3 ms·

I think the key thing you've missed is the i9-10900F is a 65W part, while the i9-9900K is 95W. Given both are on basically the same manufacturing process with

I think the key thing you've missed is the i9-10900F is a 65W part, while the i9-9900K is 95W. Given both are on basically the same manufacturing process with basically the same architecture, it's really not surprising the i9-10900F isn't keeping up with the i9-9900K in max load scenarios. Having 50% more power easily makes up for 20% fewer cores. Which is then also why the 4900HS is able to be so competitive with it. It's a 35W part but on a more advanced manufacturing node. And although TDP is a made up number that has very little meaning, it is roughly what the CPU will settle into when the boost duration has exceeded. So eventually under a constant multithreaded workload the 9900K and 10900F should settle in to their 95W and 65W limits respectively.

leetcrew 7y ago
you're right, I confused "F" with "KF". > And although TDP is a made up number that has very little meaning, it is roughly what the CPU will settle into when the boost duration has exceeded. So eventually under a constant multithreaded workload the 9900K and 10900F should settle in to their 95W and 65W limits respectively. this part isn't quite true. TDP for intel parts is more like max thermal dissipation at base clocks. most people/OEMs will couple a 9900k with a pretty beefy cooler and set the boost duration to be effectively infinite. in most cases, that part will never hit its base frequency under load. I have a 9700k, and, under the default bios settings for the motherboard, it will happily draw 120-140W indefinitely.
- kllrnohj 7y ago
  > most people/OEMs will couple a 9900k with a pretty beefy cooler and set the boost duration to be effectively infinite They will, but that's technically no longer stock. Prebuilt systems from mainstream OEMs are unlikely to be configured like that, especially when we're not talking about the enthusiast line of motherboards. If the motherboard is following Intel's actually spec for these (which does exist), then it will settle in to the TDP limit after PL2's duration is exceeded, which is supposed to be 8 seconds for Intel's 95W spec. It is likely that the unnamed HP system with the i9-10900F is at least following Intel's recommended settings here. The 9900K system might very well not be, though, which would then make the power budget gap that much wider.

leetcrew 7y ago

you're right, I confused "F" with "KF". > And although TDP is a made up number that has very little meaning, it is roughly what the CPU will settle into when the boost duration has exceeded. So eventually under a constant multithreaded workload the 9900K and 10900F should settle in to their 95W and 65W limits respectively. this part isn't quite true. TDP for intel parts is more like max thermal dissipation at base clocks. most people/OEMs will couple a 9900k with a pretty beefy cooler and set the boost duration to be effectively infinite. in most cases, that part will never hit its base frequency under load. I have a 9700k, and, under the default bios settings for the motherboard, it will happily draw 120-140W indefinitely.

kllrnohj 7y ago
> most people/OEMs will couple a 9900k with a pretty beefy cooler and set the boost duration to be effectively infinite They will, but that's technically no longer stock. Prebuilt systems from mainstream OEMs are unlikely to be configured like that, especially when we're not talking about the enthusiast line of motherboards. If the motherboard is following Intel's actually spec for these (which does exist), then it will settle in to the TDP limit after PL2's duration is exceeded, which is supposed to be 8 seconds for Intel's 95W spec. It is likely that the unnamed HP system with the i9-10900F is at least following Intel's recommended settings here. The 9900K system might very well not be, though, which would then make the power budget gap that much wider.