You'll care when you can't cool it. See below.
well you can cool it
the heat flow density makes it all, 14nm isnt as dense as the ryzens 3k
my 3900x default cooler is crap for 105W tdp cpu as was 2700X where it was ok
so the conclusion is, anyway you need upper mid tier and above case and ventilation/water to cool any of modern high performance desktop CPUs, be it ryzens or cores
Well it wasn't. The earliest Comet Lake-S could have hit the streets was Dec 2019. Instead we got the 9900KS.
better than nothing, but for us it is not good enough that is clear
. . . why? Do you really imagine that a 4.3 GHz 10c would be that much better than the 9900k which usually sits at 4.7 GHz with 8c? Even in perfect MT scenarios, the hypothetical gains would be miniscule (14% throughput), and you'd lose ST performance. Maybe you could get around that by twiddling the UEFI a bit to enforce 125W strictly to get some ST performance back. The last thing Intel has in its favor right now is gaming performance, and you'd lose that by deliberately running your chip at a lower clockspeed than what you could sustain with a product released in 2018.
maybe I didn't write it clear
I don't need the MT throughput of the 3900X- it is now undervolted and I lost 7% of handbraking performance and my wall power went down from 245W to 195W
so if I have to buy 10900K, I will probably enable the full throttle when gaming -which won't reach it anyway to satisfy my min fps 144Hz gaming need
for the handbraking I would underloclock and undervolt it to the perf/power effective point
even at 4GHz the MT througput is enough for my desktop needs
Why? I'm not. It'll have some extra L3 cache, but diminishing returns and all that.
definitely, I am just saying I thought the same about 9900K vs 8700K
Yes. Until Intel and/or board OEMs come clean about how much power the chip will really burn by default, we have to use reviews and user experience to inform us as to how hot the thing will get when not limited by an inadequate cooler. A 9900k can pull 160W or more without changing anything. A 10900k? We don't know. It'll be "up to" 300W, but again, I doubt that more than a few review boards will inflict that behavior. Maybe if you're a Day 1 buyer with a UEFI meant for reviewers, you'll get that. But it's going to be more than 125W (listed TDP), and probably more than the 160W we get from the 9900k today. 210W would not surprise me, and that's only if they keep MT clocks @ 4.7 GHz using default settings. If they try for higher clocks, expect that value to go up.
It takes a lot of cooling capacity to handle a 210W CPU, even if it isn't prone to hotspotting. I was barely able to handle a load that high with an NH-D15 and really loud fans. This thing will be essentially AiO/custom water or bust.
definitely, but for me as enthusiast it looks more predictable
for high end gaming builds, the CPU takes the less power portion than the GPU
let's be clear, the same applies to AMD
I didn't expect from my 105W TDP 3900X with b450 board to burn 245W from the wall (default, not undervolted) with pretty much the same components as with my 6600K
I got a bug in my head and can't explain it since the first ryzen 3k reviews and it is about expected power draw from the wall
my 6600K burns 106W while handbraking (undervolted) and the monitoring tool shows 49W package power
so pure CPU power 49W, VRM loss 13%, PSU loss 14% (low power means lower efficiency)=> 49/(0,87*0,86)= 66W so the all other components with all the losses while doing pure CPU job (handbraking) consume 40W
so having pretty much the same components ( I tried to change the RAM, GPU between the systems and wall power difference was 4W) you would expect if you system consumes 245W from the wall, that the CPU/chipset/VRM combo burns the rest
so 245 -45W =200W
lets calculate 200*0,87(VRM)*0,9(Better modern PSU)=157W
but HW info tells me 143W
I see this difference in all internet reviews, expected power draw of ryzen systems from the wall should be like 15W less
15W you can't cool passively without massive heatsink
I suspect the monitoring tools don't tell us everything- the mobile surface book with ryzen with the same as cores told us the ryzen burns less power, but the result was lower battery life
there can be only one explanation for me, the CPU is effective, other no so much
or I have an error in the calculations
I am writing this because TDP of not only Intel, but AMD the same tells us nothing unless you understand the tech spec and the rules (intel base clock, AMD don't know)
however, when it comes to pure task energy, the new ryzens are better, when it comes to standard corporate workload- lots of idles, some medium loads- Intel cores do better IMO
Who cares about AMD? It'll be a problem for Intel and their profits.
I do
Intel needs a serious punch in the face and there is no other market player
it will definitely hurt Intel profit, but it will hurt AMD's market share gain