^ no reason you shouldn't get 3000mhz with the 8400, the k chips are not a necessity far faster than 2666 ram speeds
That's the best choice of CPU IMO , the 8600k is way overpriced comparitively.
With a 1080ti & that CPU I'd argue that ANY 1080p will be the main bottleneck there anyway.
Agreed, Intel CPUs don't require high speed memory at all. So even 2133mhz or 2400mhz would do fine.
juanrga :
Intel CPUs benefit from using faster RAM on latency-sensitive workloads. Myself provides several examples of Broadwell-E chips playing games faster with faster memory. The same happens with Skylake. In extreme cases (memory-bound games) Skylake gets a 21% increase in framerates when going from 2133 to 3200 mem
Which data sets did you use to extrapolate 21%, because there is a mixture of different frequencies, memory bandwidths, and different platforms in the graph. But even greater to the point of this thread how does this information correlate to the 8th generation processors in memory bound situations in today's titles?
6700k stock with 2133MHz: 59.1 fps
6700k stock with 3200MHz: 71.8 fps
Gain: 21.49%
Does this mean that Intel gimped on the cache? Or just that low frequency DDR style memory is reaching the end of its reign as budget king? I mean, faster memory is constantly becoming more and more affordable these days. Also, it probably won't be long before holiday sales start popping up left and right.
It doesn't have anything to do with different companies. AMD FX-8350 Piledriver is 125W, AMD RyZen 1800X is not 95W. AMD RyZen 1700 is not 65W. AMD ThreadRipper 1950X is 180W. AMD is giving accurate TDP figures for some chips and marketing labels for some RyZen chips.
Perhaps you would like to enlighten us on what your think TDP means. Ryzen is off topic, but I would be interested to see the data you have on Ryzen coolers not being capable of dissipating 95W of heat, so please provide links to that data!
I already provided defacto standard definitions of TDP and a quote from HFR with the real TDPs communicated by AMD to them. The TDP of RyZen coolers was also discussed in Ryzen threads (e.g. AMD bundle the 1800X with a 140W cooler). I don't see why I would repeat all the information by fifth time, less still in a thread about CoffeLake.
^ no reason you shouldn't get 3000mhz with the 8400, the k chips are not a necessity far faster than 2666 ram speeds
That's the best choice of CPU IMO , the 8600k is way overpriced comparitively.
With a 1080ti & that CPU I'd argue that ANY 1080p will be the main bottleneck there anyway.
Agreed, Intel CPUs don't require high speed memory at all. So even 2133mhz or 2400mhz would do fine.
juanrga :
Intel CPUs benefit from using faster RAM on latency-sensitive workloads. Myself provides several examples of Broadwell-E chips playing games faster with faster memory. The same happens with Skylake. In extreme cases (memory-bound games) Skylake gets a 21% increase in framerates when going from 2133 to 3200 mem
Which data sets did you use to extrapolate 21%, because there is a mixture of different frequencies, memory bandwidths, and different platforms in the graph. But even greater to the point of this thread how does this information correlate to the 8th generation processors in memory bound situations in today's titles?
6700k stock with 2133MHz: 59.1 fps
6700k stock with 3200MHz: 71.8 fps
Gain: 21.49%
CoffeLake would have similar sensitivity to memory speed in memory-bound situations because it has same core muarch than Skylake. The only difference would be played by larger L3 in games that don't scale to all the cores.
2133MHz CAS 15 vs. 3200MHz CAS 14. Not an apples to apples comparison. The graph really isn't very good for accurate comparisons, but can you provide links to the article where this graph originated? I would definitely like too take a closer look at what arthor of the article was trying to use this graph for.
Edit: Note the 6700K@4.7GHz 3000c12 shows a 0.8 FPS difference compared to the 6700K@4000c17t2.
I thought I was pretty clear about what I asked, but I'll try again.
"Will a 95 Watt rated box cooler ( I use a Thermaltake CLP 0556-D.) cool the i7 8700k at stock frequencies?
I don't run torture tests, so I don't give a fig about those results. I only care about workloads that reflect my own tendencies. I'm a 1440p gamer. That is the toughest task I will ever run.
These reviews that rush to throw liquid coolers onto mainstream processors are a disservice to most users. I understand that you want to find the OC potential for any CPU you test, but that doesn't alleviate the need for a stock test with a cooler that would be installed by a normal, human user.
Edit: BTW, the cooler I use is $13 dollars, all day, every day at Newegg. I think you know what you can do with those $100- $300 dollar coolers, especially the long lever, half dumbbells that seem to be so popular with "expert" crowd these days. While I'm on my soapbox, water hoses and radiators inside your case with your expensive CPU's and graphics cards? What could go wrong?
It doesn't have anything to do with different companies. AMD FX-8350 Piledriver is 125W, AMD RyZen 1800X is not 95W. AMD RyZen 1700 is not 65W. AMD ThreadRipper 1950X is 180W. AMD is giving accurate TDP figures for some chips and marketing labels for some RyZen chips.
Perhaps you would like to enlighten us on what your think TDP means. Ryzen is off topic, but I would be interested to see the data you have on Ryzen coolers not being capable of dissipating 95W of heat, so please provide links to that data!
I already provided defacto standard definitions of TDP and a quote from HFR with the real TDPs communicated by AMD to them. The TDP of RyZen coolers was also discussed in Ryzen threads (e.g. AMD bundle the 1800X with a 140W cooler). I don't see why I would repeat all the information by fifth time, less still in a thread about CoffeLake.
A simple link to the information would suffice, but this is about 8 generation Intel processors. How well does a 95W cooler work with them?
^ no reason you shouldn't get 3000mhz with the 8400, the k chips are not a necessity far faster than 2666 ram speeds
That's the best choice of CPU IMO , the 8600k is way overpriced comparitively.
With a 1080ti & that CPU I'd argue that ANY 1080p will be the main bottleneck there anyway.
Agreed, Intel CPUs don't require high speed memory at all. So even 2133mhz or 2400mhz would do fine.
juanrga :
Intel CPUs benefit from using faster RAM on latency-sensitive workloads. Myself provides several examples of Broadwell-E chips playing games faster with faster memory. The same happens with Skylake. In extreme cases (memory-bound games) Skylake gets a 21% increase in framerates when going from 2133 to 3200 mem
Which data sets did you use to extrapolate 21%, because there is a mixture of different frequencies, memory bandwidths, and different platforms in the graph. But even greater to the point of this thread how does this information correlate to the 8th generation processors in memory bound situations in today's titles?
6700k stock with 2133MHz: 59.1 fps
6700k stock with 3200MHz: 71.8 fps
Gain: 21.49%
CoffeLake would have similar sensitivity to memory speed in memory-bound situations because it has same core muarch than Skylake. The only difference would be played by larger L3 in games that don't scale to all the cores.
2133MHz CAS 15 vs. 3200MHz CAS 14. Not an apples to apples comparison.
It is apples vs apples. Faster RAM helps the CPU to run faster.
goldstone77 :
Edit: Note the 6700K@4.7GHz 3000c12 shows a 0.8 FPS difference compared to the 6700K@4000c17t2.
I thought I was pretty clear about what I asked, but I'll try again.
"Will a 95 Watt rated box cooler ( I use a Thermaltake CLP 0556-D.) cool the i7 8700k at stock frequencies?
I don't run torture tests, so I don't give a fig about those results. I only care about workloads that reflect my own tendencies. I'm a 1440p gamer. That is the toughest task I will ever run.
These reviews that rush to throw liquid coolers onto mainstream processors are a disservice to most users. I understand that you want to find the OC potential for any CPU you test, but that doesn't alleviate the need for a stock test with a cooler that would be installed by a normal, human user.
Edit: BTW, the cooler I use is $13 dollars, all day, every day at Newegg. I think you know what you can do with those $100- $300 dollar coolers, especially the long lever, half dumbbells that seem to be so popular with "expert" crowd these days. While I'm on my soapbox, water hoses and radiators inside your case with your expensive CPU's and graphics cards? What could go wrong?
Arma III seems to be more latency sensitive than bandwidth starved though. And I'd say it's one of the odd balls, but a nice test to have. The map sizes in that game are nice to put any 8GB machine out of commission, lol.
And when comparing RAM, it is imperative to call out the timings.
So, what was being discussed with that? "AMD gets gains, but Intel gets MOAR GAINSZZZ"? I can see the original statement was very simple: "yea, faster ram won't give you a totally different experience", which all those benchmarks agree. Specially when you don't want to enter into OC territory.
Also, Juan, you'll have to suck it up in the TDP discussion: AMD and Intel have explicitly said, a lot of times, they measure thermal dissipation and typical power differently. Deal with it.
^ no reason you shouldn't get 3000mhz with the 8400, the k chips are not a necessity far faster than 2666 ram speeds
That's the best choice of CPU IMO , the 8600k is way overpriced comparitively.
With a 1080ti & that CPU I'd argue that ANY 1080p will be the main bottleneck there anyway.
Agreed, Intel CPUs don't require high speed memory at all. So even 2133mhz or 2400mhz would do fine.
juanrga :
Intel CPUs benefit from using faster RAM on latency-sensitive workloads. Myself provides several examples of Broadwell-E chips playing games faster with faster memory. The same happens with Skylake. In extreme cases (memory-bound games) Skylake gets a 21% increase in framerates when going from 2133 to 3200 mem
Which data sets did you use to extrapolate 21%, because there is a mixture of different frequencies, memory bandwidths, and different platforms in the graph. But even greater to the point of this thread how does this information correlate to the 8th generation processors in memory bound situations in today's titles?
6700k stock with 2133MHz: 59.1 fps
6700k stock with 3200MHz: 71.8 fps
Gain: 21.49%
CoffeLake would have similar sensitivity to memory speed in memory-bound situations because it has same core muarch than Skylake. The only difference would be played by larger L3 in games that don't scale to all the cores.
2133MHz CAS 15 vs. 3200MHz CAS 14. Not an apples to apples comparison.
It is apples vs apples. Faster RAM helps the CPU to run faster.
goldstone77 :
Edit: Note the 6700K@4.7GHz 3000c12 shows a 0.8 FPS difference compared to the 6700K@4000c17t2.
The 4000MHz kit has 6% worse access latency.
Do you have a link to the original article for this graph?
Edit: I found the graph. It's not from an article, it's a forum post! I can disregard that data now!
I thought I was pretty clear about what I asked, but I'll try again.
"Will a 95 Watt rated box cooler ( I use a Thermaltake CLP 0556-D.) cool the i7 8700k at stock frequencies?
I don't run torture tests, so I don't give a fig about those results. I only care about workloads that reflect my own tendencies. I'm a 1440p gamer. That is the toughest task I will ever run.
These reviews that rush to throw liquid coolers onto mainstream processors are a disservice to most users. I understand that you want to find the OC potential for any CPU you test, but that doesn't alleviate the need for a stock test with a cooler that would be installed by a normal, human user.
Edit: BTW, the cooler I use is $13 dollars, all day, every day at Newegg. I think you know what you can do with those $100- $300 dollar coolers, especially the long lever, half dumbbells that seem to be so popular with "expert" crowd these days. While I'm on my soapbox, water hoses and radiators inside your case with your expensive CPU's and graphics cards? What could go wrong?
That quote does not appear anywhere on page 3 of this same thread, nor is there any discussion other than the one started by me about whether or not a 95 Watt TDP cooler will cool an 8700k.
I thought I was pretty clear about what I asked, but I'll try again.
"Will a 95 Watt rated box cooler ( I use a Thermaltake CLP 0556-D.) cool the i7 8700k at stock frequencies?
I don't run torture tests, so I don't give a fig about those results. I only care about workloads that reflect my own tendencies. I'm a 1440p gamer. That is the toughest task I will ever run.
These reviews that rush to throw liquid coolers onto mainstream processors are a disservice to most users. I understand that you want to find the OC potential for any CPU you test, but that doesn't alleviate the need for a stock test with a cooler that would be installed by a normal, human user.
Edit: BTW, the cooler I use is $13 dollars, all day, every day at Newegg. I think you know what you can do with those $100- $300 dollar coolers, especially the long lever, half dumbbells that seem to be so popular with "expert" crowd these days. While I'm on my soapbox, water hoses and radiators inside your case with your expensive CPU's and graphics cards? What could go wrong?
I thought I was pretty clear about what I asked, but I'll try again.
"Will a 95 Watt rated box cooler ( I use a Thermaltake CLP 0556-D.) cool the i7 8700k at stock frequencies?
goldstone77 :
How well does a 95W cooler work with them?
So, you don't have an answer about the 8700K 95W TDP rating, and it's ability to use a 95W cooler just a link circling back to this thread...
Arma III seems to be more latency sensitive than bandwidth starved though. And I'd say it's one of the odd balls, but a nice test to have. The map sizes in that game are nice to put any 8GB machine out of commission, lol.
And when comparing RAM, it is imperative to call out the timings.
So, what was being discussed with that? "AMD gets gains, but Intel gets MOAR GAINSZZZ"? I can see the original statement was very simple: "yea, faster ram won't give you a totally different experience", which all those benchmarks agree. Specially when you don't want to enter into OC territory.
Note that I referred to Arma III as an "extreme case" because the gains are much smaller with other games. The point was that Intel also benefits from faster RAM in memory-bound workloads.
-Fran- :
Also, Juan, you'll have to suck it up in the TDP discussion: AMD and Intel have explicitly said, a lot of times, they measure thermal dissipation and typical power differently. Deal with it.
I thought I was pretty clear about what I asked, but I'll try again.
"Will a 95 Watt rated box cooler ( I use a Thermaltake CLP 0556-D.) cool the i7 8700k at stock frequencies?
I don't run torture tests, so I don't give a fig about those results. I only care about workloads that reflect my own tendencies. I'm a 1440p gamer. That is the toughest task I will ever run.
These reviews that rush to throw liquid coolers onto mainstream processors are a disservice to most users. I understand that you want to find the OC potential for any CPU you test, but that doesn't alleviate the need for a stock test with a cooler that would be installed by a normal, human user.
Edit: BTW, the cooler I use is $13 dollars, all day, every day at Newegg. I think you know what you can do with those $100- $300 dollar coolers, especially the long lever, half dumbbells that seem to be so popular with "expert" crowd these days. While I'm on my soapbox, water hoses and radiators inside your case with your expensive CPU's and graphics cards? What could go wrong?
I thought I was pretty clear about what I asked, but I'll try again.
"Will a 95 Watt rated box cooler ( I use a Thermaltake CLP 0556-D.) cool the i7 8700k at stock frequencies?
goldstone77 :
How well does a 95W cooler work with them?
So, you don't have an answer about the 8700K 95W TDP rating, and it's ability to use a 95W cooler just a link circling back to this thread...
He mentioned he is using a 95W rated cooler for his 7700k, and I mentioned in the link how two reviews (HFR and Anandtech) measured CPU power directly and found that 8700k consumes less than 7700k. So if he can cool his 7700k, he would be able to cool the 8700k with the same cooler.
He mentioned he is using a 95W rated cooler for his 7700k, and I mentioned in the link how two reviews (HFR and Anandtech) measured CPU power directly and found that 8700k consumes less than 7700k. So if he can cool his 7700k, he would be able to cool the 8700k with the same cooler.
I would never put my hands on fire over that statement, Juan.
What you're saying there is:
CPU A with 4 cores and 91W TPD consumes less than CPU B with 6 cores and 95W TDP.
You're falling into a logical fallacy there. Just because you find a couple benchmarks where one CPU uses less power, does not mean it will be that way when they're telling you from the spec sheet it will use more.
If you have a program pegging all 6 cores at 100%, there's no way in hell the 4C is going to consume more unless the 6C is throttling.
He mentioned he is using a 95W rated cooler for his 7700k, and I mentioned in the link how two reviews (HFR and Anandtech) measured CPU power directly and found that 8700k consumes less than 7700k. So if he can cool his 7700k, he would be able to cool the 8700k with the same cooler.
I would never put my hands on fire over that statement, Juan.
What you're saying there is:
CPU A with 4 cores and 91W TPD consumes less than CPU B with 6 cores and 95W TDP.
You're falling into a logical fallacy there. Just because you find a couple benchmarks where one CPU uses less power, does not mean it will be that way when they're telling you from the spec sheet it will use more.
If you have a program pegging all 6 cores at 100%, there's no way in hell the 4C is going to consume more unless the 6C is throttling.
(i) I didn't make an absolute statement but a conditional statement, because there are uncertainties in this problem. For instance is his 95W cooler really 95W?
(ii) The programs used by the reviewers scale well above 6C (they scale above 12C/24T); so it is not like if some cores on the 8700k were unused.
I thought I was pretty clear about what I asked, but I'll try again.
"Will a 95 Watt rated box cooler ( I use a Thermaltake CLP 0556-D.) cool the i7 8700k at stock frequencies?
I don't run torture tests, so I don't give a fig about those results. I only care about workloads that reflect my own tendencies. I'm a 1440p gamer. That is the toughest task I will ever run.
These reviews that rush to throw liquid coolers onto mainstream processors are a disservice to most users. I understand that you want to find the OC potential for any CPU you test, but that doesn't alleviate the need for a stock test with a cooler that would be installed by a normal, human user.
Edit: BTW, the cooler I use is $13 dollars, all day, every day at Newegg. I think you know what you can do with those $100- $300 dollar coolers, especially the long lever, half dumbbells that seem to be so popular with "expert" crowd these days. While I'm on my soapbox, water hoses and radiators inside your case with your expensive CPU's and graphics cards? What could go wrong?
I thought I was pretty clear about what I asked, but I'll try again.
"Will a 95 Watt rated box cooler ( I use a Thermaltake CLP 0556-D.) cool the i7 8700k at stock frequencies?
goldstone77 :
How well does a 95W cooler work with them?
So, you don't have an answer about the 8700K 95W TDP rating, and it's ability to use a 95W cooler just a link circling back to this thread...
He mentioned he is using a 95W rated cooler for his 7700k, and I mentioned in the link how two reviews (HFR and Anandtech) measured CPU power directly and found that 8700k consumes less than 7700k. So if he can cool his 7700k, he would be able to cool the 8700k with the same cooler.
I can tell you right now Kaby Lake with 6 cores will need a better cooling solution at 95W TDP than Kaby Lake 4 cores at 95W TDP!
He mentioned he is using a 95W rated cooler for his 7700k, and I mentioned in the link how two reviews (HFR and Anandtech) measured CPU power directly and found that 8700k consumes less than 7700k. So if he can cool his 7700k, he would be able to cool the 8700k with the same cooler.
I would never put my hands on fire over that statement, Juan.
What you're saying there is:
CPU A with 4 cores and 91W TPD consumes less than CPU B with 6 cores and 95W TDP.
You're falling into a logical fallacy there. Just because you find a couple benchmarks where one CPU uses less power, does not mean it will be that way when they're telling you from the spec sheet it will use more.
If you have a program pegging all 6 cores at 100%, there's no way in hell the 4C is going to consume more unless the 6C is throttling.
(i) I didn't make an absolute statement but a conditional statement, because there are uncertainties in this problem. For instance is his 95W cooler really 95W?
(ii) The programs used by the reviewers scale well above 6C (they scale above 12C/24T); so it is not like if some cores on the 8700k were unused.
My coolers advertised rating is 95 Watts TDP. It's not treated as some kind of state secret the way it often is with other coolers.
Note that I don't ask the reviewers to use my specific model to directly measure the cooling performance of a 95 watt TDP cooler as a check for mainstream users. Any reputable 95 watt TDP cooler will do. What I'm saying is that they should make such a test.
I thought I was pretty clear about what I asked, but I'll try again.
"Will a 95 Watt rated box cooler ( I use a Thermaltake CLP 0556-D.) cool the i7 8700k at stock frequencies?
I don't run torture tests, so I don't give a fig about those results. I only care about workloads that reflect my own tendencies. I'm a 1440p gamer. That is the toughest task I will ever run.
These reviews that rush to throw liquid coolers onto mainstream processors are a disservice to most users. I understand that you want to find the OC potential for any CPU you test, but that doesn't alleviate the need for a stock test with a cooler that would be installed by a normal, human user.
Edit: BTW, the cooler I use is $13 dollars, all day, every day at Newegg. I think you know what you can do with those $100- $300 dollar coolers, especially the long lever, half dumbbells that seem to be so popular with "expert" crowd these days. While I'm on my soapbox, water hoses and radiators inside your case with your expensive CPU's and graphics cards? What could go wrong?
I thought I was pretty clear about what I asked, but I'll try again.
"Will a 95 Watt rated box cooler ( I use a Thermaltake CLP 0556-D.) cool the i7 8700k at stock frequencies?
goldstone77 :
How well does a 95W cooler work with them?
So, you don't have an answer about the 8700K 95W TDP rating, and it's ability to use a 95W cooler just a link circling back to this thread...
He mentioned he is using a 95W rated cooler for his 7700k, and I mentioned in the link how two reviews (HFR and Anandtech) measured CPU power directly and found that 8700k consumes less than 7700k. So if he can cool his 7700k, he would be able to cool the 8700k with the same cooler.
I can tell you right now Kaby Lake with 6 cores will need a better cooling solution at 95W TDP than Kaby Lake 4 cores at 95W TDP!
I thought I was pretty clear about what I asked, but I'll try again.
"Will a 95 Watt rated box cooler ( I use a Thermaltake CLP 0556-D.) cool the i7 8700k at stock frequencies?
I don't run torture tests, so I don't give a fig about those results. I only care about workloads that reflect my own tendencies. I'm a 1440p gamer. That is the toughest task I will ever run.
These reviews that rush to throw liquid coolers onto mainstream processors are a disservice to most users. I understand that you want to find the OC potential for any CPU you test, but that doesn't alleviate the need for a stock test with a cooler that would be installed by a normal, human user.
Edit: BTW, the cooler I use is $13 dollars, all day, every day at Newegg. I think you know what you can do with those $100- $300 dollar coolers, especially the long lever, half dumbbells that seem to be so popular with "expert" crowd these days. While I'm on my soapbox, water hoses and radiators inside your case with your expensive CPU's and graphics cards? What could go wrong?
I thought I was pretty clear about what I asked, but I'll try again.
"Will a 95 Watt rated box cooler ( I use a Thermaltake CLP 0556-D.) cool the i7 8700k at stock frequencies?
goldstone77 :
How well does a 95W cooler work with them?
So, you don't have an answer about the 8700K 95W TDP rating, and it's ability to use a 95W cooler just a link circling back to this thread...
He mentioned he is using a 95W rated cooler for his 7700k, and I mentioned in the link how two reviews (HFR and Anandtech) measured CPU power directly and found that 8700k consumes less than 7700k. So if he can cool his 7700k, he would be able to cool the 8700k with the same cooler.
I can tell you right now Kaby Lake with 6 cores will need a better cooling solution at 95W TDP than Kaby Lake 4 cores at 95W TDP!
Why?
Yuka mentions a few reasons, and here are some more.
Quad-core chips don't require as much voltage, and thus don't put out as much heat, meaning the use of a TIM less of an issue. The 8700K on the other hand pumps out the heat and then some. At stock speeds on auto settings, the 8700K reaches a toasty 90°C under full load when paired with a substantial 280mm liquid cooler (in this case a CoolerMaster MasterLiquid Pro). I had paired the 8700K with a 240mm liquid cooler, but that wasn't enough to keep the temperatures down.
I thought I was pretty clear about what I asked, but I'll try again.
"Will a 95 Watt rated box cooler ( I use a Thermaltake CLP 0556-D.) cool the i7 8700k at stock frequencies?
I don't run torture tests, so I don't give a fig about those results. I only care about workloads that reflect my own tendencies. I'm a 1440p gamer. That is the toughest task I will ever run.
These reviews that rush to throw liquid coolers onto mainstream processors are a disservice to most users. I understand that you want to find the OC potential for any CPU you test, but that doesn't alleviate the need for a stock test with a cooler that would be installed by a normal, human user.
Edit: BTW, the cooler I use is $13 dollars, all day, every day at Newegg. I think you know what you can do with those $100- $300 dollar coolers, especially the long lever, half dumbbells that seem to be so popular with "expert" crowd these days. While I'm on my soapbox, water hoses and radiators inside your case with your expensive CPU's and graphics cards? What could go wrong?
I thought I was pretty clear about what I asked, but I'll try again.
"Will a 95 Watt rated box cooler ( I use a Thermaltake CLP 0556-D.) cool the i7 8700k at stock frequencies?
goldstone77 :
How well does a 95W cooler work with them?
So, you don't have an answer about the 8700K 95W TDP rating, and it's ability to use a 95W cooler just a link circling back to this thread...
He mentioned he is using a 95W rated cooler for his 7700k, and I mentioned in the link how two reviews (HFR and Anandtech) measured CPU power directly and found that 8700k consumes less than 7700k. So if he can cool his 7700k, he would be able to cool the 8700k with the same cooler.
I can tell you right now Kaby Lake with 6 cores will need a better cooling solution at 95W TDP than Kaby Lake 4 cores at 95W TDP!
Why?
Yuka mentions a few reasons, and here are some more.
Quad-core chips don't require as much voltage, and thus don't put out as much heat, meaning the use of a TIM less of an issue. The 8700K on the other hand pumps out the heat and then some. At stock speeds on auto settings, the 8700K reaches a toasty 90°C under full load when paired with a substantial 280mm liquid cooler (in this case a CoolerMaster MasterLiquid Pro). I had paired the 8700K with a 240mm liquid cooler, but that wasn't enough to keep the temperatures down.
(i)
You compared a hypothetical 6-core KabyLake 95W TDP with a hypothetical 4-core KabyLake 95W TDP. Since TDPs are the same the amount of cooling will be the same. In fact the 6-core will be easier to cool, because it has same TDP on a larger area. Or said in other form the six-core is a 15.83W per core chip and the quad-core is a 23.75W per core chip.
(ii)
Those reviews you bring us are comparing CoffeLake to Kabylake. Watts from the wall are irrelevant when discussing CPU cooling, what matter is the power draw by the CPU from the socket. Power consumption numbers have been given in this thread. For instance the i7-8700k draws 100W from the socket whereas the R7-1800X draws 129W (That is the reason why AMD bundle the 1800X with a 140W cooler).
(iii)
Those total platform power consumption figures from Arstechnica look correct. The i7-8700k platform draws less total power than the R7-1800X. This is the same conclusion found by HFR, Kitguru, PcPer, and others. For instance PcPer found
TechReport found
Legit Reviews found
However the figures in LinusTechChips are completely nonsensical values. Does someone really believe that 8700k platform consumes virtually the double than RyZen and close to 1950X ThreadRipper? LOL In fact removing idle power the i7 would consume more power than 1950X of those numbers were true.
The only way to get those nonsensical values that LinusTechChips is obtaining is if he is testing an i7 overclocked to 5.1GHz or so with MCE enabled, or some other crazy combination
Also temperatures that LinusTechChips report cannot be stock temperatures. On stock the i7-8700k temperatures are around 50--60 ºC
Temperatures in the 90 ºC range as LinusTechChips measured are only obtained with the CPU overclocked to 5GHz or so. Kirguru got 80--90 ºC. TechRadar measured a peak of 87 ºC when pushed the CPU to 5.1GHz.
I thought I was pretty clear about what I asked, but I'll try again.
"Will a 95 Watt rated box cooler ( I use a Thermaltake CLP 0556-D.) cool the i7 8700k at stock frequencies?
I don't run torture tests, so I don't give a fig about those results. I only care about workloads that reflect my own tendencies. I'm a 1440p gamer. That is the toughest task I will ever run.
These reviews that rush to throw liquid coolers onto mainstream processors are a disservice to most users. I understand that you want to find the OC potential for any CPU you test, but that doesn't alleviate the need for a stock test with a cooler that would be installed by a normal, human user.
Edit: BTW, the cooler I use is $13 dollars, all day, every day at Newegg. I think you know what you can do with those $100- $300 dollar coolers, especially the long lever, half dumbbells that seem to be so popular with "expert" crowd these days. While I'm on my soapbox, water hoses and radiators inside your case with your expensive CPU's and graphics cards? What could go wrong?
I thought I was pretty clear about what I asked, but I'll try again.
"Will a 95 Watt rated box cooler ( I use a Thermaltake CLP 0556-D.) cool the i7 8700k at stock frequencies?
goldstone77 :
How well does a 95W cooler work with them?
So, you don't have an answer about the 8700K 95W TDP rating, and it's ability to use a 95W cooler just a link circling back to this thread...
He mentioned he is using a 95W rated cooler for his 7700k, and I mentioned in the link how two reviews (HFR and Anandtech) measured CPU power directly and found that 8700k consumes less than 7700k. So if he can cool his 7700k, he would be able to cool the 8700k with the same cooler.
I can tell you right now Kaby Lake with 6 cores will need a better cooling solution at 95W TDP than Kaby Lake 4 cores at 95W TDP!
Why?
Yuka mentions a few reasons, and here are some more.
Quad-core chips don't require as much voltage, and thus don't put out as much heat, meaning the use of a TIM less of an issue. The 8700K on the other hand pumps out the heat and then some. At stock speeds on auto settings, the 8700K reaches a toasty 90°C under full load when paired with a substantial 280mm liquid cooler (in this case a CoolerMaster MasterLiquid Pro). I had paired the 8700K with a 240mm liquid cooler, but that wasn't enough to keep the temperatures down.
(i)
You compared a hypothetical 6-core KabyLake 95W TDP with a hypothetical 4-core KabyLake 95W TDP. Since TDPs are the same the amount of cooling will be the same. In fact the 6-core will be easier to cool, because it has same TDP on a larger area. Or said in other form the six-core is a 15.83W per core chip and the quad-core is a 23.75W per core chip.
(ii)
Those reviews you bring us are comparing CoffeLake to Kabylake. Watts from the wall are irrelevant when discussing CPU cooling, what matter is the power draw by the CPU from the socket. Power consumption numbers have been given in this thread. For instance the i7-8700k draws 100W from the socket whereas the R7-1800X draws 129W (That is the reason why AMD bundle the 1800X with a 140W cooler).
(iii)
Those total platform power consumption figures from Arstechnica look correct. The i7-8700k platform draws less total power than the R7-1800X. This is the same conclusion found by HFR, Kitguru, PcPer, and others. For instance PcPer found
TechReport found
Legit Reviews found
However the figures in LinusTechChips are completely nonsensical values. Does someone really believe that 8700k platform consumes virtually the double than RyZen and close to 1950X ThreadRipper? LOL In fact removing idle power the i7 would consume more power than 1950X of those numbers were true.
The only way to get those nonsensical values that LinusTechChips is obtaining is if he is testing an i7 overclocked to 5.1GHz or so with MCE enabled, or some other crazy combination
Also temperatures that LinusTechChips report cannot be stock temperatures. On stock the i7-8700k temperatures are around 50--60 ºC
Temperatures in the 90 ºC range as LinusTechChips measured are only obtained with the CPU overclocked to 5GHz or so. Kirguru got 80--90 ºC. TechRadar measured a peak of 87 ºC when pushed the CPU to 5.1GHz.
At stock speeds on auto settings, the 8700K reaches a toasty 90°C under full load when paired with a substantial 280mm liquid cooler (in this case a CoolerMaster MasterLiquid Pro). I had paired the 8700K with a 240mm liquid cooler, but that wasn't enough to keep the temperatures down.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram