[SOLVED] i9 10900k Air Cooler?
- Thread starter ozren94
- Start date
Solution
A 10700k is the same as a 9900k, core/thread count.
But there's a difference. The 9900k in Anand's test was run at stock, as was the 10700k. Bumping the 9900k upto 10700k boost levels and you'll get much closer results, if the 9900k doesn't exceed them, as it will hit 250w with an all core 5.0GHz OC.
But, and there's a Capital B there, 10th Gen introduced preferential cores. To the point it'll exclude the non-prefetential cores as much as it can possibly get away with. So most of the time you really only use half the cpu, the other half being like the shame you try to ignore. 9th gen didn't...
But there's a difference. The 9900k in Anand's test was run at stock, as was the 10700k. Bumping the 9900k upto 10700k boost levels and you'll get much closer results, if the 9900k doesn't exceed them, as it will hit 250w with an all core 5.0GHz OC.
But, and there's a Capital B there, 10th Gen introduced preferential cores. To the point it'll exclude the non-prefetential cores as much as it can possibly get away with. So most of the time you really only use half the cpu, the other half being like the shame you try to ignore. 9th gen didn't...
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,741
- 4,559
- 142,790
Nobody knows for sure. The cpus aren't released yet for public testing, but the i9 10900k has been clocked at over 225w and some claim it'll easily hit 300w (or maybe more).
wccftech.com
That's a guaranteed minimum of 280mm AIO, preferably a 360mm AIO, and a recommended full custom loop. Not a prayer for any aircooling whatsoever.
Intel's Core i9-10900K 10 Core Flagship Mainstream CPU Reportedly Consumes As Much Power As AMD's 32 Core Threadripper 3970X
Intel's board partners have revealed that the flagship Core i9-10900K 10 core mainstrea CPU would sip in more than 300 Watts of power.
wccftech.com
That's a guaranteed minimum of 280mm AIO, preferably a 360mm AIO, and a recommended full custom loop. Not a prayer for any aircooling whatsoever.
One question man is it same for i7 10700k how much will be different betwen i7 10700k and i9 9900k?If you saying i9 10900k can only cool down AIO what about i7 10700k?Nobody knows for sure. The cpus aren't released yet for public testing, but the i9 10900k has been clocked at over 225w and some claim it'll easily hit 300w (or maybe more).
Intel's Core i9-10900K 10 Core Flagship Mainstream CPU Reportedly Consumes As Much Power As AMD's 32 Core Threadripper 3970X
Intel's board partners have revealed that the flagship Core i9-10900K 10 core mainstrea CPU would sip in more than 300 Watts of power.
That's a guaranteed minimum of 280mm AIO, preferably a 360mm AIO, and a recommended full custom loop. Not a prayer for any aircooling whatsoever.
https://forums.tomshardware.com/thr...-235w-at-4-8-ghz-with-over-90c-temps.3605203/
The Core i9-10900K can hit 250W when all the cores are pushed to 5.2 GHz (at 1.3V+ voltage). 5.1 and 5.0 GHz speeds can also be achieved with lower voltages of 1.22-1.25V, with the power consumption being in the range of 220-230W, resulting in slightly lower temperatures too.
The Core i9-10900K can hit 250W when all the cores are pushed to 5.2 GHz (at 1.3V+ voltage). 5.1 and 5.0 GHz speeds can also be achieved with lower voltages of 1.22-1.25V, with the power consumption being in the range of 220-230W, resulting in slightly lower temperatures too.
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,741
- 4,559
- 142,790
True. But the temp curve on 230w with a 250w cooler is close to maximum gains, you'll be seeing temps of 90°C ish. Not any different to using a stock cooler on an old i7. The larger the cooler capacity, the lower on the curve that wattage would be. 220-230w on a 250w rated cooler is quite different from 220-230w on a 300/350w rated aio.
TerryLaze
Polypheme
- May 9, 2016
- 9,482
- 2,428
- 60,940
But that's with a pretty decent overclock of all cores at 5.2Ghz, OP is talking about stock speeds.
If his cooler is capable of running all cores at 5.2Ghz with the CPU hitting 90ish (which is within intel's safe range) it will be more than ok for stock speeds,unless he gets a mobo that auto overclocks the heck out of the CPU but that's not stock speed anymore.
It's all speculation. But the money you save by buying 1 generation behind could give you the money you need for better cooling, more/better storage or most likely a better GPU. The cost savings over the 5-15% improvement I think are worth going with the 9900k.
Plus it's a known quantity. You can find out today what you need for a system based on the 9900k. Planning for the unknown 10900k could mean you over spend on a cooler or get a cooler that you need to replace because it wasn't good enough.
Plus it's a known quantity. You can find out today what you need for a system based on the 9900k. Planning for the unknown 10900k could mean you over spend on a cooler or get a cooler that you need to replace because it wasn't good enough.
TerryLaze
Polypheme
- May 9, 2016
- 9,482
- 2,428
- 60,940
What money do you save by buying 1 gen behind for intel?! That works on ryzen but intel keeps their prices the same,actually because of the new gen having more cores per tier you will save money by buying the newer gen.
Right now a 10 core CPU from intel is X series and about $600 with a much more expensive mobo while the 10900k is going to be $500 with a much cheaper mobo.
tennis2
Glorious
- Nov 12, 2018
- 8,842
- 1,836
- 49,790
Was that with AVX enabled?
The i7-10700K = i9-9900K but at much lower cost. So you know what the thermals on that will be.
rigg42
Respectable
- Oct 17, 2018
- 639
- 233
- 2,390
- Dec 30, 2016
- 21,151
- 5,554
- 104,690
Something that I noticed doesn't come up often, if at all, in these kinds of discussions regarding the more exotic cpus:
Who buys cpus like these with no intention to use all it's resources? When someone buys a cpu like that, they do so with the intention to use all it's resources eventually, right?
Is that a minority thing, or what?
Like, if all someone does is play CSGO, just get a 9600K, for example, overclock the heck out of it, and get identical performance to a 9900K for far less...
Just because the user isn't pushing it now, that's an excuse to neglect full load tests and get a cheaper cooler...
Who buys cpus like these with no intention to use all it's resources? When someone buys a cpu like that, they do so with the intention to use all it's resources eventually, right?
Is that a minority thing, or what?
Like, if all someone does is play CSGO, just get a 9600K, for example, overclock the heck out of it, and get identical performance to a 9900K for far less...
Just because the user isn't pushing it now, that's an excuse to neglect full load tests and get a cheaper cooler...
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,741
- 4,559
- 142,790
Eh, sorta. I bought my i7-3770k when everyone (including Tom's, sorry,) said all I needed was the i5-3570k, because nothing was using more than 4 cores and even forward thinkers were stuck on 4 cores and higher clock speeds. Intel even followed suit on that, pushing towards 5GHz stock speeds on a quad up until 8th gen.
And yet I still game on my old i7, the much vaunted i5 already long obsolete. It's going to get to the point where speed is moot, where that extra erg of MHz costs far too much in power. AMD learned that lesson years ago with the FX-9590 and the R9 295x2. Nature has known it forever. If you cannot go up, you go out. Game devs are finally catching on, you can do more with 2 cores at 1.8GHz than 1 core at 3.4GHz. The idea behind the FX has finally come to fruition.
So if Op wants cores, that's fine, but better off with the hyperthreaded cores, as many as budget allows because one day game devs will be making games that will use them. And stream.
The I5-9600k already has 1 foot in the grave. CSGO won't last much longer before it's replaced by a higher thread version where every bad guy doesn't look the same and maps allow for greater need for skill to get the kill, not just dumb luck and cheats like a Scout snap-kill.
And yet I still game on my old i7, the much vaunted i5 already long obsolete. It's going to get to the point where speed is moot, where that extra erg of MHz costs far too much in power. AMD learned that lesson years ago with the FX-9590 and the R9 295x2. Nature has known it forever. If you cannot go up, you go out. Game devs are finally catching on, you can do more with 2 cores at 1.8GHz than 1 core at 3.4GHz. The idea behind the FX has finally come to fruition.
So if Op wants cores, that's fine, but better off with the hyperthreaded cores, as many as budget allows because one day game devs will be making games that will use them. And stream.
The I5-9600k already has 1 foot in the grave. CSGO won't last much longer before it's replaced by a higher thread version where every bad guy doesn't look the same and maps allow for greater need for skill to get the kill, not just dumb luck and cheats like a Scout snap-kill.
Last edited:
- Oct 6, 2014
- 21,401
- 2,038
- 104,240
Sorry I disagree with most of this.
1. Making games that 50% of the people with a PC can't run is very bad for business. Reminds me of the old 3770K days when WatchDogs was coming out everybody was like I got to upgrade to the recommended i7 to play the game but guess what a simple i3 gave almost the same performance in that game.
2. CSGO only uses a couple of cores so even with the game upgrade (that is going to really hurt performance) still can't see them using 6 full cores. I haven't seen where their revamping the game engine so adding a bunch more skins to render will take a toll.
3. The FX was just a bad processor. Probably did not need to add that since it's known.
4. The 6 core i5 9600k with a decent overclock would probably last 4 to 6 years more (my Crystal Ball told me this since where theorizing about the future) My 4790K is still running fine and have no reason to upgrade it at this time although going to get the 10600K to add 2 more cores and about a 20% faster single core performance. I use some work programs that are more single core speed dependent + I get the 2 extra cores.
5. If what your saying did happen to come true then right now if anybody bought anything it should be the 3700X / 3900x since you get more cores for a lower price and can use a lower priced motherboard, they even come with a stock cooler although not very good but could be used in a pinch.
6. For the 3570K not good for gaming anymore, my son runs my old i5 2500K @ 5.0 paired with my old 980 and really runs everything much better than you would think really no problems at all. He should still be happy to in the very near future to get my 4790K
Last edited:
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,741
- 4,559
- 142,790
- Gta5, minimum of 4 cores, or 4 threads on i3 if you bend the rules. It's happening, and has been for a while. Used to be cpus needed to be a specific chip or speed.
- Ppl who made CSGO have already announced that the next version will be optimized for 8 thread usage. Competitive maps like Sand II are already destroying anything not 4 threads or better with 4+GHz.
- Fx wasn't bad at all, it was just bad for gaming as nvidia/Intel were killing amd in sales and lawsuits, and sponsoring the people who paid the devs paychecks. Lack of support for amd/CF did more damage than lack of speeds.
- You've had games optimized for 8 thread use like gta5 and bf4+ etc for years. 8 is where it's at, so of course the i7 4790k is still somewhat viable, as is my 3770k. 8 threads. The 9600k with 6 cores isn't all that much better, so will only last a few years longer. It'll head into obscurity around the time of sandy/kaby lake i7's drop off.
- The stock Wraith are the best stock coolers by a long shot ever included with a cpu, barring the short lived aio with the 9 series FX. Performance is equitable to most 130-150w coolers, they just make more noise due to smaller fan at higher rpm.And yes, a 3700x should be around a good long while, longer probably than the 9700k, but maybe not as long as the 9900k +. With Intel finally adopting multi cores, game devs don't have to concentrate on IPC gains, they are free to dump as much as they can on more than 4 threads.
- For now. My i5-3570k struggled to get 70 mods in skyrim and 50fps, cpu limited. My 3770k has 170 mods and doesn't skip a beat at ultra 60fps+. Brand new games like Starwars Battlefront 2 will be a serious struggle for the old 2500, if it'll even play due to 6th gen restrictions.
Software is the leading cause of death to a cpu/platform. Games are changing a lot more rapidly.
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,741
- 4,559
- 142,790
Then why bother buying such a high power cpu, if you don't have cooling enough to run it as it should? Be better to buy a lower powered cpu and let it rip. Much cheaper for same performance.
Don't see the point in spending extra for a handicapped cpu.
Don't see the point in spending extra for a handicapped cpu.
for your opinion better buy i9 9900k and easly oc 5.0 ghz with dark rock pro 4 i know he can cool down cpu
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,741
- 4,559
- 142,790
A 10700k is the same as a 9900k, core/thread count.
But there's a difference. The 9900k in Anand's test was run at stock, as was the 10700k. Bumping the 9900k upto 10700k boost levels and you'll get much closer results, if the 9900k doesn't exceed them, as it will hit 250w with an all core 5.0GHz OC.
But, and there's a Capital B there, 10th Gen introduced preferential cores. To the point it'll exclude the non-prefetential cores as much as it can possibly get away with. So most of the time you really only use half the cpu, the other half being like the shame you try to ignore. 9th gen didn't do that. So boost speeds and tau (time at turbo) really get funky, and it's all going to be finally upto the motherboard as to performance.
From where I sit, with this move, it looks entirely like Intel has taken a Skylake cpu and turned it into a faster/higher IPC version of a 3000 series Ryzen. Took all the turbo overclocks originally used by the public, and made them factory.
So for most games, a 10700k will act like a OC'd 9900k, yet still pull less power and a DR4 Pro will more than handle it. It'll be when rendering etc. and actually dragging the non-prefered cores out of obscurity that you'll get slightly worse performance than the OC'd 9900k, since it'll drop boost levels for all the cores.
But there's a difference. The 9900k in Anand's test was run at stock, as was the 10700k. Bumping the 9900k upto 10700k boost levels and you'll get much closer results, if the 9900k doesn't exceed them, as it will hit 250w with an all core 5.0GHz OC.
But, and there's a Capital B there, 10th Gen introduced preferential cores. To the point it'll exclude the non-prefetential cores as much as it can possibly get away with. So most of the time you really only use half the cpu, the other half being like the shame you try to ignore. 9th gen didn't do that. So boost speeds and tau (time at turbo) really get funky, and it's all going to be finally upto the motherboard as to performance.
From where I sit, with this move, it looks entirely like Intel has taken a Skylake cpu and turned it into a faster/higher IPC version of a 3000 series Ryzen. Took all the turbo overclocks originally used by the public, and made them factory.
So for most games, a 10700k will act like a OC'd 9900k, yet still pull less power and a DR4 Pro will more than handle it. It'll be when rendering etc. and actually dragging the non-prefered cores out of obscurity that you'll get slightly worse performance than the OC'd 9900k, since it'll drop boost levels for all the cores.
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram