Question Who still wants a 65 watt CPU

starkplush

Junior Member
Jul 24, 2022
3
0
6
Because they say both Intel & AMD are coming out with CPUs that will consume more. Isn't this going backwards a bit?
 

Tech Junky

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2022
1,376
438
96
65w would be laptop gear. Current models are 45w.


On the desktop side they range from 8W -> 125/200W
 
Last edited:

ZGR

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2012
1,979
530
136
It is trivial to configure any modern AMD and Intel CPU to whatever power limit you want.
 

nicalandia

Platinum Member
Jan 10, 2019
2,185
3,253
106
Because they say both Intel & AMD are coming out with CPUs that will consume more. Isn't this going backwards a bit?
Tiger Lake, Alder Lake, Zen3+ 8 core CPUs are quite powerful even at 65W. They will beat the X Series 8 Core Broadwell CPUs of not so long ago.
 

Roland00Address

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2008
2,135
227
106
Because they say both Intel & AMD are coming out with CPUs that will consume more. Isn't this going backwards a bit?
Who wants to live forever? Sorry just a music ear worm.

Me but also depending on how many cores the cpu has. I am no longer sure 8 cores / 16 threads with 65 watts is worth it. Add more cores or more gpu and I am game.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,894
1,502
136
Who wants to live forever? Sorry just a music ear worm.

Me but also depending on how many cores the cpu has. I am no longer sure 8 cores / 16 threads with 65 watts is worth it. Add more cores or more gpu and I am game.
I have the Ryzen 5800(Non X), and I set it to Eco mode. Most it draws under full load is 60 watts. And my GPU is a 3070, and still the bottleneck.
 

John Carmack

Member
Sep 10, 2016
143
197
116
It is trivial to configure any modern AMD and Intel CPU to whatever power limit you want.
Here's the problem with this line of thinking: Sure you can power limit the CPU to 65W in the BIOS but ultimately you're paying the price for a 142W, 220W, or 250W CPU instead of a 65W CPU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotrod2go

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
23,395
12,361
136
Here's the problem with this line of thinking: Sure you can power limit the CPU to 65W in the BIOS but ultimately you're paying the price for a 142W, 220W, or 250W CPU instead of a 65W CPU.
If you want a 65w cpu, you should be buying a hex core, not a 8 or 12 or 16 core, so no you won't be paying extra. Unless you are not smart enough to do that. If you want 8,12,16 core performance, it won't happen at 65 watt, even with Zen 3 (well, maybe the 8 core)
 

ZGR

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2012
1,979
530
136
At least on Intel side, it has been other way around for well over a decade. Check out prices on Intel's Ark and it is immediately noticeable that they cost quite a bit to bin at lower voltage. These lower voltage chips will end up in notebooks and sell for a premium.
 

Roland00Address

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2008
2,135
227
106
I have the Ryzen 5800(Non X), and I set it to Eco mode. Most it draws under full load is 60 watts. And my GPU is a 3070, and still the bottleneck.
But you are demonstrating my point. That is a good CPU, likewise there are similar other choices in that range from Intel and AMD.

But if you could get the Laptop Ryzen 5980HS which has 94% the same performance in single thread, and 84% the same performance in multi thread, but with a 35W TDP would you prefer that chip if both devices were the same price?

65 watts is a wonderful desktop devices, but there is diminishing returns with running a few mhz more and cranking up the voltage whenever you do desktop. Sometimes an extra 10% of power is not worth 50% more power consumption. Nothing against your 5800, it is a wonderful chip 🙂
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,894
1,502
136
But you are demonstrating my point. That is a good CPU, likewise there are similar other choices in that range from Intel and AMD.

But if you could get the Laptop Ryzen 5980HS which has 94% the same performance in single thread, and 84% the same performance in multi thread, but with a 35W TDP would you prefer that chip if both devices were the same price?

65 watts is a wonderful desktop devices, but there is diminishing returns with running a few mhz more and cranking up the voltage whenever you do desktop. Sometimes an extra 10% of power is not worth 50% more power consumption. Nothing against your 5800, it is a wonderful chip 🙂
On lightly threaded tasks I get the same 4.7 Ghz on up to 3 cores in Eco mode as opposed to regular. I give up 200 Mhz or so on all core loads. The chip stays cool, usually under 60c in all core loads. Low 40's gaming. Making this a very quiet computer indeed. I don't see the point of running it harder since my GPU bottlenecks as it is. If I bought a 4090 or something I might have to crank it up some, but since that isn't going to happen I am happy with it the way it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moinmoin

shady28

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2004
2,520
396
126
Because they say both Intel & AMD are coming out with CPUs that will consume more. Isn't this going backwards a bit?
You don't have to use that much power, the newer chips are still more efficient and faster at lower power levels.

Case in point, the 12900K is still faster (at gaming) than a 5950X even with its power limit set to 100W, and at 75W it's faster than a 5900X.

If you look closely at the various results, the high power draw capability really only benefits things like rendering and video editing type functions. If you're not doing those things - and the vast majority are not - you won't be using a lot of power. You'll have a bunch of cores that you paid for, sitting there idle.

These sites need to stop using Cinebench and Blender as benchmarks for home PCs. They are just answering the supposed 'need' of the consumer, but I don't know anyone who needs that, it's a fabricated tale.

I'd rather have an 6 core that's 20% faster in single and light thread tasks than a 16 core that can blow past a cinebench run.


 
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k

Shmee

Memory and Storage, Graphics Cards
Super Moderator
Sep 13, 2008
6,127
1,449
136
65W CPUs can be decent, even at 8 cores, like the 3700X I have used in the past. That said, I don't see a problem with a 105W CPU, especially if there are more cores. As mentioned, one can usually adjust the limits as desired, based on cooling and stability.
 

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
4,747
1,365
136
If you want 8,12,16 core performance, it won't happen at 65 watt, even with Zen 3 (well, maybe the 8 core)
5700X. Performance is virtually indistinguishable from the 5800X. So yes. It will happen. It's one of the most efficient Zen3 CPUs on the market.

 

Rannar

Member
Aug 12, 2015
51
12
81
Because they say both Intel & AMD are coming out with CPUs that will consume more. Isn't this going backwards a bit?
Yes. when i went from 1200AE to 1600AF and was seeing the rate of IPC improvement in ZEN generations i though i want my next CPU to be max 65w if not lower. i want stuff to become both better in performance/w and in absolute wattage. 7600X at 65w would be much faster then 1600AF but have to pay for 105W SKU.
kind of same in GPUs. Undervolted/OCd vega56 pulled 230W total. i want next gpu to be significantly faster and max 200W. Right now only 3060Ti would fit in to this category.
 

Hotrod2go

Member
Nov 17, 2021
184
102
76
If you want a 65w cpu, you should be buying a hex core, not a 8 or 12 or 16 core, so no you won't be paying extra. Unless you are not smart enough to do that. If you want 8,12,16 core performance, it won't happen at 65 watt, even with Zen 3 (well, maybe the 8 core)
At least with Intel, that would depend on if the processor is unlocked for overclocking. Look at all the K or KF processors for Alderlake, all rated at 125w TDP.
Having a locked hexacore at 65w TDP, has been for generations already in both AMD & Intel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and shady28

Det0x

Senior member
Sep 11, 2014
805
1,893
136
Because they say both Intel & AMD are coming out with CPUs that will consume more. Isn't this going backwards a bit?
If you want lower usage it's quite easy to configure it in the bios.. Either with limit on CPU Package power / PPT or use a static OC.

I did some power testing in Cinebench r23 on a different forum, but i can share results here also i guess.
(goal was to find out what cpu is most power efficient)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Few words before we dive into data:
  • There have been no telemetry trickery with these numbers
  • SOC powerusage is ~2w together with 13w usage for rest of CPU. Anything over this constant ~15w draw is going to the cores/caches on the CCD.
  • For all the new runs a very wimpy LLC together with set 0.75vcore was used to reach close to 0.7v under load on the lowest power runs
Below we have results for a simulated 8core Zen3 5800x:

8 Zen3 cores @ 33 watt = 11149 points in Cinebench r23 (~lowest powerlevel i could run with my current setup)
3200mhz @ 0.719 vcore under load -> ~2.25watt per core under load
11149points/33watt = 337 points per watt
1660477230707.png

8 Zen3 cores @ 41 watt = 12603 points in Cinebench r23
3625mhz @ 0.8 vcore under load -> ~3.25watt per core under load
12603points/41watt = 307 points per watt
1660477268562.png

8 Zen3 cores @ 50 watt = 13698 points in Cinebench r23
3950mhz @ 0.88 vcore under load -> ~4.375watt per core under load
13698points/50watt = ~274 points per watt
1660477295763.png

8 Zen3 cores @ 64 watt = 15099 points in Cinebench r23
4350mhz @ 0.98 vcore under load -> ~6.125watt per core under load
15099points/64watt = ~235 points per watt
1660477317096.png

Results for a real 16core Zen3 5950x:

16 Zen3 cores @ 49 watt = 20441 points in Cinebench r23 (~lowest powerlevel i could run with my current setup)
3100mhz / 2950mhz @ 0.7 vcore under load -> ~2.125watt per core under load
20441points/49watt = 417 points per watt
1660477337344.png

16 Zen3 cores @ 64 watt = 23701 points in Cinebench r23
3575mhz / 3425mhz @ 0.781 vcore under load -> ~3.063watt per core under load
23701points/64watt = 370 points per watt
1660477367497.png

16 Zen3 cores @ 88 watt = 27037 points in Cinebench r23
4075mhz / 3925mhz @ 0.887 vcore under load -> ~4.5625watt per core under load
27037points/88watt = 307 points per watt
1660477402241.png

So what have we learned by this comparison ?
A underclocked 12900k can be more efficient then a underclocked 5800x when you handicap Zen3 with its size advantage and only compare core for core with GC, but at the same time it cant touch a underclocked 5950x in energy efficiency as the numbers show.

Like i said earlier, in the end it all boils down to GC physical size, they are so big that intel could only put 8(10) of those on a consumer cpu(die) and keep the price in check at the same time. (10P cores would score lower than 8p+8E in full multithreaded benchmarks)
But that is no reason to handicap desktop Zen3 with a artificial limit for 8 cores maximum in this efficiency comparison when we both have to 5900x and 5950x as normal desktop consumer cpus for sale today
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY