4 ms·
> In fact the part in question is shown at 8 cores, 5 GHz turbo, with a 95W TDP (at $488), which shows somewhat better power efficiency than the equivalent Ryze
by kllrnohj 7y ago
> In fact the part in question is shown at 8 cores, 5 GHz turbo, with a 95W TDP (at $488), which shows somewhat better power efficiency than the equivalent Ryzen 7 3800X (8/4.5GHz/105W/$399).
The 3900X 12C/24T uses less power under full load than the 9900K does: https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph14605/111362.png https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph14605/111362.png (142w vs. 168w)
Intel cannot touch AMD's power efficiency right now, at least not on the desktop market and up. AMD hasn't rolled out 7nm to the laptop space yet, so Intel keeps an advantage there.
The 9900K (and now 9900KS) are fast chips, but power-efficient they are very much not at all. Getting those clocks requires ramming power through the chip. Power efficiency is barely even a concern for this particular market area.