Ah you beat me to it. Anyways...

Today we’re reviewing the Intel i5-9600K CPU, a 6-core 8th-Generation refresh part that’s been badged as a 9000-series CPU. The 9600K is familiar to the 8600K, except soldered and boosted in frequency. Yea!!!

On 11/27/2018 at 1:05 AM, martin-w said:

But then they aren't scraping their CPU's, like I recall you said you would.

Just nothing there that is worth the effort of a possible scrap ... if I were able to run comfortable temps at 5.6 then I may indeed make the attempt to fail it at 5.8-6.0 ... but at 5.3/5.4 HT OFF (dew point pending), just not worth the experiment as I already know a single 100Mhz increments with voltage will hit 100C under load testing (the heat curve is exponential for every 100Mhz increase) ... so in other words pointless to try.

But I hope you understood my point about smaller will be worse for heat extraction and these YouTubers need to focus or something more meaningful than 300Mhz ... out of the box thinking ... peltier encased CPU with condensation extraction all built-in ... design the mounting/socket system from scratch, no more ridiculous insert the CPU and push a handle down to clip it under a latch to secure it in a socket (circa 1980's tech).  Problem with Intel is they're just looking entirely at the bottom line, pretty much admitted they didn't think desktop computing was still important (say what?) ... what YouTubers can do, is come up with ideas that make a difference for desktop computing ... 4 phase, 8 phase, substrate thickness, IHS paste,soldered,liquid metal ... these are all wagon circling fluff that's not going to translate into significant performance gains.

Give us a 6.2Ghz CPU that runs at 20C all day under load ... that is possible IF Intel rethink their socket design and integrate better methods of heat extraction ... yes, the cost will increase for desktop computing but with significant gains consumers would come to buy ... electron migration happens because of the heat.

10 hours ago, David Roch said:

Very happy with the 9900K here.

I didn't mean to come off as the 9900K being a "bad" CPU, it's not.  My context is coming from 7900X (with lots of PCIe lanes) at 5Ghz to a 9900K (fewer PCIe lanes) at 5.3/5.4 Ghz (dew point pending) wasn't much of an improvement.

With that said, P3D seems to be working best on the 9900K with HT OFF, 5.3/5.4Ghz with cache frequency 4.6-4.8Ghz ... again dew point pending which so far has been as low as 39F to as high as 58F (being able to run my coolant almost 20F cooler does make a difference on which CPU profile I'll use).  Under heavy P3D loads (aka Orbx TrueEarth HD) CPU temps are 38-47C across 8 cores (100-116F).

P3D does respond well to cache frequency increases, but as Martin pointed out going to high with cache frequency can trigger heat/throttling so check (I use HWINFO64 when monitoring). 

But apology if I came across as suggesting the 9900K is a terrible CPU.  It's a good CPU if you can get one at a good price and you're upgrading from a much older gen CPU.  It's just not the CPU I was hoping it would be relative to my 7900X setup.

Cheers, Rob.

Had a little chuckle watching this guy!  Very entertaining at the least. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWA73FtybnQ  

No need to apologize at all Rob.
I've learned a lot thanks to your expertise.

Edited November 28, 20187 yr by David Roch

54 minutes ago, TuFun said:

Had a little chuckle watching this guy!  Very entertaining at the least. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWA73FtybnQ  

Chicks dig the Intel man.....hey Rob, you watch the video? 🙂

15 minutes ago, FunknNasty said:

Rob, you watch the video?

Yes, 10% better gaming performance for Intel 9600K with a recommendation to NOT BUY.  AMD are close, just need to be a little closer.

Cheers, Rob.

Interesting though you never see these guys use some form of flight sim for testing.  I used FSXSE for testing, but that will have to change since it doesn't support PBR.  With P3Dv5 and AMD Zen 2 arrival next year, maybe that will be the turning point in getting an AMD system.  That will depend if AMD costs undercut Intel's prices.  For now, I'm going to give the 9600k a shot good or bad. 

Edited November 28, 20187 yr by TuFun

16 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Just nothing there that is worth the effort of a possible scrap ... if I were able to run comfortable temps at 5.6 then I may indeed make the attempt to fail it at 5.8-6.0 ... but at 5.3/5.4 HT OFF (dew point pending), just not worth the experiment as I already know a single 100Mhz increments with voltage will hit 100C under load testing (the heat curve is exponential for every 100Mhz increase) ... so in other words pointless to try.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

That wasn't what I was referring to. I recalled that in a previous topic re your endeavours you said that "if you weren't happy" with the chip you would just scrap it. Seems you aren't happy. Hence why I suggested delidding it. If indeed you aren't going to scrap the CPU, if indeed you are going to keep it, if indeed I misunderstood you previous intentions... it would obviously be pointless to delid.

 

Quote

But I hope you understood my point about smaller will be worse for heat extraction and these YouTubers need to focus or something more meaningful than 300Mhz

 

Smaller being worse for heat extraction, although true, isn't relevant to the comments I made. You were referring to smaller dies in the future. When that was mentioned, by you, I was referring to a comparison between the CPU with Intel paste and glue, and the same CPU with solder. So nothing to do with "smaller" size in the future, size is the same. And the Intel Dow Corning paste and glue, IHS/Die interface is 10 plus degrees warmer than Intel's new soldered STIM. This was in reference to Intel picking one of two methods at their disposal to attach the IHS to die. And we already know, that delidding the 9900K and replacing the STIM with liquid metal drops temps. As I said, liquid metal is coolest, solder is next and Intel's paste and glue is warmest.

As I said previously... YouTubers are of the opinion that delidding the 9700K isn't worth the effort due to the increased difficulty and risk, just for a few hundred megahertz. All of them that have tried this say the same thing. And I agree. They have done this for experimental purposes, and I suggested it to you thinking your intention was to scrap this chip if you weren't happy with it.

 

Quote

what YouTubers can do, is come up with ideas that make a difference for desktop computing ... 4 phase, 8 phase, substrate thickness, IHS paste,soldered,liquid metal ... these are all wagon circling fluff that's not going to translate into significant performance gains.

 

YouTubers don't have the technical means to come up with any ideas that will make a big difference. They are not AMD or Intel, they are not scientists. "Wagon circling fluff" you say in regard to small gains. True, something I've said a multitude of times in the forum is that a few hundred megahertz  amounts to a very small increase in frame rate. However... as you said on page one...

 

Quote

 

When I was racing, I'd go to extremes to reduce vehicle weight in search of lower HP:Weight numbers ... get that extra 1/10th to 2/10th sec lap time ... PC building is much of the same for that extra 100-300Mhz.  It's really the process, not so much the performance results.

 

 

Edited November 29, 20187 yr by martin-w

Rob, first post, been following your threads for a while, thanks for all the work you do to keep us informed.

Can we get some P3Dv4 benchmark comparisons between the 7900x and 9900k (stock, mild OC, max OC...)?  Am curious if there's any real difference between the two CPUs running P3D.  Thank you!

3 hours ago, otown said:

Can we get some P3Dv4 benchmark comparisons between the 7900x and 9900k

Yes, this weekend, work and the 4.4 release has me swamped right now.

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

YouTubers don't have the technical means to come up with any ideas that will make a big difference. They are not AMD or Intel, they are not scientists.

I know what I said and given the pre-release testing my expectations were reduced ... the outcome was predictable.  This element of discussion should probably move to another thread as it's focus is more about YouTubers not asking the important questions perhaps because of fear they'll get cut-off from those that feed them CPUs, MBs, GPUs, for free to "review".  That's a different conversation ... it's a conversation that I think any YouTubers with over 1 Million subscribers can indeed "make a difference" ... like you and I, they're aware of the tiny gains from their efforts.  But unlike myself, they have followers and subscribers and sponsors, paid subscriptions, etc. etc. ... they took on the adventure to hopefully "make a difference" (or did they?) ... Intel/AMD aren't just gonna change what they've always done for that past 30+ years without some "pressure".  Agree with you this is a different discussion.

Cheers, Rob.

On 11/28/2018 at 6:21 PM, Rob Ainscough said:

 

Give us a 6.2Ghz CPU that runs at 20C all day under load ... that is possible IF Intel rethink their socket design and integrate better methods of heat extraction

 

😁 Now you are clearly kidding there Rob. 20C so running at ambient temp at 6.2 GHz?

You won't be getting 6.2 GHz in the short or medium term either. Both Intel and AMD have been heading down the "more cores" road for a long time now. And given that very few people actually need 6 GHz, they have no incentive to do it. You are thinking in terms of your own needs, that of a simmer, Intel and AMD aren't. 

On 11/29/2018 at 4:44 AM, otown said:

Can we get some P3Dv4 benchmark comparisons between the 7900x and 9900k (stock, mild OC, max OC...)?

Sorry for delay, finally got around to getting some test data/results (see thread):

Cheers, Rob.

Guys,

 

Let me ask you a question. I'm on 6700k right now with a very conservative 4.7OC. I'm planning to upgrade to 9900k in the nearest future (perhaps this year) and I presume that 5.0 will be easy target for me assuming that additional cooling will be added and only two parameters will be altered - the multiplier and the voltage.  Not planning to chase 5.3-5.4 heights and I don't have any other "games" installed on the machine. 

Thanks

Dmitriy 

35 minutes ago, G-YMML1 said:

Guys,

 

Let me ask you a question. I'm on 6700k right now with a very conservative 4.7OC. I'm planning to upgrade to 9900k in the nearest future (perhaps this year) and I presume that 5.0 will be easy target for me assuming that additional cooling will be added and only two parameters will be altered - the multiplier and the voltage.  Not planning to chase 5.3-5.4 heights and I don't have any other "games" installed on the machine. 

Thanks

Dmitriy 

It might depend on the silicon lottery for your specific 9900k.  I can run at 5.0 with reasonable temps on all cores with HT off.  I even had it running at 5.2 for a couple of days but had one BSOD so I backed it off.  With HT on I can reasonably run at 4.8 without the temps getting out of hand.

Thanks Larry for your comment.

I'm still wondering whether 8086k would be the better solution if the only use of my desktop is for P3D strictly. Anyway, still a dilemma for me.