5 ms·

Biggest issue I see with this latest breed of Intel chips are their thermals... looks like you'll need a motherboard that can push quite a few watts to the CPU

Biggest issue I see with this latest breed of Intel chips are their thermals... looks like you'll need a motherboard that can push quite a few watts to the CPU and you'll need a cooling solution (liquid cooling or a high-end aircooler) to remove the heat. If you need to drop $$$ on a high-end motherboard and cooler to actually hit top performance it can obscure the true cost of the CPU, because you can easily drop an extra $100 trying to cope with its power and thermal requirements.

gameswithgo 6y ago
thats not just an intel problem
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- parsimo2010 6y ago
  It’s an Intel problem in this case because they’ve made most of their performance improvements with 10th gen by adding cores and increasing frequencies. They haven’t made efficiency improvements in architecture or process node. Their TDP has gone up as a result. Intel managed to keep 10th gen from turning a computer case into a kiln by playing with the heat spreader, but it’s a hot part that needs good/expensive cooling. So while AMD has made big efficiency improvements in the last couple generations, Intel has been losing efficiency.
- emddudley 6y ago
  Intel is suffering from the heat problem more than AMD because Comet Lake is still on 14nm.
- gruez 6y ago
  It doesn't look that way. The i9-10900k (10 cores) at full load uses 254W, but the 3950x (16 cores) only uses 144W. There are AMD processors that top the i9-10900k in terms of power consumption, but they're 24/32 cores, consuming 280W/286W respectively. https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph15785/116012.png9-3950x-review-16-cores-on-7nm-with-pcie-40/2 https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph15785/116012.png9-3...
  - NullPrefix 6y ago
    Fixed link, there was something appended to it. https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph15785/116012.png https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph15785/116012.png
qppo 6y ago
Allegedly they shrank the thickness of the die and increased the thickness of the IHS and push roughly the same thermals under load as the 9th gen chips. And decent coolers aren't that expensive in the grand scheme of things. But yea, the motherboard situation is way worse. 250W sustained consumption in a relatively small surface area is not going to be great for the substrate layers of the board.

gameswithgo 6y ago

thats not just an intel problem

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
parsimo2010 6y ago
It’s an Intel problem in this case because they’ve made most of their performance improvements with 10th gen by adding cores and increasing frequencies. They haven’t made efficiency improvements in architecture or process node. Their TDP has gone up as a result. Intel managed to keep 10th gen from turning a computer case into a kiln by playing with the heat spreader, but it’s a hot part that needs good/expensive cooling. So while AMD has made big efficiency improvements in the last couple generations, Intel has been losing efficiency.
emddudley 6y ago
Intel is suffering from the heat problem more than AMD because Comet Lake is still on 14nm.
gruez 6y ago
It doesn't look that way. The i9-10900k (10 cores) at full load uses 254W, but the 3950x (16 cores) only uses 144W. There are AMD processors that top the i9-10900k in terms of power consumption, but they're 24/32 cores, consuming 280W/286W respectively. https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph15785/116012.png9-3950x-review-16-cores-on-7nm-with-pcie-40/2 https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph15785/116012.png9-3...
- NullPrefix 6y ago
  Fixed link, there was something appended to it. https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph15785/116012.png https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph15785/116012.png

qppo 6y ago

Allegedly they shrank the thickness of the die and increased the thickness of the IHS and push roughly the same thermals under load as the 9th gen chips. And decent coolers aren't that expensive in the grand scheme of things. But yea, the motherboard situation is way worse. 250W sustained consumption in a relatively small surface area is not going to be great for the substrate layers of the board.