What's new
Carbonite

South Africa's Top Online Tech Classifieds!
Register a free account today to become a member! (No Under 18's)
Home of C.U.D.

Three of the finest

Gouhan

Forum Addict
TheOverClocker.com
Rating - 100%
96   0   0
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
3,311
Reaction score
977
Points
5,265
Three of a kind.jpg


19th October can't come soon enough :)
 
Can't say or share much of anything really, even though I'd like to, but what I can say is that I really do like Z390. Has a few surprises I was not aware of.
Should one buy this over Z370? Maybe, maybe not, but that's never stopped anyone on this forum before. :)
What I can say is that AMD did us all a favour by coming to the party. It can't be said enough just how much AMD's Ryzen did for the market and in turn what Intel will and have done to push AMD further.
Creative competition and engineering competition is good, if only because it results in better technology regardless of where you allegiances may be. No reason to pick sides, just appreciate how far we've come and look forward to how much further we will still go.

Back when X99 showed up, who would have thought that DDR4 would end up scaling to insane frequencies up to and beyond 5GT/s (2,500MHz)

Good times :)
 
So gracefull that you have been chosen to be 1 of the few people to have handsdown real time expeirence with newer tech before it even becomes apparent to us end user /operators

The Z390 series provides ample feauteres which will make a difference whether it be a casual home user or a hyped up gamer , being under NDA I understand you cannot share much more but the snippet you gave is more then enough ....

Regards
 
NDA lifted.
I actually like this CPU.
Just be careful of some odd reviewer opinions which have little to no merit
Overclocking, while easily thanks to the unlocked multiplier, is slightly complicated by the 95 W TDP limit of the 9900K, which will automatically drop clocks when it senses too much power draw. For example when set to 5 GHz all-core, with some extra voltage, as soon as you put a serious multi-core load on the CPU, the clocks will drop instantly to around 4 GHz. To raise this limit, you'll have to adjust the power limit in BIOS or XTU — a first for Intel, but no problem, as long as you are aware of it.

The same power capping mechanism also limits the CPU's boost clocks, even when running completely at stock. Since the processor is specified to respect a 95 W TDP limit out of the box, highly-threaded, demanding apps will run into this 95 W limit quickly, and boost clocks will drop to stay within the 95 W power envelope. This means that even when you choose to not overclock your processor at all, increasing the "Turbo TDP Limit" beyond 95 W, in line with what your motherboard VRM and cooler can handle, will instantly result in higher performance for these applications. In our testing with Blender rendering we could gain 15% performance just by upping the TDP limit, without any manual overclocking.
- TPU

Nothing regarding power changed form previous generations, literally nothing. Some settings and behaviours are board specific and not related to the CPU.

anyway will post my own numbers much later
 
@Gouhan keenly awaiting your views on these CPU's.
I like the CPUs, in particular the 9900K and 9700K. Just the price is a sizeable jump from previous generations.
Intel's 14nm process has come a long way from Broadwell-E to what we have today.
This CPU is for the most part faster than the 7900X or 6950X which of course are 10 core parts with higher power demands.

9700K is the best as far as I'm concerned, the performance is still faster than what the 8700K offered despite the higher thread count advantage from the 8tth gen CPU. In fact because of the extra thermal headroom the 9700K over the 9900K, the overclocking tends to be a little more forgiving for airt/aio coolers. 5.2GHz 9700K is rather potent, beating the 9900K (default) at almost every turn.
 
I like the CPUs, in particular the 9900K and 9700K. Just the price is a sizeable jump from previous generations.
Intel's 14nm process has come a long way from Broadwell-E to what we have today.
This CPU is for the most part faster than the 7900X or 6950X which of course are 10 core parts with higher power demands.

9700K is the best as far as I'm concerned, the performance is still faster than what the 8700K offered despite the higher thread count advantage from the 8tth gen CPU. In fact because of the extra thermal headroom the 9700K over the 9900K, the overclocking tends to be a little more forgiving for airt/aio coolers. 5.2GHz 9700K is rather potent, beating the 9900K (default) at almost every turn.
Thanks for the awesome review and honest feedback.

Looking at prices and the minimal gains over for gaming @4k, I am gonna stick to my 7700k till Amd or Intel bring out some newer 7nm or 10nm chips.

I have seen in other reviews(tech yes city) ridiculous temps of 115 degrees C! How did you manage to get such good temps on the 9900k?

I know previously mobo manufacturers were sending custom bios's to reviewers to get higher scores. Could it be that the bios were set to no limits and overvolting?
 
This CPU is for the most part faster than the 7900X or 6950X which of course are 10 core parts with higher power demands.

Indeed. For reference my R15 Score is 2138.

In my case I have noticed that my daily workload appears to favor single thread performance, so using a 9900K would make a lot of sense. I am not sure why some of the tooling does not scale well for multi threading.

The only thing that would put me off is the price, doubt very much that I will get one for myself, but would love having one at the office.
 
NDA lifted.
I actually like this CPU.
Just be careful of some odd reviewer opinions which have little to no merit
- TPU

Nothing regarding power changed form previous generations, literally nothing. Some settings and behaviours are board specific and not related to the CPU.

anyway will post my own numbers much later
Looking at your review of the 9900K for Nag, I'm pretty impressed, but a little surprised when I look at the Cinebench 15R graph. Timespy is questionable I'd say. When I ran my 2700X at 4.979ghz under DICE I got 2279 in cinebench 15R as can be seen here:

AMD Ryzen 2700X - Cinebenh 15R at almost 5GHZ
 
Intel architecte vs AMD in cinebench has favoured AMD with Zen. The record run we did at 5650 ~ 5675MHz was only beaten by Splave at 6.8GHz on the 7820X by a small margin. So AMD per clock will always have an advantage here as long as we're on this kabylake/skylake architecture.

As for TimeSpy Extreme CPU test, yeah the Ryzen has no hope here sadly, Intel Core has the clear advantage here because of the much higher clock frequency, but mostly because of AVX. Consider that this test uses AVX which AMD Zen does at half rate vs the equivelant Intel CPU. You can see this in the HWBOT x.265 4k benchmark as well. It's an AVX workload where the intel cpu is significnatly faster.

I see some reviews test the CPU out of spec as the default setting. For instance 9900K default/spec mem is 2667MHz, which is lower than Ryzen spec at 2933MHz.
Using xmp and claiming default is misleading.
They also test with all core turbo boost which is also not spec. One board I'm using boosts the CPU clock on all cores to the same single thread boost frequency for light loads. Even when loading all cores it sticks to 4.7GHz with a 4.7GHz Uncore/NB clock - definately not reference.

As a result of this default vendor setting, thd board gives a CBR15 score of 2054~ out the box, which is way higher than it should be.
You can see this in the CPU Package power reading as well going over 140W during load. A lot higher than the usual 110W or so when within spec (both intel and amd stipulate core power not total package power, i.e they exclude SOC for example).

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
 
Can't edit the post above for some reason.
Anyway, I stand to be corrected, the specification is 4.7GHz for all core load, so the motherboard is behaving correctly.
I did not see this on the comparative Z370 motherboard I used, with the latest BIOS. I have to confirm the Uncore frequency at load with someone in the know officially. As for the actual core clock, it is indeed specified at 4.7GHz.

As you can guess, having this knowledge prior, would have enabled me to suspect the numbers may have been off, when the turbo clock was sticking to 4.3GHz . Ultimately all it means is that my recorded results for the 9900K are lower than they should be, at least for the reference 9900K performance measurements. If it's board related, here's hoping it affected the other processor as well in the same performance altering manner.
 
Careful of some motherboards.
As you can see below, CPU hit it's power cap (95W, although I don't know why it capped here as the spec is Core power not total package power, but anyway).
Unsure as yet if such things can be fixed in the BIOS or at least to what extent. The board in question makes use of a rather weak voltage regulation complex. Basically, avoid cheaper Z390 boards if you're going for the 9900K CPU, should be ok with 9700K I didn't check and certainly fine with the 9600K.
I do understand a little though as this platform or this market segment was never dealing with loads upwards of 150W, that was always HEDT with appropriate power regulation and management for such loads. Some vendors may have just refreshed their low end Z270/Z370 boards without actually realising how much power the 9900K can consume.
power capping.jpg
 
Careful of some motherboards.
As you can see below, CPU hit it's power cap (95W, although I don't know why it capped here as the spec is Core power not total package power, but anyway).
Unsure as yet if such things can be fixed in the BIOS or at least to what extent. The board in question makes use of a rather weak voltage regulation complex. Basically, avoid cheaper Z390 boards if you're going for the 9900K CPU, should be ok with 9700K I didn't check and certainly fine with the 9600K.
I do understand a little though as this platform or this market segment was never dealing with loads upwards of 150W, that was always HEDT with appropriate power regulation and management for such loads. Some vendors may have just refreshed their low end Z270/Z370 boards without actually realising how much power the 9900K can consume.
View attachment 30070
Thanks for the feedback, I see other YouTube reviewers also debating this topic.

Some of them are talking about the VRM temps throttling performance. I know with my 4790k that default bios settings on "gaming" motherboards allowed the cpu to draw as much power as it liked, leading to very toasty temps.

Intel are really pushing the limits with this Cpu at 14nm and it shows. I feel that this launch is just a stop gap till they get their 10nm yields better. 2019 will be an interesting year for the cpu wars.
 
Not so much INTEL but board vendors as they're doing this for the 2nd time.
When Intel released the 12C+ CPUs for X299, the VRM cooling solutions were not up to scratch. This is especially sad because for the longest time they were advertising 16, 20 or even 32 phase PWM in the crazy days. So to get caught out by VRM cooling is something quite puzzling.
If you put on a VRM that can supposedly handle 500W, then you have to design the cooling solution to match that.
The more quality phases you have, the less exotic the cooling needs to be, case in point is the APEX X, which can run the 9900K at full tilt with no VRM on the Heatsink (Do not try this on your PC!). Another board though (above) even with the paltry cooler, struggled and throttled, because the underlying VRM is rather poor.
 
Can you tell me exactly what memory was used, please. Provide a link for it. Thanks
There's no link to anything. DRAM was a random twp sticks picked from a tray of 50 pcs. ICs are newer Samsung B die.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
 
Im stuck between deciding on getting a i7-8700k or a i7-9700k.

6c 12t vs 8c 8t o_O:cry:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom