3 ms·

> The 10900k is better than the 3900x for gaming, but its also a ~$120 up-sell Is it correct to think that compared by work-done-by-watt AMD is currently bette

> The 10900k is better than the 3900x for gaming, but its also a ~$120 up-sell Is it correct to think that compared by work-done-by-watt AMD is currently better than Intel? (in this example Intel's 10900k uses 250-300W [1], AMD's 3900x uses 140-170W [2]?) In my case I use often many threads/processes (generated by databases and/or my Python programs that usually spawn as many subprocesses as possible without overloading the CPU) and as my PC/server is next to my desk then if the performance difference is not too great my priority is usually for a CPU that gets less hot/is more efficient (because the fans have to work less therefore the box is less noisy, additionally the room heats up less which makes me suffer less during summer). [1]: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-10900k-cpu-review/2 https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-10900k-cp... [2]: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ryzen-9-3900x-7-3700x-review,6214-3.html https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ryzen-9-3900x-7-3700x-r... Thx

013a 6y ago
Yes: In terms of performance per watt, AMD generally beats Intel. It's not really even close in many situations. What this means for consumers is more complex, as there are many variables you can try to optimize for. If you're after minimal power usage in order to optimize for electricity cost, while still keeping good performance, actually: mobile Intel CPUs tend to be the best pick. AMD has some strong mobile CPU options, but they're essentially impossible to build into a desktop PC, whereas mobile Intel CPUs are available in products like the Ghost Canyon NUCs (ok, well, "available" may not be the right word, because they're freakin' impossible to find right now, but Officially, anyone can buy them). If you're after lowering heat output for the purposes of reducing noise or increasing overclocking performance, generally its better to solve this via better cooling. Noise is more of a function of bad cooling, rather than super-high heat output from the processor. Many people view liquid cooling as "super high overclocking performance", but actually: The biggest benefit to liquid cooling is that it reduces "air churn" inside the case by removing the typical CPU radiator fan just sitting in the middle of the case spilling air in every direction. Instead, you've got dedicated intake/output fans on defined sides of the case, resulting in clear air paths, which increases fan efficiency, reducing the number of fans you need or reducing the amount of work they need to do. But: the laws of thermodynamics state that heat can't just disappear. If you're optimizing for actual heat reduction for the sheer purpose of heat reduction, then an Intel mobile CPU or Ryzen desktop CPU is better (with Intel mobile CPUs being better by far). Check out the Ghost Canyon NUCs. If you can find one, they're more expensive than just DIY, but would likely be a great option for you.
- zepearl 6y ago
  Interesting - thank you

013a 6y ago

Yes: In terms of performance per watt, AMD generally beats Intel. It's not really even close in many situations. What this means for consumers is more complex, as there are many variables you can try to optimize for. If you're after minimal power usage in order to optimize for electricity cost, while still keeping good performance, actually: mobile Intel CPUs tend to be the best pick. AMD has some strong mobile CPU options, but they're essentially impossible to build into a desktop PC, whereas mobile Intel CPUs are available in products like the Ghost Canyon NUCs (ok, well, "available" may not be the right word, because they're freakin' impossible to find right now, but Officially, anyone can buy them). If you're after lowering heat output for the purposes of reducing noise or increasing overclocking performance, generally its better to solve this via better cooling. Noise is more of a function of bad cooling, rather than super-high heat output from the processor. Many people view liquid cooling as "super high overclocking performance", but actually: The biggest benefit to liquid cooling is that it reduces "air churn" inside the case by removing the typical CPU radiator fan just sitting in the middle of the case spilling air in every direction. Instead, you've got dedicated intake/output fans on defined sides of the case, resulting in clear air paths, which increases fan efficiency, reducing the number of fans you need or reducing the amount of work they need to do. But: the laws of thermodynamics state that heat can't just disappear. If you're optimizing for actual heat reduction for the sheer purpose of heat reduction, then an Intel mobile CPU or Ryzen desktop CPU is better (with Intel mobile CPUs being better by far). Check out the Ghost Canyon NUCs. If you can find one, they're more expensive than just DIY, but would likely be a great option for you.

zepearl 6y ago
Interesting - thank you