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

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

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

Thermal Velocity Boost has been a "thing" for a couple generations already:
en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/thermal_velocity_boost

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

5.3 ghz.. yikes!!!

mtcn77Good old Intel. How is the melting thermal sink material(candle wax) playing along its development cycle, I wonder. Intel had this 'boost to phase change' goal set on its targets a few years back.

They'll use sTIM I'd imagine.


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

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

R0H1TAnd it doesn't work quite the way of XFR, PBO et al from AMD. AMD's boost is much more refined arguably since the original Zen launch.

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

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

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

trog100ps.. just played a division 2 mission.. the max temps realtempt showed my 5 g 9900k with HT off getting to was around 75C... nowhere near full load.. full load would have been around 95C..

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

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.

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

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

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

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

EarthDog5.3 ghz.. yikes!!!


They'll use sTIM I'd imagine.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

No long explanations required. :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

No long explanations required. :)

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

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

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

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

R0H1TIt's a desktop replacement, for sure not fit on a notebook unless you call those Eurocom or Clevo "luggages" that!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No long explanations required. :)

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

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

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

'Ultracook'

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

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

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

we'll agree to disagree. ;)

Vayra86I think they might dub it a new type of product.

'Ultracook'

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

poor Dev... I admire his devotion.

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

This product smells like same problem...

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

poor Dev... I admire his devotion.

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

This product smells like same problem...

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

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

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

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