- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 4,543
I don't know who this processor is for.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Jeez 10900k really?
- Thread starter OFaceSIG
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2006
- Messages
- 3,279
such a valuable post OP...
Falkentyne
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 1,891
It's for people like me. Which is why I have two 10900k's.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2018
- Messages
- 4,852
I’m guessing it’s for people who want the 10900K.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 5,108
People who wanted the fastest and newest CPU.
- Joined
- May 9, 2008
- Messages
- 1,464
Maybe we'll see additional badass AIO water coolers come out of this. When a 280mm can't dissipate enough heat you've entered an area where only the fringe will be buying, imho. I sure don't want to listen to the machine cooling a 220 watt CPU.
Someone who likes.building water cooling setups
. It's a good challenge for them to build a system that won't throttle. I'm 1/2 joking or courses it's still the fastest gaming CPU you can buy, if that's your thing it's for you. If you do other stuff and gaming @ 200fps isn't your thing, AMD is a better buy top to bottom.Nice. Any luck with overclocking?
Falkentyne
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 1,891
Yes, the ES chip can do 5.3 ghz all cores at around 1.310v-1.320v load or something. But I'm having some weird issue where it seems (at least from a few quick tests) that using a cache ratio of x50 makes the system MORE stable than a cache ratio of x49! I was getting CPU Cache L0 errors in Cinebench R20 at x53/x49 at 1.305v load. ES CPU bug? Or am I just cursed? idk...Maybe everything's going to hell because the load temps are above 90C...and we don't talk about fight club when your load temps are above 90C! But when I set cache to x50...it was stable? What...
My retail chip seems to need absurd volts for 5.3 all cores (like 1.4v at full load), but the 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 and 5 ghz voltages seem to be exactly the same load voltage requirement as my ES.
basically, the retail chip falls off at 5.2 ghz, and falls off HARD at 5.3 ghz.
Interesting. Perhaps your retail chip was a 'C' batch.
https://www.techpowerup.com/266741/msi-shares-fascinating-insights-into-comet-lake-binning
Falkentyne
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 1,891
No, it's probably a B batch. The average chip reaches 5.2 on all cores, not 5.3.
5.3 on all cores is A batch. Remember the Intel turbo boost specifies 5.1 on all cores for a light load on 2 cores above 70C, and 4.9 all cores below 70C and 4.8 all cores above 70C.
The vids on the retail chip are identical to my ES at 4.7-5.1 ghz, but the 5.2 ghz VID is 35mv higher on the retail chip than the ES chip. So I'm guessing the 5.3 point is maybe 50mv higher (there is no new VID programmed on either chip for 5.3 vs 5.2)
Falkentyne
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 1,891
Here is the non AVX vf curve for the ES chip. the 94 quality one (this is in top 10%, high A tier).
The red line is the predicted VR VOUT value at 100C needed for non AVX prime95 small FFT (100C means, as if Thermal Velocity Boost Voltage Optimizations are disabled--this setting being enabled reduces the vCPU 1.55mv every 1C starting at 100C
TVB Voltage optimizations have been here since Kaby Lake. This isn't anything new.
"vCPU" is CPU VID when AC Loadline and DC Loadline are both at 0.01 mOhms.
The blue line is the predicted Bios setting at loadline calibration level 4, that Asus guesses that you need for that VR OUT.
If your CPU can do a lower VR OUT than the red line predicts (if it is at 100C), then there is a guardband of voltage leeway.
In my case, for example, at 5.2 ghz, I can do AVX small FFT disabled Prime95 with a load VOUT of 1.235v, at 90C (200 amps), while the red prediction says I need 100C.
For 5.3 ghz, I have no cooling headroom to test that. But Battlefield 5 and Minecraft (Java, loading to main menu loop test) seems to need about 1.325v load, although AIDA64 Stress FPU needs less. This might be due to violent transients that BF5 and Minecraft loading causes. Notice the prediction says I need about 1.356v.
Here is the AVX prediction chart. (Predicted based on AVX small FFT prime95).
Falkentyne
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 1,891
Internal tool software from Asus. Cannot release it. (I was given an engineering sample cpu and board for helping Shamino write an OC guide for the forumers).
The release VF tool configurator is here as part of AI Suite and latest release bioses are here:
https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?118328-Asus-Z490-stuff
SixFootDuo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,839
Yeah I returned my Ryzen 3950x ..... I mean, the productivity benches were kinda cool I guess, at the end of the day I'm a gamer so I'm not sure who that CPU is really for. I guess kids that stream and like to run render benchmarks over and over again. I also had a shit ton of issues with memory. I had to return 2 sets of 16gb because they just refused to work. Then, I found out you had to by "Ryzen Approved" DDR4 ... I mean, what the hell is up with that. Also, why couldn't I overclock the CPU to 5ghz like Intel? AMD is 7nm, Intel is 14nm? That makes NO SENSE to me. And under load, the heat was insane, Was hitting the high 80's. So returned it. Like I said, not sure who the Ryzen 3950x is for. Lots and lots of cons vs the ONE pro I could find and that was you get a few more cores. But, aren't most of us gamers?
SixFootDuo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,839
Thank you.
I guess another plus is AMD is affordable to people with a lot less money which would mean ... a lot of people. So I am glad kids with a lot less money can at least have AMD in their corner. Also, after doing some research, it turns out that one of the major reasons Intel can out perform AMD at a hight NM process is their CPU tech. Apperently, Intel has 1000's and 1000's of patents pertaining to inside their CPU's, tech that AMD simply does not have. I've been reading that Intel at 10nm will still out perform AMD at 5nm, let alone their 7nm. Brand prediction, data gates, a lot of way over my head crazy stuff that Intel has. This is what give them the ability to overclock, etc. Very interesting stuff if you start digging in and reading.
I am so happy that AMD woke Intel up. This is going to be amazing ride in the coming years for all of us.
I picked up an Intel 10900K today at Microcenter and an Asus z490 ROG Maximus Hero Wifi along with Samsung B-Die 4400Mhz DDR4 memory. Second place has never ever really been something I've ever wanted to settle for. I anticipate having one of the worlds fastest gaming PC's once I am done.
Come to think of it, I think I understand who the 10900K is for, it's for people who are serious about gaming and won't accept anything but the fastest gaming experience you can buy.
No, that really isn't it.
The real reason is that: Intel has better inter-process and cache latency. Games don't have completely independent threads. They frequently need to to pass information between them, and they get preempted more causing cache hits. Clock speed boost is just icing on the cake.
AMD excels at things like Cinebench, because that software is running relatively independent work on each thread, that seldom preempted, so the latency penalty is negligible.
You can see the same thing inside the Ryzen family, 3300X can be up to 15% faster 3100 at when gaming at equal clock speed. That isn't because games were designed for Intel. It's because 3100 has that inter-CCX latency, while 3300X doesn't, and you can see that the 3300X is almost identical in performance to a 7700K.
If Zen 3 has an 8 core CCX, that should lower latency on, on 6-8 core parts with a single CCX as well, making them very competitive for gaming, with a couple more tweak they might even take the crown.
Last edited:
You must be trolling as their is way to much arrogance in that post.
It's like you are bitter that 'kids with less money' can get within 10% gaming of those with unlimited resources ... using a 2080ti at 1080p.
Then the node stuff. First off, nobody except you was surprised that AMD did not shoot up to 5 ghz with a node shrink. Smaller node does NOT isually mean higher clocks.
Glad you have been doing a lot of reading, but nobody believes that nonsense about 10nm Intel.
Your entire post does not seem genuine. "serious about gaming and will not accept second best":
Bro, tone it down a bit. Even the biggest nerds on here had to cringe some when they read that.
No real person talks like this.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 6,617
It's the new tact for bluboys. They are so good they don't need anything smaller than 14nm.
Not sure why you thought the 3950x was for you if your primary goal is gaming. That said, if you found 80* hot and you bought a 10900k.and plan to overclock.... You either have some substantial cooling (which should have had no problems with a 3950x) or you are likely going to see as high or higher temps. The 3950x is for someone like me who plays games once i a while on a very GPU limited machine. I mostly do development work (compiling, databases), some transcoding and just screwing with machine learning and misc other stuff. It can be used for those that do other things besides just game... Some people leave their encodes running while gaming.. with 4/8 its really noticeable, with 16/32 you won't even notice. It's for sure not for everyone and I don't pretend like it is. 3600x and 10600k(f) are the chips to look at for most use cases. 10900k and 3950x are for different niches.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 31,326
If you're buying a 10900k for gaming, you're missing the boat and wasting a lot of money. For the vast majority of all-arounders out there, the 3900x/10700k is plenty with the 10700k for the gaming first, productivity second crowd and the 3900x for the productivity first, gaming second crowd.
He, but if your buying a 10900 for other work loads it's even worse. My point was the use case for 3950x and 10900k are different, but do have some overlap (aka, 3950x can game just a little slower, 10900k can do threaded workloads well, just a little slower in general). I also said the 3600x/10600k fits the bill for a more broad base than 10900k/3950x. If you need or have the $, you're not missing anything by going bigger. It's just; know what you're getting and why.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,296
I don’t know if that’s a bragging point.
Worse case is ~25ns, Still a fraction of the AMD inter-CCX penalty which is up to 90ns.
Last edited:
newls1
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,628
I was in the EXACT same boat... I fell into all the "hype" created around that cpu upon launch and thought it would make a great gaming cpu along with a "do anything" pc, and it was great at multi tasking, not knocking that at all, but gaming...... Ill take a hard pass. I OC'd my 3950 to 4.6 on ccd0 and 4.4ccd1 and this 10900k at complete stock (for games) blows it away. Glad i went back to intel since for me, games are my priority, not having 67 chome tabs open
Seems questionable. Are you going change CPU config for each load/game?
That's not correct. There are users like me who try to go for "best in class" components. Price is still important, but secondary. That meant that since the AMD Athlon I've been Intel since Intel technology was clearly superior. And yes, during that time AMD was for people looking to save a buck.
But it's now 2020 and that's no longer the case. I'm not going to get "old techology" 14 nm components cause Intel messed up their manufacturing and is stuck on 14nm. That means the 10900k is out of the question. I'm going with a modern 7nm CPU from the guys with the better technology. And I don't care about the price. Sadly, that means no Intel this time.
I suppose the 10900k is for two groups: "pure gamers" looking for the highest clock speed who don't mind CPU's built on older technology and are slightly less capable (as an overall CPU) and have plenty of money. And people who like Intel because they like the brand.
Buying based on process technology is among the most irrelevant of reasons there is.
If AMD was selling 7nm Dozer derived parts, how much would 7nm vs 14nm matter to you?
Those are merely numbers contributing to a point. Suggest not focusing on that but the main point being made.
In 2020, someone looking to buy the "best overall CPU" (in a given class), regardless of minor differences in price, would not be leaning towards Intel. And the 10900k, while a fine CPU in it's own right, clearly illustrates Intel's problems.
Falkentyne
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 1,891
Disabling full HT is good for about 100 mhz (5.4 ghz no problem), but I didn't bother testing 5.4 yet (only took time to run CPU_Z Bench) because I was trying to get 5.5 ghz to work, and me and another person both with SP94 quality chips tried 5.5 ghz HT off and got instant lockups trying to run CB R15, up to 1.50v Bios set LLC6. Oof.
Disabling 2 physical cores, but keeping HT fully enabled (ghetto 10700k) allowed me to run CB R20 at 5.3 ghz at 1.390v Bios set, LLC6 (Load 1.305v), up to 92C with the case closed (several C cooler open), which was completely impossible with all 10 cores because of heat (And at 5.3 ghz I need about 1.320-1.340v load and my AIO can't handle it)
Gamers. Intel is marketing the CPU directly to gamers as the fastest gaming processor in the world. Which it is. Now, Intel is only doing that because in multi-threaded workloads it gets its ass handed to it by a 3900X or 3950X.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 4,543
I guess I'm not loaded enough to buy much of anything to full one purpose and one purpose only.
But how much do you really do with your computer that's demanding enough to need more than 10c/20t, or 8c/16t for that matter? Unless your doing a lot of video editing, computer animation / rendering, or VM work, gaming is probably the most demanding thing you do. In which case, Intel has the stronger option for that purpose. It still does other things just fine. AMD does beat it at multi-threaded workloads, sure. But, the amount of cores and threads simply go unused much of the time.
It was a bit different earlier this year or late last year when Intel only had the 9900K and AMD had both the 3900X and 3950X. The aggregate difference in gaming performance was virtually meaningless. Now, Intel's increased it's lead enough to where some people with enough of a budget can build a machine with an emphasis on gaming as there is a larger gap between Intel and AMD on that front now. Although, there are a lot of variables there as some of the games I tested showed no difference at 4K, and other games showed much higher increases than just 5-6%.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 4,543
You're probably right for those that really want the edge.
But even for me, that all my desktop does it game now; even if I thought about Intel I'd probably buy the 10700k which is 409 at microcenter. But then I look at the 3800x next to it for 309, and for me, for the extra $100, I'm not worried about 20 extra FPS. But that's just me at nearly 40. Maybe at 28 I would have thought differently.
When you are at 4K, or even 3440x1440, or really high refresh rates 20FPS could be huge. 10% increases in FPS can make or break whether or not a game is playable at some settings.
It's not one purpose only. There is nothing the CPU does poorly.
That would be like saying the only purpose of AMD CPUs is for render farm activities.
A lot more people game, than run render farms.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2006
- Messages
- 3,279
And why would ANYONE mind if a CPU is made with caveman tech or today's tech if the "ancient one" is still outperforming the newer one? So when your game, photoshop, etc...are delivering less performance on the fancy 7nm(ish) AMD CPU, does it make you feel better that you can say, "but at least is not ancient tech".??? I don't care if AMD goes to 1nm to 100nm...if their performance is not able to match/beat Intel for what I NEED, then it has zero importance which tech is newer. Considering even at 7nm they still cannot beat Intel with their 14nm "ancient" tech at all they should be able to, when intel hits 10nm or 7nm, it will be a scary day for AMD
And as far as the 10900 not being best in class, or for pure gamers, that is just silly. So is AMD JUST for blenders? Because apparently every AMD user now is a 100%3d renderer these days... lol