5 ms·

Just don’t look under the stage for the chiller

nevi-me 7y ago
Read the article, first paragraph says "... but will feature a higher all-core Turbo frequency when it has sufficient cooling". So at least they've added the caveat, though "sufficient" could mean liquid cooling only available to 5% of enthusiasts. Intel hasn't disclosed the TDP, so the skeptical reader would think it's not impressive enough to disclose in marketing material.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  judging by the number of 9900k and 9700k parts that easily overclock to 5 GHz all cores on air cooling, I really doubt a high end liquid cooling setup would be required.
  - NullPrefix 7y ago
    > easily overclock to 5 GHz all cores on air cooling Technically speaking, water coolers actually use air when cooling the big radiators.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      yes, and heatpipes in air coolers also use liquid to transport heat to the radiator. language is messy. all I'm trying to say is that a $60 mainstream "air cooler" that fits in a typical ATX case should be sufficient to cool this chip. it's a trivial cost for anyone considering what's likely to be a $500 cpu. I understand people are still salty about the previous 5 GHz fiasco from last year, but this new part is literally just a binned 9900k. people are already running these at 5 GHz 24/7 without resorting to anything exotic.
- cmsj 7y ago
  A good liquid cooler doesn't really buy you lower temperatures than a good air cooler, it just provides more thermal mass and a larger area for heat exchange to the air, so you can achieve the same sort of temps with less noise.
  - cosarara 7y ago
    Pumps make noise. If you have a big case with a big fan, an air cooler should be quieter.
  - nevi-me 7y ago
    My apologies, I actually meant to say liquid nitrogen cooler.
KuiN 7y ago
> will feature a higher all-core Turbo frequency when it has sufficient cooling Real world performance needs to be seen, but this feels like a stunt to grab headlines and direct some attention away from AMD hammering them relentlessly.
- MikusR 7y ago
  I am sure AMD appreciates a little breathing room to work on the issue that roughly half of Ryzen 3 CPU's are unable to reach advertised frequencies.
  - AgloeDreams 7y ago
    ...by incredibly small amounts that have little to no measurable impact on performance. I'm not defending it, it's just such a hilariously overblown issue compared to how bad Intel's gaff is here..
    - zbentley 7y ago
      I mean, it takes only a minimum of tinfoil-hatting to see the teacup-storm of the Ryzen frequency issues as a ploy by Intel. If true, this wouldn't be the first time they've resorted to journalistic skullduggey. Whatever Intel's failings may be, their media/marketing department is (and has, at least as long as I've been building computers, been) far superior to AMD's.
  - dis-sys 7y ago
    "advertised frequencies" is a very interesting term these days, Intel obviously delivered its "advertised frequencies" but with all those security patches, the performance hit on Intel processors are up to 30% [1], which is believed to be 5x higher [2] than the impacts on AMD processors. [1] https://www.techspot.com/news/77026-windows-update-reduce-spectre-meltdown-patch-performance-hit.html https://www.techspot.com/news/77026-windows-update-reduce-sp... [2] https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/19/05/20/228218/intel-performance-hit-5x-harder-than-amd-after-spectre-meltdown-patches https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/19/05/20/228218/intel-pe...
  - 7y ago
jdietrich 7y ago
Tom's Hardware report that it maintained 5GHz on all cores on a standard 240mm AIO liquid cooler. https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-core-i9-9900ks-ships-october-cascade-lake-x-performance-per-dollar,news-61588.html https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-core-i9-9900ks-ships-oc...
- noobermin 7y ago
  It's like selling a car that can go to 140 MPH. It's nice but won't make your commute shorter.
  - cs02rm0 7y ago
    Because my car can do 155mph? ;-)
ajross 7y ago
The snark in the thread is just out of control, guys. This is supposed to be a technical forum. In fact the part in question is shown at 8 cores, 5 GHz turbo, with a 95W TDP (at $488), which shows somewhat better power efficiency than the equivalent Ryzen 7 3800X (8/4.5GHz/105W/$399). Now, that price differential may or may not be worth the moderate performance and power advantages to you, or you might be more enthused by the bigger Ryzen 9 and Threadripper parts instead which compete in different segments. But this certainly isn't an uncompetetive part from Intel.
- 0xQSL 7y ago
  You can't really compare TDP and turbo clocks between AMD and Intel. [1] The 9900k draws 168W at full load and is also specified for 95W TDP. This chip is likely going to use more. A 3900X draws 142W for comparison. (12 cores lower clocks 7nm) [1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/19 https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-390...
- cmsj 7y ago
  Intel TDPs are the base clock, not the boost clock. AMDs are the boost clock. A 9900K might specify a 95W TDP, but at 5GHz it will actually use almost 170W. See https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/21 https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9...
  - ajross 7y ago
    Cite for the AMD convention of TDP at a consistent boost? That's genuinely the first I've heard of it, and I'm almost certain that's wrong. TDPs have always been considered to be sustained values, which is exactly what "boost" is not.
    - makomk 7y ago
      The boost clocks generally are sustained values, at least if you have the cooling and power provision to make them so. Most good motherboards for Intel CPUs place no cap on boost duration although one is supported by the chipset. All of the benchmarks of high-end Intel parts like this are done with uncapped boost duration too. Yes, that does make Intel's TDP figures for this 5 GHz all-core boost part effectively meaningless. AMD's current TDP figures are based the maximum thermal output in what they consider to be real-world applications with boost clocks enabled: https://www.techspot.com/article/1652-things-amd-needs-to-fix/ https://www.techspot.com/article/1652-things-amd-needs-to-fi... (Their TDP used to be maximum thermal output full stop and the real-world figure used to be called ACP, but they changed it because comparing their TDP with Intel's made their CPUs look really hot.) They also have an actual guaranteed maximum which is higher than, but tied to, their quoted TDP figure. So whilst it's not actual TDP anymore it's still a lot more meaningful than Intel's numbers.

Read the article, first paragraph says "... but will feature a higher all-core Turbo frequency when it has sufficient cooling". So at least they've added the caveat, though "sufficient" could mean liquid cooling only available to 5% of enthusiasts. Intel hasn't disclosed the TDP, so the skeptical reader would think it's not impressive enough to disclose in marketing material.

leetcrew 7y ago
judging by the number of 9900k and 9700k parts that easily overclock to 5 GHz all cores on air cooling, I really doubt a high end liquid cooling setup would be required.
- NullPrefix 7y ago
  > easily overclock to 5 GHz all cores on air cooling Technically speaking, water coolers actually use air when cooling the big radiators.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    yes, and heatpipes in air coolers also use liquid to transport heat to the radiator. language is messy. all I'm trying to say is that a $60 mainstream "air cooler" that fits in a typical ATX case should be sufficient to cool this chip. it's a trivial cost for anyone considering what's likely to be a $500 cpu. I understand people are still salty about the previous 5 GHz fiasco from last year, but this new part is literally just a binned 9900k. people are already running these at 5 GHz 24/7 without resorting to anything exotic.
cmsj 7y ago
A good liquid cooler doesn't really buy you lower temperatures than a good air cooler, it just provides more thermal mass and a larger area for heat exchange to the air, so you can achieve the same sort of temps with less noise.
- cosarara 7y ago
  Pumps make noise. If you have a big case with a big fan, an air cooler should be quieter.
- nevi-me 7y ago
  My apologies, I actually meant to say liquid nitrogen cooler.

KuiN 7y ago

> will feature a higher all-core Turbo frequency when it has sufficient cooling Real world performance needs to be seen, but this feels like a stunt to grab headlines and direct some attention away from AMD hammering them relentlessly.

MikusR 7y ago
I am sure AMD appreciates a little breathing room to work on the issue that roughly half of Ryzen 3 CPU's are unable to reach advertised frequencies.
- AgloeDreams 7y ago
  ...by incredibly small amounts that have little to no measurable impact on performance. I'm not defending it, it's just such a hilariously overblown issue compared to how bad Intel's gaff is here..
  - zbentley 7y ago
    I mean, it takes only a minimum of tinfoil-hatting to see the teacup-storm of the Ryzen frequency issues as a ploy by Intel. If true, this wouldn't be the first time they've resorted to journalistic skullduggey. Whatever Intel's failings may be, their media/marketing department is (and has, at least as long as I've been building computers, been) far superior to AMD's.
- dis-sys 7y ago
  "advertised frequencies" is a very interesting term these days, Intel obviously delivered its "advertised frequencies" but with all those security patches, the performance hit on Intel processors are up to 30% [1], which is believed to be 5x higher [2] than the impacts on AMD processors. [1] https://www.techspot.com/news/77026-windows-update-reduce-spectre-meltdown-patch-performance-hit.html https://www.techspot.com/news/77026-windows-update-reduce-sp... [2] https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/19/05/20/228218/intel-performance-hit-5x-harder-than-amd-after-spectre-meltdown-patches https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/19/05/20/228218/intel-pe...
- 7y ago

jdietrich 7y ago

Tom's Hardware report that it maintained 5GHz on all cores on a standard 240mm AIO liquid cooler. https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-core-i9-9900ks-ships-october-cascade-lake-x-performance-per-dollar,news-61588.html https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-core-i9-9900ks-ships-oc...

noobermin 7y ago
It's like selling a car that can go to 140 MPH. It's nice but won't make your commute shorter.
- cs02rm0 7y ago
  Because my car can do 155mph? ;-)

ajross 7y ago

The snark in the thread is just out of control, guys. This is supposed to be a technical forum. In fact the part in question is shown at 8 cores, 5 GHz turbo, with a 95W TDP (at $488), which shows somewhat better power efficiency than the equivalent Ryzen 7 3800X (8/4.5GHz/105W/$399). Now, that price differential may or may not be worth the moderate performance and power advantages to you, or you might be more enthused by the bigger Ryzen 9 and Threadripper parts instead which compete in different segments. But this certainly isn't an uncompetetive part from Intel.

0xQSL 7y ago
You can't really compare TDP and turbo clocks between AMD and Intel. [1] The 9900k draws 168W at full load and is also specified for 95W TDP. This chip is likely going to use more. A 3900X draws 142W for comparison. (12 cores lower clocks 7nm) [1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/19 https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-390...
cmsj 7y ago
Intel TDPs are the base clock, not the boost clock. AMDs are the boost clock. A 9900K might specify a 95W TDP, but at 5GHz it will actually use almost 170W. See https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/21 https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9...
- ajross 7y ago
  Cite for the AMD convention of TDP at a consistent boost? That's genuinely the first I've heard of it, and I'm almost certain that's wrong. TDPs have always been considered to be sustained values, which is exactly what "boost" is not.
  - makomk 7y ago
    The boost clocks generally are sustained values, at least if you have the cooling and power provision to make them so. Most good motherboards for Intel CPUs place no cap on boost duration although one is supported by the chipset. All of the benchmarks of high-end Intel parts like this are done with uncapped boost duration too. Yes, that does make Intel's TDP figures for this 5 GHz all-core boost part effectively meaningless. AMD's current TDP figures are based the maximum thermal output in what they consider to be real-world applications with boost clocks enabled: https://www.techspot.com/article/1652-things-amd-needs-to-fix/ https://www.techspot.com/article/1652-things-amd-needs-to-fi... (Their TDP used to be maximum thermal output full stop and the real-world figure used to be called ACP, but they changed it because comparing their TDP with Intel's made their CPUs look really hot.) They also have an actual guaranteed maximum which is higher than, but tied to, their quoted TDP figure. So whilst it's not actual TDP anymore it's still a lot more meaningful than Intel's numbers.