The TDP is for the base clock, it's the minimum gauranteed clock speed you will get. Anything over is not gauranteed and anything over exceeds TDP. That's why if you limit a 9900k to its advertised TDP it's far slower and can't hit its max boost
-
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.
Intel i9-10X processor availablity?
- Thread starter Coojeekitten
- Start date
The TDP is for the base clock, it's the minimum gauranteed clock speed you will get. Anything over is not gauranteed and anything over exceeds TDP. That's why if you limit a 9900k to its advertised TDP it's far slower and can't hit its max boost
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,257
The chart is rather interesting, in what intel are now producing so much data for a chip.
Base clock, very boost, versus thermal boost clock, versus max turbo clock, and that's all for a single core, then throw in a couple more for multicore.
It reads like they are attempting some headlines without providing any actual information.
The thermal thing does sound like what it might manage with a chiller.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,257
Might be, but if you compare the K with the gimped chip, a 0.9 increase in GHZ almost doubles the TDP. Would suggest there is the potential for the thing under full boost, at stock not overclocked to pull 300Watts under normal load.
It should make cooling rather intricate.
Wonder will they been suggesting AIOs or custom loops at required.
That matches my theory too.
The 9900k which has a base of 3.5ghz with 95w tdp and all core boost of 4.7ghz pulls 205w at its 4.7ghz boost.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-9900k-9th-gen-cpu,5847-11.html
the 10900k takes that 4.7ghz and boosts it further to 4.9ghz and tacks on two extra cores.
I just don't see how this thing can be cooled with anything other than a 360mm AIO are bare minimum.
Soldato
Gonna be pretty much a done deal that these will need a new chipset, right?
Will likely upgrade my 8400 in 2020, would be nice to just throw a new CPU in the existing board. Hyperthreaded i5 would be nice, but if need a new motherboard anyway I'd just get an AMD board and CPU.
Will likely upgrade my 8400 in 2020, would be nice to just throw a new CPU in the existing board. Hyperthreaded i5 would be nice, but if need a new motherboard anyway I'd just get an AMD board and CPU.
yes it's at this point over 90% certainty that it uses z490 chipset with the LGA1159 socket- which physically makes it impossible to use on a older z390/370 boards is afraid
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 2,267
There are a few things Intel can do make the 10core not any worse than a 9900ks.
- decrease the height of the silicon substrate for better heat transfer
- improve the solder
- use more of the silicon die space to spread out the heat as there is no igpu on those parts
- node improvement to reduce voltage and tighten up the voltage variance between chips
- improve io/sa so you can ram oc without pumping those volts and run your uncore closer to core for reduced latency
those 5 things would make the 10 core manageable and if you can OC 10 cores to 5.2ghz+, it’ll be fast and desirable.
AMD current advantages are that they supply more cores for less and are easier to heat manage but in a like for like scenario, an ambient cooled oc’d 3800x gets soundly beaten by an oc’d 9900k/s. Before someone mentions ram tuning, it helps on Intel also and just because people lazy it up with xmp doesn’t mean manual tuning of ram on Intel doesn’t work.
- decrease the height of the silicon substrate for better heat transfer
- improve the solder
- use more of the silicon die space to spread out the heat as there is no igpu on those parts
- node improvement to reduce voltage and tighten up the voltage variance between chips
- improve io/sa so you can ram oc without pumping those volts and run your uncore closer to core for reduced latency
those 5 things would make the 10 core manageable and if you can OC 10 cores to 5.2ghz+, it’ll be fast and desirable.
AMD current advantages are that they supply more cores for less and are easier to heat manage but in a like for like scenario, an ambient cooled oc’d 3800x gets soundly beaten by an oc’d 9900k/s. Before someone mentions ram tuning, it helps on Intel also and just because people lazy it up with xmp doesn’t mean manual tuning of ram on Intel doesn’t work.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2019
- Posts
- 2,570
Intel’s Core i9-10900K ‘up to’ 10% faster than Core i9-9900K
https://techreport.com/news/3467689/intel-core-i9-10900k-performance-boost/
https://techreport.com/news/3467689/intel-core-i9-10900k-performance-boost/
Soldato
Lol, first line in small print about the tests
"Performance results are based on projections as of 11/04/2019, and may not reflect all publicly available security updates. See configuration disclosure for details. No product can be absolutely secure."
Soldato
Nothing too exciting really, same old processor they are going to be hard to cool though if aiming for all cores at 5Ghz +.
Interesting to see what is actually required in terms of VRM and cooling for the velocity boost.
Leaks haven't indicated a lack of IGPU as they are all K parts not KF, so no radical layout change.
Will still have the lead in gaming by a little more now probably and will be fairly close to the 3900x in production now although far worse in terms of power consumption, will get soundly beaten by the 3950X in production.
Can see the 10900k taking over the 9900ks pricing and others falling in line, will still be more expensive than AMD under the guise that you now get SMT in all of them wow !!
Interesting to see what is actually required in terms of VRM and cooling for the velocity boost.
Leaks haven't indicated a lack of IGPU as they are all K parts not KF, so no radical layout change.
Will still have the lead in gaming by a little more now probably and will be fairly close to the 3900x in production now although far worse in terms of power consumption, will get soundly beaten by the 3950X in production.
Can see the 10900k taking over the 9900ks pricing and others falling in line, will still be more expensive than AMD under the guise that you now get SMT in all of them wow !!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 29,863
A case could be made for a 9900K for gaming but after 8c/16t it's allllllllllllllllllllll AMD 
Permabanned
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2019
- Posts
- 2,570
But it still tops the charts in gaming.
Throwing more and more cores out is not the answer, there is a limit to what usable for most people and games do not make use of that many (48 cores etc).
It seems like the polar opposite of when Intel thought in a few years they would be at 6GHZ=10GHZ (P4 EE crap) soon then had to go back to the drawing board and came out with the CD2 baaed on the far better/more efficient P3 arct
6-8 real Cores with HT so 12-16 threads would be fine for years to come if game devs coded for it but they need to also code for older gen as most will not be on latest.
If Intel bring out a new gen not this re-spun nonsense and it has 8 Cores 16 Threads and a 10 Cores 20 Threads and ideally at least one model in the range model with no IGPU I would be happy.
Throwing more and more cores out is not the answer, there is a limit to what usable for most people and games do not make use of that many (48 cores etc).
It seems like the polar opposite of when Intel thought in a few years they would be at 6GHZ=10GHZ (P4 EE crap) soon then had to go back to the drawing board and came out with the CD2 baaed on the far better/more efficient P3 arct
6-8 real Cores with HT so 12-16 threads would be fine for years to come if game devs coded for it but they need to also code for older gen as most will not be on latest.
If Intel bring out a new gen not this re-spun nonsense and it has 8 Cores 16 Threads and a 10 Cores 20 Threads and ideally at least one model in the range model with no IGPU I would be happy.
9900ks all core 5ghz out the box
10900k all core 4.8ghz out the box
the 9900ks is going to be faster at games than the 10900k until you overclock the 10900k.
The 9900ks is binned and draws 180w out the box, the 10900k draws 250w out the box.
so overclocking the 10900k to beat the 9900ks at games is going to be a problem. 360mm AIO bare minimum and still see 90c or higher temps.
Using Intels own benchmark slides - the 10900k is just 2% faster than the 9900k in single thread load. 2% is not enough to beat the 9900KS.
And that is why 9900KS production is ending, Intel can't have it beating the 10900K, if you want a KS get one soon because the majority of people a 9900KS will remain the fastest gaming CPU money can buy and the 10900k will not beat it.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Amazing how Intel have managed to get a 10 core to use twice as much power as AMD have with a 12 core, what clever and astonishing people Intel have working for them.
Hang on, there's a wooden spoon round here somewhere....
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,715
Only 2% IPC improvement? That's not a new gen, it's a rebrand.
Nvidia got a lot of stick for a 30% generational improvement. Yet Intel does a 2% improvement and people can't wait to hand over their money.
Nvidia got a lot of stick for a 30% generational improvement. Yet Intel does a 2% improvement and people can't wait to hand over their money.
100mhz higher clock speeds than 9900k but slower clock speed than 9900KS.
Soldato
Thing is, there doesn't seem to be much hype. Not being a drop in upgrade, kills it.
Why buy this, given it's release date is going to be so close to Zen2 refresh?
Why buy this, given it's release date is going to be so close to Zen2 refresh?
