Oh... and btw.... perpetuating the NPC meme simply makes you an NPC in a roundabout way. What's the definition of the meme? "group of people who say whatever someone else says." or "people who only say what they're told to say." right? Question is, did you make the NPC meme up?... or was that idea implanted somehow? I mean, unless you made it up, you're simply parroting someone else's rhetoric... aka you're being an NPC :) have a nice day!
@@notahuman369 FX does exit www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz.html We most remember it mistakes so in the future we don't make them again, AMD have learned from it that's why "zen" had a 52% IPC improvement over FX series. Intel in other hand didn't learn anything from there's mistakes... Computex 2018 misleading 28C 56T xeon platinum 8180, now rebrand Intel xeon w3175x, benchmarks order to PT and yet again trying to mislead people to believe that i9 9900k its 30~60% faster that R7 2700x that in reality its only about 9%ish...
@UnknownUser At first, I thought I liked you because of how stupid you are for not realizing they said Siberia... But now I like you because it's obvious that you're also too stupid to catch the joke. I wonder what else you're too stupid for? I think we should try to find out because there may not be a limit!
Going to upgrade my 1700 when Ryzen 2 comes out. Should be a nice upgrade. Be nice to just flash the bios on the MoBo and drop the chip in. Won't need a new MoBo. When was the last time you could do that?
Can't imagine there will be any noticeable difference between Zen2 and 8700k at 1440p. Right now 1440p is pretty much all about the GPU I can't imagine that will change next year.
Im enjoying my 2600X which is a few FPS slower than the 2700X, and the 2700X is a few FPS slower than the 8700k. But my 2600X is about half the price of the 8700K!!! Keep up the great work Steve and Tim!!
Seems inlet is struggling to keep up with the demand. The cheapest i7 8700K i found was 320, 3 months back. Now they go as high as 550. The i9 9900K goes as high as 700. And in gaming performance the 8700K and 9900K are identical in performance, if you run them both at the same clocks.
Intel is so desperate they took the now-outdated 14nm design and pushed it so far it could literally burn a house down. AMD is now taking over the CPU throne.
75 degrees with 1.36 volts @4.9ghz on all 8 cores.....that's less heat than Ryzen 2700X at 4.3ghz....if you can Actualy manage to keep it stable at 4.3ghz lol. I can only assume you mean AMD taking the budget builders crown.
as much as i shame intel for this release, the 8700k was already a faster gamer than amd's best offering. AMD fans are always trying to use the unreleased "next gen" product to compare to intel's current release... Sorry doesn't work that way, you can only compare zen2 to cannon lake.. 2700x is the best there is to compare to 9900k, and 9900k is much faster.
This remembers me of the Pentium 4 Extreme Editions, as they were Intel's desperate attempt to stay competitive. They were really, expensive, consumed a lot of power and didn't offer anything new to the table. AMD could easily beat the Intel crap back in the day. As Zen 2 is right around the corner I wonder if AMD can repeat this story? What do you think?
@@notahuman369 thinkcomputers.org/for-the-first-time-in-10-years-amd-takes-cpu-market-share-from-intel/ I beg to differ. Website has a graph showing AMD and Intel cpu share neck and neck back in 2006
@@wangkevin3431 at that time Intel have the P3 architecture instead of Prescott that enables them easier, and faster R&D as they based Conroe on P3 (I couldn't remember the architecture name) which is already used on their laptop processors (again, their laptop processors skip prescott). Edit: This time, unless they somehow made a breakthrough in Mesh design (which they failed before, hi skylake-x), I don't think their current ring bus design would be able to scale more than 8 cores
The latest i9 reeks of the same desperation Intel had during the last of the Netburst Pentium IV releases. Pushing clock speeds to the max - thermals and price/value be damned. I think Intel realizes that they can't really move ahead without transitioning to the newer smaller process, but that AMD is about 5 years ahead of them on transitioning and getting solid yields. This will allow AMD to continue growing frequency and IPC while offering a significantly higher value proposition (98% of the performance in specific workloads, better performance in others like highly threaded, at less than 30-50% of the overall cost of an Intel system). We're looking at a repeat of the Athlon 64 versus the Pentium IV and slapped together Core 2 lineup.
Squiggly667 Intel has fabrication while AMD doesn’t , so AMD is fabless so they don’t have to worry about R&D for processors node since TSMC has it taken care of while Intel spends billions and billions trying to get 10nm out , they should go fabless and use TSMC 7nm to be more competitive , 14nm to 7nm is from 1inch to 0.5 inch.
I’m so darn glad that my name isn’t too looong, that’s what happens when you stretch the manufacturing node to the limit, without a shrink to 10nm for example you don’t get efficiency improvements so the only way to get better performance on the same process without a significant architecture change is bigger die and increase power so more heat. Bigger die also mean less yield so much higher prices.
@@backupplan6058 They really have no choice in the matter. 10nm was supposed to be out ages ago, but they were far too aggressive with the node density hence the 14nm+++++ meme.
thats what happens when you get stuck on the same node for a few years! This is basically what happened to the FX processers before Ryzen came out! AMD couldn't improve the node so they just kept adding frequency with minor tweaks till they required so much power that they basically became space heaters lol
Steve i want to replace my aging combi boiler would the i9 9900k be a good replacement ? Is the trade off between gas usage to electricity usage worth it? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Price of the i9 9900k - $680ish (Doesn't come with a cooler and looking at these thermals, the minimum you should get is a 240-280mm AIO cooler Price of the Ryzen 7 2700x: $304 (With frequent sales and good deals on the used market, and already comes with a fantastic cooler (with RGB ;)) (Side note: Boards are also WAY cheaper and AMD processors run just fine on the sub $130 B450 platform) Alright, so let me get this straight, you're paying 224% more for the 9900k, Barely getting even a 40% increase in most areas (especially games), AND you probably should buy a more expensive ($150+) Z390 board because of the better VRMS which could lead to better thermals? Laughable... Can an Intel fan please explain to me why this or the i7 9700k is a good buy? I'll be waiting.
I’m curious why people don’t go for maximum burn and use a R7 2700 for comparison - sure the cooler’s not as good and it requires more manual tuning but the further savings on the wallet...
Dude, I love your channel. We can get results anywhere, but you don't get the Hardware Unboxed personality anywhere else. I love that you can be a smartass, but in a way that is fun xD. You tell it like it is, and I admire that. This is my #1 tech channel because you cover great topics, and you are a wonderful host. The perfect mix of jaded and humor.
Here are my Core i9-9900k temperature testing results - I figured I would add this to the body of knowledge being shared. I have the my i9-9900k overclocked using Asus's AI overclocker tuner and Q-Fan auto fan control on an Asus ROG Maximus XI Formula Motherboard and using a beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 4 CPU Cooler installed using Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut thermal grease. During a Blender 1.0 Beta 2 Quick Benchmark, the CPU cores/threads remained maxed out at 100%. The total runtime was 14.42.23 minutes. The CPU cores stayed at 4.9 GHz (+0.002/-0.005 GHz) on all cores the entire run. VCore mostly stayed at 1.172 V with a 1.234 V peak. Max package power was 171 W. Maximum core temps ranged from a low of 81° C on core #7 to 89° C on core #2. The ambient temp was around 22° C. The chassis fans maxed out at various speeds ranging from 874 rpm to 927 rpm. I could hear them running, but the noise was not too bad. The 135 mm CPU fan maxed out at 1498 rpm. HWMonitor is not reporting the speed of the 120mm CPU fan, which is plugged into the CPU_OPT header, but I am assuming it was running around 2200 rpm, which I understand to be its max speed. I also ran Prime95 v. 29.4, build 8, Windows 64 bit for about 30 minutes on "Blend" and "Torture Test" to run 16 threads. Again, the CPU stayed at 4.9 GHz the entire run. VCore mostly stayed at 1.208 V with a 1.234 V peak. Max package power was 113 W. The CPU cores mostly hovered between 59° C and 64° C, with a Max of 71° C being reported in HWMonitor. I could barely hear the system running. One of the front case fans is plugged into the water block pin header for now until I get a fan splitter cable, so that one runs at 915 rpm for now. The other case fans ran between 730 and 800 rpm. The 135mm CPU fan ran at about 1025 rpm. I am assuming the 120mm fan was running less than its max rpm. Unfortunately, HWMonitor does not seem to report the VRM temperatures on my motherboard. Nonetheless, I did not detect any thermal throttling during the tests while continuing to watch the core speeds in the HWMontitor UI, and the minimum core speeds measured by HWMonitor was 4.895 GHz. System: MB: Asus ROG Maximus XI Formula CPU: Core i9-9900k RAM: G.SKILL F4-3600C16D-16GVK Primary/Boot SSD: Intel Optane 900p 280 GB Case: Fractal Design Define S2 TG with two additional Dynamic X2 GP-14 fans in the top two rear fans slots. GPU: Gigabyte AORUS Radeon RX 580 8GB Power Supply: Seasonic PRIME Ultra 850W Titanium (Note: I don't need the VRM water block on the Formula, but I could not find the Maximus XI Code in stock anywhere and grew impatient waiting. I use the RX 580 because I have 5 displays, and I don't use the system for gaming - the RX 580 is the only newer generation video card I could find that supports 5 displays.)
@HardwareUnboxed 11:05 I am FAR from a "Mad enthusiast with deep pockets" - the Rockit 88 costs $35, and makes delidding and relidding child's play! No Lab Coat BS involved. My 8700k was my first ever delid, and it was 100% worth it! Dropped some 15° C in Prime95 while going up 200 MHZ core and cache. And it was EASY to do!
Is "because it's an i9" supposed to be some sort of argument? 9900k is clearly made for gaming, and it's a worse buy than the year old 8700k. If you're not aiming for gaming, buy a Ryzen or a Threadripper. And don't mention 9700k; +2 cores but -4 threads *and* it runs warmer as well. More of a sidegrade than an upgrade.
Uh, yeah? You're comparing apples and oranges when you reference the price of an i9 vs the price of an i7. You might as well be complaining that the i7 8700K is 40% more expensive than the i5 8600K. Compare the i7 9700K price vs the i7 8700K price, then you're looking at a $5 difference. Or, do you make a habit of cherry picking your comparisons just to get yourself riled up?
Alright. You're in the market for a new gaming CPU. You can buy a 8700k for €450 or a 9900k for €600. Give me a scenario where the 9900k is worth the premium over the 8700k. (And you can't say programming/rendering/etc, there are way better CPU:s than the 9900k for that thanks to AMD.) - Go!
Steve+Tim=STIM However Steve, did you ACTUALLY use percentage to indicate a difference in temperature? Please, don't do that, it makes absolutely no sense (unless you start using Kelvin, but would still make little sense)
@@SpecialKthx Celsius is RELATIVE. What do you get when you go from 0°C to 1°C? OMG INFINITE% HOTTER Percentages for temperature differences make no sense.
My Intel i9-9900K and overclocking over 4.7 GHz are under 60 degrese Celsius in extreamly preformance game. It is not hot or warm. I love the CPU but I have I 3 big fans to cool down the CPU and they are watercooled.
My biggest takeaway from this is actually that when matching specs, 8th and 9th gen chips are exactly the same. Same power usage, same performance. Intel did nothing but slap on a couple cores, tweaked stock frequencies and voltages, slapped some solder on it and selling it as a refresh. That reeks of desperation.
@4:10 didn't GN ditch solder v.s. paste test as a serious test because of different die sizes leading to different thermal density no matter the core config?
I think it's because they have reached the limits of this process node. The 9900K teeters on the ragged of the power delivery capabilities of the boards, and it's likely that the surface area of the IHS is inadequate to dissipate the heat generated by eight cores, especially with SMT. Insufficient surface area = insufficient heat dissipation. So with the 7700K delidding was a good idea for heavy OC. With the 8700K it was mandatory. And with the 9900K you need premium cooling just to run it at stock speeds. This is what happens when you underestimate the competition and simultaneously struggle to move your own products to a smaller process.
man I was going crazy thinking I made some dum mistake that was causing my rig to get so hot, I'm glad It's just the cooling solution because that I can fix! :)
@@overclockedlife7550 lmfao The 9900k is 599.00 quid....Excatly the same price as the 1800x was at launch lmfao....you AMD peasants have very short memories all of a sudden lol...
I have some delidded early 00s xeons with solder. I might go measure the thicknesses and compare to Roman's findings. These chips are less than half the modern cpu die sizes too, something intel always claimed was no good for soldering, that is dies too small tend to crack the solder. wasn't the case on these 2 I have.
do that,also they delidded these "soldered" cpus on GN with the rockit88 which is made of plastic.no one needed to heat the IHS like with old soldered cpus or ryzen.so i call bs.
Roman showed that it just sheers the solder off on the 9th gen using his tool. It's really thick and soft what intel used this time and seems to give way pretty easy, there was no heating when he removed it. As for my xeons, both broke, one even sheered the silicon in half sideways and that's got less than half the surface area adhering it compared to 9th gen. This solder is not much softer than normal electronics tin/lead solder. So it could be very well they used something much softer/thicker compared to the past.
Well I just measured these old soldered xeons. I got the same die thickness as Roman but the solder layer was 0.25mm, about half of the specs Roman measured. And actually the die area isn't much smaller than the 9900k, it just looks smaller as the xeon I have has a square die.
honestly idk if its just really cold in my room, but i recently just upgraded to a 9900k from a 8700k im running 5ghz@1.32v on all cores stable under max load my 9900k never hits 80c where as my 8700k would be around 85c-87c @5ghz, the thing is im still using my previous gen mobo and one of my vrms seems to get a bit hot for my liking, it gets to around 90c
I have a Noctua NH D-15 cooling my AMD 9590 @5ghz. Even rendering video in Camtasia for 20 minutes I don't get 50C. To hear it failed to cool this chip is absolutely amazing.
I9 9900K 1.35V - 1.38V Cinebench 85- 89c, Prime95 95c & Realbench 88c!! When gaming 70's, so in that case safe temps!! But dam Intel, your making it more challenging for us Overclockers to OC with confidence 💪
I need help picking a cpu: I9-9900K vs i7-9700k vs i7-8700k. I am mostly concerned about gaming performance and temps. As well as lack of hyper threading in i7. Please make a THERMALS TEST, including gaming temps- comparing all of these CPUs!
@@m8x425 thanks. Can you explain why that exactly? I am really concerned about the temps of 9th gen. But since I don't build often, I am willing to spend extra money. So if "price wasn't an issue" would you get the i9-9900k or i7-9700k? The fact the i7 is missing it's Hyper Threading is a big let down, and makes the decision harder. But the high temps is even worse.
First thing's First, if you're going to run the CPU at stock speeds then you will have nothing to worry about with the temps provided that you pick a good CPU cooler and the case has good airflow. I'll give you a mess of information so hopefully this will help you make a choice that's right for you. If you're not going to get to this build until 6 months from now then it might be worth it to wait for Zen2 if the rumors are true. The only concern with waiting is AMD related releases come with a lot of hype and release dates have a tendency of getting pushed back. Also, be aware that the 9900k will most likely be the best you can do for the 1151/300series platform. Intel's 10nm Ice Lake will most likely require a new motherboard. If you're in dire need of a new gaming rig or upgrade then yes, go with Intel. I would be in favor of an 8086k or 8700k if you can save a fair amount on your budget. For a straight up gaming rig, an 8700k paired with a better GPU is going to beat the 9700k with an inferior GPU in gaming. The i5-9600k with an RTX 2080 or GTX 1080ti is still going to beat a gaming rig with the 8th or 9th Gen i7 and an RTX 2070 or GTX 1080. Obviously the temps of 8th gen i7 processors like the 8086k and 8700k aren't that good to begin with because of the TIM between the IHS and the CPU die. As you can see in this video with the i9, the temps are only slightly better at an overclocked speed of 5.0ghz. The only workaround with the 8th Gen chips is they can be delidded easily. Hyperthreading will add to the temps so the i7-9700k might be a little bit more manageable at 5.0ghz. I would also be willing to speculate that the i7-9700k should have a more refined memory controller which should give it the ability to handle higher memory speeds. I had both a 6700k and a 7700k. I sold off the 6700k. The 6700k didn't handle faster memory speeds very well when it was overclocked to 4.7ghz. On the other hand my 7700k was perfectly fine with running faster XMP profiles while it was overclocked to 5.1ghz -2 AVX offset. The IMC is often overlooked though, and in some cases getting one with a good IMC is part of the Silicon lottery. The reason I would pick a 9700k over the 8086k/8700k is because the STIM is going to be a little but better than the TIM paste. Also the 9700k has a better Turbo clock profile which is the biggest selling point for me. The 9700k should do at least 4.6ghz with all 8 cores up and running. The 8086k and 8700k both do around 4.3ghz with all cores pushed. What I didn't see in this video, or maybe I missed it, was the use of AVX2 offsets. When I've overclocked my 7700k and 8700k I usually use AVX offset -2. My 7700k can do 5.1ghz AVX offset -2 at around 1.35v, and my 8700k can do 5.2ghz AVX offset -2 at 1.32v. So If I run a stress test like the newer version of Prime95 with my 8700k, my clock speeds will only go to 5.0ghz. I have to stress test with something like Prime95 v26.6 which doesn't use the newer AVX/AVX2 instruction sets. Sadly, I need to delid my 8700k if I want to run it at 5.2ghz 24/7, but I can run it at 5.1ghz -2 AVX offset and the temps are manageable while running a stress test. As far as the Silicon Lottery goes, I did well with the 8700k so I have no reason to buy a 9th Gen chip. If I had a poor 8700k that needed more than 1.35v to obtain 5.0ghz -2 AVX offset then I would think about the 9700k myself. In other benchmarks I have seen, the 9700k trades blows with the 8700k/8086k in workstation related tasks so far. I would be willing to wager that Silicon Lottery might offer a delidded/relidded 9th Gen processors, provided that they can delid and relid efficiently. Of course the extra labor charge would get passed on to the consumer. SL does offer a 1 year warranty on the processors they sell. I would suggest checking SL out. If you have access to Amazon's Prime Now, I would suggest checking that out too since sometimes there are hidden Gems on there. The CPU temps in gaming are never as high as what you see in these Stress tests. Usually you can get by with a reasonable CPU cooler, while using a case with good airflow and you'll be fine. When I say reasonable, I mean a Scythe Fuma or Mugen 5, not a 212 or H5. The only thing to watch out for is if the BIOS/UEFI on the motherboard will try to auto-overclock the CPU to the all core Turbo speed. These boards have a tendency of overvolting the CPU with things like Multi-Core Enhancement or Gaming Mode which leads to higher temps.
It runs at 13.6volts @4.9ghz on all cores at a steady 75 degrees....that's very good not hot. It's only when you put 4.5 volts through it gets too hot.
I posted this comment two days ago on der8auers video. I guess we were thinking the same thing. Maybe it is because the soldering process. Thicker die so that the risk of damaging the CPU from the heat application when automating the soldering process is lower? Could be a tolerance issue or a manufacturering impact as well.
Can I make a suggestion for content? One is more a thought experiment: for the first time we have 2 competing 8C16T CPUs (which are both soldered), lock a 2700X and the 9900K to say 4.1GHz all core and rerun the productivity and gaming (@2560p) benchmarks. This would give us an indication of how they compare with regard to performance, power and temperatures, and how far AMD needs to go with regard to IPC to catch up. The second content piece is comparing the 9900K to a 2950X, as they are both a similar price (at least in the UK) and have similar temperature characteristics. Obviously the 9900K will be vastly superior in games at lower resolutions, but when you hit 2560p, it would be interesting to see how much they differ, given the 2950X's superior(?) productivity aspects, and how close they are in cpu/platform cost
Steve. CMIIW but isn't the heat issue is also because ringbus architecture is already at the limit, core-count wise. I mean, you can only connect so many cores in one ring, 8 seems to be the limit (at least in 14 nm)
This is really good information however what’s the max temp that is acceptable for everyday use(gaming, streaming and editing)? I’m getting a i9 9900k and I would like to OC but need more information on what I should be aim for safe temperature wise.
I just built a 9900k system and oh yeah, this thing is HOT. So hot when I overclocked it the frequency actually went DOWN! Maybe I'm doing something wrong, I dunno. This platform is new to me and I'm still learning. But last time I checked, when you overclock a cpu that runs 3.6ghz stock, it shouldn't drop to 3.3ghz on cinebench AFTER the overclock when the cache frequency in the bios clearly says it's running at 4.6ghz.
It appears AMD's solder is actually better for thermal conductivity. Though that maybe because their die is thinner and silicium is not the best thermal conductor.
Hardware Unboxed thanks for the response! Another question please, would the Noctua D15 air cooler be sufficient enough to cool an i7-8086K on Stock clocks? And how well can it handle Overclocking?
Running on a recently delidded 3770k (within the last 6 months) @ 4.6 Ghz, I was really hoping I wouldn't have to delid my next CPU to get good OCing temps. I've been really impressed with AMD's Ryzen (looking forward Ryzen 2 in 2019) and am tempted to jump to the red team for my next build sometime next year. I game @ 1440p with a 1080 Ti, but would really like more cores/threads, native usb 3.0/3.1, NVME support, etc. of a new platform. AMD may be in my future as, sadly, Intel seems to be grasping at straws due to resting on their laurels for the last few generations.
im wondering if the high temps are bugs in the mobo bios. i mean they are on first iteration of 9th gen support... i find it highly unlikely that temps went way up with soldered lids
What I found most interesting is that performance was much worse on the Z370 board. That’s not getting much play but I think it’s a pretty big thing for anyone considering a drop in upgrade.
Think you might have a hotter than normal chip and 1.35v is crazy high. I wouldn't say I have a great chip but it hits 5ghz at 1.28v @ 78c under stress testing. I admit I have a dual 360 rad custom loop but when you spend this kind of money on a chip cooling it efficiency should be in the budget. I was able to overclock to 5.2ghz at 1.32v but the temps were in the high 80s and couple cores were hitting mid 90s. I personally am happy with a 5ghz all core overclock temps are manageable, and the difference between 5 and 5.2ghz wasn't enough for me to justify the higher heat and potentially shorter life span of the CPU.
I'm curious why your review had more issues with thermals. Watching other reviews among your peer group of Tech Reviewers, I don't see anyone else with a similar alarmist view as you do with the thermals. Would be nice to hear a consistent opinion. I am building a new PC, but planned on using a good 240mm cooler which in your opinion, won't suffice.
I agree each commented on the thermals, but your statement was the strongest, which I take seriously as everyone should if true. (IE: paraphrasing - If you're going to OC, 240mm won't get it). I wasn't challenging the validity of your statement. I'm just wondering why it's not at the top of the talking points. I myself made a change going to 360mm Eisaber, but even with it, I'm not sure how far I'll get. tnx
My comments are based on the testing data, not sure what else to tell you. If you think 100c at 5 GHz is okay then so be it. I'm not the only one showing results like these and I feel they are too hot.
My god no. I want my system to last more than a year. 100c is a no go except for a single test. I'm looking for a safe operating temp for daily use. I'm very conservative as is. My current 5930K only runs all cores at 4ghz, but stays between 35 - 60 depending on what I'm doing. I appreciate the testing you've done so far. It's been helpful.
Hey Steve, It would be really cool if you could do a gaming CPU round up for E-sports games with the new 9th gen CPUs in the ix. I know there are plenty of people like myself that always play on lowest graphics settings all the time and just need the best fps. Thanks if you read this.
You would think with these temps would do better on those firestrike benchmarks! I guess the Verge will need Oven mitts to add to tweezers and Swiss Army knife for their updated i9 9900k system build! ♨️ I would love to see a cost benefit analysis between this gpu and a Ryzen 7 2700 with fast ram, mb and suitable cooler to overclock the he'll out of it. Then compare it with minimum components required to get a reliable turbo out of the i9 then do a performance/cost between the two setups. ☺
Seeing so many different overclocking results is discouraging. Guru3D tested it at 5.2Ghz and theirs didn't exceed 85C. "We hit 80~85 Degrees C on the package sensor at 5200 MHz / 1.325V" also WCCFTech tested theirs at 5.3 GHz With 1.367V and that one never exceeded 89C. Corsair AIOs nothing special. 9700K might be the better CPU for gaming though, Anandtech had theirs at 5.3Ghz "For the Core i7-9700K, we hit 5.3 GHz very easily, for a small bump in power and temperature." that one never exceeded 84C either.
My guess is that all reviewers are using different motherboard, and some motherboards are overvolting more than they are reporting creating this discrepancies, i hope a reviewer could try multiple motherboards to see if he can prove this.
I'm building a new PC, i want to buy i9 9900k with Corsair Hydro Series H150i PRO RGB. Will there be big problems with temperatures? Whay do you think? Is it worth buying it?
I see a lot of people comparing the 9900k to the FX-9590 regarding its power usage and heat. Yeah, they are both hot. But one the big difference is that the Intel at least returns you performance for that heat/power cost, unlike the FX.
Steve, the singular of GHz is still GigaHertz, not GigaHert ;) SI Units usually don't do the plural thing. It's 1 Volt and it's 2 Volt. Only English speakers add a plural-s to SI units. So the plural actually should be GigaHertzes.
6 лет назад
GN didn’t really mention the temperature in his video. In his live overclock stream he also didn’t really talk much about it. People who buy it will be fine.
I dont know if im crazy or if im missing something but i find it really weird that Intel didn't leave the i7 part at 6 cores and 12 threads. Aside from the obvious reasons this is suss, surely a true six core part with solder would have performed better than a non hyperthreaded 8 core part which is clearly thermally constrained.
![Intel Core i9-9900K Re-Review [95-watt TDP Results] Very Ryzen 7 2700X Like!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kmAWqyHdebI/mqdefault.jpg)
Amazon - Home and Kitchen - Fireplaces, Stoves & Accessories
9900K - Best Seller
To be fair it can multi-task better ;)
now people can joke about intel mainstream processors being room heaters instead of the AMD ones
LUL
lmao
What happened if we put it inside the Bitfenix Enso?
cuz is clock higher most amd cpu barely touch 4.2ghz
FX-9590: Intel Edition
Yupp
@Almir Preldzic
lmao wtf are you even on about? it's a joke you half-wit.
Oh... and btw.... perpetuating the NPC meme simply makes you an NPC in a roundabout way.
What's the definition of the meme? "group of people who say whatever someone else says." or "people who only say what they're told to say." right?
Question is, did you make the NPC meme up?... or was that idea implanted somehow? I mean, unless you made it up, you're simply parroting someone else's rhetoric... aka you're being an NPC :)
have a nice day!
B Thiel Think you missed the part where he was just being sarcastic
@@notahuman369 FX does exit
www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz.html
We most remember it mistakes so in the future we don't make them again, AMD have learned from it that's why "zen" had a 52% IPC improvement over FX series.
Intel in other hand didn't learn anything from there's mistakes... Computex 2018 misleading 28C 56T xeon platinum 8180, now rebrand Intel xeon w3175x, benchmarks order to PT and yet again trying to mislead people to believe that i9 9900k its 30~60% faster that R7 2700x that in reality its only about 9%ish...
If you live in Siberia, this 9900k is a god send.
Serbia is shit though
@UnknownUser I like how you're too stupid to realize they said "Siberia" and not "Serbia".
@@notahuman369 they're both shit holes, kid 🤣
@UnknownUser At first, I thought I liked you because of how stupid you are for not realizing they said Siberia... But now I like you because it's obvious that you're also too stupid to catch the joke. I wonder what else you're too stupid for? I think we should try to find out because there may not be a limit!
@@xCynder get laid anime virgins 😂
11:32 OUT OF BOX THERMALS
ruclips.net/video/c3PnOsdDPWY/видео.html
WRONG CHANNEL!!! :p
the meme is now supported by all official Modmat enabled channels.
This is excellent news.
Oh, so i wasn't the only one who noticed.
WP Intel you just sold a Ryzen 2700x
Wow 98C christ, the code name for these should have been "napalm lake"
*Can't wait to upgrade to ZEN 2 next year.* 😁
Same from my 6700k
Going to upgrade my 1700 when Ryzen 2 comes out. Should be a nice upgrade. Be nice to just flash the bios on the MoBo and drop the chip in. Won't need a new MoBo. When was the last time you could do that?
Can't imagine there will be any noticeable difference between Zen2 and 8700k at 1440p. Right now 1440p is pretty much all about the GPU I can't imagine that will change next year.
I know right!? Zen 2 will be my second AMD chip since the fx-8350. I'm currently running a 4790k but it's about time I went back to the red side.
@danmandingo mood
I'll file this Item in the bad investment folder next to RTX
2018: year of overpriced and over hyped crap!
The right RTX card is actually really good. I don't regret getting my RTX 2080 and RTX 2060. Now, the 2080ti, yeah Nvidia can keep that.
@@Mike_Jones281Well in hindsight, the 1080 Ti was the legendary purchase.
Im enjoying my 2600X which is a few FPS slower than the 2700X, and the 2700X is a few FPS slower than the 8700k. But my 2600X is about half the price of the 8700K!!! Keep up the great work Steve and Tim!!
Seems inlet is struggling to keep up with the demand. The cheapest i7 8700K i found was 320, 3 months back. Now they go as high as 550. The i9 9900K goes as high as 700.
And in gaming performance the 8700K and 9900K are identical in performance, if you run them both at the same clocks.
DeadPhoenix86 i bought my 8700k for around 410$ (europe shipping and taxes=higer prices) but now 8700k costs around 650$ here. 9900k is 860$ xD
2018: years of overpriced hardware release.
Except Ryzen of course.
@Almir Preldzic fucking hell that's cheap.
@Almir Preldzic Thank god i paid 350 for the i7 8700K. Now they go as high as 550. The 2700x is around 330.
Ryzen 2700 is $220 right now at Microcenter if you buy a Mobo, at least at my local store. Looks like a pretty sweet deal.
@Almir Preldzic Wtf and how tf.
Almir Preldzic Wish we could say the same about Radeon
Intel is so desperate they took the now-outdated 14nm design and pushed it so far it could literally burn a house down. AMD is now taking over the CPU throne.
75 degrees with 1.36 volts @4.9ghz on all 8 cores.....that's less heat than Ryzen 2700X at 4.3ghz....if you can Actualy manage to keep it stable at 4.3ghz lol.
I can only assume you mean AMD taking the budget builders crown.
AMD would need to actually make a faster mainstream cpu than intel to take the throne
as much as i shame intel for this release, the 8700k was already a faster gamer than amd's best offering. AMD fans are always trying to use the unreleased "next gen" product to compare to intel's current release... Sorry doesn't work that way, you can only compare zen2 to cannon lake.. 2700x is the best there is to compare to 9900k, and 9900k is much faster.
@@jookya2 if you cant compare amds next gen to Intel this gen, them you cant compare intel this gen to amd last gen.
@@whit3chick3n umm 2700x is this gen until they release a new one
You should've put Colgate vs solder in the thumbnail, haha, would've been much more fitting for Intel's previous gen processors too
You're right, opportunity missed 😢
Lol “colgate lake”, anyone?
@@rollinroy1841 Fits Intel perfectly! Though, I'd like to add an edit:
"Colgate* lake
*With 14nm++++++++ abrasive crystals for tooth - whitening!"
hah.
This remembers me of the Pentium 4 Extreme Editions, as they were Intel's desperate attempt to stay competitive. They were really, expensive, consumed a lot of power and didn't offer anything new to the table. AMD could easily beat the Intel crap back in the day. As Zen 2 is right around the corner I wonder if AMD can repeat this story? What do you think?
AMD will surely regain much of the market share they lost in the previous years. I LIVE for the day it will be 50/50 as back in 2006.
... 50/50 ...?
it was 75% intel / 25% AMD at the peak... not even close to 50/50 and never has been.
@@notahuman369 thinkcomputers.org/for-the-first-time-in-10-years-amd-takes-cpu-market-share-from-intel/
I beg to differ. Website has a graph showing AMD and Intel cpu share neck and neck back in 2006
But then will Intel pull another core 2 duo after that? :p
@@wangkevin3431 at that time Intel have the P3 architecture instead of Prescott that enables them easier, and faster R&D as they based Conroe on P3 (I couldn't remember the architecture name) which is already used on their laptop processors (again, their laptop processors skip prescott).
Edit: This time, unless they somehow made a breakthrough in Mesh design (which they failed before, hi skylake-x), I don't think their current ring bus design would be able to scale more than 8 cores
I feel much warmer now watching this video
Solder vs Steve's blood, sweat and tears next?
The blood of the gods will always be better than the puny human metal!
My blood before or after the PT benchmark report? It matters if we are concerned about temp 😆
savage
BTW Blood, sweat and tears is from BTS...
The latest i9 reeks of the same desperation Intel had during the last of the Netburst Pentium IV releases. Pushing clock speeds to the max - thermals and price/value be damned. I think Intel realizes that they can't really move ahead without transitioning to the newer smaller process, but that AMD is about 5 years ahead of them on transitioning and getting solid yields. This will allow AMD to continue growing frequency and IPC while offering a significantly higher value proposition (98% of the performance in specific workloads, better performance in others like highly threaded, at less than 30-50% of the overall cost of an Intel system). We're looking at a repeat of the Athlon 64 versus the Pentium IV and slapped together Core 2 lineup.
Squiggly667 Intel has fabrication while AMD doesn’t , so AMD is fabless so they don’t have to worry about R&D for processors node since TSMC has it taken care of while Intel spends billions and billions trying to get 10nm out , they should go fabless and use TSMC 7nm to be more competitive , 14nm to 7nm is from 1inch to 0.5 inch.
@@Felixthecatfan21 but to be honest Intel fab is the best for their processor. You have to give them credit for stretching 14nm for so long.
Except the performance is actually there, unlike Pentium 4.
@@MrWillypanda88 in a way yes but the lack of competition until last year made them complacent.
@@billytaj7708 yeah. The 10nm fiasco was never supposed to happen. They're getting to comfort for their own good
Hasn't the top of the line consumer processors from Intel been getting progressively hotter for awhile now?
That's what happens when Intel gets AMD 🔥 on their ass
I’m so darn glad that my name isn’t too looong, that’s what happens when you stretch the manufacturing node to the limit, without a shrink to 10nm for example you don’t get efficiency improvements so the only way to get better performance on the same process without a significant architecture change is bigger die and increase power so more heat. Bigger die also mean less yield so much higher prices.
@@backupplan6058 They really have no choice in the matter. 10nm was supposed to be out ages ago, but they were far too aggressive with the node density hence the 14nm+++++ meme.
thats what happens when you get stuck on the same node for a few years! This is basically what happened to the FX processers before Ryzen came out! AMD couldn't improve the node so they just kept adding frequency with minor tweaks till they required so much power that they basically became space heaters lol
I just bought 1 as kitchen stove, it works great !! 👍🏻
Thermal testing Intel's CPUs. That deserves a like.
So, basically Intel really push this cpu to the limit because of Ryzen. I mean 4.7 Ghz all cores is no joke after all.
I wonder how much that chip had to be binned
Steve i want to replace my aging combi boiler would the i9 9900k be a good replacement ? Is the trade off between gas usage to electricity usage worth it? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Not without delidding as you can't get the heat out efficiently enough at stock. :p
Absolutely its eco-friendly
Now that's a real open loop! I mean sure to keep your PC cool you gotta take showers once the tank starts to heat up but that doesn't sound so bad
you deserve 2 mill subs, this is the most proffessional and fun hardware channel.
Price of the i9 9900k - $680ish (Doesn't come with a cooler and looking at these thermals, the minimum you should get is a 240-280mm AIO cooler
Price of the Ryzen 7 2700x: $304 (With frequent sales and good deals on the used market, and already comes with a fantastic cooler (with RGB ;)) (Side note: Boards are also WAY cheaper and AMD processors run just fine on the sub $130 B450 platform)
Alright, so let me get this straight, you're paying 224% more for the 9900k, Barely getting even a 40% increase in most areas (especially games), AND you probably should buy a more expensive ($150+) Z390 board because of the better VRMS which could lead to better thermals? Laughable... Can an Intel fan please explain to me why this or the i7 9700k is a good buy? I'll be waiting.
Side note (AGAIN): The Ryzen 7 2700x even with the stock cooler offers better thermals OVERCLOCKED than the i9 9900k at stock.
Intel NPC fanboys .... activate!!!
I can sense them. They are getting closer lmao. Only a matter of time
I’m curious why people don’t go for maximum burn and use a R7 2700 for comparison - sure the cooler’s not as good and it requires more manual tuning but the further savings on the wallet...
Good point. If that were the case there really wouldn't be any point in buying the 9900k at all unless you're building a balls-to-the-walls gaming pc.
Dude, I love your channel. We can get results anywhere, but you don't get the Hardware Unboxed personality anywhere else. I love that you can be a smartass, but in a way that is fun xD. You tell it like it is, and I admire that. This is my #1 tech channel because you cover great topics, and you are a wonderful host. The perfect mix of jaded and humor.
Here are my Core i9-9900k temperature testing results - I figured I would add this to the body of knowledge being shared.
I have the my i9-9900k overclocked using Asus's AI overclocker tuner and Q-Fan auto fan control on an Asus ROG Maximus XI Formula Motherboard and using a beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 4 CPU Cooler installed using Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut thermal grease.
During a Blender 1.0 Beta 2 Quick Benchmark, the CPU cores/threads remained maxed out at 100%. The total runtime was 14.42.23 minutes. The CPU cores stayed at 4.9 GHz (+0.002/-0.005 GHz) on all cores the entire run. VCore mostly stayed at 1.172 V with a 1.234 V peak. Max package power was 171 W. Maximum core temps ranged from a low of 81° C on core #7 to 89° C on core #2. The ambient temp was around 22° C. The chassis fans maxed out at various speeds ranging from 874 rpm to 927 rpm. I could hear them running, but the noise was not too bad. The 135 mm CPU fan maxed out at 1498 rpm. HWMonitor is not reporting the speed of the 120mm CPU fan, which is plugged into the CPU_OPT header, but I am assuming it was running around 2200 rpm, which I understand to be its max speed.
I also ran Prime95 v. 29.4, build 8, Windows 64 bit for about 30 minutes on "Blend" and "Torture Test" to run 16 threads. Again, the CPU stayed at 4.9 GHz the entire run. VCore mostly stayed at 1.208 V with a 1.234 V peak. Max package power was 113 W. The CPU cores mostly hovered between 59° C and 64° C, with a Max of 71° C being reported in HWMonitor. I could barely hear the system running. One of the front case fans is plugged into the water block pin header for now until I get a fan splitter cable, so that one runs at 915 rpm for now. The other case fans ran between 730 and 800 rpm. The 135mm CPU fan ran at about 1025 rpm. I am assuming the 120mm fan was running less than its max rpm.
Unfortunately, HWMonitor does not seem to report the VRM temperatures on my motherboard. Nonetheless, I did not detect any thermal throttling during the tests while continuing to watch the core speeds in the HWMontitor UI, and the minimum core speeds measured by HWMonitor was 4.895 GHz.
System:
MB: Asus ROG Maximus XI Formula
CPU: Core i9-9900k
RAM: G.SKILL F4-3600C16D-16GVK
Primary/Boot SSD: Intel Optane 900p 280 GB
Case: Fractal Design Define S2 TG with two additional Dynamic X2 GP-14 fans in the top two rear fans slots.
GPU: Gigabyte AORUS Radeon RX 580 8GB
Power Supply: Seasonic PRIME Ultra 850W Titanium
(Note: I don't need the VRM water block on the Formula, but I could not find the Maximus XI Code in stock anywhere and grew impatient waiting. I use the RX 580 because I have 5 displays, and I don't use the system for gaming - the RX 580 is the only newer generation video card I could find that supports 5 displays.)
@HardwareUnboxed 11:05 I am FAR from a "Mad enthusiast with deep pockets" - the Rockit 88 costs $35, and makes delidding and relidding child's play! No Lab Coat BS involved. My 8700k was my first ever delid, and it was 100% worth it! Dropped some 15° C in Prime95 while going up 200 MHZ core and cache. And it was EASY to do!
Where I live, the 9900k costs 35% more than the 8700k, runs hotter and is harder to overclock. Thank you Intel?
... because it's an i9 ...
The i7 9700K is $375... About $6 more than the 8700K.
9900k needs a beefier motherboard too
Is "because it's an i9" supposed to be some sort of argument? 9900k is clearly made for gaming, and it's a worse buy than the year old 8700k. If you're not aiming for gaming, buy a Ryzen or a Threadripper. And don't mention 9700k; +2 cores but -4 threads *and* it runs warmer as well. More of a sidegrade than an upgrade.
Uh, yeah? You're comparing apples and oranges when you reference the price of an i9 vs the price of an i7. You might as well be complaining that the i7 8700K is 40% more expensive than the i5 8600K. Compare the i7 9700K price vs the i7 8700K price, then you're looking at a $5 difference.
Or, do you make a habit of cherry picking your comparisons just to get yourself riled up?
Alright. You're in the market for a new gaming CPU. You can buy a 8700k for €450 or a 9900k for €600. Give me a scenario where the 9900k is worth the premium over the 8700k.
(And you can't say programming/rendering/etc, there are way better CPU:s than the 9900k for that thanks to AMD.) - Go!
I fell in love with the thumbnail, u guys sure becoming more and more creative @ creating better content.
Steve+Tim=STIM
However Steve, did you ACTUALLY use percentage to indicate a difference in temperature? Please, don't do that, it makes absolutely no sense (unless you start using Kelvin, but would still make little sense)
celcius is linear just like kelvin.... 0c = 273k 100c = 373k
@@SpecialKthx Celsius is RELATIVE.
What do you get when you go from 0°C to 1°C? OMG INFINITE% HOTTER
Percentages for temperature differences make no sense.
My Intel i9-9900K and overclocking over 4.7 GHz are under 60 degrese Celsius in extreamly preformance game. It is not hot or warm. I love the CPU but I have I 3 big fans to cool down the CPU and they are watercooled.
Yes same here 25 idle and 58 ad 3dmark and games not hot ad all
Just asking but the liquid metal amount was waaaaay too much in the demonstration right? (I believe it was just b-roll and not an actual aplication)
My biggest takeaway from this is actually that when matching specs, 8th and 9th gen chips are exactly the same. Same power usage, same performance.
Intel did nothing but slap on a couple cores, tweaked stock frequencies and voltages, slapped some solder on it and selling it as a refresh.
That reeks of desperation.
im on a i5 3570K ... im planning to get a i5 9600K so the only improvement from last gen for this processor is a soldered TIM?
I honestly think that they Soldered this cpu , because with the stock paste put on previous genereations , the pc won't even Boot ( 8c/16t) !
@4:10 didn't GN ditch solder v.s. paste test as a serious test because of different die sizes leading to different thermal density no matter the core config?
They can do what ever they like. I said it wasn't a super scientific test, but it was interesting so I shared the data.
Can you run the 9900k at 2700x stock speeds to see if theres much of a performance difference?
I think it's because they have reached the limits of this process node. The 9900K teeters on the ragged of the power delivery capabilities of the boards, and it's likely that the surface area of the IHS is inadequate to dissipate the heat generated by eight cores, especially with SMT. Insufficient surface area = insufficient heat dissipation. So with the 7700K delidding was a good idea for heavy OC. With the 8700K it was mandatory. And with the 9900K you need premium cooling just to run it at stock speeds. This is what happens when you underestimate the competition and simultaneously struggle to move your own products to a smaller process.
man I was going crazy thinking I made some dum mistake that was causing my rig to get so hot, I'm glad It's just the cooling solution because that I can fix! :)
Overpriced CPU, beefy motherboard, massive cooler.
A complete fiasco!
LMAO. GOOD LUCK TO INTEL FANBOYS!
lol . 6700k > 2700x in games . THIS IS FIASCO !
_Only poor people have no money for expensive Hardware!_
LUL
@@eiszapfenderwutendenwinde3233 Only rich suckers have money for worthless expensive hardware. I'm so sorry. ;)
@@overclockedlife7550 lmfao The 9900k is 599.00 quid....Excatly the same price as the 1800x was at launch lmfao....you AMD peasants have very short memories all of a sudden lol...
@@maydaygoingdown5602 Ryzen 1700 = Ryzen 1800X
Just OC the 1700. At least AMD has launched the cheaper alternative.
I have a very Deep pocket but don't have money for Intel.
XD
Thanks I will stick with AMD
I too have a deep pockets... of air
I have some delidded early 00s xeons with solder. I might go measure the thicknesses and compare to Roman's findings. These chips are less than half the modern cpu die sizes too, something intel always claimed was no good for soldering, that is dies too small tend to crack the solder.
wasn't the case on these 2 I have.
do that,also they delidded these "soldered" cpus on GN with the rockit88 which is made of plastic.no one needed to heat the IHS like with old soldered cpus or ryzen.so i call bs.
Roman showed that it just sheers the solder off on the 9th gen using his tool. It's really thick and soft what intel used this time and seems to give way pretty easy, there was no heating when he removed it.
As for my xeons, both broke, one even sheered the silicon in half sideways and that's got less than half the surface area adhering it compared to 9th gen. This solder is not much softer than normal electronics tin/lead solder. So it could be very well they used something much softer/thicker compared to the past.
@@3800S1 yeah he even sanded the silicon since it was thicker and that hurt temps too,very strange stuff going on.
Well I just measured these old soldered xeons. I got the same die thickness as Roman but the solder layer was 0.25mm, about half of the specs Roman measured. And actually the die area isn't much smaller than the 9900k, it just looks smaller as the xeon I have has a square die.
that thumbnail is worthy of being a surreal meme.
honestly idk if its just really cold in my room, but i recently just upgraded to a 9900k from a 8700k im running 5ghz@1.32v on all cores stable under max load my 9900k never hits 80c where as my 8700k would be around 85c-87c @5ghz, the thing is im still using my previous gen mobo and one of my vrms seems to get a bit hot for my liking, it gets to around 90c
I have a Noctua NH D-15 cooling my AMD 9590 @5ghz. Even rendering video in Camtasia for 20 minutes I don't get 50C. To hear it failed to cool this chip is absolutely amazing.
I9 9900K 1.35V - 1.38V Cinebench 85- 89c, Prime95 95c & Realbench 88c!! When gaming 70's, so in that case safe temps!! But dam Intel, your making it more challenging for us Overclockers to OC with confidence 💪
I need help picking a cpu:
I9-9900K vs i7-9700k vs i7-8700k.
I am mostly concerned about gaming performance and temps. As well as lack of hyper threading in i7.
Please make a THERMALS TEST, including gaming temps- comparing all of these CPUs!
If I was going to build a gaming only rig, I would get the 9700k.
@@m8x425 thanks. Can you explain why that exactly? I am really concerned about the temps of 9th gen. But since I don't build often, I am willing to spend extra money. So if "price wasn't an issue" would you get the i9-9900k or i7-9700k?
The fact the i7 is missing it's Hyper Threading is a big let down, and makes the decision harder. But the high temps is even worse.
First thing's First, if you're going to run the CPU at stock speeds then you will have nothing to worry about with the temps provided that you pick a good CPU cooler and the case has good airflow.
I'll give you a mess of information so hopefully this will help you make a choice that's right for you. If you're not going to get to this build until 6 months from now then it might be worth it to wait for Zen2 if the rumors are true. The only concern with waiting is AMD related releases come with a lot of hype and release dates have a tendency of getting pushed back. Also, be aware that the 9900k will most likely be the best you can do for the 1151/300series platform. Intel's 10nm Ice Lake will most likely require a new motherboard. If you're in dire need of a new gaming rig or upgrade then yes, go with Intel.
I would be in favor of an 8086k or 8700k if you can save a fair amount on your budget. For a straight up gaming rig, an 8700k paired with a better GPU is going to beat the 9700k with an inferior GPU in gaming. The i5-9600k with an RTX 2080 or GTX 1080ti is still going to beat a gaming rig with the 8th or 9th Gen i7 and an RTX 2070 or GTX 1080.
Obviously the temps of 8th gen i7 processors like the 8086k and 8700k aren't that good to begin with because of the TIM between the IHS and the CPU die. As you can see in this video with the i9, the temps are only slightly better at an overclocked speed of 5.0ghz. The only workaround with the 8th Gen chips is they can be delidded easily. Hyperthreading will add to the temps so the i7-9700k might be a little bit more manageable at 5.0ghz.
I would also be willing to speculate that the i7-9700k should have a more refined memory controller which should give it the ability to handle higher memory speeds. I had both a 6700k and a 7700k. I sold off the 6700k. The 6700k didn't handle faster memory speeds very well when it was overclocked to 4.7ghz. On the other hand my 7700k was perfectly fine with running faster XMP profiles while it was overclocked to 5.1ghz -2 AVX offset. The IMC is often overlooked though, and in some cases getting one with a good IMC is part of the Silicon lottery.
The reason I would pick a 9700k over the 8086k/8700k is because the STIM is going to be a little but better than the TIM paste. Also the 9700k has a better Turbo clock profile which is the biggest selling point for me. The 9700k should do at least 4.6ghz with all 8 cores up and running. The 8086k and 8700k both do around 4.3ghz with all cores pushed.
What I didn't see in this video, or maybe I missed it, was the use of AVX2 offsets. When I've overclocked my 7700k and 8700k I usually use AVX offset -2. My 7700k can do 5.1ghz AVX offset -2 at around 1.35v, and my 8700k can do 5.2ghz AVX offset -2 at 1.32v. So If I run a stress test like the newer version of Prime95 with my 8700k, my clock speeds will only go to 5.0ghz. I have to stress test with something like Prime95 v26.6 which doesn't use the newer AVX/AVX2 instruction sets.
Sadly, I need to delid my 8700k if I want to run it at 5.2ghz 24/7, but I can run it at 5.1ghz -2 AVX offset and the temps are manageable while running a stress test. As far as the Silicon Lottery goes, I did well with the 8700k so I have no reason to buy a 9th Gen chip. If I had a poor 8700k that needed more than 1.35v to obtain 5.0ghz -2 AVX offset then I would think about the 9700k myself.
In other benchmarks I have seen, the 9700k trades blows with the 8700k/8086k in workstation related tasks so far.
I would be willing to wager that Silicon Lottery might offer a delidded/relidded 9th Gen processors, provided that they can delid and relid efficiently. Of course the extra labor charge would get passed on to the consumer. SL does offer a 1 year warranty on the processors they sell. I would suggest checking SL out. If you have access to Amazon's Prime Now, I would suggest checking that out too since sometimes there are hidden Gems on there.
The CPU temps in gaming are never as high as what you see in these Stress tests. Usually you can get by with a reasonable CPU cooler, while using a case with good airflow and you'll be fine. When I say reasonable, I mean a Scythe Fuma or Mugen 5, not a 212 or H5. The only thing to watch out for is if the BIOS/UEFI on the motherboard will try to auto-overclock the CPU to the all core Turbo speed. These boards have a tendency of overvolting the CPU with things like Multi-Core Enhancement or Gaming Mode which leads to higher temps.
It runs at 13.6volts @4.9ghz on all cores at a steady 75 degrees....that's very good not hot.
It's only when you put 4.5 volts through it gets too hot.
I posted this comment two days ago on der8auers video. I guess we were thinking the same thing.
Maybe it is because the soldering process. Thicker die so that the risk of damaging the CPU from the heat application when automating the soldering process is lower? Could be a tolerance issue or a manufacturering impact as well.
So liquid metal works actually be better than intel solder? I'll be curious to see the 9600k vs a delided 8600k with LM.
Can it handle 5Ghz all-core turbo on stock voltages and does it thermal throttle if it does?
9900k is like that one person in your family that you want to pretend that they dont exist, but still there .
Hi is the stock results here all boost 4.7 or what does the cpu do under blender?
Can I make a suggestion for content? One is more a thought experiment: for the first time we have 2 competing 8C16T CPUs (which are both soldered), lock a 2700X and the 9900K to say 4.1GHz all core and rerun the productivity and gaming (@2560p) benchmarks. This would give us an indication of how they compare with regard to performance, power and temperatures, and how far AMD needs to go with regard to IPC to catch up.
The second content piece is comparing the 9900K to a 2950X, as they are both a similar price (at least in the UK) and have similar temperature characteristics. Obviously the 9900K will be vastly superior in games at lower resolutions, but when you hit 2560p, it would be interesting to see how much they differ, given the 2950X's superior(?) productivity aspects, and how close they are in cpu/platform cost
Steve. CMIIW but isn't the heat issue is also because ringbus architecture is already at the limit, core-count wise. I mean, you can only connect so many cores in one ring, 8 seems to be the limit (at least in 14 nm)
We've seen 10 core ring bus CPUs that worked just fine.
Please make a gaming thermal test with something like h115i Pro mounted on the top. Without messing with the cores or deliding them.
This is really good information however what’s the max temp that is acceptable for everyday use(gaming, streaming and editing)? I’m getting a i9 9900k and I would like to OC but need more information on what I should be aim for safe temperature wise.
I just built a 9900k system and oh yeah, this thing is HOT. So hot when I overclocked it the frequency actually went DOWN! Maybe I'm doing something wrong, I dunno. This platform is new to me and I'm still learning. But last time I checked, when you overclock a cpu that runs 3.6ghz stock, it shouldn't drop to 3.3ghz on cinebench AFTER the overclock when the cache frequency in the bios clearly says it's running at 4.6ghz.
Probably AVX offset. -3 is normal.
Now this is some great journalism. 👍
Do AMD have a better soldering process, or do they have the active circuitry closed to the IHS inside the die?
It appears AMD's solder is actually better for thermal conductivity. Though that maybe because their die is thinner and silicium is not the best thermal conductor.
How is the i7 9700K handling temperatures?
Could you tell me what cooler you used for the i7-8086k & i9-9900K here, please?
It's the open loop 360mm setup featured in the day one content.
Hardware Unboxed thanks for the response!
Another question please, would the Noctua D15 air cooler be sufficient enough to cool an i7-8086K on Stock clocks? And how well can it handle Overclocking?
Running on a recently delidded 3770k (within the last 6 months) @ 4.6 Ghz, I was really hoping I wouldn't have to delid my next CPU to get good OCing temps. I've been really impressed with AMD's Ryzen (looking forward Ryzen 2 in 2019) and am tempted to jump to the red team for my next build sometime next year. I game @ 1440p with a 1080 Ti, but would really like more cores/threads, native usb 3.0/3.1, NVME support, etc. of a new platform. AMD may be in my future as, sadly, Intel seems to be grasping at straws due to resting on their laurels for the last few generations.
Is that really the best voltage you were able to get? One of the 8086k's here is doing 5.2ghz@ 1.29v and is stable in prime for 2hrs
Yes... silicon lottery bud. That's the best both 9900K chips that I have can do. My 8700K is also better.
Doesn't Intel void warranty if you overclock manually like in bios?
im wondering if the high temps are bugs in the mobo bios. i mean they are on first iteration of 9th gen support... i find it highly unlikely that temps went way up with soldered lids
What I found most interesting is that performance was much worse on the Z370 board. That’s not getting much play but I think it’s a pretty big thing for anyone considering a drop in upgrade.
You think I can build in the i9 9900 k in the nzxt s340 elite with the kraken?
So, if I wanna make a bonfire here on Halloween, I can just run this thing with IBT instead and that would unlock the gates of hell?
1:37 That INSANE trigger moment for people in the comment section haha.
Gets them every time.
Will 10nm be ready to answer the 7nm Zen2? I somehow doubt it.
Think you might have a hotter than normal chip and 1.35v is crazy high. I wouldn't say I have a great chip but it hits 5ghz at 1.28v @ 78c under stress testing. I admit I have a dual 360 rad custom loop but when you spend this kind of money on a chip cooling it efficiency should be in the budget. I was able to overclock to 5.2ghz at 1.32v but the temps were in the high 80s and couple cores were hitting mid 90s. I personally am happy with a 5ghz all core overclock temps are manageable, and the difference between 5 and 5.2ghz wasn't enough for me to justify the higher heat and potentially shorter life span of the CPU.
I'm curious why your review had more issues with thermals. Watching other reviews among your peer group of Tech Reviewers, I don't see anyone else with a similar alarmist view as you do with the thermals. Would be nice to hear a consistent opinion. I am building a new PC, but planned on using a good 240mm cooler which in your opinion, won't suffice.
Not sure who you are watching but all the channels and tech sites we follow were concerned about the operating temperature.
I agree each commented on the thermals, but your statement was the strongest, which I take seriously as everyone should if true. (IE: paraphrasing - If you're going to OC, 240mm won't get it). I wasn't challenging the validity of your statement. I'm just wondering why it's not at the top of the talking points. I myself made a change going to 360mm Eisaber, but even with it, I'm not sure how far I'll get. tnx
My comments are based on the testing data, not sure what else to tell you. If you think 100c at 5 GHz is okay then so be it. I'm not the only one showing results like these and I feel they are too hot.
My god no. I want my system to last more than a year. 100c is a no go except for a single test. I'm looking for a safe operating temp for daily use. I'm very conservative as is. My current 5930K only runs all cores at 4ghz, but stays between 35 - 60 depending on what I'm doing. I appreciate the testing you've done so far. It's been helpful.
I don't get it. Jay said in his video that he was in the low 80's with just a 240mm aio and this with 5ghz overclocks. How was that even possible?
Hey Steve, It would be really cool if you could do a gaming CPU round up for E-sports games with the new 9th gen CPUs in the ix. I know there are plenty of people like myself that always play on lowest graphics settings all the time and just need the best fps. Thanks if you read this.
You would think with these temps would do better on those firestrike benchmarks!
I guess the Verge will need Oven mitts to add to tweezers and Swiss Army knife for their updated i9 9900k system build! ♨️
I would love to see a cost benefit analysis between this gpu and a Ryzen 7 2700 with fast ram, mb and suitable cooler to overclock the he'll out of it.
Then compare it with minimum components required to get a reliable turbo out of the i9 then do a performance/cost between the two setups. ☺
Seeing so many different overclocking results is discouraging. Guru3D tested it at 5.2Ghz and theirs didn't exceed 85C. "We hit 80~85 Degrees C on the package sensor at 5200 MHz / 1.325V" also WCCFTech tested theirs at 5.3 GHz With 1.367V and that one never exceeded 89C. Corsair AIOs nothing special. 9700K might be the better CPU for gaming though, Anandtech had theirs at 5.3Ghz "For the Core i7-9700K, we hit 5.3 GHz very easily, for a small bump in power and temperature." that one never exceeded 84C either.
And Derbauer couldn't even get 5GHz. His topped at 4.8...
My guess is that all reviewers are using different motherboard, and some motherboards are overvolting more than they are reporting creating this discrepancies, i hope a reviewer could try multiple motherboards to see if he can prove this.
I heard overclocking your K model voids your warranty anyways, not sure about this, but I did read it somewhere
I'm building a new PC, i want to buy i9 9900k with Corsair Hydro Series H150i PRO RGB. Will there be big problems with temperatures? Whay do you think? Is it worth buying it?
Hey Steve, how come Linus' temp/power draw results are considerably lower than every other review I've seen?
Because me messed up ;) They don't seem to care though.
A french company(?) was selling amd systems as room heaters. Now they can sell premium intel room heaters.
I'm planning to buy 9700k and overclock that chip with the Phanteks TC14PE so I hope it is good enough the handle to heat
Good stuff steve!
Next time someone buys an i9 9900K from Amazon, in the "Frequenty bought together" tab, you'll have the CPU, motherboard, and a fire extinguisher.
its a rebranded server part never meant to exceed 2ghz while hovering around 1.5ghz on all cores
Hardware Unboxed, can you please do a clock for clock comparison?? both @ 4.2ghz
I see a lot of people comparing the 9900k to the FX-9590 regarding its power usage and heat.
Yeah, they are both hot. But one the big difference is that the Intel at least returns you performance for that heat/power cost, unlike the FX.
To make it a better room heater, you need to delid and sand the cpu down so that hot air can travel better through the metal
can I use 9700k without OC with cheap cooler like cnps10x optima?
same question
XTU not have AVX2 and others is Istrutions high,please stress test with OCCT with Linpack AVX and 9900k at 5.1 GHz BOOMMM of 8 cores
I don't use XTU, I used a complex Blender workload.
"TIM SOLDER". Like Tin soldier? Nice one Steve.
It’s cooler than my 7700k, and at 200mhz higher overclock 👍 (5.0 vs 4.8)
Intel: "we make the best 8 core CPU!"
Steve : "But, what it cost?"
Intel :"Everything"
Steve, the singular of GHz is still GigaHertz, not GigaHert ;)
SI Units usually don't do the plural thing. It's 1 Volt and it's 2 Volt. Only English speakers add a plural-s to SI units. So the plural actually should be GigaHertzes.
GN didn’t really mention the temperature in his video. In his live overclock stream he also didn’t really talk much about it. People who buy it will be fine.
Please do a 9900K @5.1 GHz vs 8700K @5.1 GHz low resolution gaming benchmarks. If both CPUs are OCed, is 9900K even any faster at all?
It all just seems that they were forced to use solder tim. Since even while using liquid metal the drop only around 5 degree Celcius.
Why is it so hot? because they pushed the clocks as high as possible because of ryzen looking like a significantly better option.
Why do i love this thumbnail so much
I dont know if im crazy or if im missing something but i find it really weird that Intel didn't leave the i7 part at 6 cores and 12 threads. Aside from the obvious reasons this is suss, surely a true six core part with solder would have performed better than a non hyperthreaded 8 core part which is clearly thermally constrained.
I'll stick with my 2013 Ivy Bridge 6/12 core 4960k with its 40 pcie lanes for my gtx 1080 sli rig for now.