I9 9900k Official Reviews from Anandtech, Tomshardware. Add your own links to others !

[coercitiv]

About prime95, the behavior of locked Intel chips is very different from unlocked chips. Your argument would stand if you were upset with why a locked chip sustains a tdp far above advertised figures.

I own a locked 65W TDP i7 8700.

• Wanna guess what my stock sustained power usage in CB15 is on MSI Z370M Gaming Pro? ---> 95W
• Wanna guess stock sustained power usage in Prime 95? ---> 120W

The only limit the motherboard had at launch was AVX related, they removed that as well one month later. Their BIOS revision description still makes me chuckle:

Fix throttling issue when use 8700 cpu to run Prime95 burning test.

 

[Zucker2k]

I own a locked 65W TDP i7 8700.

• Wanna guess what my stock sustained power usage in CB15 is on MSI Z370M Gaming Pro? ---> 95W
• Wanna guess stock sustained power usage in Prime 95? ---> 120W

The only limit the motherboard had at launch was AVX related, they removed that as well one month later. Their BIOS revision description still makes me chuckle:

Is the MSI Z370M an overclocking mobo? I believe you posted in another thread it's possible to get the chip to not exceed 65watts with some tinkering in the bios. CTDP?

Edit: As you've already indicated in your previous posts, mobo makers have their own little 'tweaks' going with new chip releases from both AMD and Intel. For a chip to run at stock these days, it seems they'd need to be run on a locked platform or be severely cooling limited. With Turbo and XFR in place, it's nearly impossible to run anything at stock clocks anymore.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Gotta make sure we don't throttle on a bench.

 

[Abwx]

I believe you posted in another thread it's possible to get the chip to not exceed 65watts with some tinkering in the bios.

No, whatever is set in the bios.

https://www.hardware.fr/articles/975-4/core-i7-8700.html

 

[Zucker2k]

No, whatever is set in the bios.

https://www.hardware.fr/articles/975-4/core-i7-8700.html

Even with Turbo Boost off?

 

[Abwx]

Even with Turbo Boost off?

Eventualy if you use the 65W stock cooler, otherwise factory max boost will prevail if the cooling solution can exhaust the power....

https://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/55/IMG0055250.jpg

 

[Zucker2k]

Eventualy if you use the 65W stock cooler, otherwise factory max boost will prevail if the cooling solution can exhaust the power....

https://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/55/IMG0055250.jpg

That's Turbo Boost and XFR for you. They're by design, persistent; and they work.

 

[coercitiv]

I believe you posted in another thread it's possible to get the chip to not exceed 65watts with some tinkering in the bios. CTDP?

Yes, you can set limits for Long Term Power Usage (PL1), Short Term Power Usage (PL2), Max Current too. You can make it a 35W TDP CPU if you want to, it takes 10 seconds in BIOS.

The problem is stock settings are so relaxed the chip clocks as high as the multiplier allows it. And my bet is it's actually the mobo makers who are at fault here, while Intel and AMD are guilty of silently indulging this "arms" race. Think about it, once one mobo maker removes power limits for stock config, how is that motherboard going to look in reviews performance wise? How are the rest going to respond?

This has been happening for quite a while, it's not a new event related to 9900K launch. The only difference is this time the silicon can draw a lot more power, and coolers get overwhelmed.

PS : Here's how the power settings look like in HWInfo64, both Power Limits are set to Auto in BIOS:

 

[Markfw]

Where do you get this 221W Figure you keep repeating? Anandtech gave 168W all-turbo peak, and with PL2 set to 210W, 221W isnt even possible at stock settings.

That was the original review. I guess I need to go back and reread, as I heard it changed.

 

[krumme]

Yes, you can set limits for Long Term Power Usage (PL1), Short Term Power Usage (PL2), Max Current too. You can make it a 35W TDP CPU if you want to, it takes 10 seconds in BIOS.

The problem is stock settings are so relaxed the chip clocks as high as the multiplier allows it. And my bet is it's actually the mobo makers who are at fault here, while Intel and AMD are guilty of silently indulging this "arms" race. Think about it, once one mobo maker removes power limits for stock config, how is that motherboard going to look in reviews performance wise? How are the rest going to respond?

This has been happening for quite a while, it's not a new event related to 9900K launch. The only difference is this time the silicon can draw a lot more power, and coolers get overwhelmed.

PS : Here's how the power settings look like in HWInfo64, both Power Limits are set to Auto in BIOS:

I think the mb settings is relaxed to the degree AMD and Intel dictates and have interest in.
I find it better with these relaxed settings for normal office and gaming loads as power is kept more under control vs a straight oc with a solid dose of voltage hike. Safer and more robust....
That is if the cpu is labelled correct so ordinary consumers get the right cooling.
And clearly the 9900k is not consuming remotely like the 8700k in everyone's computer and never will. Good ! Hopefully it will be put to good solid wide avx work and therefore needs an appropriate cooler.

 

[Arkaign]

That was the original review. I guess I need to go back and reread, as I heard it changed.

True, I saw it too. This launch feels a little muddled, I feel perhaps Intel didn't work super well with mobo makers to make sure BIOS updates and defaults were well ready and tuned for 9900k. I do think we'll see considerable improvement over the next few weeks as they sort it out. It will still be a monster on power for a S115x product, though probably a bit better on optimizations. I had a similar experience going from an FX 6100 to 8320 on an earlier AM3 Mobo, on launch it was a bit wonky, but got way better after an update.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Yeah. Posters expressing excessive disappointment with this chip, when you get a strong feeling the poster never even considered it for purchase — well, it is unnecessary negativism. Let's just celebrate this chip for the last hurrah it is.

Similar to what the AMD engineers did with the FX-9590 (240 W, 5 GHz), the Intel engineers obviously have been given free range to push 14nm Coffee Lake to the limits with i9-9900K. Criticise Intel marketing for high pricing, misleading TDP and competitive claims, but celebrate the engineers for what they were able to accomplish. i9-9900K is about the most concentrated piece of compute on this planet, and probably in the visible universe — engineering on the frontier of human accomplishment. Respect!

I will only disagree in that the FX-9590 was not so much a result of AMD engineers being given "free range to push" 32nm Piledriver to the limits. It was actually a way to salvage failed dice and sell them for an incredible markup. 9590s and 9370s were too leaky to sell as 8350s or anything else, so it was either make them into enthusiast chips or chuck them on the garbage heap. For better or for worse, the 9900k was purposefully built to be what it is.

The 9900k is about as far as Intel can push 14nm now, and possibly forever. Not sure what coffeelake refresh refresh is gonna look like . . . and if the 9900k is never unseated on the top-end, that means we won't see anything faster on the desktop until maybe 2020.

 

[coercitiv]

I'll keep repeating this on the forums until it's no longer necessary: we're no longer reading CPU reviews, we're reading Motherboard & CPU reviews

And here it is, Hardware Unboxed posted a new video to address the seemingly different thermal results reviewers got with the 9900K: based on the motherboard used in testing, the 9900K motherboard may or may not power throttle - it's all a combination of stock settings and motherboard VRM quality - leading to wildly different CPU thermals. Everyone who is interested in the 9900K from a power, thermal and overclocking point of view should watch this video.

 

[ttechf]

And here it is, Hardware Unboxed posted a new video to address the seemingly different thermal results reviewers got with the 9900K: based on the motherboard used in testing, the 9900K motherboard may or may not power throttle - it's all a combination of stock settings and motherboard VRM quality - leading to wildly different CPU thermals. Everyone who is interested in the 9900K from a power, thermal and overclocking point of view should watch this video.

That was a very good video. Wish he went into what it takes to cool it at 5Ghz, but oh well. Thanks!

 

[Kenmitch]

And here it is, Hardware Unboxed posted a new video to address the seemingly different thermal results reviewers got with the 9900K: based on the motherboard used in testing, the 9900K motherboard may or may not power throttle - it's all a combination of stock settings and motherboard VRM quality - leading to wildly different CPU thermals. Everyone who is interested in the 9900K from a power, thermal and overclocking point of view should watch this video.

I guess that'll kill the drop in upgrades for some end users depending on what MB they purchased initially. I'm thinking it's why Intel stuck to the 95w TDP as it'll entice the drop in upgrade market along with the new builds. I guess we'll eventually see the 9900k killed my MB postings and videos.

AMD looks to have Intel in a very interesting place currently. What the future holds for both will be interesting to say the least.

 

[Shivansps]

This is the end of the line for 14nm, Intel pushed it way too hard. These Intel cpu are almost as worthless as the AMD FX.

The worse thing is the price, i warned about this the day the 1800X was launched, it was dangerous to push mainstream cpu price to $500 because Intel could do the same, you people called me an Intel fanboy for saying that and tried to justify it using HPC cpu prices, but there you go, enjoy it.

 

[LTC8K6]

This is the end of the line for 14nm, Intel pushed it way too hard. These Intel cpu are almost as worthless as the AMD FX.

The worse thing is the price, i warned about this the day the 1800X was launched, it was dangerous to push mainstream cpu price to $500 because Intel could do the same, you people called me an Intel fanboy for saying that and tried to justify it using HPC cpu prices, but there you go, enjoy it.

You're way off, imo.

The chip is fine, it's just difficult to cool if you plan on overclocking it.

It is priced too high, but it's also the king of the desktop hill.

 

[LTC8K6]

That was a very good video. Wish he went into what it takes to cool it at 5Ghz, but oh well. Thanks!

Anandtech used a big AIO cooler, True copper.

 

[LTC8K6]

I guess that'll kill the drop in upgrades for some end users depending on what MB they purchased initially. I'm thinking it's why Intel stuck to the 95w TDP as it'll entice the drop in upgrade market along with the new builds. I guess we'll eventually see the 9900k killed my MB postings and videos.

AMD looks to have Intel in a very interesting place currently. What the future holds for both will be interesting to say the least.

Motherboards vary in quality and price anyway, though.
They can probably still upgrade to a 9700K if they have a low quality mobo.

 

[ttechf]

Anandtech used a big AIO cooler, True copper.

So no water cooling? Interesting.

 

[Kenmitch]

Motherboards vary in quality and price anyway, though.
They can probably still upgrade to a 9700K if they have a low quality mobo.

I thought we were discussing the 9900k?

 

[LTC8K6]

I thought we were discussing the 9900k?

Most of the reviews were of both chips, though.

 

[Shivansps]

You're way off, imo.

The chip is fine, it's just difficult to cool if you plan on overclocking it.

It is priced too high, but it's also the king of the desktop hill.

Mark my words, this is the beginning of the new $500 top tier desktop cpus, that the worst part of the 9900K. The performance is the only thing that make them not as useless as the FXs.

AMD tested it, Intel tested it, this is the result i said this would happen when 1800X launched. HPC is another platform and another market it was a huge plus for the 1800X to match 6900K perf but you can really justify desktop prices like that. Hell i can even use that same argument and compare 7820X price to the 9900K and say it is ok. NO that just wrong.

Textbook example of how to increase prices industry-wide.

 

[LTC8K6]

The cost comparisons between the 9800X and the 9900K should be interesting.

 

[alkdeixaddc]

...