7 ms·
160 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
by nottorp 1y ago
160 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.