Benchmarking and gaming. Cinebench stress test is the heaviest load. (30mins)
That should not needed for a stock Intel CPU. Just a decent aftermarket air cooler. The problem is that "stock" includes wattages far above the advertised 253 watts.
www.igorslab.de
It shouldn't, but at the same time both AMD and Intel have sold CPUs recently that can overwhelm a good HSF's ability to cool the CPU. The difference is in what happens afterwards - maybe.
The fact that AMD chose that temp limit means they probably have data to back it up and they are super confident that it will not impact their CPUs adversely in the long term.
AMD also has an elaborate temp sensor network on each CCD, as well as a sophisticated boost algo that uses the worst hotspot on the CCD to limit clocks and volts. When installed and run with default settings on a Z790 motherboard, a 14900ks (for example) is not the same critter.
If I had F-U money, I would put the 14900KS in a H770 mobo and wear a T-shirt saying "My 14900KS lives with a H770 for safety reasons!".
Ehh, if there is a potential lawsuit, I suspect Intel will probably fight tooth and nail for a few years before settling for a few hundred thousand and then everyone gets like $20 for their troubles. In the grand scheme of things, it was worth it for Intel to pump up the power to inflate benchmarks.
I'm not so sure this was worth it at all. This is the kind of widespread fiasco that will absolutely lead to intel losing not just even more DIY, but OEMs as well.
What's the highest power that 7950X can be pushed to consume with PBO? Link to an article would be nice. 5950X could be forced to consume 300W or more, for negligible performance gains.
Yay! At least you and I are minimally impacted. I will hug my 12700K tonight.
7950X is 95°C limited, so unless you use some exotic cooling you ll hardly manage to reach the 230W PPT, 5950X didnt have such a brick walled limitation, hence you could overclock it at higher than 230W, but as you said it was pointless perf wise.
I disagree. Intel's boost algo takes into account individual core temps on top of power and current limits (whether they are enforced or not). Not only that, Intel has more than one thermal throttling mechanics available in their latest CPUs. The limit is also configurable, I have mine lowered from 100C to 85C using UEFI settings. The CPU will not exceed this ceiling, and will individually throttle cores as they reach the limit.
Every high end OEM PC I have seen tested by someone reputable that isn't taking money from the company (see Gamers Nexus) already underperforms vs testbench. Or quite often is lackluster vs the lower tier CPU from the same generation that doesn't stress the cheesy power delivery or cooling so much. I doubt most gamers that buy Dell, Alienware, HP, or Lenovo gaming PCs will even notice the difference. We'll see. You may be right and they launch their own class action?
It is okay to love your CPU. Just don't LOVE your CPU. 🫵
That's the current meme/joke making the rounds. It'll massively dilute the day one benchmarks, if they do that. Because the comments sections will review bomb the hell out of it. Aussie Steve will char it to a crisp with one of his long scathing conclusions. GN Steve will clown it so hard the kids that idolize him won't even buy Intel on a bet when he is done /wild prognostication.
14th gen is really the kicker IMO.
With MSI it's called "CPU Over Temp. Protection", and can be set between 65-115C. Skaterbencher also talks about it in the video I linked above, mentions that going over 100C is only available on K SKUs.
LOLZ that's the best thing I've read today.
I don't care who you are, that's funny.
Facebook
Twitter