JackCarverYou mean it goes that high??? My i7 8700K draws in OCCT Benchmark with AVX512 and small dataset, the worst Situation ever and not a real world Situation, about 190W. 400W is double that amount.

Is your 8700K @5.3GHz+ AVX0 all cores?

That's what we are talking about here.

My 9900KS @stock needs standard 200w Air or Pre-filled liquid cooling. 10700K run just fine with any 200w cooling solution.

But OC the 9900KS AVX0 @5.2GHz+ its over 300w

So what's the 10700K heavy OC 5.3GHz+ AVX0 wattage? I would assume it would be similar?

ToxicTaZIs your 8700K @5.3GHz+ AVX0 all cores?

Wouldn't get that high. Need 1.39-1.4V to get it to 5 GHz all core Turbo without AVX Offset. No Chance to get it above 5 GHz without AVX offset. The next big problem here is my board, 200W and above and it fries my vrm mosfets :D . But AVX2 scenarios with small data set aren't that often in real world. If I'm right Ryzen cpus don't even support AVX2.

JackCarverIf I'm right Ryzen cpus don't even support AVX2.

Zen(1) supports AVX2, but with limited performance, due to fusing together two 128-bit AVX units. Zen 2 have two full AVX2 units, and much better performance.

I don’t understand why tech sites don’t mention this and keep stating this like Intel is pulling 5.3ghz all core with 125w tdp. Must be hard to mention that the tdp is all core on base clock and this shit is probably pulling 300+ watt at 5ghz plus. Must be hard stating the details about intel lol.

I think close to 70% of the sites will just keep mentioning 125w TDP and bolstering the specs.

NkdI don’t understand why tech sites don’t mention this and keep stating this like Intel is pulling 5.3ghz all core with 125w tdp. Must be hard to mention that the tdp is all core on base clock and this shit is probably pulling 300+ watt at 5ghz plus. Must be hard stating the details about intel lol.

I think close to 70% of the sites will just keep mentioning 125w TDP and bolstering the specs.

You can bolstering all you want but if your 105w CPU can't outperforming 125w CPUs at every day tasks and of course PC Gaming.... The jokes on AMD

Already stock 9900KS 127w is already faster than stock 3800X 105w

I suspect stk 10700K 125w is around stk 9900KS 127w performance for less money.

Let's see if the 10700K is cheaper than the 3800X is the question?

I'm not sure if the 10700K will take away the top 8 cores performance crown away from the 9900KS

Honestly, I'm not sure why anyone would buy a 9900ks or 3800x for Facebook browsing and basic (non $1000+ graphics card) gaming; but I digress. I understand how things work. Anyway, this news doesn't impress me, and I hope Intel prices these things accordingly.

heflys20Honestly, I'm not sure why anyone would buy a 9900ks or 3800x for generic web browsing and basic (non $1000+ graphics card) gaming; but I digress. I understand how things work.

Well I'm a PC Gamer 90% of the time and Intel 9900KS @5.2GHz is that fastest Gaming CPU at the moment with my RTX 2080 NVlink setup.

I'm a performance guy while most people want easy cheap hardware.

I'm custom builder.... EK is choice cooling... Most likely cost more than your entire setup....that what top end people do... My expensive Hobbies and PC Gaming.... Mostly

We are in two different worlds.....like a guy with a Honda Civic talking to a guy that has a Bugatti

Lol. The top one percent. Gotcha. Like said I understand how this works. Most revenue comes from us peasants tho, that's why I mention pricing. More like m8 grand coupe vs a Bugatti, Imho (had to find the vehicle I was thinking of). Unless we're saying my setup is worth $50-100. Lol.

JackCarverYou mean it goes that high??? My i7 8700K draws in OCCT Benchmark with AVX512 and small dataset, the worst Situation ever and not a real world Situation, about 190W. 400W is double that amount.

AVX512 doesn't work with 8700k, because 8700k doesn't support it, so unless you meant AVX2 your observation doesn't make sense. Also as you add more core, plus cache, with clocks above 5Ghz the power can rise exponentially with even mild OC above stock.

R0H1Tunless you meant AVX2

I meant AVX2, not AVX512, you‘re right. I don‘t think that it reaches 400W with mild oc but we will see when the first tests are out there.

ToxicTaZWe are in two different worlds.....like a guy with a Honda Civic talking to a guy that has a Bugatti

So good:D

Super XPThis reminds me of the Pentium 4 days where Intel kept pushing higher clock speeds while AMD was innovating on CPU designs where AMD CPUs would beat P4's with up to 1000MHz lower clocks. That's how efficient and well designed the Athlon 64 was and beyond.

and then they went to shiz... it then took amd decades to make something good again... so whats your point. you only focus on anything good amd does but not Intel. meh... short sited

voltageand then they went to shiz... it then took amd decades to make something good again... so whats your point. you only focus on anything good amd does but not Intel. meh... short sited

Then Intel came out Intel with Core 2 and changed the world!

Let's see if Intel Meteor Lake will be Intel next Core 2?

Intel has been very quietly working in the background on 7nm and already spent over $10 Billion on it at the same time as there working on broken 10nm. (Fab42)

Intel Meteor Lake is all new architecture on new 7nm finally on the road map. Looks like 2023 is launch year so AMD will enjoy the next 3 years until then.

For now we have Comet Lake 10th generation with broken unfinished PCIe 4.0 memory controller and then Rocket Lake (made by Samsung) quick fix with working PCIe 4.0 memory controller both on LGA 1200 socket PCIe 4.0 board.

Then we have Intel Alder (14nm+++ or 10nm++)?? And Intel Meteor Lake both on LGA 1700 socket PCIe 5.0 Motherboard. (DDR5 & USB-4)

I'm stuck on my 9900KS till Meteor Lake so I can do another hand me down... People keep taking an complaining about TDP how it's getting higher... People get use to it!!! It's the new norm. Dual channel boards are over 100w TDP now from both and AMD Thread Ripper 280w+ are pushing 300w in Quad channel boards. Intel is talking about 500w GPU on 7nm...where Nvidia and AMD are 250w-300w range top end.

I'm in here to see if there's any leaks performance on Intel 10700K just curious how it performs against my 9900KS..... The 10700K will be faster than the 3800X and a lower price being a i7 series.

ToxicTaZThe 10700K will be faster than the 3800X and a lower price being a i7 series.

That wouldn't be surprising, considering the 3800x is essentially a 3700x with a higher TDP ( 65w vs 105=higher overclocking) and base clock. The difference between the two is a negligible (IMHO) 2-4%., when factoring in price.

www.techspot.com/review/1899-ryzen-3800x-vs-3700x-difference/

Over here, the 9700k is about $100 (at most retailers) more than the 3700x; and that's before you buy a cooler.

heflys20That wouldn't be surprising, considering the 3800x is essentially a 3700x with a higher TDP ( 65w vs 105=higher overclocking) and base clock. The difference between the two is a negligible (IMHO) 2-4%., when factoring in price.

www.techspot.com/review/1899-ryzen-3800x-vs-3700x-difference/

Over here, the 9700k is about $100 (at most retailers) more than the 3700x; and that's before you buy a cooler.

Well since the 10700K is replacing the 9700K one would expect around the same price range.

Again the 8 cores 10700K will be faster across the board over the 3800X AMD best available 8 cores CPU. Intel won't be able to challenge AMD 3700X prices... That a fact and coming from an Intel guy.

10700K is made to fight the 3800X with 9700K pricing.

I'm betting the 10700K will be trading blows with my 9900KS.... Still waiting for leaks.

The question now is the 10700K going to steel my 9900KS (World's Fastest Gaming CPU!) Title away from me?

How attainable is that 5.3GHz boost?

Intel still has a duration limit on boost, before it drops back down to a lower state, right? It's either that or you disable the limits and the 95W TDP goes to hell and your board and cooling needs to cope with 250W of power to the socket :\

Additionally, there's the problem of attaining that speed with all cores. The 9900KS was an exception with advertised all core boost of 5GHz (assuming you could handle the >300W power draw) but am I right in thinking that standard K models still boost to different speeds depending on how many cores are loaded? I mean the 9900K was realistically a 4.4-4.7GHz chip. Getting it to 5GHz for more than an instant required stress-testing software that could commandeer all 16 Threads and intentionally lock 15 of those threads exclusively for itself at idle. In a real world scenario the background tasks of a modern OS kept at least 2 or 3 additional cores active, meaning that you'd almost never see the advertised 5GHz speed even running a single thread on an idle machine.

Chrispy_Intel still has a duration limit on boost, before it drops back down to a lower state, right? It's either that or you disable the limits and the 95W TDP goes to hell and your board and cooling needs to cope with 250W of power to the socket :\

Intel does not have duration limit on boost. It has duration limit on extended power limit.
Intel's Boost Clock (Technically Max Turbo Frequency) is maximum single core clock speed. Single core at 5.3GHz will not exceed 95W, I would hope.

Chrispy_am I right in thinking that standard K models still boost to different speeds depending on how many cores are loaded?

This has been the case effectively since processors got more than 2 cores. All mainstream CPUs do exactly this - boost to different speeds depending on how many cores are loaded. Also, depending on load.

londisteIntel does not have duration limit on boost. It has duration limit on extended power limit.
Intel's Boost Clock (Technically Max Turbo Frequency) is maximum single core clock speed. Single core at 5.3GHz will not exceel 95W, I would hope.

Ah okay. Test show that the 9900K pulls about 65W from the socket when running single-threaded workloads with clocks averaging around 4.8Ghz as it bounces between 1-3 threads.

Chrispy_Test show that the 9900K pulls about 65W from the socket when running single-threaded workloads with clocks averaging around 4.8Ghz as it bounces between 1-3 threads.

Various tests show 9900K pulls anywhere from 30 to 40W for heavy single-core load (at boost clock - 5GHz).
I would suspect you got 65W from a review where whole system consumption was measured.

ToxicTaZYou can bolstering all you want but if your 105w CPU can't outperforming 125w CPUs at every day tasks and of course PC Gaming.... The jokes on AMD

Already stock 9900KS 127w is already faster than stock 3800X 105w

I suspect stk 10700K 125w is around stk 9900KS 127w performance for less money.

Let's see if the 10700K is cheaper than the 3800X is the question?

I'm not sure if the 10700K will take away the top 8 cores performance crown away from the 9900KS

Can we stop comparing a $1000 9900KS with a $430 3800X. Intel's rated TDPs are always calculated at the base clock, excluding any boost clocks. AMD rates its TDPs more with industry standards.
It's quite obvious by now AMD has far better processors over anything Intel has out to date.
Not to mention the massive amounts of security vulnerabilities Intel CPUs suffer from.

voltageand then they went to shiz... it then took amd decades to make something good again... so whats your point. you only focus on anything good amd does but not Intel. meh... short sited

AMDs been Innovating and pushing Technology in the CPU space for decades. Intel seems to have the monopoly mentality and a sort of arrogance to them, as they've gotten angry many times in the past when AMD releases competitive CPUs. Why else do you think Intel got charged Billions of dollars in damages for Anti Competition, Anti Consumerism and Anti Technology, all proven in multiple courts of Law. Anyhow, I said lots of good stuff about Intel's Conroe architecture. And a couple revisions above that. But then we find out that they took design shortcuts that resulted in over 250 security vulnerabilities, with new vulnerabilities popping up here and there. With most not fixed nor addressed.

Further with regards to AMD's push to Innovate, AMD really has no choice but to Innovate as they can't afford not to, Bulldozer, despite it being a innovation, set them back many years. Though they remained somewhat competitive on price/performance, they still fell behind. ZEN changed all that. If the Inquirer.net was still around, you could read a great article that was called Where AMD Leads, Intel Follows. Because that is what has been happening for at least 25+ years, AMD leads the industry and Intel closely follows behind. At least in the Desktop and Server space.

Many people in the industry already know this.
Anyhow I ain't going to debate this as this is FACT based information.

Super XPCan we stop comparing a $1000 9900KS with a $430 3800X. Intel's rated TDPs are always calculated at the base clock, excluding any boost clocks. AMD rates its TDPs more with industry standards.
It's quite obvious by now AMD has far better processors over anything Intel has out to date.
Not to mention the massive amounts of security vulnerabilities Intel CPUs suffer from.


AMDs been Innovating and pushing Technology in the CPU space for decades. Intel seems to have the monopoly mentality and a sort of arrogance to them, as they've gotten angry many times in the past when AMD releases competitive CPUs. Why else do you think Intel got charged Billions of dollars in damages for Anti Competition, Anti Consumerism and Anti Technology, all proven in multiple courts of Law. Anyhow, I said lots of good stuff about Intel's Conroe architecture. And a couple revisions above that. But then we find out that they took design shortcuts that resulted in over 250 security vulnerabilities, with new vulnerabilities popping up here and there. With most not fixed nor addressed.

Further with regards to AMD's push to Innovate, AMD really has no choice but to Innovate as they can't afford not to, Bulldozer, despite it being a innovation, set them back many years. Though they remained somewhat competitive on price/performance, they still fell behind. ZEN changed all that. If the Inquirer.net was still around, you could read a great article that was called Where AMD Leads, Intel Follows. Because that is what has been happening for at least 25+ years, AMD leads the industry and Intel closely follows behind. At least in the Desktop and Server space.

Many people in the industry already know this.
Anyhow I ain't going to debate this as this is FACT based information.

The only real fact here is that the 9900KS is faster than your 3800X... You can quote prices till your dead!

At the end of the day Intel makes a better 8 cores CPU at the moment!

Boom both 9900KS and 10700K are faster than AMD "BEST" 8 cores CPU!

By the way all migrants are hardware Intergraded into Stepping 13


Funny how people would rather be with Lemmings or Sheep before being a prodigy these days!

ToxicTaZThe only real fact here is that the 9900KS is faster than your 3800X... You can quote prices till your dead!

At the end of the day Intel makes a better 8 cores CPU at the moment!

Boom both 9900KS and 10700K are faster than AMD "BEST" 8 cores CPU!

By the way all migrants are hardware Intergraded into Stepping 13


Funny how people would rather be with Lemmings or Sheep before being a prodigy these days!

You do realise that you can buy a 3950X and use its 16 cores against a 9900KS, right?

The 3950X trades blows with the 9900KS in single-threaded matches - it's 4.7GHz/64MB cache vs 5.0GHz/16MB cache and the Ryzen 9 responds better to fast memory than the Intel - something anyone who is buying >$500 chips should be able to afford. Once you need more than a single thread, the AMD runs away with all the victories. More performance, lower power draw, and more PCIe bandwidth. It's a win-win-win, and I'm not even considering all the security vulnerabilities plaguing the faulty Intel platform, either. Intel may be adding mitigations in hardware but as fast as they patch one problem, five more spring up. Their architecture is so old and flawed that it's an easy target. Their security problems won't go away until they actual make a truly new architecture that isn't yet another patched-up Skylake!

Sure, the 9900KS is a very fast 8-core CPU, but if you need multi-threaded performance, "only" 8 cores is embarrassingly weak and if you don't need multi-threaded performance, then the 9900KS is 300+ wasted dollars that could (and should) be spent on better GPU and RAM instead. Let's face it - AMD is up to 64 cores now on consumer platforms and their advantage is growing rapidly whilst Intel seem to be floundering around in a mess born of their own complacency - blaming 10nm complications as the sole scapegoat for their multiple failings over the last half-decade. I'd pity them but they don't deserve any pity because they've bribed and cheated their way to the top and ripped us all off in the process.

ToxicTaZThe only real fact here is that the 9900KS is faster than your 3800X... You can quote prices till your dead!

At the end of the day Intel makes a better 8 cores CPU at the moment!

Boom both 9900KS and 10700K are faster than AMD "BEST" 8 cores CPU!

By the way all migrants are hardware Intergraded into Stepping 13


Funny how people would rather be with Lemmings or Sheep before being a prodigy these days!

Don't flatter the very miniscule Single Threaded performance advantage Intel has. That sucks A LOT more power and is one of the worst Price/ Performance ratio on the planet. Not to mention it's efficiency simply stinks.

When AMD launches ZEN3, Intel will lose that miniscule Single Threading performance advantage. Then what are they going to to do? Come out with a 9980KS with even higher clocks that needs 400W to run and call it a 125W TDP?
:nutkick:

& FYI my original post is based on Facts...

Chrispy_You do realise that you can buy a 3950X and use its 16 cores against a 9900KS, right?

The 3950X trades blows with the 9900KS in single-threaded matches - it's 4.7GHz/64MB cache vs 5.0GHz/16MB cache and the Ryzen 9 responds better to fast memory than the Intel - something anyone who is buying >$500 chips should be able to afford. Once you need more than a single thread, the AMD runs away with all the victories. More performance, lower power draw, and more PCIe bandwidth. It's a win-win-win, and I'm not even considering all the security vulnerabilities plaguing the faulty Intel platform, either. Intel may be adding mitigations in hardware but as fast as they patch one problem, five more spring up. Their architecture is so old and flawed that it's an easy target. Their security problems won't go away until they actual make a truly new architecture that isn't yet another patched-up Skylake!

Sure, the 9900KS is a very fast 8-core CPU, but if you need multi-threaded performance, "only" 8 cores is embarrassingly weak and if you don't need multi-threaded performance, then the 9900KS is 300+ wasted dollars that could (and should) be spent on better GPU and RAM instead. Let's face it - AMD is up to 64 cores now on consumer platforms and their advantage is growing rapidly whilst Intel seem to be floundering around in a mess born of their own complacency - blaming 10nm complications as the sole scapegoat for their multiple failings over the last half-decade. I'd pity them but they don't deserve any pity because they've bribed and cheated their way to the top and ripped us all off in the process.

What kinda drug fantasy are you on? If you like it or not stock 9900KS still holding the top record of fastest Gaming CPU! No competition from AMD best 8 cores CPU 3800X or from any R9 series for that matter.....

LOL you talk about 3950X as it is extremely expensive especially to AMD people that talk all day long about price price price I can't afford anything price price and can't afford anything. You talking about 3990X is even more ridiculous expensive trying to quote price price price all day!

Nothing is touching my 9900KS @5.2GHZ (30%OC) Cooled by EK in gaming thus is what I do 90% of the time on my custom Gaming RIG.

You say get a better GPU and RAM?? Are you on drugs? I'm running RTX 2080 NVlink setup with XMP 4133MHz CL17-17-17-37 Ultra low latency RAM! Well above Any AMD GPUs and dual channel platform in gaming!

Sorry AMD doesn't have a better 8 cores than the 3800X for now. Maybe AMD 4000 series will have a better 8 cores CPU then the 10700K?

10700K will out perform the 3800X for the 9700K price.

I would love to see the 3800X run 5GHz clock speeds just Emagine 3800X with the power and throttling heat nightmare if AMD had 5GHz tech lol....but unfortunately bound to the max 4.3GHz OC if your very lucky.

Super XPDon't flatter the very miniscule Single Threaded performance advantage Intel has. That sucks A LOT more power and is one of the worst Price/ Performance ratio on the planet. Not to mention it's efficiency simply stinks.

When AMD launches ZEN3, Intel will lose that miniscule Single Threading performance advantage. Then what are they going to to do? Come out with a 9980KS with even higher clocks that needs 400W to run and call it a 125W TDP?
:nutkick:

& FYI my original post is based on Facts...

Intel has Rocket Lake to deal with Zen 3 and yes Rocket Lake is 125w TDP what's your point? TDP means nothing....just like your Tread Rippers now pushing almost 300w TDP going off your statement.

Yeah your right I wouldn't be surprised if Intel came out with the 10900KS lol.... Would be amazing

Intel had no competition from AMD from the 2700K to 10700K in the PC Gaming department going on a decade now.

Intel has no competition from AMD in PC Gaming you say? :roll::clap::roll:
I recommend you stop drinking OK

Two completely blind fanboys screaming at each other. What a fantastic thing the internet has brought to us.