Comet Lake Desktop CPUs reportedly run hot, 80~90 Degrees C
Click here to post a comment for Comet Lake Desktop CPUs reportedly run hot, 80~90 Degrees C on our message forum
bobblunderton
They should have just named it Lava Lake, they really should have.
Who needs a HEATER? *gets out boxes of intel heaters*
Thank goodness for Ryzen 3000 series to save most folk's bacon.
cryohellinc
What a surprise!
Undying
Who would have thought. 😀
anticupidon
Sweet irony, how the tables have turned.
Before and after the Ryzen launch, Intel and it's fanbase propagated the "AMD runs hot" mantra.
Now, Intel, tell us: do we need a special thermometer to measure the temperature or rather a paradigm shift of "running hot" ?
Lesson to be learned: don't call your opponent names or mock, you just don't know how your mockery will come back and bite you right in the back.
cryohellinc
I have to disagree with you there - AMD still runs pretty HOT, on sales, and even more so when Zen 3 will roll out! 😉
alanm
Intel adopting AMDs strategy from the Bulldozer days, jack up the ghz and to hell with the consequences.
Devid
Delid->copper IHS->liquid metal->custom water cooling.
Say goodbye to the warranty and your hot cpu gets coldish.
Not good at all, and you are forced to purchase new motherboard with PCIe 3.0 if you want to have a new Lava Lake in your computer.
Most of users would not complain if this "new" CPU generation worked in theirs Z370/390 mobo.
Mpampis
Well, I'd love to know what consumer segment these CPUs target.
AMD ran hot in the past, but they were cheap.
If these CPUs are that hot, expensive, don't offer anything new (PCIe 4.0 for example) and don't even outperform Intel's older CPUs by quite a margin, why on earth would someone buy them?
asturur
i think it will just run as hot as a 9900k with 2 extra cores.
asturur
Because the previous generation becomes unvailable maybe and they do not want AMD.
DLD
Obviously, the technology reached it's limits nowadays. To push the efficiency and to remain within the sustainable temperature range, something has to be radically changed in terms of the basic conception of CPU design. I've got a feeling that the producers are perfectly aware of the fact, but, for one reason or another (techno-technological barriers, cost...?) the transition is either impossible/not applicable for the time being or it requires huge investments...
Turanis
Pentium 4 NetBurst era all over the place,isnt Intel? 😀
14nm+++ & 5GHz+++=250W+++(85C+++ Hotter Love)
(But no worries,some tech sites will not report this in their benches,they will pretend this is normal.
"Accidentally" the high temp&power of new CL cpu is not an issue)
Kaarme
They will sell just fine. They might be hot and hungry, but it's not like they would perform poorly, especially in games. The situation is not that similar to AMD because AMD was performing much worse than Intel, despite running hot back in the pre-Ryzen days. These Intel CPUs are least will show some results from pushing the limits up. It's pitiful Intel had to drop the PCIe 4.0, though, but still demands a new mobo, like Intel always does. They will be able to sell them, nonetheless, and you will see them at the top of the game benchmarks (and single-threaded benchmarks).
Ricepudding
I mean, I don't think that will drop it by 20-30c though? that's assuming these aren't already soldered on, which weren't they meant to be? or was that just a rumour
Fox2232
Hmm, 4.6GHz and 1C/2T eats around 20W? I do not think so. Intel can make 10C/20T on same process as they make i9-9900K and that would have no such power draw.
(Test is apparently Aida Stress FPU.)
So, someone with 9900K ready to test?
kakiharaFRS
1) an oc intel 9900k @5.1Hz was already in the 85-95°C @5.0 75°C with AIOs (tried 2 of them)
2) it never had 200Watts, @5.0Ghz it was 160Watts and @5.1 around 180Watts (and my cpu was overworked and barely stable at 5.1 I could only game like that not encode video etc..)
2) if you dont own an HEDT Intel or AMD Threadripper you have no idea what "hot" means, my 3960x @4.4Ghz all cores 1.4V generates 347Watts (only the cpu ! my overall system 6 sata 3 m.2 almost 10 usb connected 10 fans etc... uses 800+Watts at that stage, not up to 800 above 800 ! so you need a 1000+ PSU too I had to upgrade ><) thats hot..very hot way hotter than anything else than a custom loop can handle
if you don't believe me just read the very good Guru3d reviews 😉
temperatures and power consumptions https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_threadripper_3960x_review,5.html
edit: the lack of upgrade to pcie 4.0 and more importantly the bandwith that comes with it (I'm full SSD and NVME drives) is what made me switch to AMD if Intel didn't make that stupid mistake I would probably have bought a 10x HEDT instead
kakiharaFRS
I've got one running on my left what am I supposed to test exactly ? I can tell you that aida64 stress test with an underclocked @4.2 9900k the entire cpu only drew 120 Watts...at 100% usage the power and heat is ultra-linked to clock speed, I underclocked my TR because of that, for +150Mhz it costs me +15-20°C and +125Watts ! (almost +50% power) hell no
Fox2232
Why would anyone run productivity CPU that is used for heavily parallelized tasks outside of meaningful clock? My 12C/24T does 4GHz on all cores at 65W (1.175V).
Reduce performance by some 9% and you can get away with less than half of power draw on CPU.
I can run half of the cores at 4,6GHz and other half at 4,5GHz as one is not able to clock that high at 1,4V. But I would not use it for productivity.
Then it seems to be quite close. 120W in given stress test at 4.2GHz. at 4.6GHz you may be close to their 20W per core. Maybe 18W since after certain point power draw goes exponentially as one needs extra voltage bump on top of linear increase in cycles per second.
Undying
I already see reviewers blasting off on Intel and recommending to wait for zen3 or buy zen2 instead. I also expect some zen3 badass rummors soon just to throw some hype and shadow on these.
Difficult times up ahead for Intel.
kakiharaFRS
well that's exactly what I meant I'm not overclocking it, I actually underclocked it but still 65watts ? lol yeah no....even underclocked at 1.24v the 3960x draws 87Watts at idle (100+ stock) when in use for video encoding etc...it's "only" 220W (stock 287W) I never tried to go lower tough maybe I will thanks for the idea
