Time for me to eat some crow, I never believed they would end up doing this crap.
These are not 125W TDP CPUs, and from now on Intel's TDP numbers are just marketing names. What a sad legacy for a CPU architecture that was once the best at everything.
It's only 17 months since Anandtech felt it's necessary to explain Intel's TDP and Turbo. It's only 9 months since they had an interview with Intel's "Chief Architect of Client Performance Segmentation". Logic and reason clearly flew out of the window while some didn't (want to) look.Maybe it is just me but that was quite naive from you.
To me writing was on the wall with 8 and especially 9 series.
And I have to agree with you, skylake is way past its time.
What has AMD done in that time span? Maxing out their chips? Intel doesn't have a lot of options, but push their chips as well. It's all about "boost." Nowadays, the mobo manufacturers also have a say how long those boosts can last. Well, competition.
The $800 Gigabyte Z490 AORUS XTREME is rated for 1440 AMPS!!! I can't stop laughing. [That would be 1.7KW at a Vcore of 1.2v].But the review is out:
And yep, the PL2 is 250W, but mobo builders built for 320-350W!
32 core Threadripper 3970X never exceeds 280W without overclocking
64 core Threadripper 3990X never exceeds 280W without overclocking
16 core Ryzen 3950X never exceeds 145W without overclocking
8 core Ryzen 3770X never exceeds 88W without overclocking
It's 125W CPU at base clocks, which is how TDP is calculated.At some point you just start straight lying about your TDP. Like, I get how CPUs can exceed TDP, but this is just absurd. This is not a 125w CPU. It's a 250w CPU (that apparently can hit 300w according to the mobo manufacturers!)
At least Ryzen 3000 CPUs stick to the PPT limit, which is typically TDP + 30%. The cores themselves usually stay within the TDP limit and the total package power including uncore will be within the PPT limit. AMD could probably squeeze a few more MHz too if they let a 3800X scream away at 1.5v, 300w all-core boost.
I understand how TDP is calculated. However in this case, nothing appears to be limiting the power during boost. The motherboard manufacturers all seem to be on board ready to cram 300w+ into the CPU during max boost. It basically just seems that as long as the CPU stays cool enough, it will plow as much power as the board will feed it.It's 125W CPU at base clocks, which is how TDP is calculated.
BTW, I don't expect it to draw 250W at stock outside torture tests really, power consumption will probably be around 200W while boosting on all cores. (Just like the 9900K very rarely gets above 150W).
Intel's TDP has always been rated at base clocks, nothing shady there.
But the cpu doesn't run at base clocks, that's where the shady relies.It's 125W CPU at base clocks, which is how TDP is calculated.
And unfortunately it seam it will end up remembered as one of the worst ever.These are not 125W TDP CPUs, and from now on Intel's TDP numbers are just marketing names. What a sad legacy for a CPU architecture that was once the best at everything.
First off, this is a Comet Lake thread. So I don't know why you're bringing them up. Trying to throw somebody else under the bus doesn't make anything Intel is doing better in comparison. Some people call this 'whataboutism' though in truth, you're committing classic Tu Quoque:What has AMD done in that time span?
They already cut prices. You can get an R5 3600 for the same price, and the boards are cheaper. We've gone over this in other threads. Intel is releasing a product that is barely competitive with something that's been out since last July.AMD needs to react with price cuts or to launch ZEN 3 soon.
Intel was also lying about the 9900k. It was really a ~160W TDP CPU in default configurations.At some point you just start straight lying about your TDP.
It will never run at base clocks unless you change settings in the UEFI.It's 125W CPU at base clocks, which is how TDP is calculated.
All they had to do was use the high-performance libraries. One little tweak and it's on. Not that they're going to bother, because instead of wasting time retooling an old design over and over again, they're just gonna release something new this year. Comet Lake is in serious trouble.No, they couldn't. Zen 2 is maxed out.
That's why such products should be forbidden to be released.Hard pass from me. Moving to a warmer climate so want as much efficiency as possible.
Fact check: The 10900K brings 25% more in performance in core count alone, not counting TVB, and All-Core clocks, and no price increase. There are people who prefer Intel over AMD, and for those people the 25%+ performance will be well worth their investment.They are gaining in performance year by year while Intel is not, at least not in their halo desktop CPUs.
Fact check: IT'S THE SAME DAMN UARCH. This is the third time all they've done is strap extra cores onto an old design. They are not offering any more per-core performance, and they can't increase clockspeeds anymore either. Here you are crowing about increaesed MT performance? Let me put this in perspective for you:Fact check: The 10900K brings 25% more in performance in core count alone
TVB is garbage. We've already seen it on the 9980HK, and it is, in a word, pathetic. You are not going to see 5.3 GHz in real-world applications. As for '"all core clocks", they're just overclocking the CPU and expanding its already-ridiculous power budget. For someone that was running a 5 GHz 9900k, they are not getting anything new or better. For anyone that hesitated to run a 9900k @ 5 GHz (or higher) due to power output and cooling requirements, the 10900k brings them closer to the point that they can no longer cool the chip running at bone stock (250W or more!!!). Throttle throttle throttle. This effect will be seen up and down the entire product stack. Intel can't improve the voltage/clockspeed curve any further, nor can they realize any better IPC. So they have to expand power budget to raise all-core clocks.not counting TVB, and All-Core clocks
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|K||Discussion Intel - the cost of BACKPORTING||CPUs and Overclocking||23|
|Question How much longer for Intel 10th-Gen DIY-channel CPUs?||CPUs and Overclocking||3|
|Question My choices: Intel i5 10210U (Comet Lake) vs 1035G1 (Ice Lake)||CPUs and Overclocking||13|
|Z||Review Intel 10th Generation Comet Lake-S Review Thread||CPUs and Overclocking||236|
|Discussion Comet Lake Intel's new Core i9-10900K runs at over 90C, even with liquid cooling TweakTown||CPUs and Overclocking||612|
|Discussion Intel - the cost of BACKPORTING|
|Question How much longer for Intel 10th-Gen DIY-channel CPUs?|
|Question My choices: Intel i5 10210U (Comet Lake) vs 1035G1 (Ice Lake)|
|Review Intel 10th Generation Comet Lake-S Review Thread|
|Discussion Comet Lake Intel's new Core i9-10900K runs at over 90C, even with liquid cooling TweakTown|