5 ms·
Is there a reason why people are so stressed over high power consumption in new CPUs? The majority of the time it wont use anywhere near that and I just accept
by doublepg23 4y ago
Is there a reason why people are so stressed over high power consumption in new CPUs? The majority of the time it wont use anywhere near that and I just accept it as a “stock OC”.
- mrcwinn 4y agoI think the concern is scalability. A very high performance per watt is a signal that it the processor design will be difficult to scale practically. Beyond that, at scale, is it good to have high-consumption computers all over the world before we have widespread renewable energy? Probably not ideal.
- doublepg23 4y agoThey are usually sipping power is my point. The high boosts being possible is a bonus if you need it but won’t hurt if you don’t. It’s the best of both worlds. As far as energy use we’re it’s such a tiny amount of energy compared to any given appliance.
- grogenaut 4y agoFor me it's about how much heat they put out. I have to crack a window I'm winter when gaming. I think others are concerned with a trend that extrapolates to something insane power consumption where power use grows exponentially to megawatts where clock speed is growing asompotically to say 10ghz
- doublepg23 4y agothe alternative is lower performance for those who do want it. You can very easily undervolt a cpu if the heat is genuinely uncomfortable.
- rbanffy 4y ago> For me it's about how much heat they put out. I have to crack a window I'm winter when gaming. Back in the Amiga era, I inverted the PSU fan of a very loaded 2000 (lots of memory, SCSI, Video Toaster, etc) and piped in the output of an air-conditioner directly to it (with a little bit of epoxy sculpting). It stopped crashing and worked happy for a long time until being replaced by a boring Windows box running NT.
- eulers_secret 4y agoWhen I’m gaming my cpu (11700k) puts out about 50 watts (some cores moderately busy). The gpu (3080) puts out 320 watts!!! Tbh I like it in winter, warms my living room up nicely. In summer I just run my aircons more, but I also usually game less because the weather is nice.
- ribit 4y agoI can't agree with you. The CPU will try to boost any time you are doing work, and these models are overclocked to a max at the expense of an insane power consumption overhead. My previous Intel laptop was getting spikes of 50+ watts for things like rendering a website or opening files and I can only imagine how bad it is with current desktop models. If it would be the case that the CPU enters it's maximal turbo once the system has detected that you are doing sustained, demanding work — you would be right, but all of these dynamic overclocking systems are opportunistic. As someone mentioned above, they are designed to win benchmarks.
- rbanffy 4y ago> is it good to have high-consumption computers all over the world before we have widespread renewable energy? I doubt too many computers based on these parts will be running that hot for any significant time. It's much more likely to experience bursty loads - compiling something big, crunching a massive amount of data - than sustained ones, such as a build server or something similar. If the CPU is managing GPU-based number crunching, keeping it busy will require a lot of GPUs, which will make the CPU's thermal output a rounding error next to the rest of the data furnace.
- TylerE 4y agopower = heat = noise. I don't like noise.
- jeffbee 4y agoYes but either you need your computer to work and therefore you are willing to accept the fact that energy=work, or you don't need the computer to do anything in which case it will just sit there silently drawing ~1W.
- kamranjon 4y agoOr you choose a CPU that does more work per unit of energy because you value silence
- kitsunesoba 4y agoI really wish perf per watt would catch on as the metric to chase for enthusiast/prosumer-oriented desktop CPUs. Or be advertised at all, really.
- jeffbee 4y agoPerf per watt isn’t interesting to users who want the job finished. Work done per joule is extremely interesting but Intel is near the top of the game on that metric. Many CPUs that are viewed as low power are not energy efficient. On an energy basis the “performance” cores in an Intel CPU are more efficient than the “efficiency” cores.
- doublepg23 4y agoThey already are though. The currently shipping Intel and AMD chips perform similarly at 65W.
- snuxoll 4y agoTDP and actual power draw are two VERY different things. Intel and AMD both will plaster 95W or 125W or 160W TDPs on chips that will draw well over 250W when boosting as long as your cooling allows for it.