JeffreyP55
Distinguished
- Mar 3, 2015
- 767
- 193
- 19,070
- Jul 27, 2011
- 42,757
- 857
- 104,940
- Oct 15, 2014
- 18,581
- 2,615
- 104,090
with the insane power the intel chips use, the response was "who cares so long as it gets 3 more fps than last time"
somehow i doubt that will be the reaction for amd when they start pulling more power (already obvious in this thread). seems like there is def a massive double standard here for what is acceptable and what is not.
somehow i doubt that will be the reaction for amd when they start pulling more power (already obvious in this thread). seems like there is def a massive double standard here for what is acceptable and what is not.
- Oct 15, 2014
- 18,581
- 2,615
- 104,090
yah i do and how much crap it took for the power used. lol
you couldn't give em away.
edit: but i don't miss the threads here asking for help getting it to run right. there was only a couple mobo's that could almost handle it, but it never worked right at those massive clocks.
you couldn't give em away.
edit: but i don't miss the threads here asking for help getting it to run right. there was only a couple mobo's that could almost handle it, but it never worked right at those massive clocks.
Robert Hallock said today in a couple of interviews the 65W and 105W TDPs were not going anywhere, that Zen4 CPUs will support the Zen3/2 TDPs & 170W TDP of the top performance desktop Zen4. Both interviews are featured on r/AMD, and both are good. One of them was conducted by Hot Hardware, and it was very good, I thought.
Interesting today, Hallock also said the 5.5GHz cores shown in the AMD demonstration were not using a 170W TDP but were using somewhat less than that, because what AMD demoed was an engineering sample, and they are still working on finalizing the parameters for mass production later this year. Additionally, he stressed in the Hot Hardware interview that for productivity workloads employing most/all of the cores that right now they were seeing a 40% performance uplift (he emphasized that) between this engineering sample Zen4 and the finalized Zen3 CPUs running the same cores in the same software. He says the ~15% number was conservative, as AMD would rather surprise with more performance than advertised--and I certainly commend them on that strategy. Hallock says that after the summer, AMD will be putting out a lot more data on Zen4 than was demoed at Computex.
All sounds to me like Zen 4 is going to be a real barn burner...!
Interesting today, Hallock also said the 5.5GHz cores shown in the AMD demonstration were not using a 170W TDP but were using somewhat less than that, because what AMD demoed was an engineering sample, and they are still working on finalizing the parameters for mass production later this year. Additionally, he stressed in the Hot Hardware interview that for productivity workloads employing most/all of the cores that right now they were seeing a 40% performance uplift (he emphasized that) between this engineering sample Zen4 and the finalized Zen3 CPUs running the same cores in the same software. He says the ~15% number was conservative, as AMD would rather surprise with more performance than advertised--and I certainly commend them on that strategy. Hallock says that after the summer, AMD will be putting out a lot more data on Zen4 than was demoed at Computex.
All sounds to me like Zen 4 is going to be a real barn burner...!
- Jul 27, 2011
- 42,757
- 857
- 104,940
If its 16 cores @ 5.5GHz (Assume its possible), its going to be way more than 230W....
All these peak power is rather meaningless these days.... This is because its simply just a number assigned by AMD. In order for the CPU to adhere to this power limit, the CPU will simply lower its clockspeed and voltage. We are no longer in the days where clockspeed and voltage is fixed and max is the really the max.
Give you an example. When running Cinebench, 5950x hovers between 3.8-4GHz (stock), does this mean 5950x can only go that clockspeed? Absolutely not. Its jsut that at stock configuration, 5950x has TDP of 105W. In order to stay within 105W, the clockspeed and voltage is automatically lowered. If you remove this 105W limit, you will see the clocks going higher.
Can you lower this limit? Absolutely. Remeber the U and H series mobile processors?
Last edited:
drivinfast247
Illustrious
- May 29, 2018
- 7,637
- 1,562
- 39,940
I don't think people are cool with an up to 230W power requirement. Having said that Intel took the brunt of the negative press for introducing CPUs that pull north of 200W more than a couple of years back. By now, it is no more a shocking fact and therefore, less negativity for AMD. Considering that the likes of Intel and Nvidia have been pushing power limits to compete, it is no shocker that AMD will follow suit at some point in time.
Is this overclocked? In addition, what's the sustained power? The screenshot shows high max and current power, but yet the average looks very low.I doubt it is. When running e.g. cinebench my PBOd 5950x looks like this :
- Jul 27, 2011
- 42,757
- 857
- 104,940
Yeah that's exactly what I said, is that the reason why I love AM4 so much is because of how energy efficient these CPUs are and that they can do high overclocks without requiring a space heater. I've been able to build several AM4 builds in SFF cases without needing a gigantic cooling unit. It's an absolute shame that they're going in the opposite direction with AM5 in terms of power requirements.
I remember---I had the most expensive ASUS Crossfire one---even at stock settings you had to get some active airflow going over the VRMs or you'd have stability problems.
I'd say the 9590 was up there with the original Celeron as one of the worst x86 cpus ever made. Sandy/Ivy was so much better in just about every single way except outright multithread performance, and absolutely decimated the 9590 in single core performance, whilst using less than half the wattage. Heck, I think the old Q6600 beat it in most games. I'm surprised AMD survived Bulldozer and Piledriver, TBH.
I'm getting FX-9590 flashbacks. LOL.
It won't be quite as bad as that cpu, because this CPU should trade blows with Intel's latest and greatest in performance. The 9590 was not only barely stable at stock speeds, but it used over twice the watts and due to its pathetic single core performance would often get clobbered in real world benchmarks. Yeah, sure, if you got some kind of app that saturated all 8 cores/threads, it would actually hang with a 4790K (haswell/DC), but that Intel CPU ran much, much cooler and used much less power, even if you used AVX.
I still wonder what I was thinking buying that 9590 CPU.
Do note that I never did say its a fact. I would call it very highly educated guess based on current information and trends.
You should look at 5950x performance and power consumption. When running Prime @ ~4.1-4.2GHz 1.1V, the reported power consumption is slightly over 200W. You can google this up, lots of overclock reviews, reports etc... Some also reported cinebench 4.6GHz @ 230W etc.
So now, do you think Zen4 is going to be some incredible magical CPU that can run 5.5GHz on all cores?? Do note that AMD never ever mention that Zen4 can do that. 5.5GHz is just a boost speed which based on based experience, means some cores can and some cannot. If all cores can, AMD will quote a higher boost speed instead.
Lastly this is CPU industry, you only get incremental improvements today. You no longer see 30-50% jump in performance, not anymore.
Its possible for Zen4 to hit 5.5GHz on all cores with overclocking, this will increase power consumption. I won't be surprise to see 400W or more.
But a more realistic result is ~5.0-5.2GHz at around 250-300W.
- Jul 27, 2011
- 42,757
- 857
- 104,940
Yeah I remember I had an FX-8320 at the time. It wasn't bad but it was the only thing I could afford at the time. Though I also remember it not being particularly good either. I then upgraded to a 6700K and that was miles ahead. But I do remember that the FX-9590 was such an absolute joke that there were whole memes and things like that about how much of a potential fire starter it was. I think the reason people bought it was purely marketing hype more than anything else.
TerryLaze
Titan
- May 9, 2016
- 10,051
- 2,720
- 73,440
It doesn't matter if AMD sticks to the maximum, what matters is how hard they are going to get down on the mobo makers, the reason you see so many intel reviews with max power above the 241W that intel enforces is that reviewers use the excuse of "well that's what the mobo has as default" , because if intel forces mobo makers or reviewers to stick to a setting then it's going to be a crap storm of bad press against them, until now AMD was enforcing mobo makers to use base settings, they might stick to that but they might also loosen this demand to make their CPUs look better in reviews.
The sad fact is that there is no rules/ regulations that limits how much power, or set a efficiency target, for PC hardware. As result, we see companies trying to outdo each other by gradually relaxing power limits in irresponsible ways.
Naturally. We are talking about AMD here, they can do nothing wrong...
The screenshow is taken from hwinfo64, a hardware monitor utility many is familiar with.
The number to the left is the current number, the next one is minimum value, then max, and finally average.
So when I took that screenshot the CPUs power draw in that moment was about 210watt, minimum since power on 34, max since power on 223 and finally average 54.
I posted the rest of what you're asking in my original post.
That's good to hear - maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but I have absolutely no interest in CPUs drawing 125W+, or GPUs drawing 200W+. Yes, the performance is impressive, but I'd rather indoors remain a habitable temperature during summer because the PC isn't heating the room up. 😛
- May 18, 2007
- 23,815
- 5,272
- 108,890
Under-volting and under-clocking are always an option if you favor power-efficiency over maximum performance.
TerryLaze
Titan
- May 9, 2016
- 10,051
- 2,720
- 73,440
You have to let go of traditions...those where the ways of our forefathers, with modern CPUs it's much better to just set a new TDP target, that is the only way to be sure you won't exceed it and it will still let the CPU boost as high as possible for single as well as for multicore depending on what you run.
It doesn't make sense to limit a light workload to a certain clock even if it could run faster with the same amount of power.
Under-volting can potentially increase the headroom but it's a huge hassle to find the correct spot that won't cause instability when running some rare case.
TRENDING THREADS
-
News First credible report of RTX 5090 FE with melted connector appears — third-party cable likely cause- Started by Admin
- Replies: 48
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Tested: Intel's Arrow Lake 140T iGPU mostly maintains an edge over AMD's older 880m
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 19
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram