My CPU isn't boosting up to its usual speed anymore.
My CPU isn't boosting up to its usual speed anymore.
Ten minutes isn't even long enough, especially since they're using AI chips (or whatever you call those). They also don't tell you what fan speed they're running at, so it doesn't matter much how much power your cooler can handle if you have to make a noise like an airplane engine just to run it. Plus, just because a cooler works great for ten minutes straight doesn't mean it will still work well when it gets really hot and soaking. You might even see some scores jump up or drop down depending on that.
That is exactly my point. Even if someone sets a timer for ten or thirty minutes, that isn't enough time to soak a cooler properly. There are no specific rules about cases, fans, or the speed of the cooler. I find an advantage with AIO coolers: they move the heat source further away from your GPU when using air cooling. Since you have two power-hungry parts right next to each other, both can warm up each other.
You might be missing the main point... The OP has a way better cooler than the amazon basic thing. Everything you said applies only to that basic one, but this guy has a much better unit. I just wanted to say that even using a totally basic cooler you can do it if you stay under 200 watts. That's far more power than the 100w starting this chat. Also, the test showed no real difference in cooling time from 10 minutes to 30 minutes, so that argument doesn't hold up. Having an open bench setup is actually a bad idea because you wouldn't get much airflow with just a case on your cooler, let alone hear any less noise than normal usage.
That cooler works well with your CPU (unless it's a 12900K/KF/KS, then things change, but for gaming it still works fine). You could only have problems if you pushed the CPU to 100% load for hours on end. Even then, I'm not sure there'd be any issues as long as the stock power limits are set up right.
Besides you can't get away with buying the simplest cooler or a bad test that misses. The 12900 needs maximum fan speeds from many air coolers because its power rating isn't even rated for 150W by the maker. I also don't trust Tom's numbers since he claims the basic cooler is enough to handle a 13900K chip. That same chip gets too hot right away if you put it under an AIO or NHD15 and leave it running for a while. It all depends on the case; some just get too hot inside. An open bench is the only fair test because there are no outside factors messing with things.
I think you are mixing up two completely different chips: the 12900 non K and the 12900k. They are two totally separate processors, each with its own power settings. If that cooler can handle an overclocked 10900k, it should also work fine for your 12900 non K. That cooler is actually better than what you have on your 12700k because it comes from a brand that makes high-end air coolers like the big Dark Rock Pro 4. The 12900's maximum turbo power is about 202w, while your 12700k maxed out at 190w. The 12900k hits a higher peak of 241w.
The power profiles aren't much different, but the real-world difference is about 30W. I guess you missed the fact that motherboards now let 12th gen chips use higher power states right out of the box too. It also draws more than the 10900K anyway; why would you like it? Also, the die layout is different.
Their cooler beats mine on a chip that isn't way more demanding than what I use. The real deal is that on a non-K12900, this cooler works fine, but a K12900k might be too much for it. My board is also an Asus, so the default settings are already higher anyway. Also, my board doesn't have the latest Intel fixes because 12th gen wasn't broken, so I never got them updated. The link in the review talks about that cooler. If this thing can get pretty close to a Dark Rock Pro4, then it's way better than my Pure Rock 2 FX.