Who wants to live forever? Sorry just a music ear worm.
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.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.
It is trivial to configure any modern AMD and Intel CPU to whatever power limit you want.
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)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.
But you are demonstrating my point. That is a good CPU, likewise there are similar other choices in that range from Intel and AMD.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.
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.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 🙂
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.
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.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)
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.
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