7 ms·
300w PL1/PL2 limits compared to 253 on the 13900k. I know these chips are made for specific reasons - to win benchmark crowns - but both Intel and AMD are crank
by eightysixfour 4y ago
300w PL1/PL2 limits compared to 253 on the 13900k. I know these chips are made for specific reasons - to win benchmark crowns - but both Intel and AMD are cranking power through the roof to get the smallest of marginal gains. Such a waste.
- ajross 4y agoThe NVIDIA A100 is like 400W and being dumped by the truckload into datacenters as fast as the fabs can deliver them. I don't think a little "waste" in premium desktop CPUs that are going to struggle to sell more than a half million units is worth crying over. For sure this is more fun to watch than another liquid cooling overclocking rig.
- danieldisu 4y agocries in climate change
- selectodude 4y agoMy CPU is powered by nuclear energy
- devonkim 4y agoAnd a lot of datacenter CPUs are also on renewables that are helped by the kind of work done with these halo / flagship consumer products. After all, the power efficiency in datacenters is probably more important in aggregate given they're likely going to go into legacy power grids over time as hyper scalers switch generations (oftentimes due to greater power efficiency). Some of the engine work done for drag racing cars did make its way into consumer cars and it's not like grandma and grandpa are going to be ever running these high end CPUs either. Power efficiency gains in recent generations have been pretty incredible - somewhere around 95% aggregate performance with half the aggregate power consumption of these processors is really crazy.
- foobiekr 4y agoIt’s a bit of propaganda that the DCs are powered by renewables. https://gerrymcgovern.com/data-centers-greenwashing-par-excellence/ https://gerrymcgovern.com/data-centers-greenwashing-par-exce...
- verdenti 4y ago[dead]
- javajosh 4y agoDC's are paying $11k apiece for the A100 do ya think?
- sitkack 4y agoNo one pays retail
- fomine3 4y agoYeah also this CPU user won't utilize it at 100% on 24/7 so it's same efficiency as non-K for most of time.
- foobiekr 4y agoThe average GPU utilization in AI clusters is nowhere near 100%. More like 15-20% outside of hyperscalers being generous and maybe mid 30% for the hyperscalers for periods of heavy activity. There is way too much gated on data movement at this point. Sure, CXL or other interconnect schemes may help but there are whole-system challenges for scheduling and dependency management and staging that drive these numbers.
- Night_Thastus 4y agoOn the AMD side, using the ECO mode which drastically lowers the power limit barely has any effect on the performance. (I think except 65W mode on 7900X) It really is pretty wasteful, but not much can be done I suppose.
- crisdux 4y agoIt is not a waste. These halo products help drive performance and efficiency improvements to mainstream products. With every generation, CPUs become more efficient when looking at performance per watt. Intel and AMD CPU's are more efficient than ever.
- TheRealPomax 4y agoSort of but also not really: performance per watt is not the complete measure of improvement, you need to look at "performance, per watt, per wasted watt": If your high performance CPU uses 75W just to stay powered on, then its almost certainly not an improvement over a slower CPU that burns through less energy just to power the cores at all. For example, let's contrast the 13700k to the ancient 7920X. The 13700K benchmarks to 47106, with a TDP of 250, a performance per watt of 188. Compare that to a 7920X, which benchmarks to half that at 23607, with a TDP of 140W, a performance per watt that's less than 170. The 13700K is clearly an improvement if we stopped there! Except we don't, because the wasted watts matter a lot: the 13700K needs 75W just to power its cores, whereas the 7920X needs 50W. Adjusting our performance per watt to performance per watt per wasted watt, we get 2.5 for the 13700K, but 3.4 for the 7920X. That old CPU is a lot better at turning energy into work. The 13700K is unquestionably a higher performing CPU than the 7920X, and I doubt anyone would object to calling it a much, much better CPU, but it's very hard to--with a straight face--call the newer CPUs an improvement in terms of energy consumption. CPUs have gotten quite a bit worse =)
- daveguy 4y agoI'm not sure this is the right way to look at it. If you take it to an extreme the flaw is apparent. Let's say "bogomips" is the name of a real world accurate benchmark. If a CPU at full performance gives 100 bogomips at 2 watts and idles at 1 watt by your metric the score is 50. On the other hand, if a CPU at full performance gives 200 bogomips at 2 watts and idles at a small fraction under 2 watts, your metric also gives a score of ~50. It's obvious the 200 bogomips processor is way more efficient than the 100 bogomips processor. Something is missing. I think both idle watts and TDP are somewhat irrelevant. Maybe it should be bogomips / actual watt draw (different from nominal TDP) at full speed. Assuming you can keep the processor busy. Not being able to keep the processor busy doesn't really reflect on processing efficiency. Except that it is better for the wasted watts to be as low as possible. A true efficiency, like a true benchmark is elusive, because what is "normal use"? Somewhere between "no work, all waste" and "full use, maximum efficiency".
- verdenti 4y agoI couldn’t care less about power consumption at this couple of hundred W range. The difference is probably a couple of dollars a month with home computer usage.
- gibolt 4y agoIt isn't a waste. Think about how many Electron apps you can run simultaneously now!
- kybernetyk 4y ago2?
- cptskippy 4y agoThat's a bit optimistic isn't it?
- BirAdam 4y agoI think this was a rather abnormal usage of the word simultaneous.
- canadianfella 4y ago[dead]
- zooweemama 4y agoYou both cracked me up :D
- avx56 4y agoIt allows you to scroll through kilobytes of Slack messages, instantly!
- speculativename 4y agoAgreed, but just shouting out the brand new AMD 7900 non-x. 12 cores with a 65w tdp is pretty cool, if I was making a power efficient workstation or itx build right now that's almost certainly what I would use.
- eightysixfour 4y agoThe non-x products make it clear that the “x” products are just way out of line on the performance/power scale.
- arcticbull 4y agoThere's a setting in BIOS (PBO) that you can toggle to make the non-X perform just like the X. They're almost the exact same part, probably just binned a little higher.
- moogly 4y agoThe non-X line just obsoleted the X line due to PBO, as long as they're priced lower.
- broknbottle 4y agoJust buy the X and set the TDP for 65w in the BIOS..
- belter 4y agoNot until a Startup will propose to sell you, a personal Workstation, that can double as your household warm water and central eating boiler... :-)
- ge96 4y agoI recently started doing it winter time Folding@Home Probably reduces life time
- eightysixfour 4y agoTurns out it isn’t even 300 watts, it is 320!
- reaperducer 4y agoSuch a waste. ...said people about going to the moon. ...said people about organ transplants. ...said people about the horseless carriage. ...said people about computers.
- rthomas6 4y agoI took a grad school processor design course. There was an equation for calculating the approximate power draw of a processor, and there was a f^4 or something in there, f being frequency. The 6 GHz clock speed has a lot to do with the power consumption.
- phonon 4y agoNo, it's linear with frequency, and proportional to the square of the voltage. Outside of the frequency "sweet spot" you have to crank up the voltage though....and leakage increases as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processor_power_dissipation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processor_power_dissipation
- rthomas6 4y agoGuess I'm misremembering