Intel Core i9-10980HK Detailed: 8-core Mobile Monstrosity that Boosts up to 5.30 GHz

[NeuralNexus]

And their competitor can barely overclock on a full blown desktop while requiring the infamous 1.5 volt!

This 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

 

[Vya Domus]

You know Silicon Lottery overclocks ALL cores, while this is supposed to be a 1-core boost.

No, 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.

 

[Cheeseball]

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.

 

[trog100]

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..

 

[Valantar]

No, 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.

 

[notb]

5.3Ghz 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.

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.

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?

 

[Valantar]

Why 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.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

No, 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.

 

[hat]

Why 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.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

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.

 

[Gmr_Chick]

Melting 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

 

[Steevo]

Unless 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:
View attachment 149485
View attachment 149486

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.

 

[Pinktulips7]

Boost 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.

AMD Fanboy run run , it will destroy not only all AMD Desktop CPU and Laptop CPU unless AMD come up with 100 Cores CPU running at 7Ghz??? AMD Fan Boys like Cores than Foods...

 

[Gmr_Chick]

AMD Fanboy run run , it will destroy not only all AMD Desktop CPU and Laptop CPU unless AMD come up with 100 Cores CPU running at 7Ghz??? AMD Fan Boys like Cores than Foods...

Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. Intel fan boy run run

 

[Pinktulips7]

Stop being Bitc## you KNOW intel rules the World not AMD???

Stop

 

[hat]

Here's an interesting one... 18 posts over 7 years, nearly all of them bashing AMD. 18 posts in 7 years... did you get bored?

 

[windwhirl]

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.

 

[Gmr_Chick]

Stop being Bitc## you KNOW intel rules the World not AMD???

Stop

Aaaaand reported. Pleases me to know I struck a MASSIVE nerve though

 

[yotano211]

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.

 

[Gmr_Chick]

*googles MSI GT75*

Good lawd...

 

[bogmali]

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

 

[Melvis]

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!

 

[Minus Infinity]

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.

 

[TheGuruStud]

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).

 

[Berfs1]

Boost 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.

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).

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.

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.

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