Intel Core i7-10700

[Deleted member 187435]

Hi,
I bought one of these CPUs to do some gaming and streaming (had I read this before buying I would have moved differently). I'm having trouble with performance and it appears that power limit throttling may be the case. Intel XTU shows me that I'm constantly throttling. Additionally, during the benchmark my maximum processor frequency has not budged past .8 GHz, with a highest temp of 29C.

I'm using:
MSI Z490 Gaming Plus
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z
16GB Corsair Ram

Thanks,

What are your Windows power settings, is the maximum CPU speed set to 100% as it should be? (It is okay for the minimum to be on 5%.)

 

[Powerline304]

Thanks for replying. I've actually found that turning the turbo boost and short turbo boost power max wattage down alleviates the problem. While the throttling may still occur, it seems more normal staying around 4.5Ghz. I set both values to 64 watts because that's one lower than the max wattage. I'll check those things as well

 

[frenchfry]

Hello W1zzard. For some reason I am getting higher scores in the Blender and Cinebench R20 benchmarks. I changed MCE from "auto" to "off" in my ASUS BIOS, but that didn't change much. My results are the following:

Blender 2.81 BMW27- 213.22 seconds
R20- 3892

Thank you.

 

[Powerline304]

Adjust the PL1 and PL2 settings in your motherboard BIOS

What is the recommended value?

Thanks for responding by the way.

 

[Caring1]

Thanks for replying. I've actually found that turning the turbo boost and short turbo boost power max wattage down alleviates the problem. While the throttling may still occur, it seems more normal staying around 4.5Ghz. I set both values to 64 watts because that's one lower than the max wattage. I'll check those things as well

Turning them down should increase power limit throttling.
Long term boost should be higher than short term boost.

 

[AddSub]

If you not playing at high Hz (120+) there no reason to take intel over amd, you just spending more on intel.
if you playing 1440p or 2160p around 90hz or even 144 , the ryzen 3600 is more than enough for any games at the moment, and the 3600x is still cheaper than 10700 at least there in europe, and you can save more for the gpu!

I do play 1080p 240hz at the moment I dont have money for upgrade but If I had to upgrade now, a 10600k would be my best pick for price/performance, so I can spend money on AIO/custom watercooling for take it around 5.1/5.2ghz and Im sure it will be better perfomance than this 10700 or even 10900k at stock where games don't utilize more than 6 core (90% of games use around six core),

Yes, 10700 can be overlclocked via BLCK, but I don't think if you got a 900$ motherboards your route is the 10700 with no overclocking feature, this reviews has no sense on the overclocking things, If we take a 10700 we don't have 900$ to buy a Z490 Maximus XII Extreme. I would have seen this review with a cheapy motherboard like the Asrock Z490 Gaming 4 and see if they can hit the 102blck overclocking even on that cheapy z490 motherboard.

CPU choke is a CPU choke.... CPU bottleneck, if you prefer.


...
..
.

 

[archagon]

Could somebody check my thinking here? I'm trying to pick out a CPU for a SFF gaming PC. In order to run cool, the CPU should really have a 65W TDP. This review seems to imply that when running in "regular turbo" mode, this chip is roughly on par with the 3700X in terms of perf/temp/power draw and maybe 5–10% better gaming-wise. It also costs about the same: $310 vs. $300 right now. With these constraints in mind, this should be a competitive chip for the use case, right? Mostly, I want to make sure that "regular turbo" (i.e. 65W TDP) mode is no worse than a 3700X, even when gaming for prolonged periods of time. (I'm also leaning towards Intel over AMD because the only good micro-ITX mobo with Thunderbolt is an Intel one, but it's not a deal-breaker.)

For example, the Reddit comments here seem to paint a darker picture of this chip in 65W mode than this review: https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/hl44yf/_/fwzpw3k

 

[dragontamer5788]

In order to run cool, the CPU should really have a 65W TDP.

Do you know that all CPUs have temperature sensors, and will be as hot as possible within specifications?

The 65W TDP is just an estimate for speccing out cooling elements. From there on out, the CPU, whether you use AMD or Intel, will overclock itself to the best of its ability in your use case. But if the chip is 30C (because its been nearly idle for the last 10 minutes), and you suddenly do a heavy load (3d rendering, video games, whatever), it will shoot up to 65C or even 90C, taking advantage of the latent coolness of the inside of the physical tower (or laptop, or whatever you stuck the chip inside).

That's how these chips work these days. Advanced cooling solutions will allow the chip to remain at an overclocked "turbo" state longer and improve performance. But all of this stuff is pretty automatic and easy with modern systems.

 

[archagon]

Do you know that all CPUs have temperature sensors, and will be as hot as possible within specifications?

The 65W TDP is just an estimate for speccing out cooling elements. From there on out, the CPU, whether you use AMD or Intel, will overclock itself to the best of its ability in your use case.

Fair enough, but it's the best heuristic I have for finding a CPU that will work well with a 7L case, and with a 42mm cooler. I'm also assuming that having a CPU run at max temp and constantly underclock itself is not great for the hardware.

In any case, the review's temperature measurements suggest the 10700 runs quite cool: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i7-10700/19.html

Basically, what I'm trying to suss out is whether the conventional wisdom that AMD chips are significantly more efficient than Intel chips is still true, because this review seems to draw the opposite conclusion.