• 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.

I9 9900k

Panos said:
No electricity.
Click to expand...

If the 2700X could do 4.2GHz all core at 1.00v then it would have a lower TDP. It can't so AMD gave it a higher TDP to allow it to hit the higher boost clocks.

Re-read what was said this is not about cost of running.
 
Well board and cpu just arrived, looks like the processor was produced in week 35, so between 27th Aug - 2nd Sept, and number 80 on the wafer, some used to say this was an indicator of how well the processor would OC, not so sure myself, we will see, lol.
 
IT Troll said:
So if Intel can match AMD at a lower TDP and on larger lithography without better efficiency, how did they do it? Did they add some magic unicorn dust to their STIM?
Click to expand...
Intel's 14nm++ is probably more efficient than GF's 12nm. Remember that Intel's headline node name is already more conservative than most other foundries and Coffee Lake Refresh is the 5th time they've used 14nm (Broadwell -> Skylake -> Kaby Lake -> Coffee Lake -> Coffee Lake Refresh). Although the names are similar, 14nm++ is a huge refinement on 14nm.
 
Remember that only place where Intel was/is truthful is their process tech. 14nm is 14nm, even 10nm was 10nm, before it died under the weight of cobalt. TSMC, Samsung and GF use different metrics to name their processes and then they add a shovel of PR and we have 14nm, 16nm, 7nm, etc.
On paper Intels 10nm was very similar if not better in characteristics than TSMCs 7nm, because Intel was always very aggressive when developing and refining process tech. Now imagine you have all this experience working with single process for so many years now, you end up with miraculous 14nm++++++. Though at some point this won't be enough, well currently process already feels old in a way. I think 9900K is the pinnacle of their 14nm development, and next iteration if that arrives will see minimum gains, or even negative gains. 14nm can't compete with 7nm from foundries.
Look at the heat output of 9900K, its insane for Desktop CPUs, that's in a way a biproduct of sticking to 14nm for too long.
 
Panos said:
And £300 more expensive...... So it is not efficient when you have to spend all the electricity savings up front for the next 28 years, assuming both systems work at 100% load 24-7-365. If any less lets say 12 hours per day, that figure goes to 56 years.

There is nothing efficient here, not even logically and mathematically.
Click to expand...
Logically speaking, and aside from the fact that no one talks about the cost of electricity when using the word 'efficient' on it's own, the actual cost of electricity is completely arbitrary and could be rendered negligible or vitally important on a political whim. Power efficiency is not arbitrary, and recognised universally to the same unwavering degree. It doesn't get much more mathematically sound.
 
muziqaz said:
Remember that only place where Intel was/is truthful is their process tech. 14nm is 14nm, even 10nm was 10nm, before it died under the weight of cobalt. TSMC, Samsung and GF use different metrics to name their processes and then they add a shovel of PR and we have 14nm, 16nm, 7nm, etc.
On paper Intels 10nm was very similar if not better in characteristics than TSMCs 7nm, because Intel was always very aggressive when developing and refining process tech. Now imagine you have all this experience working with single process for so many years now, you end up with miraculous 14nm++++++. Though at some point this won't be enough, well currently process already feels old in a way. I think 9900K is the pinnacle of their 14nm development, and next iteration if that arrives will see minimum gains, or even negative gains. 14nm can't compete with 7nm from foundries.
Look at the heat output of 9900K, its insane for Desktop CPUs, that's in a way a biproduct of sticking to 14nm for too long.
Click to expand...

GF isn't going to do 7nm. And TSMC is already preparing for 7nm EUV in 2020 (Zen 3 and Apple). That's mile ahead than the 10nm.
 
Sem said:
LOL you people are highly amusing

All i said was the hardware unboxed guy has some kind of agenda... i didn't attack him like it was claimed or question or argue or disagree with any of his data.. in fact i made NO comment at all about the content in his videos all i said is he has an agenda with some of his 9900k videos

what that agenda is who knows maybe he is trying to create controversy to get more views
maybe he is trying to gain favour with AMD fans and Ryzen owners so they sub to his channel who knows and when i really think about it i dont really care anyway

and searching my previous posts to see if i bought a 9900k or find out if i posted anything about the 95w TDP? seriously?

go ahead search away ill be interested to see what you find :D
Click to expand...

You took the bait from the AMD fanboys. Better off enjoying what you buy without having to justify it to the budget and power conscious. As for the video, it was clearly agenda driven.
 
Panos said:
GF isn't going to do 7nm. And TSMC is already preparing for 7nm EUV in 2020 (Zen 3 and Apple). That's mile ahead than the 10nm.
Click to expand...
7nm EUV is technically 7nm+ or ++ depending on if they can pull it off so soon. I was comparing initial 7nm vs 10nm from intel.
We are forgetting when Intel was promising us 10nm :) If everything was going according to plan, today we would be at far end of 10nm+ easily.
I wasn't even mentioning GF, when I said "foundries" I meant everyone except Intel ;)
Since 10nm from Intel is dead, by the time they bring 10nm+ (whatever they gonna name it), which might be more relaxed specd process, hopefully AMD will have the balls and finances to be among the first 7nm EUV customers with their designs, to keep pressure on Intel
 
What settings are people using for their 9900k overclocks?

I have seen (on reddit :rolleyes:) everything from 5.3 @1.25 (throttled so not actually 5.3) and 5GHz at 1.2ish to 4.9GHz at over 1.35.

Sometimes this is with an AVX offset, and in some cases it isn't.

Der8auer suggests a -4 offset for AVX in his overclocking video.

If those of you with the 9900k could post your own settings/ experiences so i know what sort of ballpark frequency and voltage i should be going for (as well as avx offset) i would really appreciate it.
 
Distracted said:
What settings are people using for their 9900k overclocks?

I have seen (on reddit :rolleyes:) everything from 5.3 @1.25 (throttled so not actually 5.3) and 5GHz at 1.2ish to 4.9GHz at over 1.35.

Sometimes this is with an AVX offset, and in some cases it isn't.

Der8auer suggests a -4 offset for AVX in his overclocking video.

If those of you with the 9900k could post your own settings/ experiences so i know what sort of ballpark frequency and voltage i should be going for (as well as avx offset) i would really appreciate it.
Click to expand...

Cinebench R15 stable with 4.7ghz cache and 4133mhz C12-11-11-28-1t memory
water temp of 24c
LLC6
set voltage is 0.04v lower than below actual voltages(max read voltages with HWmonitor)

5ghz 1.29v
5.1ghz 1.34v
5.2ghz 1.39v
5.3ghz 1.44v

running 24/7 rock solid 51/45/3600 1.35v max temp in game(BF4) with water approx 25c is around 59c
 
Nickolp1974 said:
Cinebench R15 stable with 4.7ghz cache and 4133mhz C12-11-11-28-1t memory
water temp of 24c
LLC6
set voltage is 0.04v lower than below actual voltages(max read voltages with HWmonitor)

5ghz 1.29v
5.1ghz 1.34v
5.2ghz 1.39v
5.3ghz 1.44v

running 24/7 rock solid 51/45/3600 1.35v max temp in game(BF4) with water approx 25c is around 59c
Click to expand...
Thank you!

Does this pass prime with or without avx and do you have an offset for that?

I know prime is an unrealistic workload.

I've just run cinebench 4.9 1.25 and then 5GHz crashed so I jumped to 1.3 for that. But I'm using a -3 offset right now for avx so running prime the cores drop to 4.7.

I haven't tested any lower voltages with 5GHz or gone higher than 5 yet because my PC is still in bits while i sort the loop out.

Edit - the voltages I'm listing for my OC are the ones i set in Bios. I have Hwinfo open but I'm not 100% sure where to look to check what voltage is being reported.
 
Nickolp1974 said:
Cinebench R15 stable with 4.7ghz cache and 4133mhz C12-11-11-28-1t memory
water temp of 24c
LLC6
set voltage is 0.04v lower than below actual voltages(max read voltages with HWmonitor)

5ghz 1.29v
5.1ghz 1.34v
5.2ghz 1.39v
5.3ghz 1.44v

running 24/7 rock solid 51/45/3600 1.35v max temp in game(BF4) with water approx 25c is around 59c
Click to expand...

Ramtest / HCI stable at those settings? ;)

You should aim for stability at 4000/4133 with the Gene, it can handle those speeds just fine. CAS16 should be possible with reasonable voltage (with the sticks you have).
 
Last edited:
5ghz all core, no avx offset. Adaptive voltage loading at 1.296v GPU RTX 2080ti shares loop.
Hottest core:
Destiny 2: 59 (average 45-55) 1440p
1hr OCCT large: 62
1hr Prime95 avx: 85 (Coolest 79, may try reseat?)

All rads of the thicker variety. 360x2 + 240.

Haven't tried higher than 5ghz
 
Sc00p007 said:
5ghz all core, no avx offset. Adaptive voltage loading at 1.296v GPU RTX 2080ti shares loop.
Hottest core:
Destiny 2: 59 (average 45-55) 1440p
1hr OCCT large: 62
1hr Prime95 avx: 85 (Coolest 79, may try reseat?)

All rads of the thicker variety. 360x2 + 240.

Haven't tried higher than 5ghz
Click to expand...
Thank you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom