Intel Core i9-10850K

[Vayra86]

Well, that's what the silicone lottery is after all. Doesn't mean another 10600k won't be better than your sample. I personally see no pint in OCed cpus in this day and age at all. More headache, hardly any performance improvement, more cost. Getting high enough clocked memory at this stage is all you need.

Looking at my 8700K and what came after that in non-K's, I can only agree with this.

Zen is no different either. The only reason for an OC capable system is tweakability. Undervolts, etc.

GPUs have been that way for nearly half a decade now. I believe the 980ti was the last one that really hit above expectations in OC results. Pascal was so tight after that with GPU Boost, and binning was already not much of a differentiator.

 

[newtekie1]

You will hit the thermal barrier with this CPU when you render your videos.

There is no way the average consumer will be able to build a system that can dissipate 250W of heat - that is basically Threadripper levels of thermals.

The 250w is during a stress test, not real world full load. The real world full load number is about 225w, which is only 24w more than the full load 3900X(201w). So the the increase in heat load is only about 10%. If your cooling solution can handle a 3900X, it can handle a 108500K. Plus, the improved thermal efficient design means temps of the actual processor aren't really higher than the previous generation of Intel processors. In fact, they might even be lower than the previous generation despite the higher heat output.

Hell, the temperature testing in this review uses an air cooler, and under full load the 10850K and 10900K both were about 25°C cooler than the 3900X. Hell, they were 18°C cooler than the 3600X.

 

[Selaya]

Well, I have a 3900X and the CPU itself doesn't exceed 145W ...
The whole package (with X570) will consume more power bc the X570 chipset gobbles power like nothing bc of PCIe 4.0.

 

[Caring1]

Well, I have a 3900X and the CPU itself doesn't exceed 145W ...
The whole package (with X570) will consume more power bc the X570 chipset gobbles power like nothing bc of PCIe 4.0.

You might want to rethink that.
It's a new standard, it doesn't increase power throughput.
75W is still 75W.

 

[newtekie1]

Well, I have a 3900X and the CPU itself doesn't exceed 145W ...
The whole package (with X570) will consume more power bc the X570 chipset gobbles power like nothing bc of PCIe 4.0.

None of that really changes the fact that the 10900K/108500K both run cooler than even a 3600X when using the same cooler. Your original statement about a thermal barrier doesn't hold up.

 

[Selaya]

??????
Are you referring to idle/single-thread load temps?

 

[newtekie1]

??????
Are you referring to idle/single-thread load temps?

Go back, try actually reading the review you are commenting on.

 

[Selaya]

 

[newtekie1]

Here is a hint, we were discussing temperature. Did you know temperature and power are two totally different words.

 

[Selaya]

None of that really changes the fact that the 10900K/108500K both run cooler than even a 3600X when using the same cooler. Your original statement about a thermal barrier doesn't hold up.

8700K = 10900K, interesting.

 

[newtekie1]

8700K = 10900K, interesting.

You seem to still be talking about power consumption. Power consumption and temperature aren't the same thing. Really, I'm not making this up, you can go look in a dictionary for yourself if you don't believe me!

But, since you brought it up, the 10900K/10850K both run cooler than the 8700K too.

 

[EarthDog]

There is no way the average consumer will be able to build a system that can dissipate 250W of heat - that is basically Threadripper levels of thermals. (Oh and, I'd be curious how toasty the VRMs get ...)

No way, eh? Considering many mid-range+ air coolers and AIOs can handle these at stock... not sure how you ended up with that conclusion. If you choose to circumvent the stock power settings, you should get a better cooler in most cases. Yeah.

But, since you brought it up, the 10900K/10850K both run cooler than the 8700K too.

What does this mean?

 

[newtekie1]

What does this mean?

It means exactly what I said. To spell it out for those that can't get it. Using the same air cooler, under the same full load situation, the 10900K and 10850K both run at a lower temperature than the 8700K...and the 3900X...and even the 3600X.

 

[EarthDog]

No need to explain it like we're dolts...remove stick from rear, please.

Im imagining this is the difference between solder and thermal paste TIM though, right? So, while in the end that is correct... I wonder what it would be like if all had solder TIM. You're also comparing quite a difference in clock speed (200 Mhz) and power consumption (30W or 1/3 difference) between the two in TPUs blender temp results. The 10th gen is simply better at getting more heat out.

 

[Selaya]

Yeah, I did forget about that.
Still a swing and a miss tho - The 10850K/10900K clearly run hotter than the 3600X when you unlimit their power consumption (let's face it, if you spend $700 on i9 + Z490, you ain't gonna let PL1 hamstring you, but more to that later).

As for the average joe, again swing and a miss - we clearly aren't average joes - we're enthusiasts, frequenting an enthusiast tech site. Suffice to say, there's a reason Intel did their PL1/PL2s.

 

[newtekie1]

No need to explain it like we're dolts...remove stick from rear, please.

Im imagining this is the difference between solder and thermal paste TIM though, right? So, while in the end that is correct... I wonder what it would be like if all had solder TIM. You're also comparing quite a difference in clock speed (200 Mhz) and power consumption (30W or 1/3 difference) between the two in TPUs blender temp results. The 10th gen is simply better at getting more heat out.

They both also run cooler than the 9900K and 9900KS, which both use soldered TIM. So it isn't just down to soldered vs. not soldered.

Still a swing and a miss tho - The 10850K/10900K clearly run hotter than the 3600X when you unlimit their power consumption (let's face it, if you spend $700 on i9 + Z490, you ain't gonna let PL1 hamstring you, but more to that later).

Rember, the entire argument is about your statement that anyone buying these would be thermally limited under full load. Even with the power limits removed, it is still running cooler than the 3600XT, 3800XT, 3900X, and 3900XT. So the result is your original statement was completely false no matter which way you try to spin it.

So, yes, you keep swinging and you keep missing.

As for the average joe, again swing and a miss - we clearly aren't average joes - we're enthusiasts, frequenting an enthusiast tech site. Suffice to say, there's a reason Intel did their PL1/PL2s.

But wait, you were specifically talking about "the average consumer" in your original statement.

There is no way the average consumer will be able to build a system that can dissipate 250W of heat - that is basically Threadripper levels of thermals.

Now suddenly we're talking about enthusiasts? Move the goalposts much?

There is no getting around the fact that your original statement was wrong.

 

[Selaya]

They both also run cooler than the 9900K and 9900KS, which both use soldered TIM. So it isn't just down to soldered vs. not soldered.
[ ... ]

The 9900K(S) don't have PL1/PL2 (unless I missed something?) so naturally a power-limited 10900K will run cooler.

[ ... ]
Rember, the entire argument is about your statement that anyone buying these would be thermally limited under full load. Even with the power limits removed, it is still running cooler than the 3600XT, 3800XT, 3900X, and 3900XT. So the result is your original statement was completely false no matter which way you try to spin it.

So, yes, you keep swinging and you keep missing.

[ ... ]

Yes, after doing (proper) research I admit that I was wrong. I guess Intel really did pull no punches when it came to making these chips thermally viable (solder TIM and all), so there's that.
As for the average joe statement, I guess this may be more appropriate to the 10900 that comes with a bundled cooler (or one of a comparable class) - basically a person unaware of PL1/PL2 buying a cooler according to the advertised TDP. I mean, stock does automatically throttle down after all.

 

[newtekie1]

The 9900K(S) don't have PL1/PL2 (unless I missed something?) so naturally a power-limited 10900K will run cooler.
Yes, after doing (proper) research I admit that I was wrong. I guess Intel really did pull no punches when it came to making these chips thermally viable (solder TIM and all), so there's that.
As for the average joe statement, I guess this may be more appropriate to the 10900 that comes with a bundled cooler (or one of a comparable class) - basically a person unaware of PL1/PL2 buying a cooler according to the advertised TDP. I mean, stock does automatically throttle down after all.

The last few generations(at least 8th and 9th) have all had PL1/PL2 power limits when everything is left at stock. Intel has had to do this to keep them in the thermal envelope they are designed for. The 10th generations refines it a little more(allowing PL2 to go longer as long as thermals are in check) but doesn't really make huge changed. But even my 8700K in the Z390 board has a short term power limit of 125w and a long term power limit of 95w(that is Pl2/PL1). Those limits can be adjusted or ignored via the BIOS(just like the 10th gen chips), but they are there. PL1 and PL2 have existed since at least the introduction of the 8th gen chips.

 

[Selaya]

Interesting. Could probably boil down to further generational optimisation then.

 

[newtekie1]

Interesting. Could probably boil down to further generational optimisation then.

A big part of it comes from the thinner CPU die. They removed a large amount of excess Silicon, which isn't that good at transferring heat.

 

[Raendor]

The last few generations(at least 8th and 9th) have all had PL1/PL2 power limits when everything is left at stock. Intel has had to do this to keep them in the thermal envelope they are designed for. The 10th generations refines it a little more(allowing PL2 to go longer as long as thermals are in check) but doesn't really make huge changed. But even my 8700K in the Z390 board has a short term power limit of 125w and a long term power limit of 95w(that is Pl2/PL1). Those limits can be adjusted or ignored via the BIOS(just like the 10th gen chips), but they are there. PL1 and PL2 have existed since at least the introduction of the 8th gen chips.

Pl1/pl2 were already in skylake.

 

[Cabs]

Hi I’m new here and I have a beginner question. The review suggests that I increase beyond the stock power limits. Can anybody tell me what that means (is that voltage?) and what I should increase to?

 

[Talcast65]

Please add Microsoft Flight simulator 2020 to the test.

10850k with 2080 oc runs great on ultra with flight simulator 2020. But higher then 1920x1080 the game is not playable

 

[Mussels]

Hi I’m new here and I have a beginner question. The review suggests that I increase beyond the stock power limits. Can anybody tell me what that means (is that voltage?) and what I should increase to?

BIOS setting on your motherboard, if it supports it.

 

[loki1944]

I’m looking at the 1440p chart every time to confirm myself once more that for home/gaming system it’s no use to go beyond even 3600/10400. saw 10400f for mere €146 on amazon today and was tempted to make impulse purchase.

No reason to upgrade my 6850K@4.5Ghz or 7800X@4.8Ghz looking at these gaming benchmarks.