that's EXACTLY what OC'ing and tweaking is all about.
> 
> They used shit TIM? AWESOME! More overhead if you fix it! Why is that a negative?? I'll never know. Enthusiasts can get all enthusiast-like and replace the TIM. Solder? They can't do nothing, game over.
> 
> ...


It's obvious you have a more carefree attitude than someone who would have to pay for their hardware, and would feel a decent hole in their pocket if they'd manage to screw something like their CPU.

What do you mean with "They can't do nothing, game over."? As far as I know you can delid Ryzens to your hearts content. You wouldn't much of an improvement compared to paste, but nobody is stopping you from whacking at it. Or does that go into the "too difficult" spectrum of the enthusiast.

Yeah, free hardware sure is nice, but most of us do not have that privilege/job/whatever you want to call it.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 19, 2017)

I mention it only to say that I look at the hardware for other things, so that money is the last factor that I consider. It merely "qualifies" my perspective. But yeah, you're right for sure.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 19, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> User error, because they read posts like yours and think they might be right. ROFL.
> 
> I don't buy PC hardware, so I think it's all awesome, and enjoy it all, Intel or AMD. I like OC'ing, and both do it, and do it well, and in different ways. The rest, and complaining, man, I got hardware to tweak instead, but it's always fun to take a breath from palying with this hardware and see what people are saying, and have a laugh. I enjoy overcoming the problems presented by hardware, since that's EXACTLY what OC'ing and tweaking is all about.
> 
> ...


More overhead with TIM, yes, but the die is the same aith or without solder, so really boring solder gets you to the end result quicker and with less risks than intel TIM.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 20, 2017)

drama, please. Let's see the MONEY SHOT!!!


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 20, 2017)

Preparing for a nice comparison review? __^


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 20, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> drama, please. Let's see the MONEY SHOT!!!


What's the left one?


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 20, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> What's the left one?



Also 7900X. The middle is the 7740X.



Prima.Vera said:


> Preparing for a nice comparison review? __^



Just for a board review. They are all ES, so I guess I'll see if I can't get a de-lid tool and pop the tops and do a write-up about that? I'll perhaps de-lid many CPUs... post some results. We will have to see how my schedule works out with other samples (I still have Z270 boards to review).


----------



## LiveOrDie (Jun 20, 2017)

After looking at the reviews i think ill stick with my 5960X, I'm not going to spend that much on a CPU then have to delid it and lose its warranty lol, looking at the temps and the overclocking head room there nothing much to be had for a $1500 upgrade.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 20, 2017)

Live OR Die said:


> After looking at the reviews i think ill stick with my 5960X, I'm not going to spend that much on a CPU then have to delid it and lose its warranty lol, looking at the temps and the overclocking head room there nothing much to be had for a $1500 upgrade.


5960x will work just fine for the next few years at least. Better to wait for the next new socket and mobochip for HEDT if you want to stick with intel, or you could wait for ryzen 2.0/3.0 and see if singlecore performance is good enough of an upgrade and if you can get more cores for your money.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jun 20, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> If soldered the temps would be lower, you would need less voltage for the same oc and you could reach a higher oc at the same voltage. You won't push the cpu past its limits unless you oc professionally maybe.
> With better paste or solder stock clocks could be higher and you would be able to oc less. I also stand by my point that overclocks should be ignored except in bencharks so you see what you get stock and what oc-ed. The oc itself is unimportant and comparing overclockability is just silly since the 7900x in this case probably has a lower baseclock than -x threadrippers will have and the boost 3.0 feature apparently doesn't work too well.
> 
> I may not know too well how a cpu actually works, but I know intel TIM going grainy isn't good and it has in the past with better TIM and lower temps, so it's definitely a point of concern.



Couple of things that may help you.

They don't bin CPUs based on what temperatures they reach.

They bin then based on what voltage it takes to reach x frequency. They can use this to calculate thermal design power or how much thermal energy in X amount of time with X heatsink installed will be produced.



So changing solder won't allow higher stock clocks, as the chips will still be binned on the exact same way. 

In fact the only people a soldered IHS would help are extreme over clockers or bell ends running to many volts through the CPU.

You see this all the time with Ryzen, they're running cool so people keep pumping the volts in not caring about the damage they are doing over the long run.





I don't mean to be rude to you but your level of understand on how the technology works and how companies operate is quite limited, you think you are right because the limited information you "know" would make it right.

But here's an idea, you're ignorant on several important factors and straight up wrong about some of the things you "know".


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 20, 2017)

pantherx12 said:


> Couple of things that may help you.
> 
> They don't bin CPUs based on what temperatures they reach.
> 
> ...


But with lower temps, you need less voltage. That's why with the wraith spire you don't get further than 3.9ghz with a 1700 generally and can reach 4ghz with a u12s if you don't mind noise and slightly higher temps.

With intel the bottleneck of TIM is considsrably larger, which is why with solder intel could easily have given the 7900x 3.5ghz base with the same temps or lower, which would help it a lot in benchmarks, and you could get 4.9-5ghz with high-end watercooling instead of 4.7-4.8ghz (and the TIM is still a concern since cheap paste degrades a lot over time unlike nt-h1 for example which will basically last you "forever" and 10-20c drop with mid-range liquid metal means it's definitely no nt-h1 or grizzly kryonaut).


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 20, 2017)

Jesus Hugh...continuing your nonsense in this thread too? How many people does it take to get you to listen and understand??

For about the 4th time, a temp drop of 10-15c, which is typical for a delid, will NOT allow you to use less voltage. Now, when you are talking subambient, like when using dry ice or ln2, you are absolutely correct... just not with ambient and that little of a temp change.

If they could have binned these higber, they would have. Paste doesnt matter in this case. 200 mhz on most silicon would have pushed this cpu past their threshold of 140W. Again, lower temps arent dropping power or voltage in the case of a delid.

They paste they use wont fall apart. Stop thinking a story bere or tbere is actually how it is.

God damn this is frustrating having to keep in line the misinformation spewing from your fingers here...


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 20, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Jesus Hugh...continuing your nonsense in this thread too?
> 
> For about the 4th time, a temp drop of 10-15c, which is typical or a delid, will NOT allow you to use less voltage. Now, when you are talking subambient, like whwn using dry ice or ln2, you are absolutely correct... just not with ambient amd that little change.


How come a better cooler can allow a 5c drop in temps AND 1.3 to 1.25v for example on ryzen and how come a 3.9ghz oc on water needs significantly less voltage than with a wraith spire and has 10c-ish drop in temps? Better coolers seem to make it possible to drop from 1.35 to 1.25 volts sometimes for the same oc. 0.1v difference is a lot for a cpu.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 20, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> How come a better cooler can allow a 5c drop in temps AND 1.3 to 1.25v for example on ryzen and how come a 3.9ghz oc on water needs significantly less voltage than with a wraith spire and has 10c-ish drop in temps?


it cant... and it doesnt. Post proof (a problem you and the other chatterbox trparky have problems with). If you saw that happening, there was another reason (wasnt tweaked down fully already).

Simply...science and facts you are spitting in the face of here bud.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Jun 20, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> 5960x will work just fine for the next few years at least. Better to wait for the next new socket and mobochip for HEDT if you want to stick with intel, or you could wait for ryzen 2.0/3.0 and see if singlecore performance is good enough of an upgrade and if you can get more cores for your money.



Yeah i know but missing that new hardware smell and wanted something new to play with  .


----------



## trparky (Jun 20, 2017)

But wouldn't the higher running temperatures result in higher electrical resistance inside the chip?


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 20, 2017)

trparky said:


> But wouldn't the higher running temperatures result in higher electrical resistance inside the chip?


Bud, its been answered. 5c, 10c, 15c, it wont matter. Negligible at best. I know, i overclock on air, water, dry ice, and ln2. You dont get to drop voltages on a cpu from a 10c drop in temps. Certainly not .1V. Maybe .01v, but thats within a margin of error on these sensors anyway. Its not worth the mention and unequivocally false to say .1v.


----------



## trparky (Jun 20, 2017)

Intel Core i9-7900X Review: Meet Skylake-X, Temperature & Thermal Problems | Tom's Hardware
The second section on that article (under the image) seems to prove my point about the TIM, even they admit that there's a problem and they know way more than me.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 20, 2017)

We know there can be better tim... that point was never up in the air. It was the constant use of the term 'shit' tim and that it falls apart (like a lot of cpu do this - they dont) is what many of us took exception to.

I reviewed the cpu myself. I saw 90c at 4.5ghz with all cores running a stress test (aida64 fpu - slightly higher in p95). Games were sitting around 70 iirc. Perfectly acceptable...the processor will lead a long life there, and the tim will be good throghout the life of the cpu.


----------



## trparky (Jun 20, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> We know there can be better tim


*So why don't they use it?!* I mean come on, we're paying Intel upwards of $300 USD for these damn things, the least they could do is put some decent TIM in these damn things.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 20, 2017)

I cant answer that question...

 Again, its decent tim.. does the job just fine at stock, and allows for some overclocking. Sorry its not as much as many would like, but...it isnt shit, and wont crumble in your hands after use as was said by you two in this thread. 

Hopefully you two can wrap your head around that and stop being so damn dramatic over it.


----------



## trparky (Jun 20, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Hopefully you two can wrap your head around that and stop being so damn dramatic over it.


I understand that.



EarthDog said:


> does the job just fine at stock


OK but as per Tom's Hardware it still runs hotter than I would like it to run but I guess that's what happens as you add more cores. More cores equals more heat.



EarthDog said:


> allows for some overclocking


Not much, I would expect far more overclocking headroom on Intel chips. They are premium hardware after all.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 20, 2017)

trparky said:


> I understand that.
> 
> 
> OK but as per Tom's Hardware it still runs hotter than I would like it to run but I guess that's what happens as you add more cores. More cores equals more heat.
> ...


if you understand, stop calling it shit. 

Again, hotter than "you" like isnt relevant. What the whitepaper says is what you should go by...not personal preference. Well, at least dont hold ypur preferences against it when whitepaper saus otherwise.

You must really hate ryzen 1800x... even with its lower temps, its total overclock is 400 mjz from base to max clock with all cores. 7900x...3.3ghz base to 4.5ghz all cores..seems like it overclocks 3x better...also, 7900x boosts all cores to 4ghz... the 1800x's limit...or clsoe to it.


----------



## trparky (Jun 20, 2017)

OK, "less than desirable" TIM. That better for you? 

I still stand by the idea that running that close to the thermal threshold makes me uncomfortable. I tend to monitor my system temperatures closely and 90c would cause me to freak out.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 20, 2017)

MUCH better. Yes. 

I don't care, nor does intel care about your preference. Your preference is fine... that is your thing, but its OK to run up there as we have all said ad nauseum.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 20, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> We know there can be better tim... that point was never up in the air. It was the constant use of the term 'shit' tim and that it falls apart (like a lot of cpu do this - they dont) is what many of us took exception to.
> 
> I reviewed the cpu myself. I saw 90c at 4.5ghz with all cores running a stress test (aida64 fpu - slightly higher in p95). Games were sitting around 70 iirc. Perfectly acceptable...the processor will lead a long life there, and the tim will be good throghout the life of the cpu.


Seriously. Just synthetic benches and GAMES? Games barely use a 7900x and most HEDT buyers will run multiple programs at once or at least do stuff like all-core 4k rendering! Bet you'll get something like 90c again and that's only at 4.5ghz! Try 4.6, 4.7 or even 4.8ghz, where it really should oc to being an optimized skylake!










8:55 wraith spire can only handle 1.32-ish volts, not 1.3625 like u12s, which could go a bit further and AIO's can handle 1.4+ volts according to some other reviewers. Heat conductivity and heat dispensing capacity make a huge difference. Considering delidding gives 2 degrees or so lower temps on ryzen 7 and more like 15 on the 7900x, that's essentially still the difference between something like a u12s and 240-280mm AIO, or 0.05v+ max on ryzen, so that's a huge difference in cpu terms. Of course the voltage difference is speculation and you can't compare intel and AMD, but the point is that the limit is moved up 0.05v or so if I'm correct, which is 200-300mhz difference depending on how lucky you get with silicon with 7900x and if you're looking at baseclocks or improved overclocked speeds.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 20, 2017)

Nope. Just nope.


----------



## Beastie (Jun 20, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> Seriously. Just synthetic benches and GAMES? Games barely use a 7900x and most HEDT buyers will run multiple programs at once or at least do stuff like all-core 4k rendering! Bet you'll get something like 90c again and that's only at 4.5ghz! Try 4.6, 4.7 or even 4.8ghz, where it really should oc to being an optimized skylake!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 If you raise the voltage enough then you will fry the chip regardless of temps.. conversely if you run it within spec temps those temps won't fry the chip. You are arguing the exact opposite- in the face of all evidence and sensible advice.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 20, 2017)

Beastie said:


> If you raise the voltage enough then you will fry the chip regardless of temps.. conversely if you run it within spec temps those temps won't fry the chip. You are arguing the exact opposite- in the face of all evidence and sensible advice.


1.4v probably won't fry ryzen and it was just to demonstrate that better TIM means you can handle more volts (to a point). With better cooling you can also drop voltage a bit. Where 1.3125 is required with a wraith spire for 3.9ghz, you can have 1.3v or less with u12s. Not sure exactly how to calculate how much you can drop voltage, but it has to do with PTC resistance stuff. 75 v 90c means you can drop voltages quite a bit, or oc higher on the same voltage. Maybe that difference in resistance is marginal (why are voltages specified so little in reviews?!), but you will be able to oc higher with solder than with intel TIM with the same temparatures, which is important to many enthousiasts.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 20, 2017)

Hugh Mungus said:


> With better cooling you can also drop voltage a bit. Where 1.3125 is required with a wraith spire for 3.9ghz, you can have 1.3v or less with u12s. Not sure exactly how to calculate how much you can drop voltage, but it has to do with PTC resistance stuff. 75 v 90c means you can drop voltages quite a bit, or oc higher on the same voltage.


No.. and Nope... again.

A couple of problems... 
1. Software readings are notoriously inaccurate.
2. With #1, a difference of .01v isn't really measureable using software as the dude did in the video. 
3. I also addressed that point earlier.



Hugh Mungus said:


> 75 v 90c means you can drop voltages quite a bit, or a higher overclock at he same voltage


Nope... it does not... not in the least. 15C will not allow a noteable drop in voltage. 



Hugh Mungus said:


> but you will be able to oc higher with solder than with intel TIM with the same temparatures


You were good here until the last part. If Im hitting my temp limit Im hitting my temp limit. The TIM used doesn't matter as in the end its still at the temp limit. Now, because it LOWERS temps, you have more headroom. But to state that you can get a higher overclock at the same temp with different tim is a ludacris statement. Did you mean to say that???


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 20, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> No.. and Nope... again.
> 
> A couple of problems...
> 1. Software readings are notoriously inaccurate.
> ...


Lower temp and same oc, or same temp and higher oc. That's the simplest reason solder is so much better than intel's TIM, other than possible longevity issues.

Going from something like a wraith stealth to a 280mm radiator, you can drop voltages a fair bit. Of course replacing the TIM isn't quite as big of a difference, but it still easily is big enough of a difference to fall outside of margin of error. Of course I can't proof anything since reviews are done with different chips with better/worse silicon, but I have seen a few trustworthy reviews state the difference between required voltage between air and liquid cooling for example. Just kinda hard to find them when 99% of reviews only uses air or water cooling and it's especially hard to find a review stating voltages required for x frequency. I believe some ryzen reviews did though. I'll see if I can find one of those.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 20, 2017)




----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 20, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> View attachment 89238


----------



## trparky (Jun 20, 2017)

OK, so long as you don't overvolt or overpower the chip you will never fry it, I get that. However the "less than desirable" TIM will result in more throttling since heat won't be able to be pulled away from the chip fast enough. True you won't fry the chip but it could result in less performance. The chip automatically throttles itself down to save itself when it gets too hot.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 20, 2017)

trparky said:


> OK, so long as you don't overvolt or overpower the chip you will never fry it, I get that. However the "less than desirable" TIM will result in more throttling since heat won't be able to be pulled away from the chip fast enough. True you won't fry the chip but it could result in less performance. The chip automatically throttles itself down to save itself when it gets too hot.


correct.. mostly. 

Keep it to 90C while stress testing and throttling will never happen. That leaves you 10c of headroom on these chips for warming ambient or other factors.You typically wont see the same temps a stress test gets either. Certainly not hotter. Thats the point is to make it a 'worst case' scenario.

That said, with my custom loop, i was able to reach 4.5ghz using aida64 stress test and keep it at 90c (7900k). During gaming temps were way less. Rendering 1080p/4k, encoding, compiling, was all several to 20c less than stress test temps.

The tim will only cause throttling if you raise the voltage and clocks past a certain point with your cooling. To put it the same way for the umteenth time, its certainly fine at stock and wont cause throttling. There is headroom for some overclocking as well. As much as many want/what indium solder would give??? Probably not, but the tim isnt really a problem (shit) like you two were incessantly going on about and blowing it out of proportion.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 20, 2017)

Yo, Earthdog, have you check power consumption on OC or stock? I can pull the max rated 300W with these chips easy.

Also remember, this CPU has FIVR, so it seems hotter than it should be because of internal voltage regulation like Haswell CPUs. TIM has nothing to do with it.


"someone said this thing sucks, so I'mma gonna go with that since my wallet likes me that way".


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 20, 2017)

Edot:

4ghz 1.2v p95 v28.1 small fft showed 465w, lol! (System - at the wall)

Stock 265w... 1.15v


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 20, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I dont recall stock, but I know i pulled 450W (system - at the wall) at 4.5ghz all cores/threads 1.3V...this was using p95 v28.1 small fft.


you might be over 300W on the CPU. Just enabling XMP and syncing cores gets me well north of 260W, and I use AIDA for load testing. First "normal" tests, the FPU-only. I have to update BIOS though, might be something weird there.

Tell your boss to spend the $100 for you to get a clamp-based amp meter! You can get a really good fluke one for less than $100, even, and the tool is invaluable.


I think it is HILARIOUS that you and I, guys who actually have access to these chips, are the ones that don't seem to be so adamant that there is something wrong with these chips. You'd think
we'd actually used them! 

Also worth noting is the orientation of the DIMM slots and cache performance in AIDA64 memory benchmark (also the memory performance, wow!).

Haven't run into any weirdness as was reported by some reviewer...


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 20, 2017)

I ninjad you... check my edit..


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 20, 2017)

Ill have new boss soon enough... 

Ill message you when not sitting at a stop light.. 


Yeah, its funny...and a bit sad all at the same time. What happened to listening?? What happened to being open to being corrected? What happened to supporting your talking points in a discussion. Im always happy to learn new things, but, i need support, not some random new people just spewing things out without it... 

...sad forums...forums are sad.


----------



## trparky (Jun 20, 2017)

OK, I was wrong. I get it.


----------



## Kyuuba (Jun 20, 2017)

trparky said:


> *So why don't they use it?!* I mean come on, we're paying Intel upwards of $300 USD for these damn things, the least they could do is put some decent TIM in these damn things.


That specific TIM has advantages others doesn't have, one of them is the longevity which can keep you from touching/delidding your cpu for almost a decade, i'll say this so you can understand, high temperature wont kill the chip, is the amount of electricity going through the silicon what kills it, even if it's running cool damage done via high voltage would fry it without problem, again that's why Intel uses their 'crappy' TIM as a limiting factor, you just need to understand that bro.


----------



## trparky (Jun 20, 2017)

Understood.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 21, 2017)




----------



## trparky (Jun 21, 2017)

Whoa.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 21, 2017)

From my review now... dat sh1t tim tho............


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 21, 2017)

More importantly, does anyone know if the I9 case badge is that same fugly ass pink as the box?


----------



## notb (Jun 21, 2017)

trparky said:


> *So why don't they use it?!* I mean come on, we're paying Intel upwards of $300 USD for these damn things, the least they could do is put some decent TIM in these damn things.


Because it would mean compromising other properties. This is most likely the best all-round TIM they had. And once again: I strongly urge not to compare the specified thermal properties, because - to make it short - consumer products are full of sh...

BTW: when you look at "delidding" results carefully, most of the temp drop comes from significant shortening of the TIM/solder thickness, not from a different material.



trparky said:


> I still stand by the idea that running that close to the thermal threshold makes me uncomfortable. I tend to monitor my system temperatures closely and 90c would cause me to freak out.


I'm pretty sure it's not that. It's most likely just the number. Almost 100*C. Almost boiling water. We're programmed to be worried.


----------



## trparky (Jun 22, 2017)

notb said:


> I'm pretty sure it's not that. It's most likely just the number. Almost 100*C. Almost boiling water. We're programmed to be worried.


This!


----------



## BluesFanUK (Jun 22, 2017)

Looks like my 5820K purchase a couple years ago just before Skylake released was a great move after all. OC'd to 4.5Ghz, not far off these results and it doesn't get obscenely hot either under an NH-D15.

Don't think i'll be upgrading for at least another few more years.


----------



## uplink777 (Jul 3, 2017)

Why does everyone see Kaby Lake as puzzling? It's not. It's pretty much straightforward. You have Z270 and a limit of 7700K, maybe some 7800K in the future. Now You have cheap mobos for X299 [starting at around 180e w/o VAT] and You can buy Kaby Lake now and in 2-3 years 7900X or go higher. So much for puzzling. They fused mainstream and high end. No big deal.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 3, 2017)

notb said:


> I'm pretty sure it's not that. It's most likely just the number. Almost 100*C. Almost boiling water. We're programmed to be worried.


agreed, however, when whitepapers and knowledgable forum memebers alike tell one not to worry, you would think people would listen a lot quicker than some recently have...


----------



## notb (Jul 3, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> agreed, however, when whitepapers and knowledgable forum memebers alike tell one not to worry, you would think people would listen a lot quicker than some recently have...


I actually kind of approve of what's happening. Yes, 100*C can kill you. Yes, you shouldn't believe people on a forum just because they have 1000+ thanks.

However, I expect more from individuals. Most people here at least seem to be adults, so they must have had some exposure to high-school physics by now. They should know that electronics are not afraid of 100*C.

They should have at least a slight intuition that modern industrial installations are also operated by some sort of electronics, so it's clearly possible to make chips that sustain way over 100*C (AFAIK the current efforts are to reach 300*C).


----------



## d265f2785 (Jul 13, 2017)

How is saying ryzen is an all round better design than what Intel has being a fanboy when it's true?

Yes, Intel's cpus do clock a bit higher, get slightly more single thread performance, have a better implementation of avx and the infinity fabric frequency being fixed to the memory frequency isn't ideal which makes Intel's cpus better for some use cases.... but overall ryzens are better, the single thread performance is very close to Intel's, you get a lot more cores, pcie lanes, ecc support, better power efficiency and all that for less money.....

Bulldozer was a bust and the Phenom II while being not as good as what Intel had at the time was okish.

Sandy bridge was (and still is) an awesome cpu  but after it Intel just didn't do much (ok, the igpu did get better) since they really had no competition.... and if you want to go further back the Core2quads, Celerons 300A, and probably a few others were also very good cpus for their time. But they also had some pretty crappy things like the P4 too... the Baytrail/Cherrytrail atoms while not very fast are also very under rated if they weren't artificially gimped by having 2 gb of ram at the most in the vast majority of cases (I think some of the tablets with them did have more but they aren't common) and very slow emmc storage they would be great cpus for cheap x86 tablets.....

And on the AMD side the Athlon and Athlon64 were great as well so both manufacturers had their good and not good moments...


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 13, 2017)

Its a great buy if you can use more cores... and need more pcie lanes... and need ecc memory...

They have an advantage by price and cores. Nothing wrong with free cores, but if you arent using them, like most cant, and wont for years (where 4c/8t starts holding things back)...


----------

