6 ms·

It seems that if you don't opt for AMD on AMD this new generation of PCs will be absolute toaster ovens.

cyber_kinetist 4y ago
AMD is also in the process of being a toaster oven. The new Ryzen 9 7950x will use considerably higher power (105W -> 170W) for a smaller die area, which is making people worry about air-powered cooling being not enough (previously a Noctua D15 was enough to cool a 5950x). And I really don't want high-end CPUs to require water cooling since it's more unreliable and requires more maintenance.
- paulmd 4y ago
  those are base-clock TDPs not the boost TDPs (which AMD calls a PPT) too... it's 170W base/230W boost power, and those chips are allowed to boost for an unlimited duration (which of course has pluses and minuses).
- throwabro747 4y ago
  > 7950x will use considerably higher power (105W -> 170W) The 5950X uses 180W at full load. Some measure as high as 230W. The 105W figure reported as "TDP" was a mistake. Not sure why the specs were a big lie but this is well documented online. > air-powered cooling being not enough If you want to turbo to 4.1GHz or better on all cores on the 5950X, you have to spend about $60 on a cooler - water or air. The AIOs perform well. A big AIO will give you 4.5GHz. No turbo air cooling - 3.4GHz - is a waste of money.
  - PaulBGD_ 4y ago
    I can definitely confirm this, I tried to air cool my 5950X without much luck. Enabling PBO I've seen it go over 200W, which a 240mm rad handles very well.
    - mrmuagi 4y ago
      Huh. Interesting. I put a noctua heatsink (dual fan) on mine but I am guessing this is why my overclocking curves weren't that great. Any chance you have the rough before/after numbers and how much did you splurge for the water cooling?
- eyegor 4y ago
  There's a small silver lining in that you can set hard power limits in the bios and amd claims it's still ~15% faster when limited to 105w. It would be nice if they just left it at that but it makes them look worse in benchmarks against Intel since most people won't check the power consumption.
  - I_dev_outdoors 4y ago
    keep in mind that is not idle power consumption. If you are setting a limit like that it's because of heating or power constraints (battery? PSU?)
- halikular 4y ago
  Since noctua nh d15 air cooling has been on par or surpassing any aio and even all but the high end custom loops. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeQX1uhb0iQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeQX1uhb0iQ
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mibsl 4y ago
    Not really. The NH D15 is an impressive cooler, but it falls behind 280 AIOs. Even ones cheaper than itself. https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3571-arctic-liquid-freezer-ii-cooler-review-benchmark https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3571-arctic-liquid-fre...
    - cyber_kinetist 4y ago
      Yeah I admit that there are cheaper water coolers than Noctua that perform better. But the main issue I have is with water cooling itself (can burst or leak if unlucky or with poor maintenance, has a more limited life span, etc...)
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
Intel CPUs have better idle power consumption that even the latest Ryzen CPUs. It caught me off guard when I switched from Intel to AMD and the idle draw of my PC went up by a significant amount. Given that our computers spend more time idle than at 100% peak load, my AMD CPU draws more power (and therefore heats up my room) more then my Intel setup. That wasn’t an outcome I was expecting, but then again I was only looking at peak, not idle, numbers at the time. I really hope AMD can start bringing their idle power consumption down in this next gen.
- pizza234 4y ago
  Can you give some details (components and consumption)? I'm interested in the topic, and I've done some wall measurements as well, in the past and present.
  - cypress66 4y ago
    My 3900x is also very inefficient when idling. It never goes below 50w according to hwinfo64. My entire pc is surely above 100w idle.
    - alyandon 4y ago
      Interesting, I'm currently running Windows 10 with a Ubuntu desktop in a VM and multiple web browsers open with lots of tabs. According to Ryzen Master, my 3900X is consuming ~25-30 watts. Edit: Libre Hardware Monitor shows package consumption around ~55 watts which looks suspiciously close to CPU + chipset power consumption.
  - PragmaticPulp 4y ago
    I have a 3950X and a 5950X. I thought it was the other components at first but then someone pointed me to the official Ryzem master software. It shows CPU package power, which has a persistently high floor consumption. Idle temps are also higher on the same cooler. It’s a well-known phenomenon on the forums when I searched.
jeffbee 4y ago
Intel power scaling works very well. My 12th-gen 12700K says its is drawing 660mW at the moment, and its complete silence is consistent with that estimate. If there's some power level that you prefer, you can just enter it in the BIOS and leave it that way. Personally, I do not pretend that CPUs are light bulbs. If my CPU could draw 1000W for 10ms and that made short tasks like web page rendering twice as fast, that's a trade I would happily take. The short-term power consumption of CPUs is pure benefit to the user, and the rarer sustained tasks that run all the cores flat out for more than 1 second are always going to level off at about 125W because of the long-term cooling situation.

AMD is also in the process of being a toaster oven. The new Ryzen 9 7950x will use considerably higher power (105W -> 170W) for a smaller die area, which is making people worry about air-powered cooling being not enough (previously a Noctua D15 was enough to cool a 5950x). And I really don't want high-end CPUs to require water cooling since it's more unreliable and requires more maintenance.

paulmd 4y ago
those are base-clock TDPs not the boost TDPs (which AMD calls a PPT) too... it's 170W base/230W boost power, and those chips are allowed to boost for an unlimited duration (which of course has pluses and minuses).
throwabro747 4y ago
> 7950x will use considerably higher power (105W -> 170W) The 5950X uses 180W at full load. Some measure as high as 230W. The 105W figure reported as "TDP" was a mistake. Not sure why the specs were a big lie but this is well documented online. > air-powered cooling being not enough If you want to turbo to 4.1GHz or better on all cores on the 5950X, you have to spend about $60 on a cooler - water or air. The AIOs perform well. A big AIO will give you 4.5GHz. No turbo air cooling - 3.4GHz - is a waste of money.
- PaulBGD_ 4y ago
  I can definitely confirm this, I tried to air cool my 5950X without much luck. Enabling PBO I've seen it go over 200W, which a 240mm rad handles very well.
  - mrmuagi 4y ago
    Huh. Interesting. I put a noctua heatsink (dual fan) on mine but I am guessing this is why my overclocking curves weren't that great. Any chance you have the rough before/after numbers and how much did you splurge for the water cooling?
eyegor 4y ago
There's a small silver lining in that you can set hard power limits in the bios and amd claims it's still ~15% faster when limited to 105w. It would be nice if they just left it at that but it makes them look worse in benchmarks against Intel since most people won't check the power consumption.
- I_dev_outdoors 4y ago
  keep in mind that is not idle power consumption. If you are setting a limit like that it's because of heating or power constraints (battery? PSU?)
halikular 4y ago
Since noctua nh d15 air cooling has been on par or surpassing any aio and even all but the high end custom loops. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeQX1uhb0iQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeQX1uhb0iQ
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mibsl 4y ago
  Not really. The NH D15 is an impressive cooler, but it falls behind 280 AIOs. Even ones cheaper than itself. https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3571-arctic-liquid-freezer-ii-cooler-review-benchmark https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3571-arctic-liquid-fre...
  - cyber_kinetist 4y ago
    Yeah I admit that there are cheaper water coolers than Noctua that perform better. But the main issue I have is with water cooling itself (can burst or leak if unlucky or with poor maintenance, has a more limited life span, etc...)

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

Intel CPUs have better idle power consumption that even the latest Ryzen CPUs. It caught me off guard when I switched from Intel to AMD and the idle draw of my PC went up by a significant amount. Given that our computers spend more time idle than at 100% peak load, my AMD CPU draws more power (and therefore heats up my room) more then my Intel setup. That wasn’t an outcome I was expecting, but then again I was only looking at peak, not idle, numbers at the time. I really hope AMD can start bringing their idle power consumption down in this next gen.

pizza234 4y ago
Can you give some details (components and consumption)? I'm interested in the topic, and I've done some wall measurements as well, in the past and present.
- cypress66 4y ago
  My 3900x is also very inefficient when idling. It never goes below 50w according to hwinfo64. My entire pc is surely above 100w idle.
  - alyandon 4y ago
    Interesting, I'm currently running Windows 10 with a Ubuntu desktop in a VM and multiple web browsers open with lots of tabs. According to Ryzen Master, my 3900X is consuming ~25-30 watts. Edit: Libre Hardware Monitor shows package consumption around ~55 watts which looks suspiciously close to CPU + chipset power consumption.
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  I have a 3950X and a 5950X. I thought it was the other components at first but then someone pointed me to the official Ryzem master software. It shows CPU package power, which has a persistently high floor consumption. Idle temps are also higher on the same cooler. It’s a well-known phenomenon on the forums when I searched.

jeffbee 4y ago

Intel power scaling works very well. My 12th-gen 12700K says its is drawing 660mW at the moment, and its complete silence is consistent with that estimate. If there's some power level that you prefer, you can just enter it in the BIOS and leave it that way. Personally, I do not pretend that CPUs are light bulbs. If my CPU could draw 1000W for 10ms and that made short tasks like web page rendering twice as fast, that's a trade I would happily take. The short-term power consumption of CPUs is pure benefit to the user, and the rarer sustained tasks that run all the cores flat out for more than 1 second are always going to level off at about 125W because of the long-term cooling situation.