Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Mar 22, 2021.
the 5600x I own operates at 65 watts while after oc it reaches 104 watts
my 10700f stays at 40w in gaming
btw 45w for internet browsing is ridiculously high should be under 10w
I have firefox with 10 tabs (incl. a video playing), edge with ms office forms,ms teams running, mpc with a video paused and package tdp is reading 3-8w
I think my whole system doesn't take 45w.1070 reads 16-17w in idle (dual monitor).
that's 25w for cpu+gpu,cpu alone should never run 45w in idle/light load.maybe your'e reading from the ups ? My reading from ups is 56w whole system+one monitor
Oh dear a regression cpu from intel. For the guys in the USA you can buy a 10850k 10 core 20 threads for $279US at microcenter in store only .
They just stop making dumb boxed with 9900k and now here we go all over again.
1.073v for 4.450ghz
1.150v for 4.650ghz(profile 1)
1.259v for 4.750@allcores(profile2)oc
1.307v for 4.8@allcores.
I never get over 45w in gaming. But im also heavy UV. Max boost 4650 SC. Not that i need more so why bother. You get easily -10C undervolting while getting a bit better performance than stock.
I pretty much run locked 1.25v 4.600mhz on 10700f and it's still sipping power in idle/light load
no idea how it works on ryzen
I'm not even sure why Intel bothered with backporting this line to 14nm++++++++... wait how many +s are we at now? The 11 series is almost the same as the 10, which is almost the same as the 9, which is almost the same as the 8, etc... it's time for AMD to blow them out of the water so maybe they'll finally make something new again. I really don't like the sound of their upcoming big/little chip, bit/little has always seemed like retarded desperation to me.
Stop trying to make me jelly that MC is a 'Murica only store.
That statement does not tell much.
I can make a screenshot of my Ryzen 1700 using less then 40W when gaming, that does not make my 1700 more power efficient then the 10700f.
The only thing that tells me, is that the game does not use CPU performance and therefore a lot of the CPU is just sleeping during the low load.
When the work load changes the heat rises, just like the 11700k turns up the heat a lot when AVX hits the chip.
@Neo Cyrus big little is not stupid when energy efficiency is on mind 4 small cores taking care of all the light tast while the fast power hungry cores do the lifting or sleeping when they are not needed makes sense z but are they better than say 2 full sized cores used at the same way ? No clue! What i am expecting as a possibility is intel gaming performance to have regression on games if you allow the little cores to have workload equally distributed to em by the game , except if the windows scheduler is up to date to not do that in time.
Will be easily fixed by setting the affinity right if something like that happens
Any news about this?!?!
Intel is now obsolet, slower, hotter and more vulnerable than AMD...
They will need 2 or 3 years to start a new competition....
Big/little shouldn't need to be a thing on desktop chips, when a proper architecture can power down to practically nothing while under low load as modern (at least Zen 2 and newer, don't remember older) CPUs can, it makes Intel look like they're reeking of desperation. It seems like they want to simplify their design list and use something super similar for desktops as mobile.
I have a ton of tabs open including playing 1440p/60fps video and yet my CPU OC'd to 4.25-4.35GHz (per CCX OC, not flat) with the voltage turned up is still only showing a max of 17W power draw if Ryzen Master is to be believed.
There's very few desktop users that give a flying frack about having ultra power efficiency. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather use that die space for a real core rather than whatever low power crap Intel have come up with this time. I want to see Intel actually compete against AMD, not come up with nonsense then try to keep selling based purely on brand name/recognition and slimy marketing lies as they have been so far.
Nice, motherboards are hitting the shelfs and it's already a dead end platform. And will be forgotten in 3 or 4 months.
Sadly that's the only record for rocket lake.
@Neo Cyrus well yeah we agree really, i keep a scepticism about it's usefulness on desktop computers too ,except if intel pull a rabbit out of their hat .
The other point i can see on it ..... It's the marketing potential .... If those tiny cores can power down to 1 watt or something like that, intel will market the frack out of it most likely spend more energy on the advertising campaign about it than those cpus will save combined
And cpus can power down since Athlon64 ! With the introduction of cool and quiet1.0 ! I remember my a64 3000+ from 2ghz clocking down to 800
And me freaking out when opening cpuz for the first time seeing that thinking my cpu has a problem, a quick visit to guru 3d here back then put me at ease . And i missed when intel added that feature too since my cpus where p3-a64-a64x2-phenom2-i7(ivybridge)-ryzen
Why would anyone choose alder lake? It's 8 big + 8 atom cores top.
Who would need 8 atoms cores on desktop?
12 big + 4 atoms is enough. 16 big + 4 atoms. But 8 + 8 is a nonsense for desktop.
Tell me a desktop pc enthusiast that doesn't hate atom cores.
yes it's the point I was trying to make to the dude I was talking to.read up.
So a $200 cheaper 18 core kind of an "old i9-10980XE" maybe the better choice...!?!?!
And Big Little for Desktops is pure nonsense at all....For me now it´s two more Intel generations to skip: Rocket Lake booster to the moon and Little Alder Lake...
as someone who had both brands at the same time, one on each side of my desk
AMD is cooler for the same perf no doubt about it (the larger die surface helps a lot, threadripper is super cool because of that)
Intel "just works" AMD requires advanced knowledge and/or time
AMD modified their architecture to fix their "gaming" performance which wasn't very good in the 3000 series in 1080p
Intel silicon lottery became pretty bad in the recent years, AMD with lower clocks makes this less of a problem
Would still recommend Intel for "non-geek" users who want something that "just works" AMD experience out of the box is pretty bad
not everyone wants to mess around with BIOS settings, energy savings tweaks etc..Intel is almost plug and play on the other hand
as a geek who tweaks computers all day long I would buy a 5800x + X570/B550 now, gaming was the only thing Intel had left and they lost it