• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Core 9000 series

Not by overclocker it's not even the OEM version of the 9900k is the same price as retail for some reason..I thought OEM cpu's were discounted due to lack of packaging etc
 
8 Pack said:
Believe me if you do any stress testing on 9900k you can't even get close to 1.45v before your at 100c. Prime 26.6, Real bench, terragen etc etc... More like 1.275v for good 24-7 temps. On 9600k you can go to 1.32v under these types of load to remain in the mid 80s.
Click to expand...

Pretty much confirms what I suspected, that Intel *had* to use soldered TIM on these to make them even viable, it was not to make them more desirable or an insane over clocker or even to signal them out as high end. They are using Soldered TIM because without that they simply would not be usable at all on air without a delidding or at extremely low voltage and clocks.
 
It's kinda insulting that they are lobbing OEM chips out the door with 1 year warranty at the same price as retail but sweetening the deal with a game...

I'd rather have the cost of the game off the price of the chip or a longer warranty
 
They call it intels hidden potential and say they are delivering more than just small controlled updates for the sake of releasing new products, but that is exactly what the 9 series looks like.

There is no magic going on here and nothing more than an incremental speed bump with some extra cores. As for the STIM, it seems it was absolutely necessary for cooling purposes and isnt new, it is a return to a TIM that they abandoned years ago.

I'll probably still be buying this CPU but reviewers need to wise up. I hope the rest of the pack are more critical and realistic about what is being offered here.

Ty @fornowagain for the link
 
Weird, something wrong in their testing I should think.
They managed to oc with ‘ease’ all cores to over 5.2 yet ryzen beat it in deus ex, and the oc made performance worse in one of the cpu benchmark tests.
Seems strange.
 
I dont see an 'X' after the 2700.. did they compare against the non-X 2700 then? :confused:

If they did then.. pathetic :rolleyes:

Also an AIO 280mm on the Intel and the stock Wraith on the Ryzen.. jeez.

For our tests, we have the Intel Core i9 9900K head on with the AMD Ryzen 7 2700. They are both the top of the line in the mainstream product segment. We tried to make sure that both setups are kept as similar as possible to ensure a fair test between the two platforms.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Where do you think they get their golden CPUs they sell "5.2ghz" at a premium etc. From OEM trays of course. They aren't going to open up retail boxes to do it. Meaning if you buy a OEM chip you can be assured its not a good over locker or it would be sold as golden.
 
beany_bot said:
The retailers that get them. You think a retailer that receives an open tray of CPUS won't test them and see which overclock the best? Especially if said retailer then specifically sells binned and garunteed ghzs chips for a premium??
Click to expand...
Ah okay. I thought you were saying intel bins retail higher than tray.
 
Destination said:
Weird, something wrong in their testing I should think.
They managed to oc with ‘ease’ all cores to over 5.2 yet ryzen beat it in deus ex, and the oc made performance worse in one of the cpu benchmark tests.
Seems strange.
Click to expand...

The wrong with the testing is they used 2700(non X) with wraith cooler, against the 9900K with 280mm AIO.
Even then, they had to "fix" the benchmarks. Deus Ex the 9900K loses outright. But the other game is TW Warhammer 1. This game runs on the last thread maxing it out. Is reknown game for Ryzen CPUs suffering if you do not turn off SMT or stop the game using the last thread (scheduler affinity). Also is the reason a 8600K beats the 8700K at same speed on this game, because running on the last core is more efficient than running on the last thread.
TWW2 engine, runs on the last core, spreading around the load also. Hence it performs much better.

What we should study is the C15 (and Timespy), the poor 2700 does 1554 against 2238 of the 5.2Ghz 9900K with AIO.
However a 2700X @ 4.3 (most AIO can do it, even with wraith can be done) does ~2000.
So at 21% higher clock speed is barely 10% faster in something that shouldn't have issue with?

That means, the chip overheats A LOT, and out of the box is as fast as it can go. And this is shown on the last paragraph. With 280mm AIO is doing 75C consuming 330W on Cinebench!!!!!!!!!
A whole 2700X burns around 203W on cinebench!!!!!!!!

No wonder PT/Intel rushed out the benchmarks and crippled the 2700X on both to catch headlines.
 
Panos said:
What we should study is the C15 (and Timespy), the poor 2700 does 1554 against 2238 of the 5.2Ghz 9900K with AIO.
However a 2700X @ 4.3 (most AIO can do it, even with wraith can be done) does ~2000.
So at 21% higher clock speed is barely 10% faster in something that shouldn't have issue with?


No wonder PT/Intel rushed out the benchmarks and crippled the 2700X on both to catch headlines.
Click to expand...

The 2700 runs at 3300MHz all cores at stock in Cine15 multi-core bench. At 4000MHz OC all cores, it scores just a little over 1800.
 
beany_bot said:
Where do you think they get their golden CPUs they sell "5.2ghz" at a premium etc. From OEM trays of course. They aren't going to open up retail boxes to do it. Meaning if you buy a OEM chip you can be assured its not a good over locker or it would be sold as golden.
Click to expand...
Total rubbish.........STOP TYPING THIS ON THESE FORUMS OR LEAVE!!!! we only bin systems stocks for the final time...........
 
Panos said:
The wrong with the testing is they used 2700(non X) with wraith cooler, against the 9900K with 280mm AIO.
Click to expand...
This is certainly not ideal as you should aim to keep as many components the same as possible. However, they were only testing the 2700 at stock as a comparison. In which case the wraith wouldn't be a limiting factor. If they had been going head-to-head with an overclocked 2700X then it would have been a different matter.

Panos said:
That means, the chip overheats A LOT, and out of the box is as fast as it can go. And this is shown on the last paragraph.
Click to expand...
I think there is probably some truth to this. Intel obviously have their eyes on the 2700X which for the most part comes factory-clocked to the max. Sure you can go higher with both, but it will require high-end boards and cooling, which soon becomes a case of diminishing returns.
 
IT Troll said:
This is certainly not ideal as you should aim to keep as many components the same as possible. However, they were only testing the 2700 at stock as a comparison. In which case the wraith wouldn't be a limiting factor. If they had been going head-to-head with an overclocked 2700X then it would have been a different matter.


I think there is probably some truth to this. Intel obviously have their eyes on the 2700X which for the most part comes factory-clocked to the max. Sure you can go higher with both, but it will require high-end boards and cooling, which soon becomes a case of diminishing returns.
Click to expand...

Except some bad 450 boards, the 2700X can do 4.3 all core. Even on the B450I STRIX.

2700X comes with 1 core at 4.3 and doesn't event hit it. I wouldn't call overclock to max. The rest are working at 4ghz or lower.
 
I've been trying to find a reasonable Z390 board that has active VRM cooling but can't find. Wondering if I should just pop a little fan on the VRM heatsink when I get it? Would rather it wasn't ghetto though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom