3 ms·

The 7700/7900/7950 have a 65 watt TDP, idle much lower, and can be underclocked if you want lower. I certainly wouldn't consider 65 watts as "power hungry as h

by sliken 4y ago

The 7700/7900/7950 have a 65 watt TDP, idle much lower, and can be underclocked if you want lower. I certainly wouldn't consider 65 watts as "power hungry as heck". Did you by chance read an Intel i9 review? Yes, Intel's going crazy on the power front trying to match the AMD performance, which of course lead to AMD pushing it a bit as well. But the new non-X AMD CPUs are quite power efficient for the performance. If that's still to much the M2 or M2 Pro in a mac mini is rather efficient on power and still performance quite well.

dragontamer 4y ago
Note that a typical 27" monitor uses 80 Watts. So yeah, 100W or 65W TDP is not much at all.
- sliken 4y ago
  From what year? Maybe 2010? The type that would feel pretty warm when touched, especially on the top edge? I have a 27" Dell U2719DC from 2 years ago, pretty average monitor, 2560x1440, includes a USB hub, and has a USB-c ports for charging other widgets. On a bright screen, like full screen tab of HN I get 22 watts. If I have a darker screen like anything full screen in dark/night mode (white text on black background) I get 20 watts. When I touch the screen or top edge it's pretty close to room temperature. To be fair my work configuration uses two of the 27" monitors. I'm measuring with a kill-a-watt, which has a decent reputation for accuracy.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - chx 4y ago
    Go back another five years. https://everymac.com/monitors/apple/studio_cinema/specs/apple_cinema_display_30.html https://everymac.com/monitors/apple/studio_cinema/specs/appl... the 30" Cinema Display from 2004 consumed 150W. The IBM "Big Bertha" T220 in 2001 at 20" consumed 111W. So that's the era when I'd expect a 27" to consume 80W or even more. By 2010 some 27" displays like the Sceptre X270W consumed less than 45W. https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/apple27inchcinemadisplay_092610174635/24898.png https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/apple27inchcinemadisplay...
  - kuschku 4y ago
    The UP2817Q actually runs at 90W (but it's a 600 full / 1000 area nits HDR display).
paulmd 4y ago
> The 7700/7900/7950 have a 65 watt TDP only if you disable boost. 88W PPT for AMD's "65W" CPUs at stock. not a fan of the "PPT" terminology, it's pretty deliberately designed to mislead people and give AMD a mental "cheat factor" in these comparisons. And no this is not something that "everyone did", in the 5960X/7700K days Intel's TDP values were expected to cover boost clocks and AVX as well, it's only 8700K/9900K/etc where Intel started to play fast and loose with their TDP figures. Which was after the introduction of Ryzen and the "PPT" terminology... in those days AMD pulled more than Intel's chips and they needed a way to hide it. Then they took the lead on efficiency. kinda like TSMC naming their chips "7nm" and that resulting in huge mindshare problems for Intel even though 10ESF/Intel 7 (third-gen 10nm) was actually better than N7. Or Samung 8nm not even being as good as first-gen Intel 10nm, lol. So Intel had to rename their nodes too. A few bad actors ruin it for everyone. 88W is the number that matters for your load power measurement comparison - again, unless you disable boost. The "X" chips are also clocked higher... 7950X would be 170W with boost disabled and runs 220W at stock.

by sliken 4y ago

dragontamer 4y ago

Note that a typical 27" monitor uses 80 Watts. So yeah, 100W or 65W TDP is not much at all.

sliken 4y ago
From what year? Maybe 2010? The type that would feel pretty warm when touched, especially on the top edge? I have a 27" Dell U2719DC from 2 years ago, pretty average monitor, 2560x1440, includes a USB hub, and has a USB-c ports for charging other widgets. On a bright screen, like full screen tab of HN I get 22 watts. If I have a darker screen like anything full screen in dark/night mode (white text on black background) I get 20 watts. When I touch the screen or top edge it's pretty close to room temperature. To be fair my work configuration uses two of the 27" monitors. I'm measuring with a kill-a-watt, which has a decent reputation for accuracy.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- chx 4y ago
  Go back another five years. https://everymac.com/monitors/apple/studio_cinema/specs/apple_cinema_display_30.html https://everymac.com/monitors/apple/studio_cinema/specs/appl... the 30" Cinema Display from 2004 consumed 150W. The IBM "Big Bertha" T220 in 2001 at 20" consumed 111W. So that's the era when I'd expect a 27" to consume 80W or even more. By 2010 some 27" displays like the Sceptre X270W consumed less than 45W. https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/apple27inchcinemadisplay_092610174635/24898.png https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/apple27inchcinemadisplay...
- kuschku 4y ago
  The UP2817Q actually runs at 90W (but it's a 600 full / 1000 area nits HDR display).

paulmd 4y ago

> The 7700/7900/7950 have a 65 watt TDP only if you disable boost. 88W PPT for AMD's "65W" CPUs at stock. not a fan of the "PPT" terminology, it's pretty deliberately designed to mislead people and give AMD a mental "cheat factor" in these comparisons. And no this is not something that "everyone did", in the 5960X/7700K days Intel's TDP values were expected to cover boost clocks and AVX as well, it's only 8700K/9900K/etc where Intel started to play fast and loose with their TDP figures. Which was after the introduction of Ryzen and the "PPT" terminology... in those days AMD pulled more than Intel's chips and they needed a way to hide it. Then they took the lead on efficiency. kinda like TSMC naming their chips "7nm" and that resulting in huge mindshare problems for Intel even though 10ESF/Intel 7 (third-gen 10nm) was actually better than N7. Or Samung 8nm not even being as good as first-gen Intel 10nm, lol. So Intel had to rename their nodes too. A few bad actors ruin it for everyone. 88W is the number that matters for your load power measurement comparison - again, unless you disable boost. The "X" chips are also clocked higher... 7950X would be 170W with boost disabled and runs 220W at stock.