Question 9700 cooler
- Thread starter Sploork00
- Start date
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,739
- 4,559
- 142,790
Stock aircoolers aren't adequate. Not for max or extreme. They'll handle nominal loads, around TDP, and keep temps @ 70's, but that's all.
What case will this be going into? Without that, or at least a case cpu cooler clearance height, it makes decisions kinda difficult. No point in suggesting coolers like the hyper212 at 159mm if the case only allows 152mm etc.
The i9-9700 under full load conditions is capable of @ 130w. For most budget coolers, that's 10ish watts under their rating. At full load conditions, you'll be into the 90°C range, throttle conditions.
That cpu really requires a 180w mid range cooler such as Cryorig H5, Scythe fuma2/mugen 5 Rev.b, beQuiet Darkrock 4/TF etc. Expect to pay @ $50+
What case will this be going into? Without that, or at least a case cpu cooler clearance height, it makes decisions kinda difficult. No point in suggesting coolers like the hyper212 at 159mm if the case only allows 152mm etc.
The i9-9700 under full load conditions is capable of @ 130w. For most budget coolers, that's 10ish watts under their rating. At full load conditions, you'll be into the 90°C range, throttle conditions.
That cpu really requires a 180w mid range cooler such as Cryorig H5, Scythe fuma2/mugen 5 Rev.b, beQuiet Darkrock 4/TF etc. Expect to pay @ $50+
Last edited:
geofelt
Titan
- Oct 9, 2006
- 54,268
- 4,130
- 174,240
With 160mm clearance, you can use a noctua NH-D15s, a $80 cooler.
It has the cooling capability of a 240mm aio cooler without the mounting issues.
It will be easier to install, quieter, more reliable, require no maintenance
and...
it will never leak.
If your case has at least two 120/140mm front intakes, you will be able to adequately cool even a 9700K.
It has the cooling capability of a 240mm aio cooler without the mounting issues.
It will be easier to install, quieter, more reliable, require no maintenance
and...
it will never leak.
If your case has at least two 120/140mm front intakes, you will be able to adequately cool even a 9700K.
- Jan 1, 2018
- 18,460
- 3,966
- 73,540
You could go for a really expensive cooler, but something like a deepcool gammaxx 400 would be good.
Remeca
Reputable
- Aug 30, 2019
- 816
- 148
- 5,590
Why does everyone bash on stock HSF? They're engineered to handle the CPU they're paired with, and do a fine job of cooling for the most part. The only reason I would ever get anything else is purely aesthetics, or if I was going to OC. On my I7 4770, stock cooler keeps my cpu under 45 at idle, and under 70 under full load, turbo boosted to 3.9GHz.
- Jan 1, 2018
- 18,460
- 3,966
- 73,540
No, the stock cooler is designed to be cheap primarily. And as you see, it isnt keeping the cpu cool.
A stock cooler on an i7 8700, 9700 or 9900 will have the cpu not turbo to its maximum because of thermals. These chips all exceed their tdp and the stocm hsf cannot cool them.
A stock cooler on an i7 8700, 9700 or 9900 will have the cpu not turbo to its maximum because of thermals. These chips all exceed their tdp and the stocm hsf cannot cool them.
- Jan 1, 2018
- 18,460
- 3,966
- 73,540
Well it will run hotter than a nhd15, but concidering the gammaxx 400 isbetter than a h212 the temps should be reasonable at full turbo.
Its not going to all core to 4.9ghz on any cooler.
Its not going to all core to 4.9ghz on any cooler.
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,739
- 4,559
- 142,790
Intel does not care about your temps. The cpu doesn't care about your temps. The stock cooler is only there to provide cpu functionality with nominal loads and remain under throttle temps.
TDP is the amount of power in watts that a cpu will use at base clocks without hyperthreading or turbo averaged from a specific series of apps. That boils down to simple stuff like winzip, Office, websurfing and other light-medium loads. Because most cpus are measured with Intel cooling (who knows which or how much) and the results are generally within 5°C ± of watts used, TDP was adopted as thermal temp output.
Basically if you push a 95w TDP cpu to its limits of 95w usage you can expect a 100% load with the stock cooler to be 95°C ±, using nothing but base clocks.
Using full turbo speeds and voltages, the i9 9700 can hit 130w. The stock 110w cooler is in now way even remotely close to adequate and maintain temps anywhere close to sub-70's under moderate-full loads.
Why do ppl bash Intel stock coolers? Because in a word, they 'suck'. Nobody wants the volume of an undersized 4000rpm fan screaming at them when gaming, right before the fps tanks while the pc struggles to stay out of throttle/damage temps and shutdowns.
TDP is the amount of power in watts that a cpu will use at base clocks without hyperthreading or turbo averaged from a specific series of apps. That boils down to simple stuff like winzip, Office, websurfing and other light-medium loads. Because most cpus are measured with Intel cooling (who knows which or how much) and the results are generally within 5°C ± of watts used, TDP was adopted as thermal temp output.
Basically if you push a 95w TDP cpu to its limits of 95w usage you can expect a 100% load with the stock cooler to be 95°C ±, using nothing but base clocks.
Using full turbo speeds and voltages, the i9 9700 can hit 130w. The stock 110w cooler is in now way even remotely close to adequate and maintain temps anywhere close to sub-70's under moderate-full loads.
Why do ppl bash Intel stock coolers? Because in a word, they 'suck'. Nobody wants the volume of an undersized 4000rpm fan screaming at them when gaming, right before the fps tanks while the pc struggles to stay out of throttle/damage temps and shutdowns.
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,739
- 4,559
- 142,790
No. Your definition of 'full load' is squewed. I'd wager a bet that if you actually did use a 'full load' program like Prime95 small fft torture test, that Intel stock HSF will not keep temps anywhere close to 70°C on a cpu that can generate an easy 100w. More than likely you'd see the cpu backing down to below base clock speeds just to maintain temps in the 90's, which is extremely likely to be causing permanent damage if left running for any length of time, if the cpu itself doesn't decide its too harmful and shut down instantly.
Remeca
Reputable
- Aug 30, 2019
- 816
- 148
- 5,590
Now I'm curious. I'll run the test, give me the parameters, unless I just run the prime95 test with default settings.
- Jan 1, 2018
- 18,460
- 3,966
- 73,540
Remeca
Reputable
- Aug 30, 2019
- 816
- 148
- 5,590
- Dec 2, 2009
- 38,898
- 978
- 135,890
You have evidence of this because the 9700k doesn't hit that unless you overclock. Afaik the basic 9700 hits max at about 100w.
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,739
- 4,559
- 142,790
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/21
With all-core locked and OC, the 9700k can top 200w, and the 9900k can hit 250w @ 5.1GHz
But you might be right about the i7 9700 as that's a little known 65w varient, so little I could find really nothing on it that's seen any review.
About the only thing I could find was the 9700 is a CoffeeLake cpu, not a refresh, and it's closest equivalent is the i7 8700, except it has 2x additional cores. Since the 65w 8700 can hit 113w, I'd not be surprised if the 9700 exceeded that, just with the 2 core extra and additional 100MHz on turbo.
With all-core locked and OC, the 9700k can top 200w, and the 9900k can hit 250w @ 5.1GHz
But you might be right about the i7 9700 as that's a little known 65w varient, so little I could find really nothing on it that's seen any review.
About the only thing I could find was the 9700 is a CoffeeLake cpu, not a refresh, and it's closest equivalent is the i7 8700, except it has 2x additional cores. Since the 65w 8700 can hit 113w, I'd not be surprised if the 9700 exceeded that, just with the 2 core extra and additional 100MHz on turbo.
Last edited:
- Jan 1, 2018
- 18,460
- 3,966
- 73,540
At least its not a 9590.
The FX9590 laughs in the face of the 9900k with high power consumption.
The FX9590 laughs in the face of the 9900k with high power consumption.
jeremyj_83
Splendid
- Aug 23, 2017
- 4,853
- 1,376
- 31,940
Yes it is. They are now a sister site of Tom's hardware and the reviewer has a PhD in electrical engineering.
- Jan 1, 2018
- 18,460
- 3,966
- 73,540
Anandtech is reliable.
The difference is the toms figures were from the cou running p95 with avx. The anand tech figures were with the cpu running povray.
The difference is the toms figures were from the cou running p95 with avx. The anand tech figures were with the cpu running povray.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
News US sanctions transform China into legacy chip production juggernaut — production jumped 40% in Q1 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 31
-
RTX 4070 vs RX 7900 GRE faceoff: Which mainstream graphics card is better?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 70
-
Question I have been stuck between NVMe and SATA SSD. What should I do now?- Started by maniac2556
- Replies: 16
-
Question New pc build r9 7900x3d rtx 4080 super no post only ram rgb turns on- Started by Harvey Durward
- Replies: 5
-
Question 1TB HDD 80% Fragmented, Windows 10 Optimise Drives Program Doesn't Help
- Started by sdfbvcxbf
- Replies: 7
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram