There are rumors that using Intel chips with cheap Intel stock coolers, to replace the original nuclear reactor, is the real story behind the Fukushima Daichi disaster...
The Best CPUs 2019: This is what you should get
- Thread starter Julio Franco
- Start date
There are rumors that using Intel chips with cheap Intel stock coolers, to replace the original nuclear reactor, is the real story behind the Fukushima Daichi disaster...
I have a 9700K with a Dark Rock cooler and can hardly get past 4.8ghz without hitting 90c on a full load. My computer would just thermal throttle at 5.0ghz. Technology is here but a reliable cooling method is not. (and no liquid cooling with a radiator is not better...)
Dark Rock is a beautiful monster. Can't believe you reach 90 C with that behemoth. I'm curious if Dark Rock gets loud at that CPU temp?
kmo911
Posts: 352 +44
https://powerboard.basemark.com/benchmark-result/672821 still good enough 4k 8k speed
QuantumPhysics
Posts: 6,306 +7,258
Core i9 Extreme here.
With my 2080Ti, I feel I can pretty much do anything from 4K video to gaming.
With my 2080Ti, I feel I can pretty much do anything from 4K video to gaming.
Bluescreendeath
Posts: 397 +620
I thought the 24 and 32 core 3960x and 3970x actually matches or beats the 9900k in gaming (due to better bandwidth or better ram improvements?)? Also, how does the $500 12 core/24 thread 3900X compare vs the 9900K in gaming and gaming + streaming/multitasking?
Nobina
Posts: 4,504 +5,507
Because it's unusual for Intels non-K CPUs to not have iGPU. As an Intel fanboy, you should know this.
EEatGDL
Posts: 770 +501
TDP for Intel is at stock clock and turbo is enabled by default. With turbo we're talking about 180 W (factor in voltage increase, not just frequency, from stock to turbo).
Bullwinkle M
Posts: 911 +817
Thats hillarious
Too bad it's not Windows compatible
I can boot directly to Windows XP without using a VM
Can you?
I had a look at a lot of 3960 and 3970 benchmarks on other sites and they saw consistently lower gaming fps than the 9900K and lower than HUB/TS showed. Frankly that was what I expected and even here at HUB/TS a lot of games still had the 9900K on top.
But that's not the point. The 9900K and 9700K are gaming chips. As GN Steve said, the point of comparing TR chips to them in games is to see if you need to buy a separate system when you have downtime from doing real work.
You don't.
The TR chips are only a few % down from the 9900K in games so game away. Just don't expect to do the reverse and use the 9900K for heavy multithreading workloads as it's wayyy more than a few % down from the TR chips for that.
Peter Farkas
Posts: 654 +530
I am still rocking a 7700T with an RTX 2060 
After years of computer building, using Intel "contact" design, AMD has to do a lot more to convince me to go back to the days of spending hours straightening pins with tweezers and a magnifying glass. Unless they did move to the contact design, did they? Ever since AMD became relevant again, I've read article after article about their "incredible" chips, and not one writer bothers to mention anything in that regard.
It's probably a non-issue for the vast majority of builders. I built 3 PCs in the past 2 years, 1 Intel and 2 AMDs and I couldn't tell you what type of CPU insertion either brand used. Whatever they used, all worked well enough not to call attention to themselves and I went on with the build.
fullscreen
Posts: 33 +1
I like a CPU that displays 4k videos with 240 hertz, without any problems, and doing a lot of additional jobs at the same time without any slowing down and problems.
