How is it possible that the stock i7-7800X and Ryzen 5 1600X have the same cores, threads, base and boost clocks but the former has a TDP of 140W and the latter only 95W? That is a massive difference.
Intel and AMD define TDP differently.How is it possible that the stock i7-7800X and Ryzen 5 1600X have the same cores, threads, base and boost clocks but the former has a TDP of 140W and the latter only 95W? That is a massive difference.
Just a difference in process is all. Usually, the higher a process clocks, the more leakage there is. More leakage=more heat=higher TDP.How is it possible that the stock i7-7800X and Ryzen 5 1600X have the same cores, threads, base and boost clocks but the former has a TDP of 140W and the latter only 95W? That is a massive difference.
Not really. Both are a theoretical required cooling measurement on high workloads and not an actual hard fast top power usage. AMD's sits closer in it's burn in testing because since power usage at 90% load is power usage at 90% load in every scenario. Intel on the other hand basically needs to have a standard TDP and AVX2/512 TDP as the TDP that use needs to include the power usage in a heavy load using those systems.Intel and AMD define TDP differently.
The way to compare the chips is to have them run the same workload at the same clock speed and see. And even then...
Yes and if you have the two chips run the same workload at the same clocks, you'll get the real world data that you can use to compare, rather than theoretical numbers. You can even get the actual data for the programs you will be using.Not really. Both are a theoretical required cooling measurement on high workloads and not an actual hard fast top power usage. AMD's sits closer in it's burn in testing because since power usage at 90% load is power usage at 90% load in every scenario. Intel on the other hand basically needs to have a standard TDP and AVX2/512 TDP as the TDP that use needs to include the power usage in a heavy load using those systems.
But the end point is SL, SL-X, and Kaby Lake are geared towards clockspeed's which means even at lower clockspeeds they probably leak more power. That and probably a dozen reasons including AMD using a process mostly meant for ARM and other mobile CPU's which would have much less leakage (a ARM CPU that leaks power like a siv would be useless).
So while neither are actually representitive of their actual power usage. There is a still a difference and 140w worth of recommended heat dissipation is 140w and not 90.
I agree. But that still isn't as simple as "Intel and AMD use different definitions on TDP". The Intel solution uses much more power than AMD's legitimately.Yes and if you have the two chips run the same workload at the same clocks, you'll get the real world data that you can use to compare, rather than theoretical numbers. You can even get the actual data for the programs you will be using.
http://www.fanlesstech.com/2016/11/the-intel-tdp-vs-amd-tdp-debate.html
First of all, OCCT Linpack isn't a software you run to do actual things with. Secondly, every piece of silicon has it's sweetspot.https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i97900x_skylakex_witaj_lga_2066?page=0,41
Ryzen 1800X is not as energy efficient as people think. It becomes very inefficient at high clocks too. On the chart you can see the power draw of various CPUs. At least according to that chart Ryzen at 4.1Ghz is less efficient per core than 7900X at 4.5Ghz when running OCCT Linpack. That would mean at same clocks Skylake-X should consume less power (and in the end produce also less heat) per core.
Can you link the source for that data?First of all, OCCT Linpack isn't a software you run to do actual things with. Secondly, every piece of silicon has it's sweetspot.
Here's the power consumption and efficiency results running actual jobs like x264 transcoding:
So the 1800X is slightly behind while the 1700X matches the 7900X in efficiency. 7900X is behind it's direct replacement in terms of core count, the 6950X, in efficiency. The 1700 is on another level.
So yes, that Ryzen is extremely efficient running software that actually gets work done isn't something that people make up without validity.
So the 1800X is slightly behind while the 1700X matches the 7900X in efficiency. 7900X is behind it's direct replacement in terms of core count, the 6950X, in efficiency. The 1700 is on another level.
So yes, that Ryzen is extremely efficient running software that actually gets work done isn't something that people make up without validity.
So lets take your data then.
7900X - 150W max, 10 cores, 15W per core
Ryzen 1800X - 129W max, 8 cores, 16.1W per core
So 7900X wins and that is stock Ryzen with its low clocks.
But we didn't consider the performance in x264 encoding (more points = faster):
Skylake-X 7900X - 27.97 points = 2.79 per core
Ryzen 1800X - 21.62 = 2.7 per core
So 7900X is slightly faster than 1800X at slightly less power consumption per core.
Your last chart confirms the following:
1. Ryzen 1700 is most efficient with its low clocks
2. Broadwell-E is more efficient than Skylake-X
3. Skylake-X is more efficient than Ryzen 1800X
That makes two independent websites that confirm my claim that Skylake-X 7900X is more efficient than Ryzen 1800X despite the opposite being believed.
The energy efficient Ryzen 7 is called 1700. The process node used is at its most energy efficient at 3.3 Ghz. Everything above that is quickly losing efficiency. Depending on binning 3.9-4.1 Ghz is the reasonable upper limit of the process node. Both 1700X and 1800X are essentially factory overclocked chips through binning selection.Ryzen 1800X is not as energy efficient as people think. It becomes very inefficient at high clocks too. On the chart you can see the power draw of various CPUs. At least according to that chart Ryzen at 4.1Ghz is less efficient per core than 7900X at 4.5Ghz when running OCCT Linpack. That would mean at same clocks Skylake-X should consume less power (and in the end produce also less heat) per core.
So lets take your data then.
7900X - 150W max, 10 cores, 15W per core
Ryzen 1800X - 129W max, 8 cores, 16.1W per core
So 7900X wins and that is stock Ryzen with its low clocks.
But we didn't consider the performance in x264 encoding (more points = faster):
Skylake-X 7900X - 27.97 points = 2.79 per core
Ryzen 1800X - 21.62 = 2.7 per core
So 7900X is slightly faster than 1800X at slightly less power consumption per core.
Your last chart confirms the following:
1. Ryzen 1700 is most efficient with its low clocks
2. Broadwell-E is more efficient than Skylake-X
3. Skylake-X is more efficient than Ryzen 1800X
That makes two independent websites that confirm my claim that Skylake-X 7900X is more efficient than Ryzen 1800X despite the opposite being believed.
Noboby mentions the 1800X when discussing efficiency. Did you just ignore the 1700X?So lets take your data then.
7900X - 150W max, 10 cores, 15W per core
Ryzen 1800X - 129W max, 8 cores, 16.1W per core
So 7900X wins and that is stock Ryzen with its low clocks.
But we didn't consider the performance in x264 encoding (more points = faster):
Skylake-X 7900X - 27.97 points = 2.79 per core
Ryzen 1800X - 21.62 = 2.7 per core
So 7900X is slightly faster than 1800X at slightly less power consumption per core.
Your last chart confirms the following:
1. Ryzen 1700 is most efficient with its low clocks
2. Broadwell-E is more efficient than Skylake-X
3. Skylake-X is more efficient than Ryzen 1800X
That makes two independent websites that confirm my claim that Skylake-X 7900X is more efficient than Ryzen 1800X despite the opposite being believed.