18 ms·

Wow, Raptor Lake's max TDP looks to be 253W. That's crazy high https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-13th-gen-raptor-lake-release-date-specifications-pricing

• pdntspa 4y ago
  Wow... my whole desktop setup, with 3 screens, a 7-year-old intel CPU, a gaming GPU, and a grip of hard drives is showing a draw of 143W right now, up to 289W under stress (prime95). 235W just for the CPU is nuts.
  • jotm 4y ago
    TBF the performance per watt is also nuts. 7 year old is Haswell-Skylake (same performance mostly)? Alder Lake impresses me, but Ryzen is the better choice because f Intel heh
    • pdntspa 4y ago
      Yeah, this PC has a Haswell CPU. As much as I want to agree on Ryzen, Intel is still the best platform for low-latency audio stuff. So I hope that performance-per-watt is or will be good as I'm beginning to get that PC-building itch. I'm curious what its idle usage is like. But my living-room PC has a third-gen Ryzen (I built it just before the pandemic hit) and have been super pleased with its performance.
      • herpderperator 4y ago
        Do you have a source for Intel being the best platform for low latency audio stuff?
        • pdntspa 4y ago
          Nothing citeable, just anecdata and murmurs from being active in that scene for a long time I did find https://linustechtips.com/topic/1238719-low-latency-cpu-for-music-production/ https://linustechtips.com/topic/1238719-low-latency-cpu-for-... edit - Sound on Sound with a bit more detail https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/core-wars-amd-intel-cpus-tested https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/core-wars-amd-inte...
• SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  Between this and the ridiculous TDP expectations for this generations latest graphic cards people are going to have to start thinking about using dedicated circuits per gaming computer.
  • fartsucker69 4y ago
    who cares about these russian gas problems. I will have to throttle my cpu so it doesn't get too hot in winter
    • imdsm 4y ago
      feeling a bit cold, gonna turn on my gaming pc for an hour
      • thegagne 4y ago
        Water cooled? More like water heated, amirite?
    • cameronh90 4y ago
      My office gets about 5c warmer when I play games on my PC, despite being poorly insulated with the window open. And I've only got a 3900X+2070 Super...
  • izzydata 4y ago
    And also use the heat from their PC to boil water and then spin a turbine to generate electricity to sell back to the grid.
    • Nextgrid 4y ago
      For people who use resistive electric heating I've recommended them to run crypto miners on their computer. Same efficiency with regards to heating, but you can earn some extra money as a bonus.
      • 4y ago
• irthomasthomas 4y ago
  So, almost 25c an hour at EU electric prices.
  • onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    Or <$0.04 in the US and in most of the EU under normal circumstances.
    • lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Here is US data: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
  • 404mm 4y ago
    Coin operated Game systems lol. We have come in the whole circle.
  • cypress66 4y ago
    Is eu electricity really 1 dollar per kwh?
    • hagbarth 4y ago
      Depending on the day and hour of the day, yes. At least here in Denmark.
      • aero-glide2 4y ago
        Solar should be 10x cheaper, why don't more European homes have solar?
        • orangepurple 4y ago
          Could it be because solar panels are nearly useless in northern Europe in November, December, January, and February? Yurop: https://weatherspark.com/y/68301/Average-Weather-in-Hamburg-Germany-Year-Round#Sections-SolarEnergy https://weatherspark.com/y/68301/Average-Weather-in-Hamburg-... https://weatherspark.com/y/74001/Average-Weather-in-Copenhagen-Denmark-Year-Round#Sections-SolarEnergy https://weatherspark.com/y/74001/Average-Weather-in-Copenhag... USA: https://weatherspark.com/y/18622/Average-Weather-in-Miami-Florida-United-States-Year-Round#Sections-SolarEnergy https://weatherspark.com/y/18622/Average-Weather-in-Miami-Fl... https://weatherspark.com/y/20957/Average-Weather-in-Washington-D.C.;-United-States-Year-Round#Sections-SolarEnergy https://weatherspark.com/y/20957/Average-Weather-in-Washingt...
• PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  It sounds high, but we’ve had plenty of AMD and Intel workstation CPUs with even higher TDPs for a long time. Overclockers have also routinely pushed well past that number. 235W is well within the range of what a decent air cooler like the Noctua NH-D15 can handle without excessive fan noise.
  • JustFinishedBSG 4y ago
    Justifying the off-the-shelves TDP of new GPUs/CPUs by saying it's still lower than what overclockers reach is the same as saying a car doing 50L/100KM is completely fine because an M1 Abraham uses 2000L/100KM offroad.
    • ChuckNorris89 4y ago
      Your comparison is moot as nobody is forcing you to buy the most gas guzzling chips Intel and AMD make as those are exclusively for enthusiasts who want to have the best of the best with no regard for value for money or efficiency. But Intel and AMD also make enough chips with very good efficiency for the average folk who don't need to set benchmark records.
    • PragmaticPulp 4y ago
      That's not what I said. I specifically said that AMD and Intel have been shipping CPUs with higher TDPs (stock!) for a long time. Overclockers have been going even further. AMD's Threadripper PRO CPUs come with up to 280W TDPs. It's really not a problem with modern air coolers and not a problem at all for people running liquid coolers. A 253W boost TDP isn't really a big deal any more. There are plenty of smaller CPUs for people who don't want such high overheads. Some of Intel's new parts can be limited to 35W and still outperform a Ryzen 7 5800X: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-13700t-raptor-lake-allegedly-faster-than-5800x-35w https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-13700t-raptor-lake-a... There's a lot of "sky is falling" over these numbers, but it's a non-issue for the enthusiast builds these are targeted at. Nobody is forced to put a 253W CPU into their machine, but it's great that the vendors are making them available for those who want them.
  • 4y ago
• wyager 4y ago
  My i9-12900k hovers right around 250W TDP with no overclocking or anything. If you keep it under 100C it's happy to do so.
  • jeffbee 4y ago
    Just to clarify for the audience, there is nothing you can do within reason that will cause your CPU to ever self-heat above 100°. They manage their own power to stay below their maximum design junction temperature, less a safety margin. Even if you ran it without a heat sink, it will not run above 100°. It just won't run very well or very often.
    • formerly_proven 4y ago
      I damaged some traces on an AMD board which allowed the CPU to talk to the VRM (anything related to SVI2 couldn’t be read when booted) and even that didn’t kill anything, it just put the system in like a 0.8 V, 400 MHz mode. Windows 10 takes an incredible amount of time to do literally anything on a system like that btw., even with twelve cores. Patched the traces and everything was back to normal. Modern hardware is really difficult to permanently damage as long as you don’t go full “manual OC” - in that case many protections may be disabled, and you can certainly get Ryzens to overheat and die like that.
    • eptcyka 4y ago
      Intel CPUs most certainly will hit 100°C and above in laptops.
• ajross 4y ago
  That's not a TDP, which is a sustained metric (originally designed for board/cooling design integration) and shows 125W for that part. The 250W number is a new thing they're calling "Processor Boost Power" and I guess it's intended to represent some kind of "maximum short term draw" number. That's not something that's been historically reported for other parts, so it's kinda wrong to try to compare them 1:1.
  • paulmd 4y ago
    intel's following AMD and introducing a "PPT" terminology for the boost value, since they routinely get compared against AMD's (non-boost) TDP values. even in this thread you see people saying "wow intel pulls 250W against AMD's 105W processors"... when the comparable PPT number for AMD this generation is actually 230W, and their previous-gen number was 145W. It's a huge marketing disadvantage, just like with node naming for fabs. Intel's 14nm is hugely better than GF 14/12nm or TSMC 16/12nm, and 10ESF is comparable to TSMC 7nm (although much later ofc). When the competitors are playing marketing games, to some extent you just have to start playing them too. Desktop/HEDT TDPs used to pretty much cover boost clocks, the "tau" concept always officially existed but (eg) 5960X has a 143W idle-to-prime95 power delta as measured by Anandtech, so, the 140W tdp is pretty much sufficient to cover any "normal" non-prime95 AVX load at full boost clock. Similarly 4770K is a 85W TDP on paper and the measured idle-to-prime95 is 88W. Overclocked desktop loads could go higher of course, but most people overrode tau limits anyway in those cases. So in practice, tau limit was pretty much only a thing that existed on laptops in the intel world, because there was always enough TDP available to cover boost clocks, in a stock configuration. https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph8426/67026.png https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph8426/67026.png Then AMD came along with Ryzen and started marketing around base TDPs, and made their boost TDP this other higher number (but it's not a boost TDP guys, it's, uh, PPT, yeah!!!!)... and allowed it to boost to the higher number for an unlimited period of time. 9-series really started pushing it and Tau limits started becoming a problem, but it looks really bad to have a 145W TDP when the competition has 105W... even if it's the same actual power consumption in practive. So over time Intel more or less had to move to the same "TDP/PPT" concept as AMD. It's really really noxious in laptops where AMD allows processors to boost to 50% (more than the desktop chips even!) above their configured TDP for an unlimited period of time. Yeah partners get to pick the cTDP for the particular laptop, but either way an AMD chip with a 15W cTDP gets to use 50% more power than an Intel with a 15W cTDP, for an unlimited duration, which is a huge functional advantage... basically a 15W AMD laptop is more comparable to a 25W Intel laptop in terms of power draw, and a 25W AMD will pull more power than a 35W Intel. So they move themselves up a whole power bracket through The Magic Of Technical Marketing (tm). https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16084/Power%20-%2015W%20Comp%20Agi.png https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16084/Power%20-%2015W%20Co...
• hulitu 4y ago
  Just in time for the winter.
• STRML 4y ago
  Looks like that's just for the 5.4GHz chip. To hit 6GHz, it's probably going to be this 350W (!!!) turbo mode. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-raptor-lake-to-feature-350w-turbo-mode https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-raptor-lake-to-featu...
• m12k 4y ago
  All these power hungry beasts coming out of Intel and NVIDIA feel quite out of sync with the zeitgeist in a world that's worried about the power bill - especially when the M1/M2 is there to provide contrast. I'm getting Pentium 4 vs Core architecture vibes.
  • nimbius 4y ago
    arguably it was the same thirst for electricity that was the killing stroke for most of the POWER architecture. that, and IBM contract fees.
  • omegalulw 4y ago
    I would say that people who regularly invest in top end hardware don't care as much about power bills. Otherwise power efficient chips is the norm (laptops, phones, etc).
    • giobox 4y ago
      This is slowly changing IMO - I'm seeing concern over energy use even on forums discussing high end hardware builds as cost of energy mounts in Europe. Previously no one really ever mentioned this other than to laugh at poor thermals. If some of Nvidia's next generation 4xxx series GPUs are close to 1000w draw as many rumors suggest, the total draw of a high spec Intel/Nvidia system is going to probably have similar running costs to an electric space heater when playing demanding games. The existing 3090ti is already a 500w part, which not so long ago was enough to power a whole system in addition to the GPU.
      • 2fast4you 4y ago
        And probably the heat output of a space heater as well. I had to move my tower into another room because it kept the whole room way too hot
        • xen2xen1 4y ago
          The pilot light on my furnace went out years ago. I only noticed because when I opened the door to the room with my computer a light but noticeable heat blast hit me. It took a second, but I turned around and checked my furnace, etc instead of going in the room. It really was a revelation about how much heat those things produce.
• walrus01 4y ago
  These designs pretty much demand a setup with a water cooling loop implemented via radiator sized for two 140mm fans (280 mm length). Thankfully all-in-one kits for that which are pre filled and sealed are much more commonplace than they used to be, and even fairly cheap midtower ATX cases I see on newegg in the $60-70 range will have a top panel mounting place for a 280mm radiator. And definitely any "gaming" marketed ATX case above that price range will have the capability for it. You possibly could get away with a 240mm length radiator (dual 120mm fans) on something like this but I really wouldn't recommend it, and the savings for an AIO kit would be only $50-60. From the perspective of noise annoyance, fan pitch and sound is somewhat proportional to size. 140mm fans can be a lot quieter and move more air than 120mm with less perceptible noise to the human sitting next to it. Higher end stuff will be implemented by 360mm length radiator (3 x 140mm) which I am pleasantly surprised to see not ridiculously priced ATX cases having options mounting now. I would figure you have to budget an additional $150-200 on top of the CPU cost for a capable water cooling loop setup. Which is not absolutely ridiculous considering that a really good skived copper heatsink/heatpipe/fan setup for pure air cooling on a 130W TDP CPU could easily be $65.