PotatoWithEarsOnSide
Senior member
- Feb 23, 2017
- 664
- 701
- 106
It's a switch - that can be set on any decent Z board. (well, technically, it's a number of switches)It isn't a switch that can be set in any of the various BIOSes, except the Maximus XI Hero.
In fact, we have a good examples of power vs TDP (i5-8400, R1700 no way 65W) and the sorry I must say allround praised 2700x (which consumes with the chipset more than its advertised TDP in watts power, lol).Yup, as I said: this comes back and bites Intel where only infrared shines.
They should have handled this TDP conflict the same way they handled XMP memory: make it a switch in BIOS and advertise the higher performance numbers for a win-win scenario. I'm actually surprised AMD marketing people knew to present this better in the form of XFR, which if you think about it, is exactly what Intel wanted: TDP violation cheered by consumer.
The consumers want this: more performance for more power is a trade-off many are willing to make - as long as it's done transparently. The problem was never the power consumption per se, but rather lying about power consumption, and leaving the press to explain it to consumers, which they did poorly as they were blindsided and left in the dark. Not the brightest PR strategy imho.
Personally I'll patiently wait for the Zen 3000 and the approval of the community for whatever XFR brings to the table when pushing the CPU beyond stock. I bit my tongue this year and openly agreed that power consumption is not relevant for enthusiasts (at least less relevant than performance), I hope next year doesn't surprise us with a 180 degree spin on CPU power usage and the importance of stock TDP ratings in reviewing competing products on equal terms.
In fact, we have a good examples of power vs TDP (i5-8400, R1700 no way 65W) and the sorry I must say allround praised 2700x (which consumes with the chipset more than its advertised TDP105W comparing to 9900K+chipset in watts power, lol).
I simply don't get it limiting the 9900K to 95W and not the 2700X to 95W, its 105W with 9900K to the same, and next increasing the limit.
What tells me the comparison of a top desktop cpu which can do 5GHz with 8C (with 200W) at 95W and the others are limited by....nothing.
Either I don't get it and my cable from my ass to my brain is too long or this is pure politics
The problem is that people rely on listed specs in order to adequately cool their systems. With CPUs defaulting to out of spec, this can cause huge problems.
For clarity, no-one is moaning about the 9900k's performance, or its power usage when at peak performance. The problem is the lack of choice over what should be expected behaviour.
Power usage is specced at 90w. All that Intel marks as 130w, is what OEM Reference cooler they recommend. But that isn't clear. Even the 130 W AIO that intel recommends wouldn't have let Anandtech meet top clocks.The CPU is not defaulting to "out of spec" though. The motherboard is the boss.
The cooling spec is 130W, which is in line with the CPU specs as far as I can see.
Going by official TDP and not knowing about the motherboard shenanigans, even enthusiast users can get tossed a nasty surprise if they were trying to use something like a PicoPSU.
The advertised base clock speed is 3.6.
slippery slope people saw coming back when Intel stopped measuring TDP as max power usage with the Pentium 4.
Gamers Nexus (and others; I credit them because they were the first to highlight the functionality properly).
The issue that you are encountering, which is effectively ignoring Turbo Boost in favour of being automatically overclocked above TDP, is not a function of Intel's marketing. It is down to mobo makers ignoring Intel spec.
TopWeasel said:I am not saying Intel isn't being truthful. It's not like most of the information isn't out there somewhere in Intel's site and in some of the promotional info.
But they don't actually list a heatsink specification do they? No they list the closest Intel OEM Heatsink. Which is still well below the power usage Anandtech saw at load. It's not a spec if its just listing the next closest Heatsink Intel pretends to offer.The actual text on Ark: "Intel Reference Heat Sink specification for proper operation of this SKU"
I don't really understand how it's on the Mobo manufacturers that are at fault. Outside maybe using a specific non-overclocking sounding Intel option (God why can't I remember the name) to allow it to run at full speed indefinitely. Which Intel wouldn't have allowed that to be an option if they didn't want all the reviewers to review the CPU at full speed all the time. 5GHz is still part of the spec and a selling point of the CPU."History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes".
They are doing the same thing they did nearly 20 years ago for nearly the same reason. They knew Netburst was a dead end architecture but with no alternative in sight they had to do something.
Want to say 2 things:
1. Kudos to GamerNexus for standing out and being a proper journalistic site rather than bowing down to companies because they provide the fat cash.
2. If it's clocked like an overclocked chip, and it uses power like an overclock chip, then it probably is a (factory)overclocked chip.
You don't have to act so nice. Just tell like it is. In legal terms, sure they are not "lying". But its quite obvious within that limit they are doing everything to not tell you how it really is.
That's missing 90% of the conversation. It's not power usage as a cost (though people do care). It's not even about cooling cost. Its about the difference in rating and actual power usage as it pertains to cooling and the lack of clarity on the proper solution (even if we recognize the proper one).If you are going to spend $500-600. Do you think those people care much about power usage?
Why yes, yes I would. If reality, rather than the marketing dictates expensive liquid cooling or very loud air then I'm not buying it. I value quiet very much. And running liquid in my computer case creeps me out.If you are going to spend $500-600. Do you think those people care much about power usage?
You don't have to act so nice. Just tell like it is. In legal terms, sure they are not "lying". But its quite obvious within that limit they are doing everything to not tell you how it really is. This is also why there's such hate towards lawyers.
I don't really understand how it's on the Mobo manufacturers that are at fault.
No Stated base clocks is 3.6 (sorry said 3.5 earlier). Advertised Clock speed is 5GHz. Web address says 5GHz. First posted clock speed is 5 GHz (base clocks stated shortly after). Advertising slides from intel on Newegg does it the same way.
Fine. I have been avoiding it since it's an Intel thread and I do have a bias a bit towards AMD in general. But yeah if not outright lying. They are trying their hardest to hide the important stuff so they can put a big fat 5GHz sticker on the side of the box. The CPU is great and shouldn't need this crap to sell. Offer it as a 4.4 4.5 GHZ 110W CPU and I think it still sells through the roof. But man this is shameful.
The single core boost speed falls within the 95W TDP spec.
TopWeasel said:The review for the 9900k mentions that the 6700k might run 20w higher but their review for that doesn't show it and I believe that it was mostly an AVX issue.
Spartak, let me remind you what TDP meant.
I don't have a problem with the 95W TDP and the 130W cooler spec.Power usage is specced at 90w. All that Intel marks as 130w, is what OEM Reference cooler they recommend. But that isn't clear. Even the 130 W AIO that intel recommends wouldn't have let Anandtech meet top clocks.