Con Lake Con firmed [Warning: AdoredTV]

humbug · 9 Jan 2018 at 15:32

Jono8 said:
Nope, cooler keeps things around but mostly below the 60 degree mark

Not bad for £269 with zero hassle/overclocking involved.

Thats nowt, my CPU runs at 59c and cost ~£19

hyperseven · 9 Jan 2018 at 15:35

humbug said:
The 8700K wouldn't get past about 3.8Ghz on a stock Intel cooler, if it'll even get that high after a proper warmup, that wouldn't look good on performance charts. which is the whole point, it makes reviewers use their own and they almost universally use enthusiast grade cooling.

Err, yes it would :rolleyes:

humbug · 9 Jan 2018 at 15:44

hyperseven said:
Err, yes it would

Intel's stock cooler is rated for ~65 watts, the 8700K has a TDP of 95 watts and with Anands testing uses about 90 watts of power at stock.

So at stock the 8700K uses about 40% more power than an Intel stock cooler can handle, under a stock cooler it would throttle, a lot, its physics there is no getting away from it, this is why Intel don't ship stock coolers with them

Jono8 · 9 Jan 2018 at 15:51

humbug said:
Intel's stock cooler is rated for ~65 watts, the 8700K has a TDP of 95 watts and with Anands testing uses about 90 watts of power at stock.

So at stock the 8700K uses about 40% more power than an Intel stock cooler can handle, under a stock cooler it would throttle, a lot, its physics there is no getting away from it, this is why Intel don't ship stock coolers with them

So you are saying the non k chips are much higher quality and a better bin? ... because the non k's can do it easily.

hyperseven · 9 Jan 2018 at 15:54

humbug said:
Intel's stock cooler is rated for ~65 watts, the 8700K has a TDP of 95 watts and with Anands testing uses about 90 watts of power at stock.

So at stock the 8700K uses about 40% more power than an Intel stock cooler can handle, under a stock cooler it would throttle, a lot, its physics there is no getting away from it, this is why Intel don't ship stock coolers with them

That still doesn't mean with any certainty that it will not go past 3.8 as you state, useless you can link otherwise.

humbug · 9 Jan 2018 at 15:54

Jono8 said:
So you are saying the non k chips are much higher quality and a better bin? ... because the non k's can do it easily.

So you keep saying. you say a lot of things, you saying them doesn't automatically make them facts.

humbug · 9 Jan 2018 at 15:56

hyperseven said:
That still doesn't mean with any certainty that it will not go past 3.8 as you state, useless you can link otherwise.

3.8 on all cores is at least at if not already above its own 95 watt TPD rating, for that 95 watt rating its 3.7Ghz. Thats why i was so specific in saying Above 3.8, not 3.7, not 3.9.

So with a 65 watt cooler its not going to go 3.8 or higher when its already at 95 watts at 3.7.

hyperseven · 9 Jan 2018 at 16:03

humbug said:
3.8 on all cores is at least at if not already above its own 95 watt TPD rating, for that 95 watt rating its 3.7Ghz. Thats why i was so specific in saying Above 3.8, not 3.7, not

So it's all cores now, keep moving those goalposts.

humbug · 9 Jan 2018 at 16:05

hyperseven said:
So it's all cores now, keep moving those goalposts.

I'm using Intel's goalposts, they rate thier TDP based on 3.7Ghz all cores.

hyperseven · 9 Jan 2018 at 16:07

humbug said:
I'm using Intel's goalposts, they rate thier TDP based on 3.7Ghz all cores.

I'm using what you stated. 3.8 can't be passed.

humbug · 9 Jan 2018 at 16:09

hyperseven said:
I'm using what you stated. 3.8 can't be achieved.

When the CPU uses 95 watts at 3.7Ghz (according to Intel) then its not going to reach 3.8Ghz on a 65 watt cooler, it might do for a short while until it gets hot but that's about it.

Jono8 · 9 Jan 2018 at 17:04

humbug said:
So you keep saying. you say a lot of things, you saying them doesn't automatically make them facts.

But your theory makes no sense.

humbug · 9 Jan 2018 at 17:06

Jono8 said:
But your theory makes no sense.

Its not a theory its physics, a 65 watt cooler is inadequate for dissipating 90+ watts of heat.

hyperseven · 9 Jan 2018 at 17:14

humbug said:
Its not a theory its physics, a 65 watt cooler is inadequate for dissipating 90+ watts of heat.

got a link to the spec sheet of the cooler?

d_brennen · 9 Jan 2018 at 17:26

humbug said:
Its not a theory its physics, a 65 watt cooler is inadequate for dissipating 90+ watts of heat.

Sure it can, just not indefinitely. Say a CPU idles at 12w and the cooler is just warm there's probably several seconds of thermal capacity. Probably about 12 seconds

humbug · 9 Jan 2018 at 17:42

d_brennen said:
Sure it can, just not indefinitely. Say a CPU idles at 12w and the cooler is just warm there's probably several seconds of thermal capacity. Probably about 12 seconds

That long?

d_brennen · 9 Jan 2018 at 20:23

humbug said:
That long?

That's fine. As long as people accept that boost clock!=maximum prolonged clock, it's just cheeky marketing. AMD do the same and Ryzen's XFR would have been more misleading than Intel's if the process it is fabbed on was up to scratch

jigger · 10 Jan 2018 at 00:03

d_brennen said:
That's fine. As long as people accept that boost clock!=maximum prolonged clock, it's just cheeky marketing. AMD do the same and Ryzen's XFR would have been more misleading than Intel's if the process it is fabbed on was up to scratch

Not sure. It's base clocks that matter when you have design that scales well

gavinh87 · 10 Jan 2018 at 02:39

jigger said:
Not sure. It's base clocks that matter when you have design that scales well

When those base clocks are poor it's a moot point.

jigger · 10 Jan 2018 at 02:46

gavinh87 said:
When those base clocks are poor it's a moot point.

No, Ryzen running an all clock setting lower than single max XFR pretty much stomps any equivalent Intel CPU into the dust.