11 ms·

This article states the following power consumption: > The 10900K has a 125-watt TDP, for example, while AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X's is just 105-watts. My understan

• johncalvinyoung 6y ago
  Came here to post the more-helpful Anandtech article.
• anthony_doan 6y ago
  Didn't we have XDR ram around that time?
• celim307 6y ago
  How the tables have turned since the and bulldozer days
  • close04 6y ago
    It looks almost identical to the AthlonXP/64 vs Pentium 4 days when Intel just kept bumping the clocks and power consumption. Until they came out with Conroe. Jim Keller might be doing just that with Intel right now. I only hope whatever they come up with, AMD is ready and able to keep up. Otherwise we're going to see a rerun of the following period too: Intel tweaking the same architecture for years at a time, and squeezing low single digit performance improvements that come with questionable security sacrifices and deeply unpleasant sticker prices.
    • xoa 6y ago
      While Conroe was definitely solid, last time around in getting there Intel didn't just pursue the technical side of bumping clocks/power, they also engaged in some genuinely illegal anticompetitive practices to get OEMs to not use AMD. So AMD wasn't able to leverage their few years of advantage into marketshare that would enable more sustained R&D, thus when Intel did regain the lead with a new architecture they had lost essentially nothing in the way of strategic position. The $1.25 billion AMD ultimately got out of Intel in a settlement years later didn't erase that advantage. This time around though Intel isn't in the same position at all to dictate to major market players for a variety of reasons. The current big lucky break catapulting AMD way into the lead is certainly temporary, but it does seem like they'll be able to gain some real marketshare and attention. That will hopefully serve to make this time around end up in a much more stable back and forth.
      • vvanders 6y ago
        Eeeeh, still seeing signs of this in the NUC and Laptop space. For instance you can find a laptop with anything faster than a RTX 2060 despite 4800/4900HS completely thrashing the Intel line of laptop chips.
      • tracker1 6y ago
        I remember seeing AMD is growing R&D by 18% next year... what that means in practice, who knows. I am hoping to see them more competitive on the high end of graphics though... > $1100 for a top end consumer video card is crazy.
        • K0SM0S 6y ago
          My understanding is that Nvidia can't produce enough GPU to saturate their pro market, the demand is huge as we speak and only increasing for now (looking at you, ML). So AMD (or rather, their RTG division specifically) would be remiss not to align their price/perf with Nvidia to maximize profit. A reason why they'll probably stay 'cheaper' to some extent for some time (perhaps long) is that they don't compete against CUDA, Nvidia's silver bullet. And don't just think “muh fancy library”, think hordes of engineers that Nvidia has the financial muscle to deploy in the field, 'lending' them to customers who need ad hoc driver work, custom implementations, general help, and what-have-you. CUDA is a war machine, because that's how Nvidia operates its strategy. It's how they owned the video game market back then, and I'm pretty sure they do the same with CUDA / ML / compute (why wouldn't they). I thought that OpenCL would eventually be to CUDA what Vulkan is becoming to DirectX (btw: thank you, Linux); but it seems to me that OpenCL is going the way of the dodo? (still very little support in all ML/compute software I encounter, anecdotally). AMD can sell a ton of GPU at good price, and they should, but they're lagging behind because optimized software libraries support (CUDA, the whole commercial hammer it represents) is where it's at. Fortunately or not for them, Intel's graphics efforts seem to be... hype, more than a truly organized effort (insiders leaks speak of a terrible, terrible political / manegerial / organization situation at Intel's). It's fortunate for AMD's graphics market share, but it's unfortunate in that Intel would be a major support for OpenCL (last I checked, at least) and Intel's rise on that market could have taken AMD's hardware along with it in a tsunami of competition for CUDA. But that's not happening soon, apparently.
• jpgvm 6y ago
  The real draw under turbo is likely much higher. My i9-9900k for instance has a rated TDP of 95W but it can only boost to about 4.5Ghz all-core when limited to that TDP. I run it at a 5.2ghz all-core overlock and it pulls nearly 200W under load. (yes, beefy watercooling). From memory it was around 150W @ 5ghz but I haven't played around with the OC settings for a while after I got it tuned right.
  • wuunderbar 6y ago
    What's your watercooling setup? Not AIO I presume?
  • winter_blue 6y ago
    What sort of water cooling setup do you have? From all that I've read, the typical AIO water cooling setup is only barely better than a high-end air/fan cooling setup.
    • xxs 6y ago
      That would depend on the power dissipated. Custom loop can have higher flow rate, (significantly) more surface area of the radiators, and more water. Another issue is that VRM needs cooling too, and custom loops can come VRM cooling (monoblocks). AIOs would need forced airflow (fan).
      • tracker1 6y ago
        There is a lot of variety... Most 360 AIO will do much better than any air cooler with less noise. Many 240-280 will as well... Good/Great air coolers will often do as well as a 120-240mm aio. This will vary by radiator size/thickness, the fans and the case airflow and any obstructions. Personally, O11 dynamic, with a 360 aio at the top/exhaust and 3x side, 3x bottom intake... It's really quite pretty much all the time... If I stick my head close, I can hear a little hum, but that my well be the video card for all I can tell. The 4-bay nas on the shelf nearby is more noticeable.
        • 6y ago
• xxs 6y ago
  Intel's TDP is just at base clock which Intel keeps at 3.7GHz. Pretty it's close to a hoax. Power increases linearly with frequency and squarely with voltage. Higher freq. needs higher voltage. This applies to pretty much any CPU/GPU. Also AVX loads are significantly more power hungry. 230W would be a low estimate for a fully clocked one.
  • stcredzero 6y ago
    Power increases linearly with frequency and squarely with voltage. Going by the common use of "squarely," the power usage might also be interpreted as being linearly with voltage. Rather, I understood you meant that power increases proportional to the voltage squared. (For the lurkers: Friction increases proportional to velocity squared, as does kinetic energy. These are all quite useful things to know, and should be part of the takeaways from your basic science education.)
    • xxs 6y ago
      Ok - a fair point. "Voltage squared" fits better, indeed. It's a simplification that comes from P = V * V / R.
      • whatshisface 6y ago
        The word you're looking for is "quadratically."
        • stcredzero 6y ago
          Thanks for that! Now I can use parallel -ly suffixes to express that thought, too!
        • xxs 6y ago
          True that, but what bothers me is that people may take it 'as 4x times increase' (quad=4, similar to twice, thrice, and so on). This is pretty much what I used to use.
• magila 6y ago
  AMD's not really any better when it comes to fudging specs. At least Intel CPUs actually limit their sustained power draw to the TDP when running in their factory default configuration, even if enthusiast motherboards usually override it. AMD CPUs OTOH run significantly higher power than their spec'd TDP right out-of-the box. For example, that "105 W" 3900X actually ships with a power limit of 142 W and it is quite capable of sustaining that under an all-core load. AMD's turbo numbers are also pure fantasy. If AMD rated turbo frequencies the same way Intel did that 3900X would have a max turbo of 4.2 or 4.3 GHz instead of 4.6 GHz. When Intel says their CPU can hit a given turbo frequency they mean it will actually hit that and stay there so long as power/temperature remains within limits. Meanwhile AMD CPUs may-or-may not ever hit their max turbo frequency, and if they do it's only for a fraction of a second while off full load. The outrage over Intel CPU's power consumption is pretty silly when you realize that the only reason AMD CPUs don't draw just as much is because their chips would explode if you tried to pump that much power into them. If you care about power consumption just set your power limits as desired and Intel CPUs will deliver perfectly reasonable power efficiency and performance.
  • throwaway2048 6y ago
    40% fudging is still significantly better than 100% or 200%
  • dralley 6y ago
    >>AMD CPUs OTOH run significantly higher power than their spec'd TDP right out-of-the box. For example, that "105 W" 3900X actually ships with a power limit of 142 W and it is quite capable of sustaining that under an all-core load. I'm pretty sure you've got that exactly reversed, AMD's power draw tends to stay closer to the rated TDP than Intel's. >>The outrage over Intel CPU's power consumption is pretty silly when you realize that the only reason AMD CPUs don't draw just as much is because their chips would explode if you tried to pump that much power into them. If you care about power consumption just set your power limits as desired and Intel CPUs will deliver perfectly reasonable power efficiency and performance. I'm not even sure what this means. AMD CPUs are on a more advanced and physically smaller process, with smaller wires, and a different voltage-frequency-response curve. Of course they would "explode" if you try to pump them with voltages that the process isn't designed to operate with, that the Intel CPU with it's larger process can handle. But the power draw isn't really the "point" of the CPU -- performance is. Imagine thinking that the Pentium 4 or Bulldozer was better than their contemporaries because they were capable of drawing incredible amounts of power.
• egd 6y ago
  This is the cycle with Intel, though. They innovate, blow out the market, and then stagnate until AMD or someone else comes out with an architecture that's a category improvement on whatever Intel's offering. This looks like they're turning every nob to 11 on the current architecture to try to get something that they can sell until they can come up with whatever will succeed the Core line.
  • DeathArrow 6y ago
    This time it isn't AMD which gives them trouble but TSMC. Intel doesn't lack a good architecture but a good fabbing process. AMD just has a good architecture and are using good fabbing facilities. Intel can have the best architecture in the world but that won't matter much if they are stuck with their fabbing at the current 14 nm process.
• segfaultbuserr 6y ago
  > Somehow it feels like back in the Pentium 4 days again. What we've got here is actually the mysterious, long-overdued Pentium 5 (which was known for its greater-than 5 GHz clock speed and never released due to the huge heat dissipation issue). History repeats, but this time, it actually got released.
• DeathArrow 6y ago
  >Somehow it feels like back in the Pentium 4 days again. Than maybe they'll come up with a core design again.