4 ms·
No, intel didn’t get it. AMD certainly did. An i7 14700k can draw 253 watts and do 5.4 GHz, a 9800X3D can boost to 5.2GHz at 160W. Thats pretty close to the top
by maccard 1y ago
No, intel didn’t get it. AMD certainly did. An i7 14700k can draw 253 watts and do 5.4 GHz, a 9800X3D can boost to 5.2GHz at 160W. Thats pretty close to the top end of desktop CPUs (for home use). As you go down the chain, you’ll see huge drops in power usage.
Intel in particular are guilty of replacing their mid and low range CPUs and replacing them with neutered low power cores to try and claw back the laptop market.
- nottorp 1y ago160 W is less than Intel, but still a lot. And I bet that even with AMD you get 85% of the performance with 50% of the power consumption on any current silicon... And 85% of the current performance is a lot. I have an AMD box that I temperature limited from the BIOS (because I was too lazy to look where the power limits were). It never uses more than 100W and it's fast enough.
- eru 1y agoHave you heard of 'race-to-idle' or 'race-to-sleep'? Temporarily allowing performance (and thus power) spikes might make your whole system consume less energy, because it can idle more.
- nottorp 1y agoYou can't race to idle when two out of three websites go amok with your CPU :) That's like saying communism works in theory, it's just applied wrong.
- maccard 1y agoNone of these high end CPUs are bursting to 5+GHz for a regular website’s JavaScript. They’re running at their normal 40-60w draws. That massive burst is when you throw video encoding or compilation tasks at it. You can tell because you need to open a window when it happens.