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

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

i do have HT off at 5 g..

trog

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

Vya DomusNo, I didn't know that, I thought it was just one core as well.

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

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

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

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

ratirt5.3Ghz on a laptop and desktops have problems with sustaining 5.2 Ghz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vya DomusNo, I didn't know that, I thought it was just one core as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a coffee junkie, I approve of this idea :D :roll:

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



Same CPUs can have very different results.

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

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

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

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

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

*googles MSI GT75*

:twitch: Good lawd...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yotano211I've used the i9 9880hk in a Aero 15, a thin 15 inch laptop, and in a MSI GT75, a 17 inch, 2 inch thick laptop that weighs 10lb with dual 330w power supplies.
In the Aero 15 , I could get it upto 3.9ghz with a .130 undervolt, in the MSI GT75, I could go much higher at 4.7ghz with .140 undervolt. And that was on all 8 cores running BOINC at 100%.
I am sure this "new" processor will not be much better. Only way for Intel to get higher speeds is to finally release their 10nm processors in 2021.
The laptop I have now, it can barely do 3.3ghz, 100%, 6 cores. Cooling on it sucks.

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

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

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

Berfs1Nah, base is 3.1 GHz, and I am 100% sure laptops with this processor (that have good cooling) will be able to do 4.5 on all 8 cores or more.


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


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

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

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

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

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

Gmr_Chick*googles MSI GT75*

:twitch: Good lawd...

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

Berfs1Nah, base is 3.1 GHz, and I am 100% sure laptops with this processor (that have good cooling) will be able to do 4.5 on all 8 cores or more.

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

yotano211There is a MSI GT76 with a desktop i9 9900k.

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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