5 ms·
> Through our tests, we saw the Intel Core i9-10900K peak at 254 W during our AVX2-accelerated y-cruncher test. LINPACK and 3DPMavx did not push the processor a
by greendave 6y ago
> Through our tests, we saw the Intel Core i9-10900K peak at 254 W during our AVX2-accelerated y-cruncher test. LINPACK and 3DPMavx did not push the processor as hard.
That's a lot of power. Granted, on non-AVX code, the max they measured looks closer to 190W but that's still dramatically more than the 140W max that the 16-core Ryzen needs.
- Synaesthesia 6y agoThat is but not beyond what most PSU’s can do these days. Also it’s only when you’re stressing all 10 cores. But it is significant.
- dijit 6y agoI am not worried about the PSU, I'm worried about the VRM's (and cooling of them). Maybe I'm also a little worried about PSU fans spinning more, as my current PSU doesn't spin it's fan unless it's over 45% load.
- BoorishBears 6y agoThen this CPU is not for you. It's for people who want the maximum performance outside of a Cinebench and rendering videos, the presumption is you can get a motherboard that actually supports the CPUs it lists on the box, power demands and all.
- dijit 6y agoThis is a /relatively/ fair comment, in isolation. But a couple of things stick out. 1) Intel generally hides power draw by talking averages not totals. 2) Power/Performance ratios are generally used to compare against AMD, and in this case, AMD is winning.
- BoorishBears 6y agoPower/Performance ratios were used against AMD when AMD was already lagging behind in performance, and power was actively hindering performance (via heat generated which was actively limiting headroom for clock speeds) No one complains when a chip is performing extremely well and taking a lot of power like the i9 clearly is, they complain when a chip is taking a lot of power and underperforming - And honestly the whole TDP debate is a joke, everyone wants their own deeply flawed benchmark, some people want it to be TDP with AVX-512 instructions which is not a realistic workload for most people, some people want what Intel puts on the box. TDP is like process nodes. It used to be easy to just compare two numbers, but with complex boosting rules, increased core counts, weird interactions with AVX and all those cores, it's pointless to just compare. What matters in non-commercial consumer land is can it be cooled by a reasonable cooling solution. When you're talking about a $100 CPU "reasonable" is what usually comes in the box. When you're talking about $500+ I would say a 2 fan AIO or a high-end air cooler is what's reasonable (that's why there's no cooler in the box once you get to this performance point), and reviews are showing it performs just fine with both Actually... as if to make my point about TDP, some reviewers were finding this not to be the case. Turns out some mobo manufacturers enabled "MCE", which essentially throws voltage at the CPU to try and get higher clocks with more cores enabled. It doesn't follow Intel's specs to do this either: https://www.anandtech.com/show/6214/multicore-enhancement-the-debate-about-free-mhz https://www.anandtech.com/show/6214/multicore-enhancement-th... So just like almost every "automatic overclocking" solution for a CPU that's been shipped, it throws the TDP completely out the window. And so if you did expect Intel's TDP to be correct you'd be sorely disappointed, but if you based the TDP on what those motherboards will dump you'd also have an unfair comparison, yet I promise people will be holering from the mountaintops that those numbers those reviewers found are the real numbers...
- dijit 6y agoif people want different things then it makes sense to split out the term. Using the same term for different things is obviously confusing. For me, I want to know what kind of PSU/VRM solution I need if I want to use a CPU.
- greendave 6y agoCertainly true, but as the article notes, it means that you're going to need to account for a good cooling setup when you build one of these systems. Last few systems I've built (Haswell i7 and Skylake i7) have used relatively inexpensive air-coolers which have been quiet and effective. That's just not going to cut it here.
- r00fus 6y agoA buyer might need to ask themselves if they're good with a liquid-cooled setup. Because moving past air-cooled is expensive & potentially messy.
- Drew_ 6y agoI very much doubt these processors actually require liquid cooling.
- beervirus 6y agoNah, they'll just throttle.
- Drew_ 6y agoThe test bed for this review uses a "Thermalright TRUE Copper" cooler which looks to be an air cooler from the mid-to-late 2000's. Needless to say Anandtech probably didn't run their benchmarks with insufficient cooling.
- pphysch 6y agoWhat do you mean? 250W is nuts.
- Drew_ 6y agoThe test bed in this review uses a decade old air cooler and the "real world" power draw was measured to be 125-150W peaking at 200W.
- ChuckNorris89 6y agoLiquid cooking is not expensive nor messy in the current age. In Europe I can find a half decent 120mm AIO for less than $50 ATM. It's only expensive and messy if you go ball to the walls custom loop.
- willis936 6y ago
- vbezhenar 6y agoI'd prefer CPU to draw as much power as it wants if that would allow to perform given task faster. So I'm not sure if that's really an argument against Intel. If it wants to draw kilowatt for extra 20%, go for it.