9 ms·
Ryzen 8700G delivers comparable cpu performance to Core i5-14600K while using only one-third of the TDP 65 vs 181 watt now that is impressive!
by AbuAssar 3y ago
Ryzen 8700G delivers comparable cpu performance to Core i5-14600K while using only one-third of the TDP
65 vs 181 watt
now that is impressive!
- satvikpendem 3y agoThis should be great for battery life in the next few generations of laptops and handhelds.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tpm 3y agoIt's a rebadged mobile APU (7040 series Phoenix APU).
- jeroenhd 3y agoRyzen has been more power friendly than Intel Core for a while now. I don't think consumers care much about eco friendliness, though, which is a shame. I suppose it could always be sold as "doesn't heat up the room as much", but anyone with a dedicated GPU will have a computational space heater sitting next to them regardless these days.
- secondcoming 3y agoI think that yes they're more power friendly when doing work, but consume more power at idle than Intel CPUs. At least that used be the case, don't know if that's still the case. As for eco-friendliness... it's something I now consider when buying electronics but more from an electricity bill point of view.
- Dalewyn 3y agoIntel is very likely still the IdleM@ster[1][2]. Also, most CPUs spend most of their time idling or very low load, not belching hellfire upon the scorched earth. Efficiency at idle/low power is far more significant than efficiency at flame belching if power consumption over time is concerned. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38823514 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38823514 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38829531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38829531
- mihalycsaba 3y agoHow big is the difference on a regular setup? And is it a same kind of cpu, with integrated graphics? One of the example you linked says 7 watt, which is impressive, but I think you could achieve similar optimizations on an amd system. Let's say I install windows or some linux desktop and don't do any optimizations, how big is the difference?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Retric 3y agoIdle power consumption is all over the place with AMD taking the lowest and highest spots on this chart: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/10evt0z/ryzen_vs_intels_idle_power_consumption_whole/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/10evt0z/ryzen_vs_intel... Who wins depends on both the system and how it’s used.
- magicalhippo 3y agoI recall this blog post[1], discussed here[2] at the time, discussing how a SATA chip driver prevented the CPU from going to sleep state C6, instead keeping it at C3, leading to higher power consumption. Switching the SATA card to one with a different chip fixed that. There were other surprising factors which affected power draw. My takeaway was that as in real life, sleeping can be hard. [1]: https://mattgadient.com/7-watts-idle-on-intel-12th-13th-gen-the-foundation-for-building-a-low-power-server-nas/ https://mattgadient.com/7-watts-idle-on-intel-12th-13th-gen-... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38823514 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38823514
- Dalewyn 3y agoIn fact, you linked the exact thing I linked. :P
- magicalhippo 3y ago
- wtallis 3y agoMost of AMD's desktop processors for the past several generations have had poor idle power because they're built using multiple chiplets with a cheap, power-hungry interconnect. The 8000G series (and earlier -G parts) are monolithic laptop processors re-packaged for the desktop socket, so they are unaffected by the main cause of poor idle power in AMD's main desktop processor product line.
- nl 3y ago> I don't think consumers care much about eco friendliness, though, which is a shame. Many do care about noise though!
- iamthepieman 3y agoFor mobile processors, it's one of the first things I look at though. And like you and others said I don't just look at the TDP but also rely on the big testing sites for load heat tests. Or, at least, I did until the m series processors came out and you could get a passively cooled laptop for a decent price.
- distances 3y agoMaybe not everyone but I definitely care. Lower consumption means smaller PSU and cooling requirements and less issues during heatwaves (no AC). Futhermore, my computer corner with a fair bit of electronics is served by only one electricity socket with a bunch of extensions cords that I really would rather not overload.
- Semaphor 3y agoYeah, my gaming (obviously I'm not playing AAA action games) PC runs on a 350W PSU and is rarely audible.
- smallstepforman 3y agoI do care about fan noise, my current system was specifically built for it (ryzen 3700x, rx5600 gpu)
- tiahura 3y agoWhy don’t more people put their pc in another room or floor? Even Amazon $20 HDMI cables are pretty resilient at 50’. Stuck my gaming PC in the basement decades ago and haven’t worried about cooling or noise since.
- twisteriffic 3y agoMost people don't have another room or floor to put it in?
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoWhy don't people just buy bigger houses with more rooms, d'uh? /s
- jijijijij 3y agoIn Europe electricity is expensive, though. If you pay 50c€ per kWh, energy efficiency does matter. Less heat also allows for a more compact or mobile design. Smaller builds are gaining popularity.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- DanielHB 3y agoTrue, I actually have been underclocking my RTX 3800 to keep heat and costs down.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago>Smaller builds are gaining popularity. Gaining popularity in the ever shrinking market of PCs is nothing to brag about. I'd wager it's still not that popular as you make it be. Everyone just buys laptops nowadays and whoever they do buy PCs they get the full sized towers with discrete GPUs for gaming, not small form factors with APUs. That's more of a niche of a niche. That's why AMD hasn't focused too much on APUs for desktop PCs. It's not a big market. Their biggest sellers are APUs for notebooks and consoles, CPUs for datacenters and desktops, discrete GPUs for ... everything.
- Scrutiny6707 3y agoIt's been an "ever shrinking market" since the 2000s, if you believe the news. A thing to consider is, for the consumer market, machines have gotten good enough that most don't need a new machine for 5+ years, in terms of performance. Especially for casual household tasks.
- jijijijij 3y agoNo, you are right. I think this APU is basically a spin-off mobile processor. The technology comparison would be translatable, though, as with laptops battery life and weight matters. However, here we talk about the desktop market, don't we? And not every desktop PC has to be a gaming capable machine. Power-savings will probably be even more relevant for organizations running hundreds of office machines and terminals.
- mort96 3y agoBe very careful about comparing TDPs, especially across manufacturers. It doesn't really say anything about real power consumption. The TDP difference is so big it probably represents some real difference in power consumption, but actual measurements are necessary to say anything concrete.
- guardian5x 3y agoWhile you can't compare TDPs directly. Basically all tests of Ryzen processors with 3d cache use about half as much power or less than their Intel counterparts. So this wouldn't surprise me.
- mort96 3y agoYeah, the Ryzen part is almost certainly significantly lower power
- plasticchris 3y agoTDP is arbitrary, they actually calculate it with arbitrary constants that change per chip. So it is meaningless at this point. See https://gamersnexus.net/guides/3525-amd-ryzen-tdp-explained-deep-dive-cooler-manufacturer-opinions https://gamersnexus.net/guides/3525-amd-ryzen-tdp-explained-...
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoAlso, chiplet based Ryzens are notorious for higher idle power consumption than Intel's monolithic dies, which is where CPUs spend most of their time in consumer applications (web browsing, netflix, shitposting on reddit, etc) instead of running at full load all the time. Synthetic tests that stress everything at full bore, are not realistic representations for your average consumer PC application scenario. Even video games don't cause as much power draw as synthetic benchmarks can which are more akin to power viruses. In real life daily driving, Ryzen might still be more efficient than Intels but with a much smaller margin than such tests might lead you to believe.
- vladvasiliu 3y agoI'm currently typing this on an i7-1165G7 running windows 11, with a few background tabs in edge, teams and outlook. CPU usage as reported by task manager seems to hover around 7-10%. CPU clock hovers around 2.2 GHz with regular peaks above 3 GHz. Is that idle? Not sure I could get this box at any lower use than this, even though I understand this is different from having all cores pegged at 100%.
- tiahura 3y agoDoesn’t idle mean something more like C:\> than multitasking billions of instructions per second?
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoWe're talking idling from the perspective of an actual user at home, so there will obviously be a web browser and some background tasks running. Idling without anything running, even an OS, is interesting for metrics, but not something realistic for any user.
- zamadatix 3y agoAlong with comparing what the others have said about comparing TDPs between vendors (or even different product lines sometimes) TDP is about multi-core draw so you'd need to also normalize the multithread performance differences between the two, not look at the single thread performance being near equal (that'll be significantly less than 65 Watts for each). I think the 8700G is probably more efficient but it won't be anything like 65 vs 181 watt would leave one to believe.
- marmaduke 3y agoCPU mark scores are 32k and 39k respectively. It's at least twice as efficient
- zamadatix 3y agoAssumming: - PL1/PL2 from Intel can be compared to TDP from AMD - CPU Mark scores alone are the best indicator of what full utilization looks like vs another test You'd be accurate. You can't really assume either of these things though. The better comparison to TDP from AMD is probably closer to "base power" of 125W than PL1/PL2 of 181 on the Intel side. Other benchmarks, like encoding using all cores efficiently with matrix extensions, are in the 25%-30% difference. Combine these two facts and it's probably closer to 1.5x efficient (instead of the 2.5x the raw numbers above suggest, 3x the relative improvement), but you'd have to actually measure active power doing the same amount of total work to know for sure. Even ignoring one of the facts the encoding benchmark differences are enough to guarantee it'd actually be less than twice as efficient, not at least twice as efficient.
- jeffbee 3y agoThe higher power consumption on the Intel side is mostly a reflection of the futility of feeding it more power. A better way to compare these would have been to dial back the power levels on the Intel CPU until it was only just as fast as the AMD part, and compare that power level.
- ac29 3y agoA better comparison of efficiency is task energy, which the article did cover. In a video encoding task, the 8700G used 30% less energy than the 14600K, but it actually used more energy than a 13400.