Intel Core i9-10900K at defaults stressed, Power Consumption Reads 235W, Temperatures hits 93°C
Click here to post a comment for Intel Core i9-10900K at defaults stressed, Power Consumption Reads 235W, Temperatures hits 93°C on our message forum
Glottiz
You have no clue what you are talking about. 9900K + NH-D15. Never had any temp problems. Enjoy paying 3x more for pumps, radiators and other nonsense for 1% better cooling and then replacing all that in 5 years when your AIO is dead/pump rattling/clogged/tubes cracked/etc. Meanwhile my NH-D15 I bought 6 years ago is still relevant and works like brand new today, and will continue to do so for the next 20 years.
kakiharaFRS
all my comments are based on using aida64 stress test since 2014 and my experience with it on X99-Z390-TRX40 plateforms
I also do benchmarks and stress test almost every day and have been for the last 6 years that's my main hobby
that's my daily routine (don't mind the scores they change all the time) https://www.computerbase.de/forum/attachments/stockvscreatorcenterhighperf_3dmark_firestrike-jpg.868124/ I have rebuilt this case from scratch 10x in the last 3 months
like I said I know what running aida stress test+furmark does and it's stupid any cpu/gpu combo will generate an abnormal amount of watts heat whatever brand it is like that
it's like running 3dmark timespy and firestrike at the same time and then laughing at poor results, it's dishonest
Noisiv
yes but running several GPU or CPU intensive apps will not lead to double GPU or CPU power consumption.
it will add to ambient temperature and to overall system stress which will lead to higher CPU/GPU temperature and to increased power draw but not 2x.
230W/93°C is because of AVX and PL2, and then Furmark/hot GPU adding few Celsius to CPU.
i9-10900K has 250W PL2 limit, so this is running within specs
jwb1
And in other news: the sky is blue.
This is a stress test designed to do this. Put a 3900x and see pretty similar results, lol.
And yeah, I wouldn't have anything less than a 360 on the CPU.
DevDoc
Sounds great! A little faster might be better, but overall fine. I think you might have convinced me to get one.
sbacchetta
Those i9 results looks bad, but for heavy all cores workload getting a 3900x seems the obvious choice,High fps gaming shouldn't be that toasty.
On a side note...AIO "best" position depends of the case used, the components used (CPU/GPU/OC RAM/MB VRM) and the type of workload (CPU or/and GPU heavy). There is no universal answer...most of the time you have to choose between higher case temp or higher CPU temp...
H83
Nothing surprising here, we already know that the 10900K is going to be very fast and even hotter! The cooling companies must be thanking the heavens for thins kind of CPU, now they have reason to sell their most powerful coolers.
MonstroMart
It's under a stress test though which is not bad. It means it'll probably run in the 70-80ies while gaming? Not much room for overclock probably though specially in the summer without ac?
metagamer
In gaming, when most of those threads are chilling we'll probably see these peak in the 60s, max. Not bad.
jwb1
My 9900k is around the 80s all-core 5.1ghz 1.3v with a MASTERAIR MA620M in intense games.
Mundosold
A 3900X has a PPT of 142W. Unless you are using PBO to raise the limit, or manually overclocking it will never consume more than that no matter what stress test it faces. And a 3900X has the heat spread put over two CCD chiplets and one IO die. Each CCD has a total of 6 cores (3:3 CCX config). This means a 3900X is actually LESS thermally dense than even a 3800X. 10900K isn't even in same league of efficiency, and that's without Zen3 which is due in a few months.
Crazy that Intel is still stuck on similar 14nm tech they were using 5 years ago.
ViperAnaf
fake
Yosif Videlov
and now run Prime95 small FFTs AVX2 or OCCT linpack on it to see a ball of infernal fire from your pc case. Thermal velocity boost only possible on LN2 it seems 😀
jwb1
Not really, there are lots of cases where a game isn't that CPU intensive and therefore the additional boost can happen.
Yosif Videlov
Yes i know i was just kidding. These tests are bullshit as such extreme load is not possible in day to day usage. I am more interested in 10700K performance comparison vs 3700X-3800X. I am sure my Noctua NHU12A would be able to handle it @stock.
Silva
I wasn't going to bother replying to this thread, but this comment hits all the right spots for me I had to commend you for it. Water cooling is so overrated I can't even...
There are air coolers that can perform amazingly, given the right situations. That's also true for water cooling, obviously. But the thing is, minus the mounting hardware issue (when sockets change), fans are cheap and both coolers use them: they fail, you replace them. Every piece of hardware from an AIO can and will fail. It's hard for the metal of an air cooler to crack or get damaged somehow. Then, there's price: you can spend 50€ for an amazing air cooler, but 100€ will get you just a low end water one. Better if you get a good airflow case, fill it with silent fans and a good air cooler.
My opinion, of course.
Yosif Videlov
Well you are comparing 240 with a 280 and if you're using the Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 that is the best price/performance you can get. Simply miles away. Even high end Air coolers are better than some 240mm AIOs.
nizzen
My 3900x don't boost to 4600mhz in Prime 95 avx 2 either. So what do you want to tell us? The obvious?
jwb1
It is a true, a really good air cooler for the right CPU can be all you need and cheaper to maintain. Air/heatsinks cool down to idle temps faster than any equivalent AIO do.
TheDeeGee
Don't worry after a couple of security patches it will run slower and cooler.
