Sunday, January 27th 2019
![Intel](https://tpucdn.com/images/news/intel-v1723408558483.png)
Intel Readies Energy-efficient 35-Watt Core i9-9900T Processor
Intel succeeded in bringing down the TDP of its 8-core/16-thread "Coffee Lake-Refresh" silicon all the way down to a staggering 35 W, from its currently rated 95 W, which in real-world usage easily exceeds 110 W, given Turbo Boost, and other performance enhancements enabled by DIY motherboards. The new Core i9-9900T achieves its TDP with a combination of significantly lower clock-speeds, and an aggressive on-die power-management system. Its nominal-clock is down to 1.70 GHz from 3.60 GHz of the original i9-9900K, while 1~2 core Turbo Boost frequency is down to 3.80 GHz from 5.00 GHz of the original. The all-core Turbo clock-speed could be as low as 3.30 GHz. Intel hasn't tinkered with the L3 cache amount, which is still set at 16 MB, and the UHD 630 iGPU retains its EU count and clock-speeds. The chip features its 4-character product code of QQC0.
Source:
Tom's Hardware
31 Comments on Intel Readies Energy-efficient 35-Watt Core i9-9900T Processor
Some of these might be interesting for like a home firewall or server, but I would still probably go for a low TDP 4-core rather than a low TDP 8-core for that purpose.
stop keeping cpus in your factory stock and send them to the market, your chipzilla crap is way too overpriced.
wait, does that mean then if you overclock a cpu it will consume MORE energy and run hotter as well?!!!?
Wait, THATS why people have like custom water cooling loops or after market better performing coolers? it all makes sense now!
i have it underclocked to 36 watts as well. thats a lot of energy savings and most games won't be able to tell the difference
You should check out anand's review of coffee lake laptop that intel is hiding in the Chinese education market... kabylake basically is better in everything that isnt avx512.
www.anandtech.com/show/13405/intel-10nm-cannon-lake-and-core-i3-8121u-deep-dive-review
This will probably be the only 10nm product, what actually comes to market will be 10nm+
The only reason intel didn't cancel 10nm after years of failure is they expect the same issues on the 7nm node they are having on 10nm.
Solve on one, solve for both, time not as wasted. Currently 14nm+++ s better than 10nm.
This CPU is about getting the job done, not getting great benchmark results. :) No, they don't. They'll easily exceed TDP by around 10%. But that's just few Watts, so people don't care very much.
It's quite similar on Intel's side. Or at least it used to be until 8th gen.
8700K can go past TDP by as much as 30%. But it is a K CPU and Intel strongly advises you to get good PSU and cooler for these models.
8700 also seems to get past 65W, but I haven't seen decent tests, because - sadly - non-K CPUs don't get that much attention from reviewers.
Well, it's a price you pay for single-core performance. And Intel's 8th gen has lots of it.
The main problem here is efficiency and heat distribution. Heat increases faster than power draw (i.e. CPUs are less effective at high frequencies). That's the main problem with current lineup of the Blues. Well, the aim is making a fast CPU, so the high-end desktop CPUs are fast. Stop caring so much about how many "+" there are. :)
Intel can make efficient CPUs when it matters - in notebooks. Zen is not even close and the result is that low-voltage AMD solutions are still using old Excavator chips.
As you said: Zen is designed to be efficient in average situation. But Intel makes more purpose-built CPUs and they'll always have the edge in particular scenarios.
And when Intel catches up on node efficiency, it will be interesting to see AMD's response. We'll see how long the Zen strategy is going to work. :)
And no arguement on Zen Mobile. AMD needs a better answer there. I think it’s the Infinity Fabric that kills them on mobile—it just can’t power down enough like the cores and GPU can.
The i7-8700 when used with adequate cooling will use the exact same amount of power as the i7-8700K, about ~120-125W according to Anandtech. If you try using the 8700 with the stock cooler, which is rated for 73W (as opposed to the chip's 65W), it hits 100C and throttles within 5 seconds under any kind of serious load. This causes a very serious impact to performance that is generally not reflected in reviews. You seem to be taking this as emotionally charged when I'm simply analyzing why the chips compare to each other the way they do. I would hope Zen 2 is using relatively less dense libraries for TSMC 7nm and is geared (from a manufacturing standpoint) towards high transistor performance and high yield at the expense of efficiency, similarly to how Intel tweaked 14nm to be focused on high-performance compute instead of laptops.
As for why AMD isn't using Zen in the ultra-ultra-low-voltage chips yet: Raven Ridge is a 210mm^2 die which is unsuitable for these markets and wattage ranges, and I assume AMD doesn't see these markets as worth the money that'd have to go into designing a new die. AMD has indicated on roadmaps if I'm not mistaken that Zen will be going down to the 4-5W range by the end of 2020. Let's not forget that Zen's clock potential was limited by its node, which AMD had no control over and was originally designed for cell phones. In the future AMD will be able to utilize the best-performing HPC nodes for high power products and the most efficient low power nodes for low power products.
TDP and consumption aren't 1:1, but they should be close unless you're just plain lying. Depending on your test app the 2700X uses 10W less than this (magically inline with TDP...).
78% higher consumption vs direct TDP comparison....just lol. Basically, 9900T is a joke, too, but on a grander scale. OEMs will have to limit it or it'll burn up whatever SFF they stick it in.
You can choose between slower 8 cores or faster 4/6. Choice is good, right? :-)
I'm really looking forward to reviews.
Based on clocks, single-thread performance of this CPU should be around that of Intel's mobile CPUs. Which means it should be faster than 1700X (and not far behind 2700)
1700X was released just 2 years ago and sucked 100W in full load. 35W or 65W - 9900T would be a fantastic achievement.
This something of a 1700 nonX competitor if you keep consumption in check-ish. If they wanted low TDP, then all they had to do was disable HT.