Could not agree more

100%. Passionate and informative. This guy is great

I didn’t observe him to be unsettled

Engineers should rule the world.

Idk about unsettled, as much as just very careful to not say too much, and is calculating where, and how, to steer the conversation, given the limits that he has or (intel) has imposed upon him.

Not only that it proves he loves his work, it is a statement only a person with super high intelligence would have uttered about solving a CPU operations level problem.

Forgot to ask you

i guess this interview makes up for the years of anti-consumer practices? or, you said that much more?? well glad they've been looking out for at least you personally all this time. was an interesting interview tho

@@XX-121 .. I think you're looking through your polarized glasses and not looking at the reality. Every company especially multi-billion dollar companies, has a mandatory agenda of profitability if they're a publicly traded stock. Listen, I'm the first to be thrilled that AMD has finally come out of the closet booming with a competitive CPU that is pushed the market to benefit the consumers. So is it Intel's fault or lack of competition that you're upset with? _Just food for thought. A little off topic. This is what happens when you have mega mergers and or very little competition. Keep that in mind._

Its cool, but it wont make me buy their products

@@DJaquithFL Yeah, companies exist to make a profit. And AMD competition (which is on and off through the years) certainly helps us consumers.

As a somewhat of a corporate gun for hire nerd myself a multi billion dollar company does not let a geek out into the wild if they won't say the right things. Not that they don't say the facts or have cool info but he is being paid to be there to talk tech. He is a great presenter

I think so many people wat to have interview like this. But big company wont allow it. The reason this happened might be caused by CHIP act by government

@@smkslpsd Are you lost?

@@smkslpsd tf

Do you know Marks full name by any chance?

if you listen to your professors, you will be him.

Yeah, i want him to answer why my default 13600k takes 1,43v !

@@Golden2Talon because the E cores are really inefficient in terms of power usage while the P cores need as much power as the 12400.

@@YourFriends223 riiiiight 😂 you think everyone can become an engineer , think sgain

​@@Golden2TalonYou shouldn't be running at Default anyway. The chips come at overvolted from the factory. Just Undervolt and you'll be fine

Intel management really chapped my ass over the Quad-core-for-a-decade thing enough to force me out of the PC hobby. Knowing that Mark and people like him are there, seeing his passion and deft expertise has me strongly reconsidering my Intel-gets-as-little-of-my-money-as-possible policy. It's great stuff for both groups and I hope to see more like it.

@jessie james, cool! Intel Inside! :)

I really hope you do work at intel. Are you in an engineering role?

Great idea, let me make it happen!

@@bringbackdislikebutton6452 I'm in the same situation but for me it's AMD-will-never-get-any-of-my-money-again policy. I even had to ditch my Nvidia-don't-screw-me-with-your-prices-bias somewhat, only a little mind.

It's great as an engineer. Everyone has to deal with management wanting a number to be better. "Sure I can put the sensor somewhere else, but you really don't want to do that."

Higher operating frequency means higher temperature. It's the higher operating temperature which reduces the life of the semiconductor device . You can go look it up online.

@@deang5622I mean ya. 15 years instead of 20 maybe? Who’s gonna use an alder lake cpu for that long?

@@Akkbar21 I correcting the error made by the original poster. I am not commenting on how long people keep their electronic devices. That's a separate matter. And I have personally seen equipment containing semiconductor devices last for 25 years and still be in use. So the idea the life time is not important is incorrect.

@@deang5622 I've got my CPU overvolted at 1.45v and its been running now for 5 years. You snowflakes need to grow some balls. But I also delided, applied liquid metal to the die itself touching the IHS. And also running Noctua NHd15. As long as temperatures don't cause thermal throttle you are going to be fine.

There's also the fact that this gen of CPU's hasn't been out for long enough to test the company's claims. They SAY that these high temperatures are """"fine"""", but ARE they? We don't know. Taking the word of someone selling a product that their product is perfect is always a losing gamble.

I'm in similar situation as your friend. I bought a 14700, and CM Hyper 620S. Realised CPU kept throttling at 100 C. I just set PL1 lower at 167W now, CPU package temperature around 79 C (ambient usually 30 C). Should have just saved my money and purchased a mid-end processor. Maybe I will purchase an AIO cooler 5 years down the road, and consider that as my "upgrade".

Cpus start to melt above 250 celsius degrees meanwhile people are so scared running their cpus to 70 degrees lmao

If he could do some live explanations and demos. With some sacrificial CPUs. That would be cool :) This is how theyre designed.. etc.

I don't see why the general population would need to know these details if they are not engineering these components themselves. That is why we have division of labour and expertise, so that people not directly involved in something don't need to waste time studying it. We also let doctors learn about medical issues instead of studying 10 years ourselves to understand the details of our anatomy and how some disease might develop.

​@@cyberfunk3793 You'd be AMAZED at how many people pretend to know things, when they've only read very few things about it and then lack the fundamental, background, first principles knowledge that went in, behind said "thing". Three things: 1) There are principles of engineering that a LOT of people don't understand, due in no small part, to the fact that scientific literacy in Canada and/or the US, is generally, very, very poor. 2) Then you add that to the fact that people like to *think* that they know things, whilst simultaneously, failing to realise how LITTLE they know, based on the LITTLE amount of reading that they've done, and the homework that they HAVEN'T done, with respect to these topics. (I used to rail on the reviewers on the former computer website PimpRig, which then re-branded itself as PCApex, for their reviews of CPU heatsinks and fans, because they wouldn't state what their ambient temperature is, and they would ONLY report on the temperature that they saw, in the software monitoring tool that they were using at the time.) And I used to excoriate them for it, so much so that one of the reviewers was the owner's wife, and the poor job of doing said CPU HSF review that he would try to come to her defence (which was understandable), but then both of the FAILED to grasp the TECHNICAL aspect of heat and mass transfer, which is one of the courses that you need take, as a mechanical engineer, in order for you to be able to graduate as said mechanical engineer. There are a LOT of people who like to THINK they know things (vs. people who ACTUALLY know things). And it is only when they are challenged by people the latter, sometimes with REALLY, REALLY basic questions about the very thing that they're talking about, which is how you are able to ascertain which side of the Dunning-Kruger effect plot they're on (the right side (high degree of knowledge, high confidence) vs. the left-side of the plot (low degree of knowledge, high confidence). (I've challenged people who believe in chemtrails to be able to provide the pressure and/or the mass flow rate of the supposed "sprayer", along with a request for the material properties of the spray itself (so that I can simulate the dispersion pattern using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and those people ALWAYS aren't able to answer those very simple, basic questions. And the same is true with 9/11 truthers, whereby I've literally interacted with the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 (truthers)" and I'm like "you know you can simulate that using an explicit dynamics simulations program like LS-DYNA?" And I've even asked them for their LS-DYNA models, so that I can review it, and of course, they come back with some kind of bullshit answer/excuse like it takes too much time, etc. (Meanwhile, HOW much time are they spending on trying to find out said "9/11 truth"???) So, this is needed because there are people who THINK they know things, and coming from one of the guys who was actually responsible, in part, for the development and engineering of the very thing that people are talking about, people being people, they can STILL try to argue with them. But the ones that learn from this are the ones who won't bother trying to challenge one of the engineers on the product deveopment team, and those that do, fail to realise that they're fighting a really steep, uphill battle, because there are simple questions that he would be able to ask them, that the latter group, just simply won't be able to answer, because they failed to realise that they had a low degree of knowledge to begin with. 3) I work in engineering for battery electric vehicles. You'd be AMAZED at how many things people pretend to know vs. what people actually know. Yes, ideally, we should be able to trust the division of labour and expertise. But then you get idiots like Wendy Wright (and her "debate" against Richard Dawkins, who has a Ph.D. in zoology), whereby she, at one point, basically says "why should I trust you?" To which, my response to people who DON'T trust the experts, is for them to run the labs themselves, just like their high school chem and bio classes that in all probability, they never took, because they were "too cool for school". This is why videos like these are important. It isn't going to stop people who have a low degree of knowledge, high confidence, from being who/what they are, but it WOULD make the entire discussion go a lot shorter/faster if you can just send them the link to this video, and then it's upto them whether they want to watch it or not. My favourite quote that I made up is "if I don't say/write it, it's my fault. If I write/say it and they don't read it, then it's theirs." The same applies to this video. You can't make people watch the video, but you can sure as heck, point out and highlight the critical and relevant parts of the discussion you're having with that person, with this video.

@@ewenchan1239 I agree that basic knowledge like good fundamentels in reading, writing, math and physics is something that the education system should be able to give to as many people as possible. I also think though that it's common human nature to pretend to know things and with specialized knowledge like in this video it's not even desirable that 99.9% of the population actually educate themselves on the topic but rather spend their time on something more direcly aplicable to their own lives unless they actually enjoy the topic and reading about it is something that interestest them. Another thing is that pretty much in any other field than perhaps mathematics and some really settled issues in physics, there are contrary opinions on many questions eveng among experts. Take medicine and/or nutrition for example: you can get polar opposite opinions from experts that have studied the topic for years so it's easy to see why an amateur might think they are qualified to challendge other more educated people on the topic. If the field internally doesn't have a solid evidence based concensus, it's unreasonable to except it from the laymen confused about the difference in opinions of the experts.

@@cyberfunk3793 Three things: 1) Engineering (in this case) is not the same as medicine and/or nutrition. (i.e. unless you're debating the axioms of mathematics and/or quantum physics, the math that is used in engineering, as well as, predominantly, classical mechanics - there's relatively little debate about that* (with some exceptions like turbulence, but that isn't what's discussed here).) 2) re: human interest I would have to guess one of two things: either a) people like to argue about stuff because they like to be right (regardless of level of competency in the field) and/or b) people like to think and/or pretend that their level of competency in any given field/subject matter is higher than what their actual level of competency is, in said actual field/subject matter, because the latter provides them with that sense of confidence whilst also requiring the person to put in as little work as possible to achieve that level of confidence. And so long as they don't come across people whose actual competency exceeds theirs, the chances that they are going to get called out on their low(er) level of competency is likely to go unchallenged, if not indefinitely, then for a VERY, VERY long time. That is, until they come across somebody who IS willing to call them out on their lack of competency, and who also doesn't abide by the common, social etiquette of NOT calling people out. (It has been my experience that more people tend to focus on the social etiquette element of it rather than why didn't the person put more work into increasing their level of competency in said any given field and/or subject matter.) 3) re: medicine/nutrition a) People's most common exposure to medicine and/or nutrition is when they have the common cold and/or the "flu" (which may or may not ACTUALLY be the influenza virus). People also usually like to take complicated, multi-variate subjects, and distill that into something "simple" that they can understand, which CAN work, sometimes, but also people tend to neglect that with the simplification, comes ALL of the gross assumptions that are an integral part of said simplification, which people conveniently, and often, neglect to remember. I remember the master's level international business course that I took - out of a class of 26, 2 were mechanical engineers, 2 were industrial engineers, and the rest were business majors. One of the girls, during our final presentation for an international business game that we were playing (for the class), lamented about how she wasn't trained to think like an engineer, as a part of her business degree. And I remember telling the class, during our presentation "forget the math. The point of the game was that everything affects everything else." And that's when the professor stopped me in the middle of my presentation, and was like "EXACTLY! That was the whole point of the game/exercise." (Multivariate optimisation is something that I'm used to, due in part to my training.) Thus, to the point about medicine (e.g. common cold and/or "the flu"), the real answer is that it is multivariate (hence ddx), but also, for common cold/flu, we COULD run the labs, but it is generally NOT cost effective to do so as the labs may only confirm what the doctor is likely going to tell you what to do anyways, and yields little, additional insight. And just like how people generally suck at systems analyses, medicine is no different. For any condition that is more complicated than that, unless the condition has been studied, there are some medical conditions that we might never know what the real answer is or might be, so the best that we can do is to try and see if we can get close (enough) to what the real answer is. Again, people like to be able to point to ONE thing that's a cause, rather than a whole SLEW of things, all of which contribute to the cause. And as SARS-CoV-2 has also shown, that even when experts DO study it, that doesn't necessarily mean that the average lay person is going to necessarily abide by the results of those studies neither. re: nutrition The answer to this hasn't changed for hundred (since modern medicine) or even thousands of years: everything in balance/moderation. It's not rocket science. Of course, that doesn't include the deliberate and corrupt lies that were promulgated at the hands of capitalism (e.g. sugar blamed obesity on the consumption of fats rather than on the consumption of sugar). (But capitalism lying to us, repeatedly, is a subject for another discussion, another time.) If you read the paper on why salt is bad for you, what they actually did in that experiment was force-fed mice/rats about 15,000 TIMES the recommend dosage that rats/mice are supposed to have (in mg/kg) and then found that, surprise surprise, the mice/rats started having health issues. Well...yeah. No shit. If we consumed 15,000 TIMES more of something than we were really supposed to, and we ended up getting adverse health effects as a result of that, it's no wonder why there'd be adverse health effects. And that's how they found that out. Similarly, there is such a thing as water toxicity (i.e. drinking too much water can lead to death), just as there's also oxygen toxicity (which is a part of the reason why Earth's atmosphere/ambient air is only 21% oxygen by volume). Too much oxygen, and you can die from that as well. I always tell my wife that whenever there is some "fad" diet, I always tell her to ask the question "what are they trying to sell (to you)?" (Because if the person who is trying to do the selling REALLY cared about you and your well being, they'd offer their stuff up for free, if they REALLY cared. But the truth of the matter is that they really couldn't give a shit about you, which is why they are selling it to you because their motivation is to make money, and whether you actually get better or not is COMPLETELY irrelevant and immaterial to their enterprise.) Getting back on topic though, presumably if the people who are watching this video - I would have to guestimate that they're doing so because they ARE interested in it. Similarly, the reason why Roman asked the questions in the manner that he did is SPECIFICALLY designed to dispel and debunk some of the myths that could be relatively, easily debunked with a little bit of basic engineering/heat and mass transfer knowledge, that again, most people are too lazy to want to get. (They can watch the lectures on MIT Open Courseware, as an example. But most won't. Cuz people are generally lazy. (High degree of confidence, low competency, corresponding to low amounts of effort.)

@@ewenchan1239 “ (i.e. unless you're debating the axioms of mathematics and/or quantum physics, the math that is used in engineering, as well as, predominantly, classical mechanics - there's relatively little debate about that* Question like is it a good idea to run a CPU as hot as possible to gain maximum performance isn't that close to those physics fundamentals. How the chip might degrade over time due to heat can probably be modelled with math, but to confirm that real world samples of that chip probably have go through that timespan. Also I'm guessing a hot CPU might affect other components in side the case if cooling is not efficient enough and most definitely a hot running CPU affects fan noise. If the guys talked about the effects on noise, I must have skipped that part because I don't remember seeing it. So an engineer might be correct about what heat does to the chip itself in a short time span, but not know for certain the long term effects on the chip before having years of experience on said chip and the short term effects on things like noise that people typically tend to avoid. So there is still a lot of debating possible even in this topic and it's not just easily settled based on math. "People's most common exposure to medicine and/or nutrition" Medicine was used just as an example of a field that requires a lot of expertise but yet many issues are debated even among those experts so a layman flipping the coin can have almost as good chance of being correct on some specific questions as someone with a degree in the field. I don't think it's the flu that is how regular people are most exposed to these non settled issues, but things like what they self eat and if it's healthy or not. One year for example research finds eggs are not healthy, then another one finds the opposite until it gets reverse again at some point. 'And I remember telling the class, during our presentation "forget the math. The point of the game was that everything affects everything else."' I remember in my first level introductory course to logistics (might have been something else also, can’t remember because it’s more than 20 years ago now) in business school we were already doing optimisation and running solvers in excel and on some other software suite which name I also can’t even remember anymore while in my electrical engineering studies the topic was not even touched in the first years. I’m guessing what people are going to study in business school depends much on the major/minor and what optional courses a person might take. Certainly there is a lot of math courses for those interested in them, for people majoring in for example finance while others for example studying communication or marketing might not be exposed that much to math at all. I also have experience in multivariate optimisation because it has been my income source since about 2010, running simulation/optimisation software that I wrote for the financial markets.

 “And just like how people generally suck at systems analyses, medicine is no different." 
I think the biggest reason why there is confusion in the field of medicine/nutrition is that the test subject is us. Thus it’s not easy and ethical to run controlled trials that run +20 years where people are only feed 1 thing. Diseases take long to develop and experimenting on humans is difficult for many reasons so epidemiology is typically used instead of randomised clinical trials to figure out the health effects of a certain diet or food items.
 “Of course, that doesn't include the deliberate and corrupt lies that were promulgated at the hands of capitalism (e.g. sugar blamed obesity on the consumption of fats rather than on the consumption of sugar).”

 Typically it has been socialism where the largest lies have been spread by government institutions, but sure a for profit company might have incentive to fund and show results that are more favorable to their business. It seems to me it doesn’t really matter if its fats or sugar, it’s the total calories that have grown since the 70’s that is the cause of the obesity. And in fact sugar doesn’t appear to be an independent risk factor even for things like diabetes, while saturated fats actually are so even this issue isn’t as clear as many people think. "(But capitalism lying to us, repeatedly, is a subject for another discussion, another time.)" It's not the economic system that is lying to us, but for sure for profit companies might think they have an incentive to cheat. Typically in the end the lies will come out though and hurt the dishonest business when people are able to vote with their money, unlike in socialism where there is no such market mechanism how businesses would get punished. “If you read the paper on why salt is bad for you”
 Well this thing isn’t based on a single study but a lot of epidemiology where the effects of sodium on blood pressure have been observed. For many people with hypertension, it seems lowering their salt intake helps but it also seems too low of salt intake can be an issue also for other reasons. Again a hard thing to determine perfectly as long enough controlled randmomized experiments on humans are hard to conduct.
 'I always tell my wife that whenever there is some "fad" diet, I always tell her to ask the question "what are they trying to sell (to you)?"' Obviously companies selling something have an incentive to fund research that is favorable to them, that is why when reading studies in for example nutrition, it’s important to understand the full conflicts of interest the authors might have. It doesn’t mean that everyone doing research in the field is corrupt though and a lot of research has been done in universities for example that isn't so affected by the private sector.

It will still last more than 10 years unless you have not used a TIM or mounted a cooler at all.

They keep raising the power limits and making the turbo more aggressive just to be able to claim they've got better performance compared to Ryzen. I am 100% convinced that's all they really care about. I'm not buying all of this "Oh, well, we're just trying to extract every bit of performance for our users..." talk. It's all just nonsense to me. It's still all marketing bs at the end of the day as far as I'm concerned. Now let's talk actual hardware shall we? Intel CPU coolers are still pretty shit, just like they've been for the past what like 15 years now? Can we just agreed about that? How long is the fan going to last with their new stupid turbo that's going to constantly rev the fan up and down really fast? Why do you think all those shitty little fans on video cards break so damn fast? Can you even put a small case fan on an Intel cooler radiator and how? How about the CPU socket power delivery system on the motherboard. Are those little beer keg looking things next to the socket sensitive to temperature? Yeah, I'm obviously talking about the capacitors. Very sensitive?!? OMG!!! And no, it doesn't matter if they're polymeric (or solid state) they still age rapidly at high temperature just like your phone's battery. Like he doesn't know that. Like he doesn't understand that their new shitty CPUs are going to cut into the lifespan of your mobo. I don't even want to start talking about your PSU and transient current problems caused by these news CPUs. He knows, they all know, they're just don't fucking care! They need to claim they're better than AMD. Just like Nvidia has to claim they have the fastest video card on the market. Doesn't matter if it uses 450W/h, electricity's basically free son. Bunch of bastards, all of them... And no, I'm not saying AMD's much better. They did the whole power thing too in the FX days. They do almost all of the same crap Intel does too but at least they're not charging you extra for SMT or for an unlocked multiplier or for unlocking some more features and performance on your server CPU. Intel is literally trying to push microcode microtransaction upgrades for CPUs right now. I know besides the point but still just think about that...

There's a lot of marketing bs here. Of course you want your temps as low as possible and stable, cause it affect your fan curves and longevity of components. The fact it's within the spec and they designed it like that to survive 2-3 years, doesn't change facts. It's great it can suck everything from the chip and interesting from the engineering perspective, but it's not good for consumers to stress components too much.

@@davidcobra1735 Singlecore performance does not scale with higher Powerlimits. Your comment makes no sense. It is there to increase multicore performance, as on same Power consumption a 7950x will always beat a 13900K in multicore, but regardless of the power, the 13900K will always beat the 7950x in singlecore

@@otozinclus3593 That's what I meant. Like you can't tell that. And you know very well they mostly stress the fact they have a single core performance lead again in their marketing and pretty much nothing else. Do you just want to be argumentative or feel like a wise guy or something? Just spare me. Edited my previous comment to better phrase things.

@@davidcobra1735 You said in your comment "They increase power consumption to claim higher single core performance " And I corrected that saying, that the power consumption has nothing to do with single core performance

If it's truly not a bad thing, why did they thermal throttle at 80C for so many years?? Doesn't make much sense to leave all that performance on the table when they would have been just fine running above 80C...

@@bobbygetsbanned6049Because they didn't have the systems in place to very accurately 'guess' the actual hotspot temperature (which could be a lot higher and actually dangerous).

They have to because their CPUs are not possible to cool.

Undervolting is the new overclocking, but yeah I have to agree. It's not pleasant if ambient temps are already at 21C or higher and your case is dumping heat into the room like a radiator 🥵 Noise is also way way higher in those situations. At 19-20C ambient my undervolted rig has 98-99% the perf of stock (with boost) while CPU & GPU don't push past 45C. That's at 50-60% fan speed tops. Cool, quiet, basically the same performance. It's a win/win for the end user. I understand they wouldn't want to artificially limit their components and for the sake of extreme overclocking and enthusiast space they should push for the most they can on any given SKU so I guess it's a balancing act. Thankfully we have undervolting, custom fan curves, and a boatload of thermal solutions to mitigate these rising temps.

Good old days :)

you can tweak TCC under load till you get quoted performance. you can also cap power.

@@satibelyes capping power has worked great for me haven’t noticed any significant performance loss neither

Yeah, nowadays CPUs are just designed to hit thermal limits before powerlimits. This is basically what OCing was about. There is very little headroom for OC in modern CPUs with common thermal solutions. Going to need to buy that compressor cooler :D

@@rkan2 linus managed to hit thermal limits on a 5kw chiller, so it seems at that power density you can't.

Oc = less life

CPUs are just so much tougher than people give them credit for though. Unless it's XOC type stuff.

@@Kholaslittlespot1 not always. My 13600kf died, mobo was giving it 1.5V on default settings. I had it undervolted and after 3-4 months some cores died

@@_sneer_ ouch. Some of these board manufacturers need to be held accountable for the ridiculous default settings.

@@Kholaslittlespot1 yeah, MSI is garbage. Only a little better than Asrock

Why did you run a CPU without a cooler haha

@@pottingsoil723 college experiment in class learning it was with old hardware and controlled with drips. Cool visual demo.

​@@AdamsWorlds Ahhhh, neat

@@pottingsoil723 yeah i still did not see the point in it for learning if they wanted to prove how hot a cpu can get without a cooler i feel just saying so is enough lol. But i guess it did something because i remember the class very well. I doubt they would be allowed to do it these days for health and safety reasons. That teacher was so cool. We ever took the top off a HDD to watch it spin. For networking the teacher had us bring our PC's into school and hook them all up for a LAN party! Worked very well as a teaching aid that everyone that day learnt to trouble shoot and network.

I was wondering the same thing. I'm no expert but if I had to guess more heat would degrade the cpu faster but probably not enough to make much of a difference long term. I guess we'll find out 10 years from now.

@@rileyxbell heat can kill anything

Exactly this. Pushing things to their limit is stupid beyond words. Everyone drooling over this interview are completely ignoring the long term and acting like a bunch of sheep who have never looked into things parroting each other. We all knew all what was in the video before the interview, there was nothing new being presented here. Take good care of things, undervolt/-clock and they'll last a lifetime, do what Intel and AMD are doing and you'll be contributing your PC/laptop to e-waste after the warranty or "lifetime" ends. Use Asus to speedrun that process.

I can’t speak for the others but I’ve personally never had issues with the CPU running at 100 degrees. I’ve been a laptop guy since forever and the older laptops used to sit at 100 degrees all day everyday while gaming and not one died or got damaged or had issues. The silicon will outlast your device even at those temps. Sure, undervolting is good. But I started undervolting mostly to reduce fan noise than to cut temps. To this day, my Helios 300 runs at minimum fan speed while gaming and CPU stays at more than 95 degrees. I can increase fan speed to cut the temps but it doesn’t matter really. Hope my answer helps.

It can be understandable. But also you may want to take in account history of how this belief appeared. In older time sensors weren't as integrated in die, as they are now. So they reported lower temperature. Like VRM temp. You see one value, but actual temp can be 15-20 degrees higher under package. Also at older times amount of temp sensors per die/core were lower, and hotspots weren't as openly readable. Modern reported temp is much closer to reality than what was before. But i still can see why seeing temps above 90 degrees can be unsettling to observe. Issues at those temps may not even relate to die longevity by itself, but it can be even more in area of interaction with thermal paste, like pump-out and component separation.

@@DimkaTsv Sensor count. Yes, that makes sense. My old CPU (Sandy Bridge 2600K) appears to run cooler, even with a mild overclock. It does have a much lower sensor count. I under-volted my new CPU (Ryzen 5800X) because of higher apparent temps. I may have been a bit hasty. Cheers.

But isn't that about the actual power consumption? Ie. a CPU running at 95C but pulling 100W dumps less heat than a CPU running at 85C but pulling 150W.

Die temperature and thermal density have nothing in common to dumped heat. It is as if we compare bowl of soup to heated floor. Or to room heater Floor is colder, but dumps MUCH more heat in room compared to bowl of soup at 90 degrees. Heaters can be as big as that exact bowl of soup, but they will be able to push more heat as well. CPU and GPU have 100% efficiency. Because all power goes into heat. Performance is just desired sideeffect. And it means that how much heat actually is dumped in room depends exclusive on how much power die consumes. High temperature of core/die is just sideeffect of high thermal density or slow cooler heat dissipation. At this point even if you use absolutely insane water cooler with controlled to 0.1 degree coolant at 5 degrees (like coolers used to chill lasers), CPU can still throttle. Like 13900k had 63 degrees in CB in stock under these conditions. And it throttled with some OC, despite such cooling solution. At this point issue lies in physics of heat transfer.

@@DimkaTsv @2intheampm512 But if you have 2 systems with all variables the same (CPU watts, cooler etc), and the only difference is the CPU max temp limit......

I actually suck at understanding heat, thermal dynamics or whatever

@@fumo1000 Doesn't matter. If CPU wattage is same - overall heat output will be same. CPU temps with condition of same exact power consumption are only dependant on efficiency of heat transfer and heat dissipation of cooler. It doesn't change amount of heat. Just speed of it's removal from CPU. It is as if you try to chill bowl of soup by placing it in cold water, or by leaving it on air. Thermal capacity of bowl of soup is same. But it will cool down faster and to lower temps in cold water compared to air.

His mind is too powerful to be restrained to music alone!

Was just about to post something similar. We shouldn't be surprised though, after all he made 'all about the pentiums' back in the day.

You have a contradicting argument tho. If your work load doesn’t require the potential of whatever cpu you have, you could have saved money and bought a lower tier cpu. This discussion relates more to people buying top tier CPU’s, without even using 10/20/30/40/50% of its potential whilst handicapping the cpu to get lower temps.

@@prisonmike9823 My example was halving the power draw for 90% the performance (which is what Ryzen 7000 does). I very much doubt there is a lower tier that still has 90% of the performance of the higher tier. Also as I said, I don't do it for the temperatures, but for sustainability and energy usage reasons. If we use double the world's energy for 10% more performance in our tech, it would be a quick way to never solve the global warming problem

I’ve heard it’s a difference of a cpu lasting 15 years instead of like 20. So it’s not really relevant tbh

You have to take into the account not only the CPU but the surrounding components on the motherboard as well. Output filtering capacitors sit very close to the CPU socket especially on ITX boards. General rule of thumb is every 10 Celsius increase in operating temperature of the capacitor will halve the lifespan on it.

You can’t get that unless you give Intel/AMD access to your CPU’s activity and behavior, and letting them be able to validate that you never went above temperature. I don’t think it’s worth opening that can of worms. People just need to get educated on the fact that there’s no difference in wear between a cpu running at 90 degrees and 50 degrees if their behaviors are the same.

There's no problem for a solution. The engineer explained why this is normal.

Changing the warranty from 3 years to 5 years make that big a difference to you?

@@joemarais7683 You can't definitively state that. Temperature is absolutely a factor in silicon degradation and we don't have any historical reference of how these temperatures are going to impact the longevity of these CPUs over time.

@@TheGameBench has anyone actually had a CPU fail without doing something inadvisable to it? its the most reliable part of a computer, thats why older motherboards hold their value, they die far before the CPU

Read the data sheet for the device! Every manufacturer of integrated circuits produces one. The data sheet contains an electrical specification section. I know, I used to write them.

The max voltage will be the one just below the one that destroyer's your cpu. 👍

Im doing the same, undervolt ALWAYS and sometimes under OC

As long as the SOC is under the 100C limit, you should be fine running it in normal use times, like gaming. shouldn't affect the life span.

Obviously Anecdotal evidence is garbage, but I’ve been running a 4790k at a fairly high voltage and 4.8ghz all core for 6 years now in a cramped storage server at 90+ degrees that’s constantly being accessed, and that thing is still fine. Same with the ryzen 1600 that runs stock but at max temp almost all the time since it’s a htpc system in a cabinet, and that’s also still fine. Feels like running within spec will never kill a cpu even when that spec is 100 degrees max

Your CPU is gonna be the last thing to fail. More likely, the motherboard VRM will fail, due to its OWN heat and the CPU. Considering that everyone upgrade annually, it's hard to tell if electron migration happens quickly due to heat. Many Sandy Bridge era CPU, including Faildozers failed after a decade (once it's turned off), assuming the OC is aggressive, and 24/7 operation (the computer is NOT off or sleep).

@@AlfaPro1337 This. The CPU die is essentially monolithic as it is etched. The soldered on component linkages are going to mechanically fail due to thermal cycling over time, if anything.

Sure, but their argument (and AMD's as well) is that it is operating as designed if the CPU under load is sitting at 95C, and that the CPU will drop frequency to keep the CPU from exceeding 95C. So the "argument" is that someone with a 175W capable cooler will be able to get the most performance out of their CPU by allowing it to sit at 95C, while someone else with a 275W capable cooler will also see the maximum performance and run at the same 95W, just at a higher frequency. I disagree with this argument, but I've heard it multiple times. Both Intel and AMD would argue that you are not "overheating" as long as you are below 100C (or 95C on Ryzen 7000), and both claim that their thermal circuits will keep you below those limits. For those of us who view any thermal throttling as leaving performance on the table and therefore an inadequate cooling solution, this doesn't fly. There are also those who don't want a CPU cranking 100C temps into the case constantly raising GPU and VRM temps. They did this to sneak more performance out of their latest generation platforms to show greater gen-over-gen performance uplift, and as a result, they now expect the community to accept that the new normal for CPU's under load is roughly 100C. The reality is, you can put a giant multi-360 radiator loop on a 13700K and with enough thermal storage, eventually find the limit where even under full load it doesn't exceed 90C, which is the real target limit of the chip (before additional overclocking). To put it another way, this is just the manufacturers moving the goalposts to market more generational performance gains. We know that the IHS for 13th gen is now a huge cooling bottleneck, and on a 13900K, you would struggle to find an ambient coldplate+loop+pump/tank combo that will keep you under 80C even w/out overclocking, you end up having to increase flow and go sub-ambient and still struggle to remove enough heat from the chip fast enough.

@@racerex340 You are smart Sean, I’ve heard that too. But given AMD with 7nm and 5nm designs vs Intel’s 10 nm, Intel is getting extra performance by pushing the limits beyond what I feel is reasonable. They don’t get to by engineering advances like smaller nm, but by just pushing the accelerator on power. I could not believe putting 13700k in my rig with U12A and getting terrible stuttering on games immediately, and realized at Raptor lake, this chip way exceed my cooling out of the box. So now average person cannot get full performance they pay for without extended cooling.

you are absolutely right but Noctua is to blame here I have 2 of them and noticed they changed their description several times over the years, the truth is those air coolers in my oldest documentation were rated for 120-150w their air coolers are old designs for cpus made 10 years ago, they lie they aren't the only ones to be fair Corsair also recycles their waterblocks which were designed for like 7 years ago cpu which more than doubled in watts since, I just commented above that my 13900k was 359w full stock and 384w with msi motherboard "cpu boost" auto-oc feature and that I do not recommend this cpu without a custom loop and 2 rads, 3 if you had a gpu in the loop

@@fredEVOIX Good point, I was thinking about this yesterday and I realize my beloved U12A was never designed for Raptor Lake type wattages, as much as i love it, it just wasn’t, and that’s why its totally inadequate today. So my current conundrum is what to do with my setup , a) i can slow down the 13700k to say 90w on pl1/pl2, or b) sell it and maybe go to 13600k, or c) keep it and get a water cool, though I love the simplicity of air

@@skye7690 Oh, I don't disagree... It was a marketing decision, they knew that 13700K was going to be the sweet spot people were looking at to compete against 5800X3D with gaming PC builds, especially when AMD was selling the 58000X3D for $330 on the AMD store, and it also had to eventually not get destroyed by the 7800X3D. Since the 13700K was the lowest SKU they made with 8 performance cores, the only thing Intel could do was run the chip as fast as humanly possible without instability or melting and leaving the cooling issue as our problem, because on benchmarks their brand new 16-core beast wouldn't be nearly equal gaming performance to AMD's last-gen 8-core flagship gaming chip, and what is embarrassing is that the 5800X3D still beats the 13700K performance in many games, yet to hit similar frame rates, the 13700K is consuming 150W+ average and peaking spikes to 250W while the 5800X3D consumes about 57W average with spikes to 140W, all while being roughly the same street price as the 6-core 13600K. Intel has had to drop the street price on the 13700K to $360 ($160 discount from the $520 MSRP) to compete in gaming, and then AMD just allowed retailers to drop the street price of the 5800X3D to $299 as they prepare to sell the 7800X3D for $450, which has in turn forced Intel to drop the street price of the 13900K to sell at $529, or $200 off of MSRP. So yes, Intel had to push the performance cores of their top 13th gen chips to the moon in order to compete in gaming, and while the Gracemont efficiency core density has given AMD trouble in production workloads, it seems pretty clear to me that Intel 13th gen Raptor Cove P-cores are only roughly 75% as efficient performance per watt as Ryzen Zen4 TSMC 5nm FinFET. The truth is, even though Intel attempts to claim that Intel 7 Ultra is comparable with TSMC 5nm due to transistor density, they are still a solid 1.5 generations behind in terms of efficiency, which is why we got Big/Little, their Ultra 7 raptor cores can be driven with nearly 1.5X the wattage as Zen4 cores to hit the same performance, but by adding Gracemont little cores, they can almost compete with Zen4's efficiency as long as they try to keep as much processing on the gracemont cores as possible and only use the Raptor cores when performance is needed. The reality is, if AMD and TSMC came up with a gracemont efficiency core equivalent using TSMC 5/4nm, they should be roughly 25% more efficient than Intel's little cores at the same performance, and in theory, could allow AMD to swap a little-core CCD with 16 Zen4-little cores into the same space as a current Zen4 8-core CCD, giving them a 24-core chip that would compete with 13900K, but in theory hit better multicore performance numbers with significantly lower power consumption. I'm hoping AMD doesn't hop on the big-little wagon for desktops (laptop is a good idea), as Zen4 efficiency already so close to Gracemont cores that they should just stick to the Zen5 path and get more full Zen cores with TSMC 3nm.

Indeed, this video didn't age well.

Production wise the cost would be insane!

It would actually save them a bit of money. They don’t have to solder the KS processors

Why would you delid KS series ? If you think about it, they are binned cpus which means they require less voltages for most likely same frequencies. Would rather delid normal K series instead. None of my K series scored above 90 points in Asus bios, while KS scored above 110 points. Might not be appealing for everyone, but am running 13900KS undervolted, with low load-line calibration and on best case scenario.. Managed to pass R23 multicore without crashing

@@Need4FPS because binned CPUS like the KS can overclock a bit better and pull more power, not every K owner is going to want to mess with Liquid Metal, but over clocking community like the KS series since the base line is higher clocked. Also since it’s a limited production, intel would benefit from that. They can’t sell all CPUs delided. It would not make sense to them

@@Multimeter1 The overclocking community is so small that it would be just additional cost for Intel to set up a manufacturing and packaging line just for CPUs without heatsink. Remember that they need to test the CPUs before packaging, and in this case they need to do it all without heatsink. So that is: alteration of the manufacturing line to accommodate the fork for CPUs without heatsink (i.e. covering smds etc), separate QA procedures, separate packaging. A lot of resources for the few bucks more they would make from such cpus. Completely not worth it.

They should get rid of the marketing team altogether and just let engineers talk about their products. And the person that came up with the term ‘up to’ should be forever paid ‘up to’ 100% of their contract wages.

@@_sneer_ Na the average PC consumer would watch this and come away understanding nothing except that intel/amd are intentionally making their desktop run hotter. and hotter=bad. It only works on this channel because the average viewer of this channel and the host himself have a more nuanced view.

@@exmerion average consumer does not get anything from the marketing babble either, so still my idea is better. Do you think that average consumer would even notice thermal throttling? Nah.

@@_sneer_ probably only to people that play games. but most marketing lingo is pretty fucking simple and explained simply compared to this content.

@@exmerion really? When was the last time you read marketing materials for a CPU release? Lol. Just ‘up to’s and strange comparisons with a lot of small print and obfuscation.

Linus is a failure. Simple as.

@@BlackTorrent chill out , what is wrong with what he said , and what was wrong about what linus did , if the cooler he used was not enough to cool the 13900k with a bit of OC , then what is , linus showed how the integrated heat spreader cant manage with the heat that cpu can do , but that's a problem for AMD to , since it's to much power on such a small surface.

@@antraxbeta23 It is not just the heat spreader. The cpu is designed to try to reach the temp limit if it does not have a voltage limit. If you give it enough voltage it would reach even with an Infinite wattage chiller.

@@marsovac you are wrong but sure , search older videos from der8auer , he explains exacly , its why when using direct die cooling you can droop even 30c

@@marsovac of course it would,when die-IHS contact itself is the bottleneck hence why when de-lidding we see decent drop in temps even on normal coolers especially on AMD side this is sad if anything that a damn 5kw laser chiller can't cool a damn normal CPU because people are gaslighted into thinking 95c is normal