CPU change; i5-8400 to i7-9700 problem.

Tetras said:
I'd advise going to Intel anyway unless the CPU is plain dead. Intel do have a diagnostic tool, but I doubt it'll show anything: https://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/support/articles/000005567/processors.html
Click to expand...
Yes, spoke to someone at Intel via chat. I had to remove the CPU to confirm the serial numbers were the same as the box! Done it anyway. Re-inserted the CPU, new thermal paste and put the button battery back in (been out since yesterday). On powering up it said 'CMOS reset'.
For the first time since the 9700 has been installed, the Windows 7 loading logo appeared...I thought Good Sign! I ran the Intel test program and it passed that. I felt confident and began using the system, all well. Came out and put the XMP profile on for the memory. Loaded back up and was great, used solid for around half an hour having multiple programs, webpages open etc...and then it reset itself!
I switched it back on and used it for a further 2 hours without issue. I would have said it's fine if it hadn't done that one reset.
 
Since pulling the battery out (for 24 hours) it's been working fine with 1 reset after half hour of initial use. I'm hoping that 1 reset might be the last. I used it yesterday doing some audio conversions and multitasking, RAR packing (using all 8 cores) and touch-wood, been OK.
In the past i've swapped and changed CPU's and a simple 'set default settings' has worked fine. Looks like a full on, hard BIOS/CMOS reset is required in future.
Thanks to all the suggestions and links; memtest & Intel CPU tester helped to eliminate certain issues and a simple battery removal was all that it required.
 
Well, tried to use it Sunday morning for some more audio conversions and it reset 5 times in 2 hours. PITA, each time I reboot I have to double check all previous work files for corruption, reset all the program settings etc and then you're waiting for it to go black again. Re-opened the case with Intel, we'll see how that goes...
 
It's a Corsair 750TX. I seriously doubt this is the issue, this CPU was not working right in another motherboard & PSU.
Prior to the CPU change, this PC would run all day without hiccup or a single reset/blue-screen.
 
Last night kept playing with it and watching HWMonitor. I bought the 9700 as a 65W CPU for a compact ITX build, this thing was hitting 160W and 100'c under load. After several cooler swaps etc I put the 8400 back in. Running the same tasks (albiet slower) it peaked at 56W and 50'c.
Unless I put a huge cooler or AIO watercooler, this thing is never going to work. Why is it rated/sold as a 65W chip? If I wanted a 130W chip, i'd have gone for the 9700K or 9900K and appropiate cooler.
 
pbrain said:
Last night kept playing with it and watching HWMonitor. I bought the 9700 as a 65W CPU for a compact ITX build, this thing was hitting 160W and 100'c under load. After several cooler swaps etc I put the 8400 back in. Running the same tasks (albiet slower) it peaked at 56W and 50'c.
Unless I put a huge cooler or AIO watercooler, this thing is never going to work. Why is it rated/sold as a 65W chip? If I wanted a 130W chip, i'd have gone for the 9700K or 9900K and appropiate cooler.
Click to expand...

They're all like that nowadays, the TDP is somewhat equivalent to their power use at the base clock (3 Ghz for the 9700, I believe).

This article explains it briefly:
www.hardwaretimes.com

Intel 10th Gen CPU Power Consumption Explained: PL1, PL2, and Tau | Hardware Times

ne of the hardest things to determine about a processor is its load power consumption. That’s doubly true for Intel’s 10th Gen CPUs. While the marketed TDP is usually around 95-125W, under load, most high-end chips consume as much as 225W. The 10th Gen processors take it to another level, with...
www.hardwaretimes.com www.hardwaretimes.com

Even the 35 watt parts can boost up to 90 odd :cry:

If your motherboard allows it, you can change the power limits, or alternatively you can turn off the turbo. Obviously if you turn off turbo you'll lose bucket loads of performance.
 
Intel were deliberately dishonest about power useage for many years and would say a part was 65w when it would use that amount of power at 2ghz with just 2 cores running. Once the chip boosted to 4ghz+ and used all cores it would then be using its actual TDP just like you have experienced.
Thankfully they have changed their approach with 12th gen and actuall give power useage when a chip is fully loaded.

I am not a lawyer or a Judge but I personally would consider what Intel did for many years as false advertising.
 
Haz123 said:
Intel were deliberately dishonest about power useage for many years and would say a part was 65w when it would use that amount of power at 2ghz with just 2 cores running. Once the chip boosted to 4ghz+ and used all cores it would then be using its actual TDP just like you have experienced.
Thankfully they have changed their approach with 12th gen and actuall give power useage when a chip is fully loaded.

I am not a lawyer or a Judge but I personally would consider what Intel did for many years as false advertising.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly part of the reason was that Intel did not accept that Turbo was an important part of the performance of a processor 'as sold'. Therefore, if it can perform satisfactorily at the base clock, that was acceptable. This is still the case in the sense that, because reviews use high-end boards which have no problem operating at max frequency, if you buy a low-end board the performance of your high-end CPU will be massively different to what was shown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom