[TECHSPOT] Do we need to re-review the Core i9-9900K? - Page 2 - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

[TECHSPOT] Do we need to re-review the Core i9-9900K?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #11 of 77 (permalink) Old 11-08-2018, 11:54 AM
sudo apt install sl
WannaBeOCer is an unknown quantity at this point WannaBeOCer is an unknown quantity at this point
 
WannaBeOCer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,806
Quote: Originally Posted by LancerVI View Post
Please understand; I'm not saying you're wrong, I just thought it important to note the rest of what he said. Having said that, Intel surely knows what's going on. They bifurcated their TDP into two specifications and they can't have it both ways at the same time. One spec to make their cpus look more efficient. Another to make it the fastest cpu around. I maybe over simplifying it, but essentially, that is what they've done. I don't think you can lay ALL of the blame on mobo manufactures.
Intel never advertised all core boost to be 4.7Ghz. From their spec sheet we see 3.6Ghz base clock and 5Ghz boost on 1 single core. Asus setting the TDP limit as default on their board it's apparent that it's a motherboard manufacturer's choice.

https://ark.intel.com/products/18660...p-to-5-00-GHz-

Maximus
(18 items)
CPU
Core i7 6700K 4.8Ghz @ 1.4v
Motherboard
Maximus VIII Formula
GPU
Radeon RX VEGA 64 @ 1750/1105Mhz with 1175Mv
RAM
G-Skill 32GB 3200Mhz
Hard Drive
Samsung 850 Evo 2TB Raid 0
Power Supply
EVGA SuperNova 1200w P2
Cooling
EK Supremacy Full Copper Clean
Cooling
EK-FC Radeon Vega
Cooling
XSPC D5 Photon v2
Cooling
Black Ice Gen 2 GTX360 x2
Case
Thermaltake Core X5 Tempered Glass Edition
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro
Monitor
Acer XF270HUA
Keyboard
Cherry MX Board 6.0
Mouse
Logitech G600
Mouse
Alugraphics GamerArt
Audio
Definitive Technology Incline
Audio
SMSL M8A
▲ hide details ▲
WannaBeOCer is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 77 (permalink) Old 11-08-2018, 12:16 PM - Thread Starter
Indentified! On the Way!!
LancerVI is an unknown quantity at this point LancerVI is an unknown quantity at this point
 
LancerVI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,472
Quote: Originally Posted by WannaBeOCer View Post
Intel never advertised all core boost to be 4.7Ghz. From their spec sheet we see 3.6Ghz base clock and 5Ghz boost on 1 single core. Asus setting the TDP limit as default on their board it's apparent that it's a motherboard manufacturer's choice.

https://ark.intel.com/products/18660...p-to-5-00-GHz-
This is what I'm talking about. Address this comment if you would please.

Quote:
Essentially then Intel has two seperate specifications for their high-end CPUs, a TDP limited specification that they loosely define or a clock multiplier table specification, and enabling one means it’s impossible to achieve the other. The TDP limit means you won’t reached the intended all-core clock speed while the clock multiplier table spec means you’re running well above the TDP.
LancerVI is offline  
post #13 of 77 (permalink) Old 11-08-2018, 12:24 PM
New to Overclock.net
Telimektar Level 1
 
Telimektar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: France
Posts: 1,460
It reminds me of this video about the same issue with Coffee Lake :


My System
(15 items)
CPU
4790K
Motherboard
Asus Z97 Pro
GPU
Sapphire Radeon R9 290 4GB Tri-X
RAM
16GB GSkil 2133MHz
Hard Drive
Seagate 2TB 2000DM001
Hard Drive
Seagate 3TB 3000DM001
Optical Drive
Plextor PX891SA
Power Supply
Corsair TX750W
Cooling
NH-C12P
Case
Lancool K62
Operating System
Windows 7 64bit
Monitor
Iiyama XB2783HSU
Keyboard
Microsoft Digital Media Keyboard 3000
Mouse
Logitech G500
Audio
Xonar DX
▲ hide details ▲
Telimektar is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #14 of 77 (permalink) Old 11-08-2018, 12:30 PM
sudo apt install sl
WannaBeOCer is an unknown quantity at this point WannaBeOCer is an unknown quantity at this point
 
WannaBeOCer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,806
Quote: Originally Posted by LancerVI View Post
This is what I'm talking about. Address this comment if you would please.
PL2 tells the processor how much power it's allowed to use when it needs a short burst of speed. I'm pretty sure that was meant for the 5Ghz turbo peak boost but instead it's being used to turbo all 8 cores to 4.7Ghz.

Maximus
(18 items)
CPU
Core i7 6700K 4.8Ghz @ 1.4v
Motherboard
Maximus VIII Formula
GPU
Radeon RX VEGA 64 @ 1750/1105Mhz with 1175Mv
RAM
G-Skill 32GB 3200Mhz
Hard Drive
Samsung 850 Evo 2TB Raid 0
Power Supply
EVGA SuperNova 1200w P2
Cooling
EK Supremacy Full Copper Clean
Cooling
EK-FC Radeon Vega
Cooling
XSPC D5 Photon v2
Cooling
Black Ice Gen 2 GTX360 x2
Case
Thermaltake Core X5 Tempered Glass Edition
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro
Monitor
Acer XF270HUA
Keyboard
Cherry MX Board 6.0
Mouse
Logitech G600
Mouse
Alugraphics GamerArt
Audio
Definitive Technology Incline
Audio
SMSL M8A
▲ hide details ▲
WannaBeOCer is online now  
post #15 of 77 (permalink) Old 11-08-2018, 12:44 PM
Retired Staff
tpi2007 has a spectacular aura about tpi2007 has a spectacular aura about tpi2007 has a spectacular aura about tpi2007 has a spectacular aura about tpi2007 has a spectacular aura about tpi2007 has a spectacular aura about tpi2007 has a spectacular aura about tpi2007 has a spectacular aura about tpi2007 has a spectacular aura about tpi2007 has a spectacular aura about tpi2007 has a spectacular aura about
 
tpi2007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,761
This isn't a rumour, it has also been tested by Gamers Nexus:

Article here: https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3...-duration-z390

Video included in the article:




The real problem at the end of the day is that Intel wants to have their cake and eat it. They are not willing to admit that the 9900K is in fact a ~150w TDP CPU, and that's not counting using the iGPU at the same time, at which point it's probably more 170w.

Also, with the limits enforced, you get inconsistent performance as it will only boost to 4.7 Ghz on all cores for 100 seconds, which is great to produce misleading benchmarks that only last up to that long, to present to the public, as TechSpot alludes to at the end of the article. This is basically Intel employing one of the tricks that CPU makers use for mobile CPUs to deal with power/temps/chassis constraints in laptops, except we're talking about a high-end mainstream desktop part here.

Further problem, with the limits enforced, after 100 seconds you get an all core boost of around 4 Ghz. The Ryzen 7 2700X gets to an all core boost of around 4.1 Ghz with a good cooler. See the problem? How can Intel justify charging so much for the 9900K if the difference in performance would be much lower compared to the competition?

Intel has to prove that they are not being complicit with this situation and enforce their own guidelines with motherboard manufacturers ASAP. Who is responsible for running chips out of spec in this situation anyway? This is a mess even from that standpoint. Which company is going to handle warranties if things go bad?

Ideally they should raise the TDP of this chip to 150w - 170w and get rid of the inconsistent performance and the obfuscation that is the PL2 parameter, but they probably don't want to assume that responsibility with lower end boards in the mix, chip variability, temperatures, etc, so we're left with these tricks. The consumers end up losing here.

Is your CPU bottlenecking your GPU ? Find out: CPU and GPU usage along with FPS in-game
Read my reviews here.
Clubs (founder): The rare / unusual CPU club
Clubs (member): Corsair Professional HX / AX Series PSU Owners Club || The Official Cooler Master HAF X/932/922/912(+) Club
CPU
Core i7-3820
Motherboard
Asus Sabertooth X79
GPU
MSI GTX 1060 6 GB Gaming X
RAM
16 GB Corsair DDR3 1866 Mhz Dominator
Hard Drive
Samsung SSD 830 128GB + WD Caviar Black 2TB
Optical Drive
Sony Optiarc DVD-RW
Power Supply
Corsair AX750 Professional Modular 80 Plus Gold
Cooling
Corsair A70 + Noiseblocker M12-P
Case
Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus
Operating System
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
Monitor
BenQ RL2455HM
Keyboard
Cooler Master Octane
Mouse
Cooler Master Octane
▲ hide details ▲



Last edited by tpi2007; 11-08-2018 at 01:57 PM.
tpi2007 is online now  
post #16 of 77 (permalink) Old 11-08-2018, 01:23 PM
sudo apt install sl
WannaBeOCer is an unknown quantity at this point WannaBeOCer is an unknown quantity at this point
 
WannaBeOCer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,806
Quote: Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post
This isn't a rumour, it has also been tested by Gamers Nexus:

Article here: https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3...-duration-z390

Video included in the article:




The real problem at the end of the day is that Intel wants to have their cake and eat it. They are not willing to admit that the 9900K is in fact a 150w TDP CPU, and that's not counting using the iGPU at the same time, at which point it's probably more 170w.

Also, with the limits enforced you get inconsistent performance as it will only boost to 4.7 Ghz on all cores for 100 seconds, which is great to produce misleading benchmarks that only last that long to present to the public, as TechSpot alludes to at the end of the article. This is basically Intel employing one of the tricks that CPU makers use for mobile CPUs to deal with power/temps/chassis constraints in laptops, except we're talking about a high-end mainstream desktop part here.

Further problem, with the limits enforced after 100 seconds you get an all core boost of 4 Ghz. The Ryzen 7 2700X gets to an all core boost of around 4.1 Ghz with a good cooler. See the problem? How can Intel justify charging so much for the 9900K if the difference in performance would be much lower compared to the competition?

They have to prove that they are not being complicit with this situation and enforce their own guidelines with motherboard manufacturers ASAP. Who is responsible for running chips out of spec in this situation anyway? This is a mess even from that standpoint. Who is going to handle warranties if things go bad?

Ideally they should raise the TDP of this chip to 150w - 170w and get rid of the inconsistent performance and the obfuscation that is the PL2 parameter, but they probably don't want to assume that responsibility with lower end boards in the mix, chip variability, temperatures, etc, so we're left with these tricks. The consumers end up losing here.
Easy solution would be for motherboard manufacturers to keep the limited TDP default with an option in the UEFI to remove it. Followed by a 4.7Ghz all core boost X series chip with a higher TDP.

Maximus
(18 items)
CPU
Core i7 6700K 4.8Ghz @ 1.4v
Motherboard
Maximus VIII Formula
GPU
Radeon RX VEGA 64 @ 1750/1105Mhz with 1175Mv
RAM
G-Skill 32GB 3200Mhz
Hard Drive
Samsung 850 Evo 2TB Raid 0
Power Supply
EVGA SuperNova 1200w P2
Cooling
EK Supremacy Full Copper Clean
Cooling
EK-FC Radeon Vega
Cooling
XSPC D5 Photon v2
Cooling
Black Ice Gen 2 GTX360 x2
Case
Thermaltake Core X5 Tempered Glass Edition
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro
Monitor
Acer XF270HUA
Keyboard
Cherry MX Board 6.0
Mouse
Logitech G600
Mouse
Alugraphics GamerArt
Audio
Definitive Technology Incline
Audio
SMSL M8A
▲ hide details ▲
WannaBeOCer is online now  
post #17 of 77 (permalink) Old 11-08-2018, 01:58 PM
⤷ αC
AlphaC has a spectacular aura about AlphaC has a spectacular aura about AlphaC has a spectacular aura about AlphaC has a spectacular aura about AlphaC has a spectacular aura about AlphaC has a spectacular aura about AlphaC has a spectacular aura about AlphaC has a spectacular aura about AlphaC has a spectacular aura about AlphaC has a spectacular aura about AlphaC has a spectacular aura about
 
AlphaC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 9,921
We'll see what happens when people put them in H370 (i.e. ones with decent VRM which is very rare) and non Z390 boards with Cooler Master 212 coolers.


IMO : A "normal result" would be whatever the 5GHz result is x 4.7/5 if it boosts to 4.7GHz during the entire workload. So for example CB R15 should be ~2,050. For AVX obviously it would be lower , for the viewers of GamersNexus or Hardwareunboxed that are using it for gaming I think unlimited power is fine since 5GHz non 100% load would be within ~120W easily (PL x 1.25x). 150W is nowhere those 200W+ numbers some are getting with an uncapped power limit. Keep in mind the competitor R7 2700X uses 141W out of the box.



See https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/ar...formance-1261/
and https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/ar...formance-1260/
+17% CB R15 vs R7 2700X with unoptimized Micron 2666MHz RAM rather than 2933MHz

+20% in V-ray vs R7 2700X with unoptimized Micron 2666 MHz RAM rather than 2933MHz



https://www.extremetech.com/computin...-core-slugfest
CB R15 = 2,011 vs 1822 on R7 2700X (+10%)
Handbrake x264 (AVX): +13%
Handbrake x265 (AVX2): +34%
Blender (AVX) : +13%
Qt compile: +17%


https://nl.hardware.info/reviews/874...bench--blender
Blender (AVX): +10%
Staxrip x264 (AVX): +23%
Staxrip x265 (AVX2): +50%
CB R15 : 2,033 or +12%
Premiere Pro CC 4K : +23%
Excel 2016 Monte Carlo simulation: +24%



https://www.trustedreviews.com/revie...-core-i9-9900k
CB R15 = 2,058 vs 1,769 on R7 2700X (+16%)
POV-RAY = 10,984 vs 9,445 (+16%)


https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...0k-linux&num=7
Blender (AVX) : +14%
V-ray: +8%


https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/87...ew/index4.html
Handbrake x264 (AVX): +16%
Handbrake x264 720p (AVX): +29%
CB R15: 2026 , which is +14% vs the Ryzen 7 2700X tested


https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400...9600k-review/6
(Ryzen 7 tested with stock cooler vs Thermalright True copper used on i9)

Corona +23%
Blender +23%
POVRAY +37% <-- odd
PCMark Extended ~ +10%
Geekbench 4 MT: +25%



I'd be very wary of any result citing over 23% advantage in a non AVX2 multithreaded workload.

► Recommended GPU Projects: [email protected] , [email protected] (FP64) (AMD moreso) ► Other notable GPU projects: [email protected] (Nvidia), GPUGrid (Nvidia) ► Project list


AlphaC is offline  
post #18 of 77 (permalink) Old 11-08-2018, 02:10 PM
Overclocker
JackCY has a spectacular aura about JackCY has a spectacular aura about JackCY has a spectacular aura about JackCY has a spectacular aura about JackCY has a spectacular aura about JackCY has a spectacular aura about JackCY has a spectacular aura about JackCY has a spectacular aura about JackCY has a spectacular aura about JackCY has a spectacular aura about JackCY has a spectacular aura about
 
JackCY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 8,561
They should do 2 tests as always:
  1. stock as defined by CPU manufacturer = disable all auto OC, predefined auto OC profiles, what ever mobo manufacturer OC they like to force onto everyone by default
  2. custom OC on a sensible $50 cooler, no crazy custom loops or water 360 rads, stuff most people won't buy anyway as it often costs 50% of CPU price if not even more for custom water loops

Right now, they don't care, they test what ever auto OC manufacturer mobo offers them and do not disable it to get the proper CPU specs. This has been happening for many years, even Z97 has automatic limits on mobos set to 4096W and 1024A... yeah, disabled PL1, PL2 and current limit by default.
JackCY is offline  
post #19 of 77 (permalink) Old 11-08-2018, 02:41 PM
New to Overclock.net
jclafi Level 1
 
jclafi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 787
First R7 2700 reach 4.7 Ghz. ???? Almost impossible never see it... Second intel sell 9900k w/ max turbo specs and label it as 95W CPU...

Others chips hot because of glue thermal bla bla bla... Delid.... I always delid... bla bla bla .....

A lot of crap detect here boys to justify intel hot potato..

Quote: Originally Posted by WannaBeOCer View Post
The only reason the 9900k is pulling so much power is because motherboard manufacturers are removing the TDP limit and allowing the chips to reach max turbo peak. That's not default from Intel and blame should be on them not Intel's chips because they are more efficient than Ryzen when running at similar clocks. They are hot for sure but I'm sure a 2700x @ 4.7Ghz on all 8 cores would also be as hot. Other chips were hot because of the glue and thermal paste they used. I always de-lid and run the IHS directly on the core with liquid metal without gluing the IHS back on.

R5 2600 - MSI X470 Gaming Pro - nVIDIA GTX1060 6GB O.C - Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB @ 3200 - Cooler Master Storm Scout - Western Digital Green 240GB M.2 - Kyngston A400 480GB - Seagate Barracuda 1Tb - Cooler Master Hyper 212 Turbo - SamSung 32in LED - eVGA 750W - Razer Abyssus V2 - Logitech G27
jclafi is offline  
post #20 of 77 (permalink) Old 11-08-2018, 02:42 PM
New to Overclock.net
jclafi Level 1
 
jclafi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 787
Exacly !

Quote: Originally Posted by Imouto View Post
Why are you like this? Why do you want to put these forums to shame with every single post you make?

R5 2600 - MSI X470 Gaming Pro - nVIDIA GTX1060 6GB O.C - Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB @ 3200 - Cooler Master Storm Scout - Western Digital Green 240GB M.2 - Kyngston A400 480GB - Seagate Barracuda 1Tb - Cooler Master Hyper 212 Turbo - SamSung 32in LED - eVGA 750W - Razer Abyssus V2 - Logitech G27
jclafi is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off