• 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.

9900KS...

Its way over 10% my other chip is on the way for 60 quid less.... and presumably that retailer is not selling at a loss..

Sods law though despite my post this order is now on its way as well!!
 
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/21

Power Consumption
TDP or not the TDP, That is The Question
Notice: When we initially posted this page, we ran numbers with an ASRock Z370 board. We have since discovered that the voltage applied by the board was super high, beyond normal expectations. We have since re-run the numbers using the MSI MPG Z390 Gaming Edge AC motherboard, which does not have this issue.

As shown above, Intel has given each of these processors a Thermal Design Power of 95 Watts. This magic value, as mainstream processors have grown in the last two years, has been at the center of a number of irate users.

By Intel’s own definitions, the TDP is an indicator of the cooling performance required for a processor to maintain its base frequency. In this case, if a user can only cool 95W, they can expect to realistically get only 3.6 GHz on a shiny new Core i9-9900K. That magic TDP value does not take into account any turbo values, even if the all-core turbo (such as 4.7 GHz in this case) is way above that 95W rating.

In order to make sense of this, Intel uses a series of variables called Power Levels: PL1, PL2, and PL3.



That slide is a bit dense, so we should focus on the graph on the right. This is a graph of power against time.



Here we have four horizontal lines from bottom to top: cooling limit (PL1), sustained power delivery (PL2), battery limit (PL3), and power delivery limit.

The bottom line, the cooling limit, is effectively the TDP value. Here the power (and frequency) is limited by the cooling at hand. It is the lowest sustainable frequency for the cooling, so for the most part TDP = PL1. This is our ‘95W’ value.

The PL2 value, or sustained power delivery, is what amounts to the turbo. This is the maximum sustainable power that the processor can take until we start to hit thermal issues. When a chip goes into a turbo mode, sometimes briefly, this is the part that is relied upon. The value of PL2 can be set by the system manufacturer, however Intel has its own recommended PL2 values.

In this case, for the new 9th Generation Core processors, Intel has set the PL2 value to 210W. This is essentially the power required to hit the peak turbo on all cores, such as 4.7 GHz on the eight-core Core i9-9900K. So users can completely forget the 95W TDP when it comes to cooling. If a user wants those peak frequencies, it’s time to invest in something capable and serious.

Luckily, we can confirm all this in our power testing.

For our testing, we use POV-Ray as our load generator then take the register values for CPU power. This software method, for most platforms, includes the power split between the cores, the DRAM, and the package power. Most users cite this method as not being fully accurate, however compared to system testing it provides a good number without losses, and it forms the basis of the power values used inside the processor for its various functions.

Starting with the easy one, maximum CPU power draw.

fgs.png


Focusing on the new Intel CPUs we have tested, both of them go beyond the TDP value, but do not hit PL2. At this level, the CPU is running all cores and threads at the all-core turbo frequency. Both 168.48W for the i9-9900K and 124.27W for the i7=9700K is far and above that ‘TDP’ rating noted above.

Should users be interested, in our testing at 4C/4T and 3.0 GHz, the Core i9-9900K only hit 23W power. Doubling the cores and adding another 50%+ to the frequency causes an almost 7x increase in power consumption. When Intel starts pushing those frequencies, it needs a lot of juice.

If we break out the 9900K into how much power is consumed as we load up the threads, the results look very linear.



This is as we load two threads onto one core at a time. The processor slowly adds power to the cores when threads are assigned.



Comparing to the other two ‘95W’ processors, we can see that the Core i9-9900K pushes more power as more cores are loaded. Despite Intel officially giving all three the same TDP at 95W, and the same PL2 at 210W, there are clear differences due to the fixed turbo tables embedded in each BIOS.

So is TDP Pointless? Yes, But There is a Solution
If you believe that TDP is the peak power draw of the processor under default scenarios, then yes, TDP is pointless, and technically it has been for generations. However under the miasma of a decade of quad core processors, most parts didn’t even reach the TDP rating even under full load – it wasn’t until we started getting higher core count parts, at the same or higher frequency, where it started becoming an issue.

But fear not, there is a solution. Or at least I want to offer one to both Intel and AMD, to see if they will take me up on the offer. The solution here is to offer two TDP ratings: a TDP and a TDP-Peak. In Intel lingo, this is PL1 and PL2, but basically the TDP-Peak takes into account the ‘all-core’ turbo. It doesn’t have to be covered under warranty (because as of right now, turbo is not), but it should be an indication for the nature of the cooling that a user needs to purchase if they want the best performance. Otherwise it’s a case of fumbling in the dark.
 
I am surprised that the 3900X is doing so badly in Time Spy CPU. The physics-based CPU test normally responds well to more cores/thread and so I would have expected the 3900X to easily beat the 9900KS. I guess there must be limit to how far the engine scales out.
 
I am surprised that the 3900X is doing so badly in Time Spy CPU. The physics-based CPU test normally responds well to more cores/thread and so I would have expected the 3900X to easily beat the 9900KS. I guess there must be limit to how far the engine scales out.

The Time Spy CPU test does not scale well on processors with 10 or more threads.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/download-aws.futuremark.com/3dmark-technical-guide.pdf page 27

So that would imply more performance is available on the 3900x or indeed CPU's with more than 10 threads.

In vray with the 3800x I hit 106 Watts.
 
Last edited:
There is something wrong with the cpu score. An all core 5GHz 9900k is faster than a 9900KS by 1k points. A 9900KS @5.2GHz struggles against a 9900k @5GHz all cores. Most people wont get above 5.1GHz because of cooling. So a 9900k 5GHz all cores = 9900KS all cores 5.1 GHz. Whats wrong with the picture this table gives.
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SahDBQDPjjzcHcBQcBU7jj-650-80.png
2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 & DDR4-3600 Intel Core i9-9900KS, i7-9900K

Looks like the stock 9900KS has 2667 RAM and the 9900k @5GHz has 3600. We can see from other systems and websites, that a 9900KS gets <11500 @5.2GHz all cores with DDR4 3200 CL14.

3800x is omitted because it will score like mine if correctly overclocked RAM wise. If overclocked to all cores 4.4GHz. Then 9900ks in not going to look faster with 3200 RAM CL14 and only a wee bit ahead with faster RAM. Then in games the 3800x is going to perform like a 9900ks and it will get complicated.
 
Last edited:
There is something wrong with the cpu score. An all core 5GHz 9900k is faster than a 9900KS by 1k points. A 9900KS @5.2GHz struggles against a 9900k @5GHz all cores. Most people wont get above 5.1GHz because of cooling. So a 9900k 5GHz all cores = 9900KS all cores 5.1 GHz. Whats wrong with the picture this table gives.
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SahDBQDPjjzcHcBQcBU7jj-650-80.png
2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 & DDR4-3600 Intel Core i9-9900KS, i7-9900K

Because Intel have hit a performance wall with the current design.
 
Can someone explain this?

The 3900x gets a higher CPU score and yet it also gets a lower GPU and lower Overall score.


nswpducn.1wo.png

The difference between Graphics and Physics score 9900KS vs 3900X is 2%

The Graphics run is a very light run for the CPU, far lighter than it is in games, the Physics run is very heavy but short.

The overall run is the last run.

If you look at Gamers Nexus explanation on Intel's TDP he says Intel have multiple power level's, for example the 9900KS might boost to 5.1Ghz to start with but drop to 4.8Ghz after about 28 seconds, so if you're benchmarking something for the first half minute you will get the best result out of the Intel chip.

In 3DMark the first run is GPU where the CPU does little, the second run is Physics and that only lasts for about 30 seconds, the last run is the combined run where both the GPU and CPU are stressed, at this point and only at this point is the Intel CPU in a lower PL mode, its running at a lower clock.

Its almost as if Intel realised game benchmarks are only about 30 seconds long ;)
 
They should advocate the use of real-world hardware benchmarks instead. ;)

I do know Toms Hardware 'Pre-Heat' their GPU's before performance testing since Pascal because they realised that the 10 series also boosts higher when its cold than when its upto tempriture.

For realistic performance benchmarks these days that should be done with all GPU's and CPU's.
 
[facepalm]Looks like it [/facepalm]
I have a LAN rig (which has been CPU less for sometime) and a main rig, so was simply sliding the 9900k into LAN rig, which has always been the plan and replacing the 9900K with an S (Lan rig was a 9700k) but I sold that a while ago in preperation for this move...
 
The 9700k looks really bad in time spy cpu but its gaming performance is great.

It doesn't look bad but yes you have a point, however, i would like to see it tested in one of the games that i play and see how good it still looks vs a 3800X let alone a 3900X. it'll get hammered by it.
 
The 9700k looks really bad in time spy cpu but its gaming performance is great.
That is weird. So it clearly benefits from hyperthreading and yet gains next to nothing when run on anything above a 8/16 CPU. So despite what their PDF states, it can use more than 10 threads. It just looks as if their engine is hardcoded to 8/16.
 
Last edited:
That is weird. So it clearly benefits from hyperthreading and yet gains next to nothing when run on anything above a 8/16 CPU. So despite what their PDF states, it can use more than 10 threads. It just looks as if their engine is hardcoded to 8/16.

9700k is 8 threads which keeps it in the sweet spot. 9900K is 16 threads. Over 10 threads (not cores) is the issue. So the 9900k should be faster but has 6 threads likely not used well? Most games have an optimal thread count. Just pointing out that 8 threads is more of a sweet point in many games. Some games love when you turn SMT off on the 3800x/3900x.

This is why I think the 9700k is still a great gaming cpu and that time spy cpu score is not the best measure of game performance in every case. I don't think many games will use 10 threads. More like 8 threads in some cases. Far cry/hitman maybe could be an example. Just an opinion on my part.

 
Last edited:
I do alright in games, this is off topic but take a look at the 3800x vs 9900k thread. It's hard to tell but a 3800x appears to be just as capable in games when you tighten the RAM timings and OC RAM to 3800/IF1900.
Ye but good memory kits are not cheap are they ??


Id like to see something like 9900ks with 100quid memory kit vs 3800 with 250quid memory kit :D
 
Back
Top Bottom