5 ms·

> Intel's TDP is 2-4 times bigger under full load Never been a problem, even when Intel TDP was 20x worse than today. EDIT: the author forgot that the tested

> Intel's TDP is 2-4 times bigger under full load Never been a problem, even when Intel TDP was 20x worse than today. EDIT: the author forgot that the tested system is an M2 Ultra a desktop class system with a TDP of 90 watts The i9-13900T and i7-13700T come in at a max turbo power of just 106W which is just 1.2x

wtallis 3y ago
> even when Intel TDP was 20x worse than today. When has Intel's real, advertised, or specified CPU power consumption or TDP ever been 20x that of the i9-13900KS?
- peoplefromibiza 3y ago
  Core i9-13900KS consumes 150W with 24 cores (8P+16E) so an average of 6.25 watts per core which is less than a Pentium 90, a 1994 CPU running at 90Mhz in absolute is not a 20x worse TDP, but it is relatively to the gain in frequency and performances (more than 20x actually)
  - wtallis 3y ago
    > Core i9-13900KS consumes 150W with 24 cores (8P+16E) No, the 13900KS has a nominal "TDP" of 150W. That's a marketing number, not a measurement and not even a control target parameter for the default boost management settings. Out of the box, a 13900KS in a typical desktop motherboard will happily draw more than twice that, indefinitely, if you can cool it and have a workload that can actually keep all of those cores busy: https://images.anandtech.com/doci/18728/13900KS%20Power%20Graph%201.png https://images.anandtech.com/doci/18728/13900KS%20Power%20Gr... If you want to compare per-core power, you either have to use a power number for a workload that's actually loading all the cores, or divide the measured power by the number of cores actually in use.
daneel_w 3y ago
> "Never been a problem, even when Intel TDP was 20x worse than today." Economically and environmentally it's absolutely a problem.
- peoplefromibiza 3y ago
  > Economically and environmentally it's absolutely a problem. [citation needed] Economically the Intel CPU of the 90s that had a very bad perf/watt compared to today's standards have been awesomely worth it Environmentally, CPU have been getting better and better, the difference of a few 10s of watts doesn't really make any difference, unless you have numbers to back up your very strong claim.
  - daneel_w 3y ago
    Citation needed? Do you live in some alternate reality? > "... the difference of a few 10s of watts doesn't really make any difference, unless you have numbers to back up your very strong claim." We have a billion power-hungry PCs running on the planet. Power-efficiency matters for economy and for environment, because power isn't free and only a tiny speck of the world runs on clean energy. It always mattered.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - locustous 3y ago
      Most of those systems sit at idle, when they are on at all. Idle power is not the same as TDP. The idle difference is not so great that it's a big deal.
      - daneel_w 3y ago
        Whataboutism.
        tester756 3y ago
MBCook 3y ago
> The i9-13900T and i7-13700T come in at a max turbo power of just 106W Now add in the GPU. Because the Apple number combined both.
- markemer 3y ago
  Yep - the total TDP of the comparison is like 600W. The Pro is also for people with strange PCIe card needs - the Mac Studio delivers this performance in a tall MacMini form factor and nearly silent operation. Not that there aren't things to complain about, but Apple Silicon architecture is impressive for what it is. The GPU suffers more for its uncommon architecture that is similar to a phones but is harder to optimize for. Adobe, Logic, and the like will make that effort. I doubt game engines will. But that's why I also have a power hungry windows laptop.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    I think Epic could get Unreal to run just fine. Unfortunately they don’t have a great relationship with Apple (I can’t remember why but I think it was something Apple did). The Mac Pro makes sense for only a few true professionals who need those PCI slots for non-GPU things. But those people are have BIG budgets to spend and are good customers. Maybe the future Pros will improve, this one is a bit odd. But it has a purpose for those who truly need it.

wtallis 3y ago

> even when Intel TDP was 20x worse than today. When has Intel's real, advertised, or specified CPU power consumption or TDP ever been 20x that of the i9-13900KS?

peoplefromibiza 3y ago
Core i9-13900KS consumes 150W with 24 cores (8P+16E) so an average of 6.25 watts per core which is less than a Pentium 90, a 1994 CPU running at 90Mhz in absolute is not a 20x worse TDP, but it is relatively to the gain in frequency and performances (more than 20x actually)
- wtallis 3y ago
  > Core i9-13900KS consumes 150W with 24 cores (8P+16E) No, the 13900KS has a nominal "TDP" of 150W. That's a marketing number, not a measurement and not even a control target parameter for the default boost management settings. Out of the box, a 13900KS in a typical desktop motherboard will happily draw more than twice that, indefinitely, if you can cool it and have a workload that can actually keep all of those cores busy: https://images.anandtech.com/doci/18728/13900KS%20Power%20Graph%201.png https://images.anandtech.com/doci/18728/13900KS%20Power%20Gr... If you want to compare per-core power, you either have to use a power number for a workload that's actually loading all the cores, or divide the measured power by the number of cores actually in use.

daneel_w 3y ago

> "Never been a problem, even when Intel TDP was 20x worse than today." Economically and environmentally it's absolutely a problem.

peoplefromibiza 3y ago
> Economically and environmentally it's absolutely a problem. [citation needed] Economically the Intel CPU of the 90s that had a very bad perf/watt compared to today's standards have been awesomely worth it Environmentally, CPU have been getting better and better, the difference of a few 10s of watts doesn't really make any difference, unless you have numbers to back up your very strong claim.
- daneel_w 3y ago
  Citation needed? Do you live in some alternate reality? > "... the difference of a few 10s of watts doesn't really make any difference, unless you have numbers to back up your very strong claim." We have a billion power-hungry PCs running on the planet. Power-efficiency matters for economy and for environment, because power isn't free and only a tiny speck of the world runs on clean energy. It always mattered.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - locustous 3y ago
    Most of those systems sit at idle, when they are on at all. Idle power is not the same as TDP. The idle difference is not so great that it's a big deal.
    - daneel_w 3y ago
      Whataboutism.
      - tester756 3y ago

MBCook 3y ago

> The i9-13900T and i7-13700T come in at a max turbo power of just 106W Now add in the GPU. Because the Apple number combined both.

markemer 3y ago
Yep - the total TDP of the comparison is like 600W. The Pro is also for people with strange PCIe card needs - the Mac Studio delivers this performance in a tall MacMini form factor and nearly silent operation. Not that there aren't things to complain about, but Apple Silicon architecture is impressive for what it is. The GPU suffers more for its uncommon architecture that is similar to a phones but is harder to optimize for. Adobe, Logic, and the like will make that effort. I doubt game engines will. But that's why I also have a power hungry windows laptop.
- MBCook 3y ago
  I think Epic could get Unreal to run just fine. Unfortunately they don’t have a great relationship with Apple (I can’t remember why but I think it was something Apple did). The Mac Pro makes sense for only a few true professionals who need those PCI slots for non-GPU things. But those people are have BIG budgets to spend and are good customers. Maybe the future Pros will improve, this one is a bit odd. But it has a purpose for those who truly need it.