3 ms·
They're not though? They both offer incredibly fine control over how much power they consume, and will happily run at way lower power. They seem to accept under
by rektide 4y ago
They're not though? They both offer incredibly fine control over how much power they consume, and will happily run at way lower power. They seem to accept undervolting pretty well too, which is a little riskier-of-instability/fancier.
There is some new inefficiency on AMD builds now that the Core Chiplet Die (CCD) and IO Die (IOD) are separate units, not monolithic. DDR5 also taked more power. The fancier X670 chipset (really, two chipset dies) also takes power & could very much use some tuning, but it's also doing a beastly amount of IO work, in some cases for good cause (more low power capabilities/better idle would be appreciated though! One of AMD's first in house chipsets in a long time).
We've barely started exploring how well behaved we can make the just launched 65w ryzen parts... but it wouldnt be shocking to me if there's not really any advantage, if they literally end up being nearly the same part, rebadged & preconfigured to lower power. Is there even really going to be any binning to have selected these? You know maybe not!
Out of the box most chips come tuned for speed, but ask them to be a little nixer, turn on eco mode or power the power point, they are stunningingly efficient. Alas idle could use some tuning; staying under 40w idle is harder than it ought to be.
- dawnerd 4y agoI need the performance, thats the problem every one here seems to have missed. Yes, I know there's lower powered chips. This server has 30 HDDs. I use it for a lot of processing on photos and videos I take.