He states that you need a motherboard with 2 connectors. Ok - so, do motherboards with 2 connectors exist? Can you convert one cable into 2 like they do for Graphic Cards, only this time you want 2 going into 1.

Well on my MSI X99 MPower I have an 8 pin + 4 pin for CPU, so I'm pretty sure some of the X299 boards should have two pin connections.

Why Intel just not bring more cores with smaller prices..

They do, its called coffee lake. Heck even the entry-level HEDT CPUs are not too badly positioned (the 6 and 8 cores). People buying the higher models know what they are buying them for - or if they don't know, then they just have way too much money to waste.

If problem is that big just with 10c cpu, how it will be with promissed 18c ?

The 18c can't really use more power, but instead will just run lower clocks.

This almost reminds me of the Ryzen 7 launch, where AMD released Ryzen without giving proper time for motherboard manufacturers to test and optimize their boards (not to mention the supply issues). This situation is infinitely worse though since it's due to a hardware design fault, on both counts (insufficient pins + VRM insulators). People who buy these boards are literally playing with fire, and I expect a lot of returns/refunds by hardcore overclockers. Rushed product releases are never good, especially for early adopters. Although Der8auer apportioned the blame 50/50, I don't blame the motherboard manufacturers here at all. Intel went all over the map on X299 and I don't think anybody predicted that they would release such a power-hungry and hot-running CPU like the 7900X. The need to support KB-X, including a Core i5, to 18-core Core i9s make these boards very challenging to manufacture. Frankly, I don't envy them.

That Asus seem to have delayed their X299 ROG lineup, says it all. Cheapo boards out first to catch the market then the real properly engineered boards later. The first wave of X299 boards are just daylight robbery, since as Der8auer pointed out, the X moniker in the processor names inherently implies overclocking. I blame Intel 50% for making the ****up in the first place, and 50% to the board partners for going along with it anyway.

Not without bugs? Mate, it is full of bugs. It isn't a hate story, it's the current facts and what crap editor would I be if I did not report on it? If I can give you an example, on my latest (unpublished just yet) testing with an ASUS board with an all new public and updated BIOS, I actually ABORTED overclocking with water-cooling 1.30 Volts on the CPU at 4600 MHz. Why, if you wonder? your answer can be found here.

Looks like it's time to start rolling Intel into those AMD runs hot jokes 😯c:.

Looks like it's time to start rolling Intel into those AMD runs hot jokes 😯c:.

While AMD chips did run hot and need more power, it was never this bad to the point where you can possibly damage the board and other parts of your rig...Yeah, my only 435 took about 1.6 volts to stay at 3.9 stable, but it ran that high and could take temperatures no problem for years. And that wasn't even a chip made to overclock!

While AMD chips did run hot and need more power, it was never this bad to the point where you can possibly damage the board and other parts of your rig...Yeah, my only 435 took about 1.6 volts to stay at 3.9 stable, but it ran that high and could take temperatures no problem for years. And that wasn't even a chip made to overclock!

The FX9590 required a 220w TDP board, older 125w boards would either shut down or get damaged. There was a number of threads about that processor blowing older motherboards up. http://www.anandtech.com/show/8316/amds-5-ghz-turbo-cpu-in-retail-the-fx9590-and-asrock-990fx-extreme9-review

Alongside testing this CPU, the 220W TDP requires a substantial motherboard to match. Due to the age of the platform, the AM3+ socket and the old 990FX chipset, finding a motherboard can be rather tricky. Many of the AM3+ motherboards that were launched were only suited for the FX-8350 processors, which had a 125W TDP. This is yet another reason that AMD wanted the FX-9590 in the hands of system builders who would chose high end motherboards that could cope.

Well, all I can say is that I am very happy that I went with the Asus X99-WS for my rig. 8+8 pin for the CPU and one 6 pin for the PCIe Slots. And I've fully supplied them all with my PSU. If you go highend, go highend all the way. Board, CPU, PSU. The weakest link that you are trying to save some money on will be the one that breaks.

This guy is a pro overclocker, but he expects crazy OC's out the box? Mod your **** and quit whining! Rebuild your PSU with thicker cables, install custom heatsinks or water blocks. "Pro" overclocker whining about off the shelf components is weak. Blaming a chipset for how a board manufacturer chose to implement it is just dumb. X99 boards had 2 8-pin connectors, and use of both was recommended for OC on 5960. This isn't anything new; it's not surprising, and it's not a big deal. Intel doesn't suggest or imply that you will attain any positive results from overclocking - that's the board manufacturers and the review sites pushing that. Anyone with a little common sense knows what to expect with more cores. The conclusions people reach from the weakest excuse for information is laughable, but also sad.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think people need to relax on hating so much on Intel. Sure, Intel was clearly being greedy and cheap about X299 and i9, but the CPU at stock speeds actually often has better performance-per-watt than a 7700K or Ryzen 1800X. The problem is that ratio starts to plummet fast once you start OCing. What I really don't get is why anyone ever expected this to OC well. I knew before it was released that it was going to be limited, and this limitation is exactly why I feel Threadripper will overall be a much better option. Ignore the price point and the 7900X is actually a good CPU. Except for the crappy IHS application, I don't think Intel screwed up the manufacturing of this CPU, and the way it behaves when OCed isn't unreasonable. Keep in mind cooling solutions have a TDP capacity. A 180W heatsink can keep your CPU temps nice and comfortable as long as it stays below that capacity, but once you reach that limit, the heatsink loses its ability to soak in more heat and so the temperature will continue to rise very quickly. Processors tend to use more watts the hotter they get, which further feeds the problem.

FYI JonnyGuru responded to Der8auer's youtube post and said that it's most likely his power supply that's causing the temps on the cables/VRMs:

If you used the SuperFlower PSU in the video with the crystal connectors, that's part of your problem. Those "universal 9-pin connectors" have less conductors than most other modular PSUs because the same connector that's used for EPS12V, PCIe, etc. has to also support +5V and +3.3V for Molex and SATA and then there's an "LED pin" which, when grounded to a ground pin, turns on the interface's LED. A horribly bad design. This is why the wires would be so hot. I suggest checking the voltage at the PSU and then at the motherboard's EPS12V to see what the drop looks like under load. If the voltage is significantly lower than +12V, the board is going to have to pull more current than it normally would. I then suggest using that AX1500i you have on the shelf behind you and see if you end up with the same results since that modular cable for the EPS12V is four +12V pins and four grounds. -- jonny***65279;

OC3D kind of further confirmed this: https://www.facebook.com/tinytomlogan/photos/pb.188125641228357.-2207520000.1498758215./1707642909276615/?type=3&theater Their temps aren't getting anywhere near Der8auers.

(7900x -1.235v - 4.6ghz - OCCT Linpack) Front temps - 50c - rear temp 60c max

Starting to sound like he jumped the gun with the video.

Reason why the VRM are getting so hot is you are running at least 50% more current through them compared to HW-E/BW-E. There is no integrated VRM on the CPU taking a high voltage on SKL-E, so instead of 150 amps @ 2v, it's more like 250 amps @ 1.2v under high loads. Thats only 300 watts, which is not unheard of at that core count. Do linpack/P95 AVX/FMA enabled compute, you're looking at 400W+ just for the CPU, which then you need cold to get 'normal' temperatures. VRMs will need to be liquid cooled, or wait for a better board.

Another Intel-hate story. Can we maybe consolidate them in a once-in-a-week article?

I'm sorry if you don't like reality, but you can stop turning on your PC and looking at anything news related in this world if that'll help. I know it'll help the rest of the world not have to deal with your unwarranted complaining.

Another Intel-hate story. Can we maybe consolidate them in a once-in-a-week article? I don't claim X299 is not without bugs, but I don't have any doubts they will be ironed out pretty soon. I bet - with the release of a big-core-count CPUs, so probbaly by Christmas, it will be all well again. And Threadripper... apart form a name on a paper, it doesn't exist still.

Gee....you don't seem to have a problem with anti-AMD threads and posts...but something negative about Intel and you get all upset...

my personal recommendation has always been YOU NEVER BY FIRST GEN RELEASES. the motherboard manufactures always rush to have product first to market and almost never do a thorough job with layout and cooling issues can always be blamed on the enduser easier instead of delaying a product release redesigning the onboard cooling or vrm layout for better stability or performance and I don't trust that going with a AMD build will make it somehow magically better considering the same companies are building the boards.

Normally I'd agree with this, but this isn't really a 1st gen product. Sure, it's the first for this socket, but the CPU architecture and the chipset itself are hardly any different than what Intel has been doing the past few years. All that being said, I didn't really want to do an AM4 build so soon, but my old PC really needed to be replacedd.

X299 VRM Disaster - UPDATE (en) [youtube]89Tgazt8v5Y[/youtube]

They still don't match Ryzen for price/performance. Have a look at the guru3d review

He didn't say they did - but for someone like me, who had a 4790K - a 1700x would be a downgrade in almost every single game I play and honestly most applications I use - including productivity ones. People keep saying Ryzen is good at productivity as a blanketed statement, but if you look at Pudget reviews of Photoshop/Lightroom/Etc - turns out the majority of workloads in those applications are single threaded. Now I have the best of both worlds and yeah, I paid a fair amount of more money for it, but it offers the level of performance I want, I don't have to put up with memory quirks (enabled XMP and 3600 out of the box). I get a better platform, quad channel, more PCI-E lanes, etc and I only paid $200 more than the 1700x system I bought when it launched (to be fair it is cheaper now, so $280). I still think the 1700x is better perf/$ and I think overall I'd recommend it to people - but there is definitely room for Intel's HEDT platform, given certain conditions.

Nice video. Addresses many of the criticisms from his original, and shows how he's willing to work with others to replicate his results. In short, X299 is still a disaster for overclocking, and hopefully board manufacturers take note. It depends on the application and workload. I have a Ryzen 7 1800X and I use it alongside my old Core i7 4790K for grid computing, and the former soundly beats the latter (Asteriods@Home daily average credits: 62,728.31 for my Ryzen system vs 34,459.63 for my Core). Apps like BOINC maximizes all threads so Ryzen 7 made a lot of sense for me; and seeing as how I got it primarily for grid computing, it has more than lived up to my expectations. For gaming, my Core i7 is probably better - haven't directly tested this, but that's what I assume from benchmarks - but I've decided to use my Ryzen 7 system as my main rig from now on (paired it with a couple of GTX 1080s so shouldn't lack for gaming power at high resolutions).

I totally agree, it definitely depends on the application. I have a friend that does a ton of video editing work and he wanted a new PC about the time Ryzen started shipping. He never heard of AMD, so I had to go out of my way to convince him to buy a 1700x. Even now, months later, he messages me and is like "I can't believe how fast this thing encodes videos". And still, even after x299 shipped, I would recommend him the 1700x. He doesn't really game or do anything but videos and browse the web. The 1700x is roughly half the price for 85% of the out of box performance and it's a lower TDP to boot + the cost of the motherboards are generally cheaper. For me it's different though - a lot of people are saying "well you need really good cooling for these chips" I already had that. So there is no extra cost. The MSI motherboard I bought came with a free Corsair H75, which I had planned on using with my 4790K as a server. So essentially the motherboard was $175+600 for the CPU. It's faster out of the box in nearly every game I tested (vs my 4790K) with the exception of Heroes of the Storm. Now that I have clocked at 4.8Ghz, it's much faster in everything. I also had $1500 budgeted towards a new system - so I tossed in a 960 Evo as well. Couple all that with the vast majority applications/games that I play are single threaded and it just made sense to me to go with the 7820x.

For me it's different though - a lot of people are saying "well you need really good cooling for these chips" I already had that. So there is no extra cost. The MSI motherboard I bought came with a free Corsair H75, which I had planned on using with my 4790K as a server. So essentially the motherboard was $175+600 for the CPU. It's faster out of the box in nearly every game I tested (vs my 4790K) with the exception of Heroes of the Storm. Now that I have clocked at 4.8Ghz, it's much faster in everything. I also had $1500 budgeted towards a new system - so I tossed in a 960 Evo as well. Couple all that with the vast majority applications/games that I play are single threaded and it just made sense to me to go with the 7820x.

Out of curiosity, why exactly did you get the 7820X? I find the decision a bit confusing, for a few reasons: 1. So far, it seems gaming is your priority. Though a 7700K offers great frame rates, I understand why you might not want that due to worse frame times or background tasks. But why not one of the other better socket 1151 CPUs? Surely you wouldn't notice any difference in performance, but you'd pay less (and maybe get better OC results). 2. I get the impression you weren't in a rush to build a new system since you waited for socket 2066. If you do more than gaming and had cash to spare, why didn't you get or wait for one of the i9s? 3. If you care about stats and bragging rights, why not go for i9? If price was a concern, why not wait for Threadripper? 4. If most of your workload is single-threaded, why bother with a 16-threaded CPU in the first place? I don't understand why you'd pay more for what is effectively a 0% improvement. Even games that take advantage of more than 8 threads still reach 60FPS with 6 or even 4 threads, without any substantial overclocks. You aren't an idiot so that's why I'm legitimately wondering rather than criticizing. I don't care that you went for Intel, but what confuses me is the 7820X doesn't seem to be the best option for you regardless of what category you look at, so maybe there's something I'm not aware of. Of course, you don't have to justify your decisions to me, it's just a curiosity.

Out of curiosity, why exactly did you get the 7820X? I find the decision a bit confusing, for a few reasons: 1. So far, it seems gaming is your priority. Though a 7700K offers great frame rates, I understand why you might not want that due to worse frame times or background tasks. But why not one of the other better socket 1151 CPUs? Surely you wouldn't notice any difference in performance, but you'd pay less (and maybe get better OC results). 2. I get the impression you weren't in a rush to build a new system since you waited for socket 2066. If you do more than gaming and had cash to spare, why didn't you get or wait for one of the i9s? 3. If you care about stats and bragging rights, why not go for i9? If price was a concern, why not wait for Threadripper? 4. If most of your workload is single-threaded, why bother with a 16-threaded CPU in the first place? I don't understand why you'd pay more for what is effectively a 0% improvement. Even games that take advantage of more than 8 threads still reach 60FPS with 6 or even 4 threads, without any substantial overclocks. You aren't an idiot so that's why I'm legitimately wondering rather than criticizing. I don't care that you went for Intel, but what confuses me is the 7820X doesn't seem to be the best option for you regardless of what category you look at, so maybe there's something I'm not aware of. Of course, you don't have to justify your decisions to me, it's just a curiosity.

Couple factors: My 4790K was on a ASUS Maximus VII hero that was essentially ****ting the bed. I had a number of issues with it, so I kind of wanted to upgrade quickly. I don't believe there is any benefit for any of the tasks I do over 8 cores. I don't really do video rendering work (I dabble here and there). I don't think any games really take advantage of anything above 8 cores, they barely do 8 cores now. Nothing else I do really requires 8+ cores. The i9, 10 cores pricing isn't really linear in scaling. It's $400 extra dollars for 2 cores, some PCI-E lanes that I won't use (I'm never doing SLI/Xfire again, baring some major advancement) and it uses more power, thus lowering it's potential for overclocking, especially with the boards out now that are limited in both VRM cooling/aux power. I do think games releasing over the next several years will make use up to 8 cores. So I wanted a processor that out of the box was at least as fast as my 4790K in the games I play today (Heroes of the Storm for example) but I wanted it to scale well for future games. Threadripper is going to be awesome for workstations, but for gaming - I think it's going to be similar to Ryzen in single threaded performance and as I said, I don't really know or care to have any extra cores over 8. So I'm not really sure what it would offer me besides worse performance in the majority of things I do. Remember, I have this chip clocked a 4.8 now and honestly I'm 90% sure I can get it higher. I'm only running it at 1.25v and normal load temps in 3DMark Firestrike Combo test is like 58c max - P95 I've had it go up to 68c. On top of that I can delid it (I've delidded my 3770K/4790K) so I have no problem doing it. Also my memory kind of played a role - I bought this GSkill 32GB 3600 back in Feb of this year in anticipation for Ryzen. I didn't know at the time that Ryzen wouldn't really be able to hit those memory speeds. When Ryzen came out I actually bought a 1800x (I think I typed 1700x before, it was an 1800x) but the motherboard I ordered was on backorder for like a month. Then the reviews started coming out and performance was slightly worse than my 4790K + memory issues - then on top of that the rumors of X299 being moved up to the summer came out and I was like, screw it - I'll wait. So I sent back the 1800x and canceled the board (that never shipped). So yeah, it was definitely a combination of factors and part of me kind of thinks that maybe I should have waited for cannonlake, but in the end I'm pretty happy with what I have.