MatsYou forgot the differences. 250 W coming from 200 mm² is not as easy to cool as 250 W coming from 315 mm².

Also, AMD said the TDP is 220 W:

Intel still says 125 W:


I still consider the 10900K to be less of a freak than the FX, because it's more competitive. Don't quote me on that tho, don't remember those FX reviews..

You have a point on a smaller die area, not sure why you bring claimed TDP in. That's a red herring. The 3950x is a 105 watt chip, but hits a peak of 145 watt total power draw with 10 cores loaded, and core frequency starts falling the more cores you load after that, with the aveerage clock rate hittting 3.875 GHz with 16 cores. Upping power limits on DIY systems to allow higher clocks raises that power draw much higher.
www.anandtech.com/show/15043/the-amd-ryzen-9-3950x-review-16-cores-on-7nm-with-pcie-40/2

According to the enthusiast community, pushing these chips to 4.3-4.4 all core pushes power consumption above 280 watts total, and they manage to handle the heat generated. Notice as well the one spushing these clocks are using 360MM rads with 3-6 fans, yet there is no complkaining fro the community of the higher clocks being useless without "exotic cooling"
Amd/comments/euk0th
The point is the power draw of the 10900k isnt unmanageable. As I said, you have a point of the small die becoming a limiting factor. Techspot was able to load all 10 cores at 4.9 GHz, with a 200 watt power draw, and hit 84C.
www.techspot.com/review/2028-intel-core-i9-10900k/

The whole "ZOMG IT SO HOT" seems to be a bit overblown. Yes the chip is hot, yes it is harder to cool then AMD chips, but its hardly unsustainable. The FX was seen as a freak more because it was identical to the 8350 just clocked higher, no additional cache or more cores, and most 8350s could be pushed about as far. And the 9000 series had compatibility issues and not all fothem worked with speccd voltages.

The 10900k seems to hold the same spot the 9700k did last year: faster in games, slower in everything else, and needing a bigger cooler to hit max speed.

Mark LittleBut you are not getting faster gaming performance unless you build a very specific, high cost rig and ONLY game at 1080p medium settings or less. Also, you are wrong about future proof. At resolutions higher than 1080p, TR shows that even a Coffee Lake Core i3/i5 or Zen+ Ryzen 5/7 gets almost the same performance as a 9000KS.

www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-9900ks/21.html

Games are bottlenecked by the graphics card only when you go to higher resolutions and game details. Many year old CPUs perform the same as recent CPUs when gaming under these conditions. So a Ryzen 3900X will perform about the same now and a few years from now at 2.5K and higher resolutions as the Core i9-10900K.

I have both a 9700K and a 2700x. The 2700X is OCed, with PBO and AutoOC, with 2866 MHz RAM. The 9700k is running at stock speeds with 2400 mhz ram.

Despite all the reviews saying there is only a small differenc at higher resolutions in sucha scenario, running both on my 1440p144 gaming monitor, there is a definite difference between the two. Even limiting the framerate to 90 or 60 still shows better overall performance from the intel chip. Perhaps the ryzen chip needs faster memory, which my chip cant even get 2933 out of my 3200MHz RAM. Perhaps there is some setting to tweak. But out of the box, for high end gaming, the intel chip still holds a noticeable advantage, and the 10900k slightly improves this advantage.

TheinsanegamerNYou have a point on a smaller die area, not sure why you bring claimed TDP in.

Just showing that the CPU you compared the 10900K to did have a realistic TDP.

TheinsanegamerNTechspot was able to load all 10 cores at 4.9 GHz, with a 200 watt power draw, and hit 84C.

With a 360 AIO, that's hardly a surprise.

To all those that keep trolling and baiting, I will delete/LQ your posts but at some point, you will be thread banned and assessed points.

dicktracylol who said I love Intel. I love performance. This is in fact the fastest gaming CPU since the 9900k that somehow triggers the most loyal AMD fanboys. And testing at 1080p makes sense to determine the headroom of CPUs for longevity sake since you're reducing the GPU bottleneck.

You know once Ampere comes out, 1440p CPU tests with 3080ti will mirror 1080p CPU tests with 2080 ti right? If Zen 2 can't hit a certain high frame rate with 2080 ti at 1080p, it isn't going to do that with 3080 ti at 1440p either.

To be fair, you are using a language that makes you look like a troll, or someone with an agenda. "Intel 14nm+++++ is better than AMD 7nm ROFL". The worse is that you know exactly that it got nothing to do with fab process, and more about the IF speed and the ccx. (Intel mesh design isn't exactly brillant in gaming either.)

It's been nearly one year that zen 2 is out and everybody knows that they are not the absolute best at gaming. People buying a 3700x over a i9 9700k knows exactly what they are buying that cpu for. It's for 3d, video editing, with maybe decent gaming on the side.

I Read 2 or 3 interesting 10600k reviews, it seems the chips have a much thicker heat spreader so the 10600k does not really get any warmer than the 9600k even though it has the extra HT and apart from an intensive Prime run in all the other tests it did not even hit 100W of that 125W TDP, the conclusions thus far, albeit it early days is that the improvement from Coffee Lake i5 justifies it's existence but much less so with the 8 and 10 core parts...…… looking forward to W1z's take on things.

Here is one of them...….

global.techradar.com/en-za/reviews/intel-core-i5-10600k

Kind of impressed by the thermals. Here they are with a U14S (I'm assuming open bench): computerbase via google translate

Funny how everyone saying this is blah blah blah, this that and whatever. Yet it is sold out everywhere. Maybe they only sent out 2 CPUs to every online store and that is why they sold :rolleyes:

nickbaldwin86Maybe they only sent out 2 CPUs to every online store and that is why they sold :rolleyes:

That's basically what Hardware Unboxed said. We'll know in a few weeks when Mindfactorys sales for the first weeks will pop up.

dicktracyTruly a magnificent gaming processor. It gives so much headroom, you don't need to upgrade every year like you do with AMD. Where's the 14nm+++++ jokes now?

Ohhhhhh.... Triggered!

I've seen some reviewers say that the heat wasn't an issue and some say it needs a very good cooler to keep it under control.
Hope TPU has a review soon.

This launch is disappointing on many fronts - you do get very high gaming performance but at the expense of hundreds of dollars overpayment, incredible amounts of heat and energy consumption. It's never going to be easy to keep this out of throttling.

I can't prove but the current situation resembles to some kind of conspiracy between AMD and Intel, and both charge for maximum profits, despite the fact that Intel is not competitive and its real market share is around 10% or less of the current sales.

What was the problem not to go to 10nm with more cores clocked at a reasonably low frequency ?
What was the problem to get rid of the iGPU which no one would ever use anyways on so expensive a platform?

Intel has the X-series with more cores.

Their opportunity to be competitive lies in decreasing the pricing and they never do it.

What is the problem with the supply ?

Where do all Intel chips go?

Dave65Ohhhhhh.... Triggered!

I've seen some reviewers say that the heat wasn't an issue and some say it needs a very good cooler to keep it under control.
Hope TPU has a review soon.

I personally see the 10900K as mostly a fail. Its main improvement is the 10C/20T vs 9900K. In the highly threaded environments it is not really beating AMD, and in games which are still mostly unable to use > 4 threads effectively it is overkill.

For games, and more typical budgets and workloads, I see the 10400 10500 10600 and 10700 being where it's at same as the 3600/3600X. These are the ones I want to see, along with faster and lower latency DDR4 supported by the Z490 chipset. The only reliable source thus far is guru3d which has a review of the 10600k with some DDR4-3600.

On that one, for games primarily but also in some productivity apps, the 10600K looks very good vs AMD (intel on the right) :

claesKind of impressed by the thermals. Here they are with a U14S (I'm assuming open bench):
translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerbase.de%2F2020-05%2Fintel-core-i9-10900k-i5-10600k-test%2F

Where do you see what cooler they used? I went to the Test System page, and didn't see a whole lot about what they actually used. Though Google Translate is breaking a lot of those images for me so it could have been on one of those.

I've been trying to find reviews where they used an air cooler and the only one I could find was Tom's where they used both for comparison (and obviously the air takes a hit). All the other reviews I've seen so far are with AIOs. As an aside, Digital Foundry was perhaps the worst offender here using an AIO for the Intel chip for their review, but using the boxed AMD cooler for the 3900X. As far as testing methodology is concerned, that's a pretty egregious error.

Edit: Bit-tech used an air cooler but there's no detailed temperature info. =\

moobWhere do you see what cooler they used? I went to the Test System page, and didn't see a whole lot about what they actually used. Though Google Translate is breaking a lot of those images for me so it could have been on one of those.

I've been trying to find reviews where they used an air cooler and the only one I could find was Tom's where they used both for comparison (and obviously the air takes a hit). All the other reviews I've seen so far are with AIOs. As an aside, Digital Foundry was perhaps the worst offender here using an AIO for the Intel chip for their review, but using the boxed AMD cooler for the 3900X. As far as testing methodology is concerned, that's a pretty egregious error.

Edit: Bit-tech used an air cooler but there's no detailed temperature info. =\

There are temperatures:

www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i9_10900k_processor_review,30.html

moobWhere do you see what cooler they used? I went to the Test System page, and didn't see a whole lot about what they actually used. Though Google Translate is breaking a lot of those images for me so it could have been on one of those.

I've been trying to find reviews where they used an air cooler and the only one I could find was Tom's where they used both for comparison (and obviously the air takes a hit). All the other reviews I've seen so far are with AIOs. As an aside, Digital Foundry was perhaps the worst offender here using an AIO for the Intel chip for their review, but using the boxed AMD cooler for the 3900X. As far as testing methodology is concerned, that's a pretty egregious error.

Edit: Bit-tech used an air cooler but there's no temperature info. =\

On page 3 they suggest they use the setup they used in their Ryzen benching.

Edit: I just checked out that bit-tech review and it looks like they suggest it hit 74* with a D15s on page 6 (the overclocking section).

bogmaliTo all those that keep trolling and baiting, I will delete/LQ your posts but at some point, you will be thread banned and assessed points.

And that’s my signal to back up out of this thread. This thread is nuclear waste. I’m gone folks.

W1zzardJust in case you're wondering about where the TPU reviews are... the samples from Intel USA have been en-route for two weeks now. DHL air freight had major difficulties finding flights... last I heard was they were in Amsterdam, on Monday. National holiday here tomorrow, so maybe Friday.

Hurry, we hunger!

Thanks folks. I hope more reviewers test on air as well as on an AIO. As someone who prefers the ease-of-use and reliability of an air cooler I find it far more useful.

And yeah, I saw they mentioned the temp in the bit-tech review but it doesn't really give you a whole lot.

moobThanks folks. I hope more reviewers test on air as well as on an AIO. As someone who prefers the ease-of-use and reliability of an air cooler I find it far more useful.

And yeah, I saw they mentioned the temp in the bit-tech review but it doesn't really give you a whole lot.

Indeed, and Tom's doesn't tell us if it's open-air or in a chassis, either (has to be in a chassis, right?). So few good reviews these days!

Here it is on a ST30 with 3 eloops: hardwareluxx

Dave65Ohhhhhh.... Triggered!

I've seen some reviewers say that the heat wasn't an issue and some say it needs a very good cooler to keep it under control.
Hope TPU has a review soon.

I have seen those comments consistently for the 10 core part, one review said that their test bench Corsair H115 Pro 280 AIO could not keep it cool, a little less so for the 8 core but the i5 runs pretty cool from everything I have seen so far.

Dave65I've seen some reviewers say that the heat wasn't an issue and some say it needs a very good cooler to keep it under control.

Wasn't it the same with the 9900K reviews? Does anyone remember?

claesKind of impressed by the thermals. Here they are with a U14S (I'm assuming open bench): computerbase via google translate

Yep, me too. Impressed and surprised. But then 10900K die thickness 0.5mm vs 9900K die thickness 0.8mm. :)

Still, the platform doesn't offer enough to upgrade from 8th gen, at least not for me. Oh well. :ohwell:

Thinking Meteor Lake 2022 7nm and 2nd gen ddr5 might be the next platform I can run at high clocks CPU and mem - cooling with simple Noctua Air.

Hello from France

I bought my 3900x: 400 euro
MSI mortar max: 86 euro
g skill 3200 16 GB: 85 euro

My b450 max & compactible ryzen 4000

---->> The Core i9-10900K is expensive :kookoo:

gravelHello from France

I bought my 3900x: 400 euro
MSI mortar max: 86 euro
g skill 3200 16 GB: 85 euro

My b450 max & compactible ryzen 4000

---->> The Core i9-10900K is expensive :kookoo:

Sup gravel? How's things going in France man? :)

Great for gaming and nothing else

I'm truly disappointed with the 10900K pricing. I should be $80 cheaper.