News Intel Core i9-10900K Stress Tested: Comet Lake Flagship Hits 93°C

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Yup. I've seen this info before. Also posted an article on this. I was just wondering how other CPUs are going to perform in the Comet Lake S lineup.

The all-core and single core boost figures seems to be just for marketing purposes, IMO. Intel claims up to 5.3 / 4.0 GHz Thermal Velocity Boost Singe / All-core Turbo, though they fail to mention these speeds are only going to be valid in "short bursts", for interval of time.

Discussion - Intel i9-10900K 10 Core flagship CPU tested. Runs very hot & consumes 235W at 4.8 GHz, with over 90C temps.

Hi, Just wanted to share this info with you all. What are your thoughts ? The core i9 10900K is going to be the flagship gaming CPU in the "Comet Lake S" lineup from INTEL. With the launch date coming nearer, it would be hitting shelves soon. It's rumored to be a power-hungry Desktop...
forums.tomshardware.com forums.tomshardware.com
 
•It is 87C average with 88C current. 93C was just the maximum spike and likely occurred when the cpu tried to briefly boost to its TV boost of 4.9GHz before downclocking to 4.8GHz.
•It was cooled by a 240mm water cooler with a thin rad. This 240mm watercooler is no better than a decent air-cooler and inferior to many good air-coolers like the Noctua NH U14S (and certainly inferior to the best air-coolers like the Noctua NH D15 that trade blows with the best 280mm watercoolers).
•It was tested with a load equivalent to Prime 95 small FFTs with AVX. That is like testing a building for an earthquake of 12degrees in the Richter scale, an earthquake that will never ever happen (well not until the sun goes nova or comets fell on Earth or some other such cataclysmic event occurs)
•It is with power-limits removed. Had power limits been enabled the CPU would be forced to downclock to a lower frequency where power consumption would stay at 125W. For this workload that frequency would be 4.0GHz-4.3GHz.
•As shown, with power limits removed, the CPU has no problem to turbo indefinitely at its all-core turbo 2.0 speed of 4.8GHz. And had temps stayed below 70C it would be turboing indefinitely to 4.9GHz.
•The 5.3GHz is the turbo with only 1 or 2 cores active. Turbo depends on the workload’s needs. The nature of most workloads only requires brief frequency boosts. If the workload is 1-2core and bursty the turbo will be bursty. If the workload is 1-2core and sustained then the 5.3GHz turbo will be sustained too (i.e. for as long as the workload is active). If for example you run Cinebench R15/R20 single- threaded (or dual-threaded) this CPU will have no problem maintaining that 5.3GHz speed for the entire duration of the test, even without removing power limits and even just having a simple 212EVO to cool it. In the worst-case scenario, temps will be above 70C in which case you will get a sustained 5.2GHz (which is the turbo boost 3.0 frequency which is not depended on temperature – other than TJmax that is).
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcgge1360, TCA_ChinChin and Gurg
PCWarrior said:
•It is 87C average with 88C current. 93C was just the maximum spike and likely occurred when the cpu tried to briefly boost to its TV boost of 4.9GHz before downclocking to 4.8GHz.
•It was cooled by a 240mm water cooler with a thin rad. This 240mm watercooler is no better than a decent air-cooler and inferior to many good air-coolers like the Noctua NH U14S (and certainly inferior to the best air-coolers like the Noctua NH D15 that trade blows with the best 280mm watercoolers).
•It was tested with a load equivalent to Prime 95 small FFTs with AVX. That is like testing a building for an earthquake of 12degrees in the Richter scale, an earthquake that will never ever happen (well not until the sun goes nova or comets fell on Earth or some other such cataclysmic event occurs)
•It is with power-limits removed. Had power limits been enabled the CPU would be forced to downclock to a lower frequency where power consumption would stay at 125W. For this workload that frequency would be 4.0GHz-4.3GHz.
•As shown, with power limits removed, the CPU has no problem to turbo indefinitely at its all-core turbo 2.0 speed of 4.8GHz. And had temps stayed below 70C it would be turboing indefinitely to 4.9GHz.
•The 5.3GHz is the turbo with only 1 or 2 cores active. Turbo depends on the workload’s needs. The nature of most workloads only requires brief frequency boosts. If the workload is 1-2core and bursty the turbo will be bursty. If the workload is 1-2core and sustained then the 5.3GHz turbo will be sustained too (i.e. for as long as the workload is active). If for example you run Cinebench R15/R20 single- threaded (or dual-threaded) this CPU will have no problem maintaining that 5.3GHz speed for the entire duration of the test, even without removing power limits and even just having a simple 212EVO to cool it. In the worst-case scenario, temps will be above 70C in which case you will get a sustained 5.2GHz (which is the turbo boost 3.0 frequency which is not depended on temperature – other than TJmax that is).
Click to expand...
Its still a volcano requiring a nuclear power plant 🔥🔥🔥
 
  • Like
Reactions: Soaptrail
A Legion branded 240mm aio is a little vague. Really will have to wait until we get a name brand AIO tested on these CPUs not in an OEM case so that we can compare it to the same cooler on existing CPUs.

PCWarrior said:
It was cooled by a 240mm water cooler with a thin rad. This 240mm watercooler is no better than a decent air-cooler and inferior to many good air-coolers like the Noctua NH U14S (and certainly inferior to the best air-coolers like the Noctua NH D15 that trade blows with the best 280mm watercoolers).
Click to expand...
You cannot say this cooler is any worse nor any better than a specific air cooler since there is no test of those air coolers against this particular Legion branded AIO on this CPU. Also, case airflow would have played a part. A good 240mm AIO can tie expensive air coolers, or it can lose to them. It really depends on the exact AIO and exact air cooler tested. Not all 240mm aios are the same.
PCWarrior said:
It is with power-limits removed. Had power limits been enabled the CPU would be forced to downclock to a lower frequency where power consumption would stay at 125W. For this workload, that frequency would be 4.0GHz-4.3GHz.
Click to expand...
Most motherboards disabled these limits by default (Even this OEM board has these limits disabled), so this is more or less out of the box performance. Any CPU can run cool if you purposely downclock it below out of the box operation which lowers performance greatly.
You basically are guessing what frequency that CPU would run at with those limits enabled since the CPU is not released and you cannot actually test it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lumineZ, alextheblue, JarredWaltonGPU and 1 other person
PCWarrior said:
•It is 87C average with 88C current. 93C was just the maximum spike and likely occurred when the cpu tried to briefly boost to its TV boost of 4.9GHz before downclocking to 4.8GHz.
•It was cooled by a 240mm water cooler with a thin rad. This 240mm watercooler is no better than a decent air-cooler and inferior to many good air-coolers like the Noctua NH U14S (and certainly inferior to the best air-coolers like the Noctua NH D15 that trade blows with the best 280mm watercoolers).
•It was tested with a load equivalent to Prime 95 small FFTs with AVX. That is like testing a building for an earthquake of 12degrees in the Richter scale, an earthquake that will never ever happen (well not until the sun goes nova or comets fell on Earth or some other such cataclysmic event occurs)
•It is with power-limits removed. Had power limits been enabled the CPU would be forced to downclock to a lower frequency where power consumption would stay at 125W. For this workload that frequency would be 4.0GHz-4.3GHz.
•As shown, with power limits removed, the CPU has no problem to turbo indefinitely at its all-core turbo 2.0 speed of 4.8GHz. And had temps stayed below 70C it would be turboing indefinitely to 4.9GHz.
•The 5.3GHz is the turbo with only 1 or 2 cores active. Turbo depends on the workload’s needs. The nature of most workloads only requires brief frequency boosts. If the workload is 1-2core and bursty the turbo will be bursty. If the workload is 1-2core and sustained then the 5.3GHz turbo will be sustained too (i.e. for as long as the workload is active). If for example you run Cinebench R15/R20 single- threaded (or dual-threaded) this CPU will have no problem maintaining that 5.3GHz speed for the entire duration of the test, even without removing power limits and even just having a simple 212EVO to cool it. In the worst-case scenario, temps will be above 70C in which case you will get a sustained 5.2GHz (which is the turbo boost 3.0 frequency which is not depended on temperature – other than TJmax that is).
Click to expand...

Yeah not so fast. Loading in Frostbite games uses AVX and gets to 100 percent and gets nearly as hot as Prime95, I don't want my fans hitting max temp every time I load into a level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alextheblue, JarredWaltonGPU and TCA_ChinChin
PCWarrior said:
If for example you run Cinebench R15/R20 single- threaded (or dual-threaded) this CPU will have no problem maintaining that 5.3GHz speed for the entire duration of the test, even without removing power limits and even just having a simple 212EVO to cool it
Click to expand...
Sure, if you load the 1 or 2 of the 20 threads and stress the CPU, you don't need a fancy cooler and the CPU doesn't draw as much power since you are only loading one-twentieth or one-tenth of the CPU.

Most modern software can utilize far more than 1 or 2 threads, so whatever point you were trying to make is irrelevant for 99% of the buyers of this CPU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TCA_ChinChin and Soaptrail
PCWarrior said:
•It is 87C average with 88C current. 93C was just the maximum spike and likely occurred when the cpu tried to briefly boost to its TV boost of 4.9GHz before downclocking to 4.8GHz.
•It was cooled by a 240mm water cooler with a thin rad. This 240mm watercooler is no better than a decent air-cooler and inferior to many good air-coolers like the Noctua NH U14S (and certainly inferior to the best air-coolers like the Noctua NH D15 that trade blows with the best 280mm watercoolers).
•It was tested with a load equivalent to Prime 95 small FFTs with AVX. That is like testing a building for an earthquake of 12degrees in the Richter scale, an earthquake that will never ever happen (well not until the sun goes nova or comets fell on Earth or some other such cataclysmic event occurs)
•It is with power-limits removed. Had power limits been enabled the CPU would be forced to downclock to a lower frequency where power consumption would stay at 125W. For this workload that frequency would be 4.0GHz-4.3GHz.
•As shown, with power limits removed, the CPU has no problem to turbo indefinitely at its all-core turbo 2.0 speed of 4.8GHz. And had temps stayed below 70C it would be turboing indefinitely to 4.9GHz.
•The 5.3GHz is the turbo with only 1 or 2 cores active. Turbo depends on the workload’s needs. The nature of most workloads only requires brief frequency boosts. If the workload is 1-2core and bursty the turbo will be bursty. If the workload is 1-2core and sustained then the 5.3GHz turbo will be sustained too (i.e. for as long as the workload is active). If for example you run Cinebench R15/R20 single- threaded (or dual-threaded) this CPU will have no problem maintaining that 5.3GHz speed for the entire duration of the test, even without removing power limits and even just having a simple 212EVO to cool it. In the worst-case scenario, temps will be above 70C in which case you will get a sustained 5.2GHz (which is the turbo boost 3.0 frequency which is not depended on temperature – other than TJmax that is).
Click to expand...
Years ago I called out Toms'Hardware for claiming a new AMD product was a fire breather in review tests. TH had run the test in the hot apartment (Arizona?Nevada?) of the tester where the air conditioning was having trouble maintaining 76º F. At that time I indicated that testing should occur at temperature conditions of 70-72º which approximate the ideal average office temp for maximum productivity in the US.

Tom's Hardware has since adopted that standard for its reviews.

There is absolutely no indication of the ambient air temperatures in which this run was conducted.
 
Last edited:
Gurg said:
Years ago I called out Toms'Hardware for claiming a new AMD product was a fire breather in review tests. TH had run the test in the hot apartment (Arizona?Nevada?) of the tester where the air conditioning was having trouble maintaining 76º F. At that time I indicated that testing should occur at temperature conditions of 70-72º which approximate the ideal average office temp for maximum productivity in the US.

Tom's Hardware has since adopted that standard for its reviews.

There is absolutely no indication of the ambient air temperatures in which this run was conducted.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that staffer lived here in the greater PHX area.
 
ZZZzz
any modern CPU will thermal throttle if you stress test the CPU's FPU like AIDA does.
If you have a Ryzen7-9 give it a try without limiting the TDP to lower values than stock, you will see it reaching 90C and sucking more than 200W (depending on your PBO settings and motherboard capability). This subtest drives the CPU to the worst case scenario imaginable.
I don't doubt that this CPU will be power hungry but this news is ridiculous lol. it reeks AMD fanboyism
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mcgge1360 and Gurg
jmc said:
ZZZzz
any modern CPU will thermal throttle if you stress test the CPU's FPU like AIDA does.
If you have a Ryzen7-9 give it a try without limiting the TDP to lower values than stock, you will see it reaching 90C and sucking more than 200W (depending on your PBO settings and motherboard capability). This subtest drives the CPU to the worst case scenario imaginable.
I don't doubt that this CPU will be power hungry but this news is ridiculous lol. it reeks AMD fanboyism
Click to expand...
Did you ever had a Ryzen or seen Ryzen reviews?? Or you only had Intel and only look at Intel reviews?
My 1800X@4.0Ghz@1.4V doesn't break the 60C in Prime95 default settings and that is with a 28$ single fan air cooler, Freezer 33 single fan. Cinebench R20 Multicore tests maxes at 54C. 1800X review shows 112W at stock in Prime95:

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-11.html

Tomshardware's reviews are always accurate and never skewed the way you'r claiming.
 
Last edited:
Metal Messiah. said:
Yup. I've seen this info before. Also posted an article on this. I was just wondering how other CPUs are going to perform in the Comet Lake S lineup.

The all-core and single core boost figures seems to be just for marketing purposes, IMO. Intel claims up to 5.3 / 4.0 GHz Thermal Velocity Boost Singe / All-core Turbo, though they fail to mention these speeds are only going to be valid in "short bursts", for interval of time.

Discussion - Intel i9-10900K 10 Core flagship CPU tested. Runs very hot & consumes 235W at 4.8 GHz, with over 90C temps.

Hi, Just wanted to share this info with you all. What are your thoughts ? The core i9 10900K is going to be the flagship gaming CPU in the "Comet Lake S" lineup from INTEL. With the launch date coming nearer, it would be hitting shelves soon. It's rumored to be a power-hungry Desktop...
forums.tomshardware.com forums.tomshardware.com
Click to expand...
https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...ssors-brief.html?wapkw=Thermal Velocity Boost
3
Includes the effect of Intel® Thermal Velocity Boost (Intel® TVB), a feature that opportunistically and automatically increases clock frequency above single-core and multi-core Intel® Turbo Boost Technology frequencies based on how much the processor is operating below its maximum temperature and whether turbo power budget is available. The frequency gain and duration is dependent on the workload, capabilities of the processor and the processor cooling solution.
Click to expand...
 
It's not looking good. I'm eager to replace my almost 7 year old i7-4770k with the upcoming intel cpus... thinking twice now.
 
We need to see a graph of thermals for the first 10 minutes. Basically to see the clock speeds and thermals during the time when the cooler still has enough thermal mass to absorb excess heat that the radiator cannot dissipate. This will effectively give us an idea of how a larger cooler might perform. This will also hint at thermal density issues as well as thermal interface above and below the heatspreader.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gurg and Zizo007
Not sure if 24 degrees is Fahrenheit or Celsius? Of course it is, unless you think their room temperature is way below freezing. The entire world apart from US uses Celsius. Even you use Celsius for CPU temps. No one says "my cpu hit 200 Fahrenheit", that would be incomprehensible. But "my cpu hit 95 Celsius" is fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makaveli and GenericUser
z0d said:
It's not looking good. I'm eager to replace my almost 7 year old i7-4770k with the upcoming intel cpus... thinking twice now.
Click to expand...
https://www.extremetech.com/computi...-core-i7-4770k-takes-over-the-pole-position/3
The i7-4770k would reach 148W while also not even hitting 4,5Ghz,that's less than half the threads at ~20% less clocks.
If you don't need the additional computational power I can understand that,but on the power consumption front it's far ahead of your 4770k
 
Stock ryzen 5 2600 doesnt break 60c with stock freezer 34 in prime 95 avx on. Even at 4.2ghz it only hits 70c.

Draws well over 100w at this point in hw monitor.


It is most definately NOT normal for a cpu to get this hot under any circumstance. Ryzen does NOT behave like this.
 
golemka said:
I will keep my 4790k for sure for an extra 5 years, I see no competition here.
Click to expand...
The only reason I upgraded from a 4 core 1300X to a 1800X back then was gaming. BFV online 32 and 64 player ran like a slideshow maxing all four cores 100%. It was unplayable.
Popped in the 1800X and everything was smooth. I had a Vega 64 at the time running at 1080p.
 
and 93° is relevant how? as if they ever run at 100% load in gaming scenarios
I'm more interested how the temps are at 20-50% load

It's advertised as a gaming cpu so maybe it should be used for that
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcgge1360 and Gurg
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom