4 ms·

Intel TDPs are the base clock, not the boost clock. AMDs are the boost clock. A 9900K might specify a 95W TDP, but at 5GHz it will actually use almost 170W. S

• ajross 7y ago
  Cite for the AMD convention of TDP at a consistent boost? That's genuinely the first I've heard of it, and I'm almost certain that's wrong. TDPs have always been considered to be sustained values, which is exactly what "boost" is not.
  • makomk 7y ago
    The boost clocks generally are sustained values, at least if you have the cooling and power provision to make them so. Most good motherboards for Intel CPUs place no cap on boost duration although one is supported by the chipset. All of the benchmarks of high-end Intel parts like this are done with uncapped boost duration too. Yes, that does make Intel's TDP figures for this 5 GHz all-core boost part effectively meaningless. AMD's current TDP figures are based the maximum thermal output in what they consider to be real-world applications with boost clocks enabled: https://www.techspot.com/article/1652-things-amd-needs-to-fix/ https://www.techspot.com/article/1652-things-amd-needs-to-fi... (Their TDP used to be maximum thermal output full stop and the real-world figure used to be called ACP, but they changed it because comparing their TDP with Intel's made their CPUs look really hot.) They also have an actual guaranteed maximum which is higher than, but tied to, their quoted TDP figure. So whilst it's not actual TDP anymore it's still a lot more meaningful than Intel's numbers.
  • cmsj 7y ago
    Hmm, you're right, I see anandtech data showing the 105W rated 3900x drawing a peak of ~120W. Still much closer to the rated TDP than Intel manages.