Intel Core i9-10900K Stressed, Package Power Reads 235W, Temperatures 93°C

[EarthDog]

I heard that with a 360 AIO and i9-10900K at 5.2 ghz all c/t ~1.35V with Aida's default l test it passed at 100C. TJmax on these are 115C, note.

 

[apoklyps3]

intel fan-boys, empty the meat freezer.
this 14nm +(x1 milion) baby burns rather nice.
all this for those 10 extra fps in fortnite at 1080p. amazing !

http://imgur.com/wswuJGN

 

[kapone32]

The numbers seem to match with the strength of the VRMs on Z490 boards.

 

[trparky]

I believe 90% of air coolers will not be able to handle the heat output.

Only but the largest most ugly air coolers will be able to handle this beast.

Intel is NOT the primary choice here, I agree overall, but the haters hating calling it shit and overpriced clearly need some perspective. Cooling can be different, but is there really a problem when a 240 AIO is able to keep 235W in check? People aren't using 240mm(+) AIOs on 3900x to keep it cool too?? FPU in A64 is also a worst case scenario...

It's not just benchmarking that will have the potential to make this beast of a chip get that hot. Any time when you're running the processor at 100% could potentially make this beast of a chip run as hot as a mofo. Video transcoding in Handbrake, plain video encoding, Folding@Home, compiling, running a VM (or two), etc. Given time I'm sure I can come up with a few more examples of things outside benchmarks that will heat one of these fire spitting processors up.

As for the video encoding/transcoding, especially so if the video encoder is using AVX instructions like most of them do.

 

[apoklyps3]

http://imgur.com/wswuJGN

but 10fps extra in fortnite 1080p is worth it

 

[EarthDog]

but 10fps extra in fortnite 1080p is worth it

How many times are you going to post the same thing? You're coming across like a kid who is starving for attention.

It's not just benchmarking that will have the potential to make this beast of a chip get that hot. Any time when you're running the processor at 100% could potentially make this beast of a chip run as hot as a mofo. Video transcoding in Handbrake, plain video encoding, Folding@Home, compiling, running a VM (or two), etc. Given time I'm sure I can come up with a few more examples of things outside benchmarks that will heat one of these fire spitting processors up.

As for the video encoding/transcoding, especially so if the video encoder is using AVX instructions like most of them do.

Did I infer or say otherwise that this goes outside of a stress test?

Since you brought it up though, I dont find many activities that are harder on a cpu than this or regeneration's overkill stress testing app. Stress in p95 using avx is also difficult to surpass rendering and encoding. VMs.. that is clearly situation dependent. I can spin up a few and have them do nothing. I get your point but few real world applications touch some of these stress test loads.

I've heard a story of 5.2 ghz 1.35V, all c/t passing default aida64 at 100C with a 360 aio. These things are built to take it with a TJmax of 115C.

 

[trparky]

TJmax of 115C

115c? Holy fuck! And to think that I get nervous when temps rise to 80c.

 

[EarthDog]

Yeah... 210W at 100C isnt easy to look at.

 

[kapone32]

Yeah... 210W at 100C isnt easy to look at.

Is thata GPU

 

[EarthDog]

Is thata GPU

Lol, no.

But with my 7960x (16c/32t) 4.5 GHz 1.2V I manage to pull more, lol.

 

[kapone32]

Lol, no.

But with my 7960x (16c/32t) 4.5 GHz 1.2V I manage to pull more, lol.

I hear you but that is 6 more cores lol. if I leave PBO my 2920 pulls a max of 178 @ 1.4 in AIDA64 on my 2920X. I would love to see what Noctua DH14 series can do to tame this beast.

 

[Lokran88]

lol, luckily I got a totally exaggerated CPU-Loop with 480, 420 and two 280's. So maybe enough to handle 10900k Or rather get external radiator like mora 3 only for the CPU...

 

[EarthDog]

lol, luckily I got a totally exaggerated CPU-Loop with 480, 420 and two 280's. So maybe enough to handle 10900k Or rather get external radiator like mora 3 only for the CPU...

The rad/cooling space isnt the issue. It's getting the heat out of the die that's the problem. Lol at that loop and not having 1KW going through it though, lol.

I hear you but that is 6 more cores lol. if I leave PBO my 2920 pulls a max of 178 @ 1.4 in AIDA64 on my 2920X. I would love to see what Noctua DH14 series can do to tame this beast.

Did you break 4ghz all c/t?

 

[kapone32]

Did you break 4ghz all c/t?
[/QUOTE]

The best traditional OC I can do is 4.175 @ 1.3.

 

[EarthDog]

The best traditional OC I can do is 4.175 @ 1.3.

there you go borking quotes again, lol...!

~4.2.. not bad!

 

[KarymidoN]

Water Boils at 100ºC, so if this thing gets close to the 115°C tJmax are we entering the vapor cooling era? Intel really inovating this time i gotta give it to them, wasn't expecting such thing.

 

[Caring1]

Water Boils at 100ºC, so if this thing gets close to the 115°C tJmax are we entering the vapor cooling era? Intel really inovating this time i gotta give it to them, wasn't expecting such thing.

Most AIO's don't use straight water, they use Coolant similar to that used in a car's radiator.
It has a much higher boiling point.

 

[EarthDog]

Water Boils at 100ºC, so if this thing gets close to the 115°C tJmax are we entering the vapor cooling era? Intel really inovating this time i gotta give it to them, wasn't expecting such thing.

Not a worry anyway... loop/water temps wont get anywhere close to that. My water hits around 40C after an hour or so stress test and that's well over 235w @ 90C.

 

[Master Tom]

I wonder which AIO they used, low end ones might be quieter but they perform worse than a lot of air coolers. And if it's like the 8700K, they can shave 20c off simply by de/relidding and applying a liquid metal compound.

No, 8700K has toothpaste as TIM. The 9900K and 10900K are soldered.

A 360mm aio liquid cooler should be sufficient. They have around 300W tdp.
I have a 120mm aio liquid cooler with 200W tdp for my i9-9900K, because of the case I am using. That is hardly enough.
I have set PL1 to 125W and PL2 to 160W.

 

[apoklyps3]

According to intel fanboys :

Ryzen in full load at 70C - boiling hot
Intel CPU in full load at 100C -a bit hot.

 

[Berfs1]

Advertised all-core boost of 10900K/KF is 4800 MHz. It's short by just 30 MHz.

My bad, you are correct on the 4800 MHz all core boost, however the Thermal Velocity all core boost is 4900 MHz, and that's what I was referring to, which I now understand is contextually incorrect. Not really sure how you are going to get that 10 core processor to get 4900 MHz under 70C on all cores but okay Intel.

As for the 30 MHz difference, that is not correct; as I mentioned earlier, Task manager doesn't read it correctly. Seeing as the memory in HWINFO is 1463.4 MHz, or roughly 2926.8, which is basically 2933, the reason the clock speed is lower is because of spread spectrum. (2926.8/2933) * 100 = ~99.79 MHz, which is something you will normally see in CPU Z, and that's the BCLK. that multiplied by 48x is 4789.8 MHz, which is just shy of 10 MHz. So not only I just proved Task Manager is incorrect for determining the actual clock speed (it is a small difference between actual clock speed and what task manager is showing in this case), I just showed you how to calculate a processor's clock speed. BCLK x Multiplier = Core clock speed. But seriously, something like 10-30 MHz in clock speed variance from BCLK shouldn't be what your buying decision is based on unless you are a professional overclocker.

Even a standard 120 AIO can easily dissipate around 200W. It's not the cooling, it's the chip, eventually people will have to accept that. They've been struggling to explain every fault with Intel's approach since the 7700K. Whether it was the soldered IHS, the clock speeds way out of any optimal power curve, the aging node, it's evident by now that throwing insane amounts of cooling at this problem doesn't work.

I think I have an explanation for why the 10900K is running hotter than expected. Remember how Intel is using thin die sTIM now?

Here is the problem, the IHS is thicker. Had they raised the SOCKET a little bit higher and had the prior IHS, there would be less material to go through to the cooler and it would be cooled more effectively. Delidding the CPU and using direct die cooling has been seen to greatly improve temperatures, because one less barrier is in the way, which also can mean having a bigger material barrier will not transfer heat as effectively. What Intel chose to do is compensate the thinner die with a thicker IHS, and I think the better route would have been to compensate the thinner die with a lifted up socket.

 

[trparky]

Here is the problem, the IHS is thicker. Had they raised the SOCKET a little bit higher and had the prior IHS, there would be less material to go through to the cooler and it would be cooled more effectively. Delidding the CPU and using direct die cooling has been seen to greatly improve temperatures, because one less barrier is in the way, which also can mean having a bigger material barrier will not transfer heat as effectively. What Intel chose to do is compensate the thinner die with a thicker IHS, and I think the better route would have been to compensate the thinner die with a lifted up socket.

Unfortunately, that would result in all the major coolers needing to be redesigned due to the force that they exert onto the chip. That same force would more than likely break those chips and then Intel would be in an even worse situation.

 

[EarthDog]

Unfortunately, that would result in all the major coolers needing to be redesigned due to the force that they exert onto the chip. That same force would more than likely break those chips and then Intel would be in an even worse situation.

It likely wouldn't. The specs remain the same... the IHS is the same height off the PCB. He is saying raise the die internally so it is closer to the IHS lid instead of making it thicker.

That said, I highly doubt that is the issue here. We've added 25% more cores and a TDP(lol) of 125W. These, period, are more difficult to cool. They also have an increased TJmax (115C vs 100C).

 

[trparky]

Remember the thinner substrate of the 8000 series? Remember how some people were reporting that they cracked them?

 

[EarthDog]

Remember the thinner substrate of the 8000 series? Remember how some people were reporting that they cracked them?

Oh, you're talking the whole CPU, not the die like the guy you responded to. Sure. But that isn't the same here.

The substrate/PCB size remains the same (or is thicker?). Look at the slide. What is thinner is the die itself, not the PCB which is what warped and cracked/what you are talking about.