11 ms·

Intel's processor is drawing 307W to slightly edge past the 5950X in Cinebench, which only draws around 214W. It's hard to cool 307W over extended periods with

Intel's processor is drawing 307W to slightly edge past the 5950X in Cinebench, which only draws around 214W. It's hard to cool 307W over extended periods without your computer becoming really loud, even with a water cooling setup. Now, if they had that kind of cooling available, they could have easily gotten a lot more performance out of the Ryzen, while the i9 is already operating at the limits of what consumer grade cooling can sustain. There's no way that Intel processor is beating a 5950X that is also drawing 300W. At that point some Ryzen's will be operating at close to 6GHz per core. The most interesting takeaway is that Intel apparently has no qualms selling a processor with a stock configuration that draws 300W. Also their Ryzen numbers are beyond suspicious. On a silent configuration (peak power draw ~209W, 175W sustained, some undervolting) my Ryzen 5900X hits a Cinebench R20 score of 8835 vs their 8390. I suspect my rig is worse since I cheaped out on the RAM, but I wouldn't know because they omit information about the Ryzen test rig. Their Ryzen numbers don't add up with other benchmarks around the internet either: The 5950X should hit around 10400, and the 5900X should hit 8600 in their stock configurations with mid-to-high-grade RAM[1]. Their scores are 400 points and 200 points lower respectively. To get numbers as bad as theirs, I have to mismatch my FCLK and RAM intentionally. But again, we don't know what their setup is because they didn't tell us. We however do know that they used DDR5 RAM for the Intel processor, which the current gen Ryzen don't support. Likely some performance was gained there as well, but obviously they didn't test the Intel processor with DDR4 RAM to get an idea of how much comes down to faster RAM. It's still fair to use DDR5, since the Intel processor supports it, but it's hard to say much about the Intel processor performance (development) itself without some additional information. Without this information we don't know whether we can expect the next generation of Ryzen processors with DDR5 support to immediately leave Intel in the dust again, or whether DDR4/DDR5 doesn't really matter. [1]: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_9_5900x_and_5950x_review,10.html https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_9_5900x_and_...

walrus01 5y ago
If I had to guess the TDP of the new Intel CPU when maxed out is actually around 270-280W. Not all of that 307W is the CPU, there's power used by the motherboard itself, a mostly idle GPU, fans, NVME SSD, etc. Still a very serious heat producing thing in one socket compared to the AMD. This also means it's going to require some rather expensive motherboards since reliably delivering 280W to one socket is no simple task.
- gambiting 5y ago
  You don't have to guess, Intel themselves say the "peak" TDP of their top i9 is 250W. All to slightly beat 5900X which tops out at 150W. It's insanity, literally have no idea who will buy this.
  - noir_lord 5y ago
    People in cold climates. Computing and heating in one go.
  - r00fus 5y ago
    A few lifetimes ago, I worked at a small company where the VP shared with me why we had some "caddilac" service plans (ie, super expensive, cost/benefit=unreasonable). His reply: These are the showroom-only models where customer won't buy but will feel their (already expensive) not as high end plan is more reasonable. Essentially it's a part of product marketing segmentation where you create an unobtanium segment that's only there to sell other segments.
    - sroussey 5y ago
      The old axiom about people buying the middle priced choice…
      - r00fus 5y ago
        Product marketing version of the Overton Window, I guess.
  - pie42000 5y ago
    You don't get the bleeding edge tech for practicality or reasonableness. You don't buy a Bugatti Veyron for cargo space and gas mileage. You get silly tech for insane performance at massive cost. Eventually this tech is refined, optimized and made reasonable. It's what humans do. We don't cross the Pacific on a tiki raft or fly to the moon in a tin bucket because our destination is nicer than where we are currently, we do it because we can and because it's awesome.
mhh__ 5y ago
Maxing a CPU is very hard in practice, the power usage under realistic loads is actually much less crap.
- freemint 5y ago
  In particular in gaming loads it even draws less than the same tier AMD products at mostly better results (modulo DDR5 vs DDR4).
vondur 5y ago
In the Gamers Nexus review, they were using a high end 360MM AIO cooler and the CPU Temp shot up to 74C almost immediately during a blender session. Definitely a hot, power hungry CPU.
- zeusk 5y ago
  immediate temp fluctuation is more of a heat transfer problem, not overall thermal budget.
- smolder 5y ago
  It seems like all the focus has been on how these chips are at maximum load. I wonder how they perform under more typical light/mixed loads. AFAIK, the theoretical benefit of doing the big-little arrangement is improved power scaling with load. At partial load, powering a wimpy "e-core" at its ideal clock speed should be more efficient (instructions per kwh) & possibly have better latency characteristics than the usual approach of doing a drastic underclock & undervolt on big performance-oriented cores. Naturally I'm interested in seeing whether that theoretical advantage of the architecture has paid off. The maximum speed performance stats and wattage numbers give an incomplete picture. I want to see wattage and performance metrics across the spectrum of load levels, from <1% all the way up. If the 12900K delivers roughly 5950 level performance using 25% more power than the 5950, that looks pretty bad. But if the 12900K can deliver 25% of its max performance for only 10% of its max power envelope, and the 5950 needs 30% of its max power envelope to keep up with that load, that's a big deal, and the intel chip will actually be the cooler one more often than not. That dynamism is what reviewers need to focus on explaining & quantifying, IMO.
  - LordDragonfang 5y ago
    The LTT review [1] compares full-load-render benchmark tests against more real-world gaming performance, and the temps drop from a sustained 90 degrees to 60 degrees, so you seem to be right, there. [1] https://youtu.be/-EogHCFd7w0?t=534 https://youtu.be/-EogHCFd7w0?t=534
- snuxoll 5y ago
  What's the die size of the ADL silicon? I know my 5800X will rocket up past 70C even on a custom loop with 30C water temps because the chiplets are so small and power dense that there's not enough surface area to transfer heat any quicker to the IHS.
theevilsharpie 5y ago
> There's no way that Intel processor is beating a 5950X that is also drawing 300W. At that point some Ryzen's will be operating at close to 6GHz per core. Modern desktop CPUs are already being pushed well past the peak perf/watt efficiency in order to extract the maximum amount of performance. A Ryzen 9 5950X would need substantially more than 300W to hit 6 GHz, and you would need exotic sub-ambient cooling to keep it stable at those speeds. A more reasonable comparison would be against EPYC and Threadripper, both of which use their respective power budgets for more cores rather than more clocks. A 64-core EPYC 7763 has a TDP of about 280W, and it's going to substantially outperform the Core i9-12900K when given 300W of power.
- native_samples 5y ago
  Outperform it assuming your workload can actually saturate 64 cores. In the desktop market though, and heck often in the server market, you're going to struggle to do that. Single thread performance is still hyper important and that isn't going to change anytime soon. Intel seem to have the edge there, in a big way.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    If you can scale to 32 cores, then you probably scale to 64 too.
    - native_samples 5y ago
      Yeah, but many desktop workloads can't do that either.
eloff 5y ago
Your comment was more revealing than the article. Thanks for sharing!
threatripper 5y ago
> We however do know that they used DDR5 RAM for the Intel processor, which the current gen Ryzen don't support. Likely some performance was gained there as well, but obviously they didn't test the Intel processor with DDR4 RAM to get an idea of how much comes down to faster RAM. Anandtech has a detailed section comparing DDR4 to DDR5: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17047/the-intel-12th-gen-core-i912900k-review-hybrid-performance-brings-hybrid-complexity/11 https://www.anandtech.com/show/17047/the-intel-12th-gen-core...
- sroussey 5y ago
  So, up to 18% uplift, weighted towards heavily threaded loads.
kyrra 5y ago
As others have sort of pointed out, your opening sentence is incorrect. That "307W" draw is "Full System Power Consumption", not just the CPU. The 12900K will draw around 230-240W at max load (when doing work like Blender renders), compared to 140W for a 5900X. But for Gaming loads where the CPU maxes out, I haven't seen reviewers hit those numbers. The 12900K was using ~125W in those workloads, just a few watts lower than AMD. Now, if you go down to Intel's midrange (i5, not the i9 you were quoting), the power usage is way down (at 125W), vs the AMD 5600X at 75W with a blender workload. Gaming workload, Intel is a few watts higher than AMD. Yes, Intel is drawing way more power for super CPU intensive tasks, but for what most people will be doing, it's pretty even. Source: LTT review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EogHCFd7w0&t=513s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EogHCFd7w0&t=513s
- fwip 5y ago
  So instead of drawing 50% more power than the AMD chip, the Intel chip draws closer to 70% more power.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >Yes, Intel is drawing way more power for super CPU intensive tasks, but for what most people will be doing, it's pretty even. This. I honestly don't get why people are so focused suddenly on the power consumption for a desktop CPU designed for enthusiasts who want top performance at any cost. GPUs are consuming way more power than that(Nvidia's Ampere is a notorious power hog), pushing consumers to 700W+ PSUs and nobody bats an eye, but seem to throw their hands in the air when their CPUs get close to that of a GPU. Like why? It's the top spec model, it's supposed to be ludicrous, not be good value for money or highly efficient, they have other models more competitive for that. It feels like people are just looking for reasons to to create outrage about a product they're not gonna buy anyway.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    Because there isn't a proportional performance gain, and the heat generated will degrade the computer, at what cost? A few irrelevant percentage points?
api 5y ago
Maybe by barn burner they mean it would catch a barn on fire if not properly cooled.
- caycep 5y ago
  Ha! I thought "they meant literally" when I read the headline...
webmobdev 5y ago
Apparently Intel used an older build of Windows 11 that has bugs that slows down AMD processors, even though Windows has fixed the issue - https://www.neowin.net/news/charlie-demerjian-intel-used-unoptimized-windows-11-build-to-downplay-amd-performance/ https://www.neowin.net/news/charlie-demerjian-intel-used-uno... ...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jinto36 5y ago
  The linked article says they actually used Win10 for Ryzen tests due to this.
zamadatix 5y ago
You can give a 5950x all the wattage all day but it really doesn't get much faster until you start dropping the temps to sub ambient. I have a 480mm radiator dedicated to my 5950X along with high quality RAM and extensive tuning (sub timings, fabric clocks) and I'm not able to get anywhere near 6 GHz at room temp without a voltage level that would destroy the chip after a few benchmarks. And while I think my highly optimized 5950x setup could probably eek out the 12900k cinebench multicore score I'm sure if you gave me 10 minutes to also be fair and tweak a few settings on the 12900K I could get that to win again, even without messing with max power. I do agree the Ryzen numbers in the article do in general seem lower than normal though. Given this is Intel's "Catch up multiple nodes, new performance design, 300 watt class, ddr5" CPU and it's only able to get this eek ahead vs AMD's CPU from last year which is about to get the same litany of improvements plus their stacked cache improvement I'm not holding my breath Intel is really innovating fast enough again but at least they don't seem to be sitting still anymore.
- tails4e 5y ago
  What is the cold temp helping with? AFAIK transistors no longer get faster at cold, at least since 16nm the perforamce at sub 1V thin-ox transistors is pretty flat with temperature. Cold helps a lot with power though, leakage at hot (100C) could be 20W, so maybe going cold allowed more dynamic power dissapation? I'd be intersted to hear what the overclock experts like yourself think.
  - KingMachiavelli 5y ago
    Unless anything has changed the silicon/die itself isn't staying sub ambient at all it's just that there's a limit to hot steep temperature gradient you can build when the ambient/sink temperature is fixed.
  - magicalhippo 5y ago
    Transistors have a maximum operating temperature[1] (Tj_max), and the package has a fixed thermal resistance[2]. If the junction-to-case thermal resistance is 0.5 deg C/W and CPU dissipates 100W, then the junction will operate at 50 deg C above the case temperature, whatever that is. If the case is kept at room temperature (say 25 deg C), which is the best possible a simple air or water cooled system can do, then the junction will operate at 75 deg C. For simple discrete transistors and diodes, Tj_max is typically 150-175 deg C. For modern CPUs I believe it's closer to 100-125 deg C. Thus, lowering the case temperature means the chip can consume more power before reaching the maximum junction temperature. A greater power budget means you could raise operating voltages to help with overclocking for example. Keep in mind power dissipation scales with voltage squared. There might be other effects too, I'm no overclocking expert, but this is one aspect. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junction_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junction_temperature [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_resistance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_resistance
formerly_proven 5y ago
> Also their Ryzen numbers are beyond suspicious. On a silent configuration (peak power draw ~209W, 175W sustained, some undervolting) my Ryzen 5900X hits a Cinebench R20 score of 8835 vs their 8390. I suspect my rig is worse since I cheaped out on the RAM, but I wouldn't know because they omit information about the Ryzen test rig. Firmware quality for AM4 boards is ... "variable". My board restricted CPU power to 60% of nominal because they put in the wrong ADC scaling factors in some BIOS revision. Some boards have PBO enabled by default (which nets big % on the kill-a-watt, less % in performance). Many boards have bad defaults when you enable XMP which steal a few Watts from the actual CPU cores. CB mostly scales with core frequency, memory and FCLK are less important. > At that point some Ryzen's will be operating at close to 6GHz per core. There's no way any of them will get close to 6 GHz without LN2.
- semi-extrinsic 5y ago
  > There's no way any of them will get close to 6 GHz without LN2. No need for LN2, you could probably achieve this easily using a closed loop CO2 system. But I'm not aware of any such systems readily available. Kinda seems like an unfilled niche to me.
GhettoComputers 5y ago
Someone pointed out they're using a Windows 11 version that cripples AMD. https://www.neowin.net/news/charlie-demerjian-intel-used-unoptimized-windows-11-build-to-downplay-amd-performance/ https://www.neowin.net/news/charlie-demerjian-intel-used-uno...
- jessermeyer 5y ago
  Can you please read the article before posting? >We tested Alder Lake on the latest Windows 11 below, but our Ryzen results are on Windows 10—this made certain to avoid AMD being penalized by the current Windows 11 regressions in L3 cache and Preferred Core selection, while giving Alder Lake the big.little architecture support it needs from Windows 11 itself. Thanks.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    Thanks I only read the charts
IronWolve 5y ago
I'm getting 10562 on R20 on my 5950x, win10, pbo, flck/ram matched. Not manually overclocked just pbo. Higher than their benchmarks, the article is fishy. I'm 500 faster than the AMD and 200 Faster than the I9...
wdb 5y ago
Especially with today's high energy prices

walrus01 5y ago

If I had to guess the TDP of the new Intel CPU when maxed out is actually around 270-280W. Not all of that 307W is the CPU, there's power used by the motherboard itself, a mostly idle GPU, fans, NVME SSD, etc. Still a very serious heat producing thing in one socket compared to the AMD. This also means it's going to require some rather expensive motherboards since reliably delivering 280W to one socket is no simple task.

gambiting 5y ago
You don't have to guess, Intel themselves say the "peak" TDP of their top i9 is 250W. All to slightly beat 5900X which tops out at 150W. It's insanity, literally have no idea who will buy this.
- noir_lord 5y ago
  People in cold climates. Computing and heating in one go.
- r00fus 5y ago
  A few lifetimes ago, I worked at a small company where the VP shared with me why we had some "caddilac" service plans (ie, super expensive, cost/benefit=unreasonable). His reply: These are the showroom-only models where customer won't buy but will feel their (already expensive) not as high end plan is more reasonable. Essentially it's a part of product marketing segmentation where you create an unobtanium segment that's only there to sell other segments.
  - sroussey 5y ago
    The old axiom about people buying the middle priced choice…
    - r00fus 5y ago
      Product marketing version of the Overton Window, I guess.
- pie42000 5y ago
  You don't get the bleeding edge tech for practicality or reasonableness. You don't buy a Bugatti Veyron for cargo space and gas mileage. You get silly tech for insane performance at massive cost. Eventually this tech is refined, optimized and made reasonable. It's what humans do. We don't cross the Pacific on a tiki raft or fly to the moon in a tin bucket because our destination is nicer than where we are currently, we do it because we can and because it's awesome.

mhh__ 5y ago

Maxing a CPU is very hard in practice, the power usage under realistic loads is actually much less crap.

freemint 5y ago
In particular in gaming loads it even draws less than the same tier AMD products at mostly better results (modulo DDR5 vs DDR4).

vondur 5y ago

In the Gamers Nexus review, they were using a high end 360MM AIO cooler and the CPU Temp shot up to 74C almost immediately during a blender session. Definitely a hot, power hungry CPU.

zeusk 5y ago
immediate temp fluctuation is more of a heat transfer problem, not overall thermal budget.
smolder 5y ago
It seems like all the focus has been on how these chips are at maximum load. I wonder how they perform under more typical light/mixed loads. AFAIK, the theoretical benefit of doing the big-little arrangement is improved power scaling with load. At partial load, powering a wimpy "e-core" at its ideal clock speed should be more efficient (instructions per kwh) & possibly have better latency characteristics than the usual approach of doing a drastic underclock & undervolt on big performance-oriented cores. Naturally I'm interested in seeing whether that theoretical advantage of the architecture has paid off. The maximum speed performance stats and wattage numbers give an incomplete picture. I want to see wattage and performance metrics across the spectrum of load levels, from <1% all the way up. If the 12900K delivers roughly 5950 level performance using 25% more power than the 5950, that looks pretty bad. But if the 12900K can deliver 25% of its max performance for only 10% of its max power envelope, and the 5950 needs 30% of its max power envelope to keep up with that load, that's a big deal, and the intel chip will actually be the cooler one more often than not. That dynamism is what reviewers need to focus on explaining & quantifying, IMO.
- LordDragonfang 5y ago
  The LTT review [1] compares full-load-render benchmark tests against more real-world gaming performance, and the temps drop from a sustained 90 degrees to 60 degrees, so you seem to be right, there. [1] https://youtu.be/-EogHCFd7w0?t=534 https://youtu.be/-EogHCFd7w0?t=534
snuxoll 5y ago
What's the die size of the ADL silicon? I know my 5800X will rocket up past 70C even on a custom loop with 30C water temps because the chiplets are so small and power dense that there's not enough surface area to transfer heat any quicker to the IHS.

theevilsharpie 5y ago

> There's no way that Intel processor is beating a 5950X that is also drawing 300W. At that point some Ryzen's will be operating at close to 6GHz per core. Modern desktop CPUs are already being pushed well past the peak perf/watt efficiency in order to extract the maximum amount of performance. A Ryzen 9 5950X would need substantially more than 300W to hit 6 GHz, and you would need exotic sub-ambient cooling to keep it stable at those speeds. A more reasonable comparison would be against EPYC and Threadripper, both of which use their respective power budgets for more cores rather than more clocks. A 64-core EPYC 7763 has a TDP of about 280W, and it's going to substantially outperform the Core i9-12900K when given 300W of power.

native_samples 5y ago
Outperform it assuming your workload can actually saturate 64 cores. In the desktop market though, and heck often in the server market, you're going to struggle to do that. Single thread performance is still hyper important and that isn't going to change anytime soon. Intel seem to have the edge there, in a big way.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  If you can scale to 32 cores, then you probably scale to 64 too.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    Yeah, but many desktop workloads can't do that either.

eloff 5y ago

Your comment was more revealing than the article. Thanks for sharing!

threatripper 5y ago

> We however do know that they used DDR5 RAM for the Intel processor, which the current gen Ryzen don't support. Likely some performance was gained there as well, but obviously they didn't test the Intel processor with DDR4 RAM to get an idea of how much comes down to faster RAM. Anandtech has a detailed section comparing DDR4 to DDR5: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17047/the-intel-12th-gen-core-i912900k-review-hybrid-performance-brings-hybrid-complexity/11 https://www.anandtech.com/show/17047/the-intel-12th-gen-core...

sroussey 5y ago
So, up to 18% uplift, weighted towards heavily threaded loads.

kyrra 5y ago

As others have sort of pointed out, your opening sentence is incorrect. That "307W" draw is "Full System Power Consumption", not just the CPU. The 12900K will draw around 230-240W at max load (when doing work like Blender renders), compared to 140W for a 5900X. But for Gaming loads where the CPU maxes out, I haven't seen reviewers hit those numbers. The 12900K was using ~125W in those workloads, just a few watts lower than AMD. Now, if you go down to Intel's midrange (i5, not the i9 you were quoting), the power usage is way down (at 125W), vs the AMD 5600X at 75W with a blender workload. Gaming workload, Intel is a few watts higher than AMD. Yes, Intel is drawing way more power for super CPU intensive tasks, but for what most people will be doing, it's pretty even. Source: LTT review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EogHCFd7w0&t=513s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EogHCFd7w0&t=513s

fwip 5y ago
So instead of drawing 50% more power than the AMD chip, the Intel chip draws closer to 70% more power.
ChuckNorris89 5y ago
>Yes, Intel is drawing way more power for super CPU intensive tasks, but for what most people will be doing, it's pretty even. This. I honestly don't get why people are so focused suddenly on the power consumption for a desktop CPU designed for enthusiasts who want top performance at any cost. GPUs are consuming way more power than that(Nvidia's Ampere is a notorious power hog), pushing consumers to 700W+ PSUs and nobody bats an eye, but seem to throw their hands in the air when their CPUs get close to that of a GPU. Like why? It's the top spec model, it's supposed to be ludicrous, not be good value for money or highly efficient, they have other models more competitive for that. It feels like people are just looking for reasons to to create outrage about a product they're not gonna buy anyway.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  Because there isn't a proportional performance gain, and the heat generated will degrade the computer, at what cost? A few irrelevant percentage points?

api 5y ago

Maybe by barn burner they mean it would catch a barn on fire if not properly cooled.

caycep 5y ago
Ha! I thought "they meant literally" when I read the headline...

webmobdev 5y ago

Apparently Intel used an older build of Windows 11 that has bugs that slows down AMD processors, even though Windows has fixed the issue - https://www.neowin.net/news/charlie-demerjian-intel-used-unoptimized-windows-11-build-to-downplay-amd-performance/ https://www.neowin.net/news/charlie-demerjian-intel-used-uno... ...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jinto36 5y ago
The linked article says they actually used Win10 for Ryzen tests due to this.

zamadatix 5y ago

You can give a 5950x all the wattage all day but it really doesn't get much faster until you start dropping the temps to sub ambient. I have a 480mm radiator dedicated to my 5950X along with high quality RAM and extensive tuning (sub timings, fabric clocks) and I'm not able to get anywhere near 6 GHz at room temp without a voltage level that would destroy the chip after a few benchmarks. And while I think my highly optimized 5950x setup could probably eek out the 12900k cinebench multicore score I'm sure if you gave me 10 minutes to also be fair and tweak a few settings on the 12900K I could get that to win again, even without messing with max power. I do agree the Ryzen numbers in the article do in general seem lower than normal though. Given this is Intel's "Catch up multiple nodes, new performance design, 300 watt class, ddr5" CPU and it's only able to get this eek ahead vs AMD's CPU from last year which is about to get the same litany of improvements plus their stacked cache improvement I'm not holding my breath Intel is really innovating fast enough again but at least they don't seem to be sitting still anymore.

tails4e 5y ago
What is the cold temp helping with? AFAIK transistors no longer get faster at cold, at least since 16nm the perforamce at sub 1V thin-ox transistors is pretty flat with temperature. Cold helps a lot with power though, leakage at hot (100C) could be 20W, so maybe going cold allowed more dynamic power dissapation? I'd be intersted to hear what the overclock experts like yourself think.
- KingMachiavelli 5y ago
  Unless anything has changed the silicon/die itself isn't staying sub ambient at all it's just that there's a limit to hot steep temperature gradient you can build when the ambient/sink temperature is fixed.
- magicalhippo 5y ago
  Transistors have a maximum operating temperature[1] (Tj_max), and the package has a fixed thermal resistance[2]. If the junction-to-case thermal resistance is 0.5 deg C/W and CPU dissipates 100W, then the junction will operate at 50 deg C above the case temperature, whatever that is. If the case is kept at room temperature (say 25 deg C), which is the best possible a simple air or water cooled system can do, then the junction will operate at 75 deg C. For simple discrete transistors and diodes, Tj_max is typically 150-175 deg C. For modern CPUs I believe it's closer to 100-125 deg C. Thus, lowering the case temperature means the chip can consume more power before reaching the maximum junction temperature. A greater power budget means you could raise operating voltages to help with overclocking for example. Keep in mind power dissipation scales with voltage squared. There might be other effects too, I'm no overclocking expert, but this is one aspect. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junction_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junction_temperature [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_resistance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_resistance

formerly_proven 5y ago

> Also their Ryzen numbers are beyond suspicious. On a silent configuration (peak power draw ~209W, 175W sustained, some undervolting) my Ryzen 5900X hits a Cinebench R20 score of 8835 vs their 8390. I suspect my rig is worse since I cheaped out on the RAM, but I wouldn't know because they omit information about the Ryzen test rig. Firmware quality for AM4 boards is ... "variable". My board restricted CPU power to 60% of nominal because they put in the wrong ADC scaling factors in some BIOS revision. Some boards have PBO enabled by default (which nets big % on the kill-a-watt, less % in performance). Many boards have bad defaults when you enable XMP which steal a few Watts from the actual CPU cores. CB mostly scales with core frequency, memory and FCLK are less important. > At that point some Ryzen's will be operating at close to 6GHz per core. There's no way any of them will get close to 6 GHz without LN2.

semi-extrinsic 5y ago
> There's no way any of them will get close to 6 GHz without LN2. No need for LN2, you could probably achieve this easily using a closed loop CO2 system. But I'm not aware of any such systems readily available. Kinda seems like an unfilled niche to me.

GhettoComputers 5y ago

Someone pointed out they're using a Windows 11 version that cripples AMD. https://www.neowin.net/news/charlie-demerjian-intel-used-unoptimized-windows-11-build-to-downplay-amd-performance/ https://www.neowin.net/news/charlie-demerjian-intel-used-uno...

jessermeyer 5y ago
Can you please read the article before posting? >We tested Alder Lake on the latest Windows 11 below, but our Ryzen results are on Windows 10—this made certain to avoid AMD being penalized by the current Windows 11 regressions in L3 cache and Preferred Core selection, while giving Alder Lake the big.little architecture support it needs from Windows 11 itself. Thanks.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  Thanks I only read the charts

IronWolve 5y ago

I'm getting 10562 on R20 on my 5950x, win10, pbo, flck/ram matched. Not manually overclocked just pbo. Higher than their benchmarks, the article is fishy. I'm 500 faster than the AMD and 200 Faster than the I9...

wdb 5y ago

Especially with today's high energy prices