The Intel Core i9-9990XE Review: All 14 Cores at 5.0 GHz
by Dr. Ian Cutress on October 28, 2019 10:00 AM ESTPower Consumption, Frequencies, and Thermals
Across several articles we have covered why TDP numbers on the box are useless for most users: the loose definition of Intel’s TDP is that it represents the cooling required for the processor to run at the base frequency. ‘Cooling Required’ is a term referring to the power dissipation of a cooler, which isn’t strictly speaking the same as the CPU power consumption (because of losses), but close enough for our definitions here.
For the Core i9-9990XE, that means that when all 14 cores are running in a normal configuration at 4.0 GHz, with no turbo initiated, the CPU is guaranteed to be running at 255W or less. However, in our case, ICC has pushed the processor up to its turbo speed, 5.0 GHz, for an effective ‘infinite’ time. This means we never see 4.0 GHz, and only ever see 5.0 GHz.
In our testing, ICC did at least have some form of ‘Turbo’ enabled, which meant that the chip could run in idle states. At idle, the system would run at 1.2 GHz, but still at the same 1.29 volts that the chip was set to. This lead to a full-system idle power of 266W and a load temperature on the chip of 24C in a 20C ambient room. Unfortunately we could not measure the chip power directly due to some quirks of how Intel manages the power readouts in software. We were able to detect the mesh frequency at idle, which was 900 MHz.
When running a fully multithreaded test, such as Cinebench R20, the fact that every core hit 5.0 GHz was easy to detect. With the advent of features such as Speed Shift, Intel aims to get the CPU from idle to 5.0 GHz as quickly as possible. During a sustained CB20 run, which is possible through the command line, we were able to observe a peak power consumption of the system at 600W, which indicates that at 5.0 GHz this CPU is pulling an extra 334 W over idle – this power naturally being split mostly to the cores but some will be for the mesh and some will be in the efficiency of the power delivery. At full speed, the mesh will rise up to 2.4 GHz.
Naturally, fitting this into a 1U system requires the substantial cooling we described at the beginning – as this cooling is running at full speed even when idle, it doesn’t affect the power consumption when we ramp up the workload. But tying into the temperature, the internal sensors indicated a 81C peak temperature, while still at 1.290 volts. For a 14-core 5.0 GHz CPU, that’s pretty amazing.
For the audible testing, this thing is loud. With ICC’s proprietary liquid cooling solution, in such a small 1.75-inch form factor, in order to take care of those 350-400W that the CPU could draw, nothing short of some fast flow and high powered fans would suffice. This system runs the cooling at full speed both in idle and at full load, which in this instance measured a massive 78 decibels at only 1 ft (30cm) from a closed system. The fact that this is in a 1U form factor should give you an indication that it should be in a rack in a datacenter somewhere, and not in the office. I am not so lucky, and I was only able to perform testing on the system when everyone in my family and next door was out during the day.
We did some testing with AVX-512 tests. The CPU in this instance only hits 3.8 GHz when at full speed, indicating a -12 offset. It would appear that Intel, while pushing the single core frequency through binning, didn’t so much take into account AVX-512, or at least hoped that it would also be as efficient. In this mode we saw the same power consumption at a system level of around 600W, however the CPU thermals did rise slightly to 82C.
Due to the limitations of the motherboard in the system, which was locked down by the system provider, we were not able to attempt additional overclocking. That being said, I’m sure that the OEM partners and system integrators would prefer it if end users did not perform additional overclocking, lest this MSRP-less ‘no guarantee of any more chips’ processor actually bites the dust.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
145 Comments
View All Comments
yannigr2 - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link
An over 300W chip that loses in so many cases from chips that cost under $500, with less than half power consumption. And Intel is $auctioning$ it. That isn't even funny. It's tragic.AshlayW - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link
600W for performance that's not even going to be that much over a 3950X (if at all?) Intel is a laughing stock at this point. Can't wait to see the 9900KS, and have a good laugh at the last desperate, dying twitches of the Skylake architecture.29a - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link
HFT should be illegal!MrSpadge - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link
Why? And on which basis would you forbid it? I think the better way to deal with this is to attach a tiny tax to each transaction. So if it's really worth it, they may do it. But the government gets its share and can redistribute to something more useful.RBFL - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link
It has no useful purpose for society, the fact it is difficult to identify the people being harmed does not mean that harm is not taking place.I think making people have a 1 second relationship with a share is not unreasonable. Just because someone can do something doesn't mean we have to allow it. We have speed limits, laws against dishonesty and murder and we could just as easily have one against HFT.
The fact that exchanges sell expensive server space to these companies for lower pings, while purportedly being the arbiters of fair play and price transparency is, of course, another big issue.
rahvin - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link
So anything you in your all knowing capacity deem as not useful for society at large it should be illegal? Doesn't that mean gaming should be illegal?I've yet to meet a single one of these people that complain about HFT that actually understand how the market works, how stock trading function and what HFT even is. Most of them simply heard some talking point they regurgitate without any understanding of how the stock market even works let alone how a stock transaction works or what HFT involves.
shadowx360 - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link
It's a mix of ignorance and jealousy, that they can't be the successful ones rolling in dough, and all investing is somehow evil and taking advantage of the common worker. There are some downsides to HFT, namely increased market volatility and cascading problems where a fall in prices can trigger millions of stop losses that compound the issue, but like you said, most have zero clue.RBFL - Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - link
And that statement is based on?I am not jealous of an industry that has basically bought its way to success through lobbying and every time it explodes it expects the rest of us to reboot it, while mysteriously keeping the proceeds prior to the crash. An industry that gives away billions of our dollars of our money to avoid their own prosecution. Where almost no-one goes to jail after egregious lies, fraud, money laundering,....
All investing is not evil, however many of the practices of the industry are. Lobbying against fiduciary duty for the small investor, for example. If you actually look at the share classes available you will undoubtedly see some that no-one who understood what they were being sold would ever buy. Telling people 'they are responsible for their future' while not cleaning up the industry is like throwing sheep to wolves. And no, it is not everyone's responsibility to know every evil practice in every area of life in which they are forced to deal. It is unrealistic for the well educated, let alone the average citizen. It is why we have laws, which are generally reactive rather than proactive and thus mainly address known abuses rather prospective ones.
Alistair - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link
Nice article, except the final page. Why mention "highest ST for HEDT" and "carves through AMD like butter" etc., then you don't even make mention of any MT performance in summary. You could have said, in MT scenarios, it performs about the same as any Intel 18 or AMD 24 core server CPU or some such.Alistair - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link
my meaning is the summary shouldn't just be for what is awesome, but should also summarize all the results... no mention of multi threading performance on the final page at all, because it isn't special?