>>That Intel CPU doesn't come anywhere near 250W during gaming or normal operations anyway. It's not like it's consuming 250W every single time you do something

>>That Intel CPU doesn't come anywhere near 250W during gaming or normal operations anyway. It's not like it's consuming 250W every single time you do something. It does though, that's the whole reason why I'm complaining. While I'm doing a video transcode on my 5900X putting all cores on full load it won't go above 140W. Do the same on the i9 and it will do it marginally faster sitting at 250W. The point isn't complaining about 250W usage in general. Of course there are other chips, including other CPUs that use that much or more and it's not the end of the world. The problem here is that you're paying a HUGE price for a very minor advantage over the competition or even their own chips. If you clearly can buy a chip that performs very slightly worse for over 100W reduction in power, why would you buy the space heater one. Yes overclockers have been doing this literally forever, I'm aware, but this is intel making this decision on stock CPU - I just don't find this acceptable at all. >> I don't understand this sudden concern about Intel shipping CPUs with high peak TDP. To summarize the above - because clearly the high peak TDP is much higher than that of competing CPUs for a very minor increase in performance. That's just not ok.