Question My CPU won't increase stock price
Question My CPU won't increase stock price
Also cinebench puts a lot more stress on the CPU than real-world usage would. That processor won't slow down due to heat unless something went wrong with the installation. I own a 12700k, which is close in power consumption to a 12900 non-K model, but it still doesn't throttle under normal conditions. Pure Rock 2 FX uses a smaller cooler than the one the OP has, and it never throttles.
The ten-minute window isn’t sufficient, particularly since they’re relying on AIOs. They also don’t disclose the fan speeds they’re employing; being able to cool 200W is hardly impressive if you need to mimic a jet engine’s performance on an open bench. Just because a cooler can run well for ten minutes doesn’t guarantee it will handle prolonged heat. You might see some improvements in the rankings and others decline.
That's exactly my point 10 minutes even 30 isn't long enough to heat soak a cooler
There's no mention of a case / fans / speed of cooler. A good advantage I find with aio is it moves the heat source further away from GPU with air cooling youve got 2 power hungry heat sources next to each other warming each other.
Maybe you overlooked the main idea....
OP has a significantly better cooler than the Amazon basic, all you say may apply to the basic model but OP clearly has a superior one.
My intention was simply that you can function with the most basic cooler as long as you stay at or below 200W.
This is definitely more than the 100W that sparked this discussion.
Also, the test showed no noticeable difference in cooling between 10 and 30 minutes, making that argument irrelevant.
Being an open bench represents the worst scenario; having a case improves airflow, giving the cooler better access to cooler air, and also reduces noise significantly.
Beyond that, you really can’t rely on a simple cooler and a faulty test. The 12900 at full bore demands maximum fan speeds from numerous air coolers. The cooling solution they offer isn’t even certified for 150W by the manufacturer. Additionally, I’m skeptical of any figures from toms—they claimed the basic cooler could “handle a 13900K.” The same chip that instantly throttles under an NHD15 and AIOs when given sufficient time. This all varies depending on the case, as some will simply overheat it. An open bench setup provides a more accurate assessment without external influences.
I think you are confusing 12900 non k vs a 12900k. Two different chips, with different power profiles. Also if that cooler can handle an overclocked 10900k, it is fine for a 12900 non k. Said cooler performs better than what I have on my 12700k, as it is within spitting distance of a bigger Dark Rock Pro 4.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/noctu...ler/7.html
The 12900's max turbo power is 202w, vs 12700k's at 190w, with the 12900k being quite a bit more at 241w.
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/...597,134599
The power profiles aren’t significantly varied, with a real-world difference around 30W. Probably you overlooked how motherboards allow higher power modes on the 12th generation chips right out of the box. It also consumes more than the 10900K, which might explain your interest despite the different die layout.
Their cooler performs better than mine, especially on a chip that isn’t significantly more power-hungry. On a non-K 12900, that cooler works fine, while a 12900k might not. My board is also an Asus, so I know the default settings are higher. It doesn’t have the newest Intel updates either, since the 12th generation wasn’t impacted, so I didn’t update it. The review linked was for that cooler. If it can match a Dark Rock Pro4, it’s clearly much better than my Pure Rock 2 FX.