Steam installieren
Anmelden
|
Sprache
简体中文 (Vereinfachtes Chinesisch)
繁體中文 (Traditionelles Chinesisch)
日本語 (Japanisch)
한국어 (Koreanisch)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarisch)
Čeština (Tschechisch)
Dansk (Dänisch)
English (Englisch)
Español – España (Spanisch – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (Lateinamerikanisches Spanisch)
Ελληνικά (Griechisch)
Français (Französisch)
Italiano (Italienisch)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Ungarisch)
Nederlands (Niederländisch)
Norsk (Norwegisch)
Polski (Polnisch)
Português – Portugal (Portugiesisch – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (Portugiesisch – Brasilien)
Română (Rumänisch)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Finnisch)
Svenska (Schwedisch)
Türkçe (Türkisch)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisch)
Українська (Ukrainisch)
Ein Übersetzungsproblem melden
Diskussionsregeln
Diesen Beitrag melden
A decent 280mm or large tower air cooler are good enough, but the thing is, boost clocks scale better with lower temperature, so the cooler you can keep your CPU, the better the clocks your CPU can sustain, since the algorithm is heavily based on temperature, as higher temperature brings greater risk with electromigration which is where problems occur when using more voltage as it can lead to the gradual degradation of the silicon. It's why since AMD started using TSMC's 7nm process that they had to employ the use of the Silicon Fitness in order to prevent their CPUs from burning themselves out by always trying to run up to their maximum boost frequency on more than a single core.
The more cores has and the more power the CPU needs, the lower the safe voltages are going to be when the system is using more of those cores and threads; most 3600s and 5600Xs can handle 1.3 volts all day, while the 3950X and 5950X rarely can safely handle more than 1.2v in an all-core load because there's significantly more current draw and temperature resulting from it. For manual overclocking, the lower end SKUs are actually better in that regard because of the lower core count results in lower power demands and less heat.
I would never suggest taking that kind of risk with an expensive processor like a 5900X or 5950X. It's not worth it, the headroom is so minimal that it's safer and better to just use PBO.
It needs good but not extreme cooling.
It's not about how much power it's using, rather how efficient it is with that power. The FX-9590 is just a waste of 200W because of how bad of a processor it is, while the 5900X is efficient use of ~200W.
Merely because frequency scaling is better with lower temperatures, it's a good idea to have good cooling. You're not necessarily getting the most out of the CPU if you're using a 212 EVO, a 240mm AIO, or similar. More like ~90% of it.
With thst said, it should be good unless something drastically changes, which is unlikely, even if they graphene chips commercially viable tomorrow that were (a hyperthetical) 10x faster, it would still take several years for them to even begin to be utilised so you would likely still have 3-5 years before anything would fail to run anything.
one with 10+ choke coils (small bricks) around the cpu socket and heatsinks near them
A single chiplet design vs a dual chiplet design will be better for fps and latency. This is why Intel CPU often performs better because of its monolithic design.
The 5900x is definitely nice. You could've saved though and had prety much the same exact PC experience.
We don't have any control over that.
That being said, plenty of midrange CPU's over the last decade have been serviceable for years much longer than five years. I don't think current high end CPU's have anything to worry about.
but be aware the sb fan (near the io headers and sata ports) will fail in about a year
if you get weird issues like audio cutouts, usb devices not reporting and/or sata drives not working that will most likely be the problem