• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Page 375 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hulk

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,971
405
126
From the leaks we have seen so far it seems as though the Rocket Lake parts toward the top of the stack will trade blows with the 5800X.

The 5800X will have the advantage of lower power draw under load. AMD may well have a motherboard pricing advantage but Intel may have a CPU pricing advantage.

The Rocket Lake parts will have iGPU. For those who don't need a discrete card (like myself) this can be advantageous, especially considering the state of the GPU market.

This is competition at it's best. You really can't go wrong either way.
 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
7,639
861
126
www.teamjuchems.com
This is competition at it's best. You really can't go wrong either way.
Hey, let's save that for Alder Lake hitting the shelves :D

I still maintain 10th gen should have been RKL the whole time. Launching it last summer/fall would have been much better for all of us.

But yeah - competitive silicon we can actually buy?!? Wait until we hear about the sick hashrates on the onboard Xe ;)
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,370
714
136
The power consumption bit is overblown. I hazard to state most DIY builds are gaming centered, and Intel systems have been consuming less power while churning more FPS up until Ryzen 5000. I don't know if that's still the case with Ryzen 5000, but unless you're putting your system under 100% load for a significant amount of time, I don't see to what end all this fear-mongering leads. CometLake - S owners are not flooding any forum with power consumption concerns, afaict.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CP5670 and Hulk

Asterox

Senior member
May 15, 2012
476
669
136
I hear that. It's all about pricing.

It still seems to me there is going to have to be a solid 8 core offering at $300 against the 5600x given *maybe* performance parity for games and the like but the fact the 5600x can be used with any decent ~$100 motherboard and ~$20 cooler with confidence (hey USB, I know) vs spending more like $150 an $50 minimum on board and cooler with Intel means the all in price is still premium.

I would like an Xe equipped CPU for a new Plex server given there should be some solid upgrades that will last a long time on the hardware transcoding front, we'll see how that shakes out over the next few months.
If you mean decent motherboard=good Motherboard VRMs for low price etc.

Look what can withstand cheep Gigabyte motherboard for 80$.Older B450 cheep Gigabyte motherboard(A520M H is even cheeper+same VRMs) have the same VRMs, i use B450M S2H model.Default R5 5600X, CPU only can eat up to 80W or cheap motherboard won't even sweat with R5 5600X.



 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
7,639
861
126
www.teamjuchems.com
Yes @Asterox that is exactly what I am talking about.

Early "leaks" of RKL show that maybe it is better able to "take advantage" of super high PL2 power level settings and really burn more power than CML. Many reviews of CML show that even with the PL2 set to more than 200W, they rarely break 130-150W without overclocking. This sounds like why some Z490 boards won't be getting RKL bios updates.

I agree that CML power usage arguments remind of back when I was buying Excavator CPUs, it didn't bother me then and honestly doesn't really bother me that much now, but it's something that has to be considered when piecing your kit together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

Hulk

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,971
405
126
The power consumption bit is overblown. I hazard to state most DIY builds are gaming centered, and Intel systems have been consuming less power while churning more FPS up until Ryzen 5000. I don't know if that's still the case with Ryzen 5000, but unless you're putting your system under 100% load for a significant amount of time, I don't see to what end all this fear-mongering leads. CometLake - S owners are not flooding any forum with power consumption concerns, afaict.
This is in fact the reality of the situation. Intel is pushing their desktop parts into inefficient frequencies in order to compete with AMD. While Intel's 14nm process is not as efficient as the 7nm Zen 3 is on, it does allow for higher clocks with Intel's designs at the expense of power consumption. This won't change until 10SF enhanced, which I believe is going to be a great node for Intel for two reasons. First, Tiger Lake has shown to perform beautifully on 10SF, I can only assume "enhanced" will push clocks or reduce power at the same clocks. Second, as the node shrink benefit decreases for continuing shrinks it's going to be harder to pull away from the competition. This is just my feeling but I think 10SF+ is going to be on par with TMSC 7n and not far from 5nm from TMSC since as we know Intel will continue to add the plusses to 10SF. Changing internal structures and whatnot might not be full node changes but they are significant as we've seen from the development of Skylake through Comet Lake.

Still as we all know back down the clocks 10% from max and the power is reduced by a much larger percentage.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,711
983
126
Still as we all know back down the clocks 10% from max and the power is reduced by a much larger percentage.
Correct. The link below is several years old, but it is still accurate enough for this conversation*. Read the "To flip the switch" section.
A CPU power is roughly proportional to frequency cubed. Thus, a 10% drop in frequency is roughly a 27% drop in power. Going from 5.3 GHz to 4.8 GHz will make a 125 W processor use only 91 W.

* The cubed formula assumes only the CMOS transistor, CPUs are a mixture of transistors.
 
Last edited:

Hulk

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,971
405
126
I'm going to stick my neck out there and make some Alder Lake DESKTOP predictions. If you want to join in I'll log your guesses and we'll have some fun when I post the compiled results after the release.

I will include the questions and my guesses. Assume the Alder Lake part is the best 8+8 released.

1. When considering overall performance how will 8+8 Alder Lake compare with AMD 5xxx?
Equal to or better than 5900X.

2. What will be the all core max frequency(ies) of the Big/Little 8+8cores?
5GHz for the Big cores, 4GHz for the little cores

3. TDP and max power draw for 8+8?
125TDP, max draw ~175 Watts

4. Throughput or work rate of Golden Cove compared to Sunny Cove and major architecture changes to get there?
Golden Cove +15% over Sunny Cove, Add 1 simple decoder and OoO tweaking, 25% entry size increases on back end registers/buffers, plus DDR5 to get to +15% over Sunny Cove.

5. Little core work rate compared to Skylake core and major Gracemont architecture changes to get there?
-10% compared to Skylake, ditch 3 simple decoders and add 1 complex, ie cross Tremont with Haswell.

6. How will Alder Lake 8+8 be priced upon release?
Right about where the 5900X is at that point in time, or perhaps a little higher.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,711
983
126
Voltage cubed. Of course increasing the frequency usually means increasing the voltage to remain stable.
Yes, since voltage and frequency are proportional to be stable, cubing one essentially cubes the other. You could play with technicalities and operate in an unstable state (dropping voltage without dropping frequency) or a power wasteful state (increasing voltage without increasing frequency). But, assuming you aren't doing that, they are essentially interchangeable for this discussion.
 

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,617
2,083
136
The power consumption bit is overblown. I hazard to state most DIY builds are gaming centered, and Intel systems have been consuming less power while churning more FPS up until Ryzen 5000. I don't know if that's still the case with Ryzen 5000, but unless you're putting your system under 100% load for a significant amount of time, I don't see to what end all this fear-mongering leads. CometLake - S owners are not flooding any forum with power consumption concerns, afaict.
Are you saying that Comet Lake CPUs have been consuming less power than Ryzen 3000 series CPUs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

Kocicak

Senior member
Jan 17, 2019
400
307
106
Intel systems have been consuming less power while churning more FPS up until Ryzen 5000.
9900K consumes almost TWICE power than 3700X. Are you really sure that it puts out MORE THAN TWICE FPS than 3700X?

What did you base your pretty general satement on? I believe my example falsifies your statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

Kocicak

Senior member
Jan 17, 2019
400
307
106
Do you guys believe that "gaming CPU instructions" are completelly different from those used in power draw tests, using different especially power efficient parts of the CPU? :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
9,033
1,739
126
Do you guys believe that "gaming CPU instructions" are completelly different from those used in power draw tests, using different especially power efficient parts of the CPU? :)
Most games right now aren't even using AVX, so yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yuri69

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
8,315
3,202
136
So, power consumption for silicon devices (from a post by idontcare):

PtotalVccTGHz.png

So, Vcc^2 is the dominate term. Since Vcc typically must increase to increase the frequency, the behavior will appear to be proportional to Vcc^3, especially at higher frequencies.
 
Last edited:

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
9,033
1,739
126
Sigh, let's not rehash the power consumption discussion for the Nth time, especially when it comes to gaming. Let it rest.
Didn't say it wouldn't use more, but it's not double like Prime95 would be. Especially with the higher frame rate causing the GPU to use more power.
 

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
3,085
911
136
2700x and 10900K almost the same power draw, he said Intel consumes twice as much power during gaming.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
4,250
5,362
136
Didn't say it wouldn't use more, but it's not double like Prime95 would be.
And I posted a chart that shows a flagship Comet Lake system using just ~30W over a Zen 2 system in gaming. How did I disagree with you?

I guess it was pointless to try anyhting at all, somebody is probably already digging up FPS data on Witcher 3 to prove a winning side.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and blckgrffn

Asterox

Senior member
May 15, 2012
476
669
136
Hm, the competition already has lower prices before Rocket Lake launch.:mask:


 

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
8,315
3,202
136
Hm, the competition already has lower prices before Rocket Lake launch.:mask:


Meh, I still think the 5800X should be going for about $450 US. But, what the market will bear determines the price.

Edit: Duh, Microcenter has them @ $450 right now - a really good price IMHO.
 
Last edited:

CP5670

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2004
4,765
193
106
Not sure how the 5800X compares, but my 10700K at 5ghz shows maybe 60-110W usage in games. It uses 200W only in Prime95. Games don't really use more than 3 or 4 cores at full load consistently. In contrast, the 3090 always goes right up to its 350W power limit at all times (and some of the AIB versions use 400-500W). It would be nice to have lower power usage in games, but the CPU is not the main contributor to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS