News AMD's Next-Gen Ryzen 9 7000 'Raphael' CPUs May Feature 170W TDP

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
  • Like
Reactions: P1nky, KyaraM and ezst036
If Amd is ready to compete in the 170-230W range, I wonder if Intel also turns out to compete in the 45-65W range...
 
Many wished that high end Ryzen 5000 SKUs had the ability to scale up frequency and power draw much higher than they were able to.
So, AMD listened to their customers and will provide well known great power efficiency at lower clock speeds with their lower and medium range CPUs but will significantly extend power usage abilities at their high end.
 
TerryLaze said:
What do you mean MAY?! You already reported on 170 "TDP" with 230W real peak power.
You don't even read your own articles...
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/a...zen-7000-power-specs-230w-peak-power-170w-tdp
Click to expand...

It looked to me like the previous article was saying the AM5 socket was going to handle a 170w TDP for some Ryzen 7000 CPUs. We now know that TDP applies specifically to the entire Ryzen R9 lineup. It may not be earth shattering news, but give 'em a break maybe?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gg83 and TJ Hooker
NamelessBryan said:
It looked to me like the previous article was saying the AM5 socket was going to handle a 170w TDP for some Ryzen 7000 CPUs. We now know that TDP applies specifically to the entire Ryzen R9 lineup. It may not be earth shattering news, but give 'em a break maybe?
Click to expand...
So we knew it was for some CPUs and now we know it is for some CPUs....
unless AMD would make an R10 tier it was clear that only their largest CPUs would get that new highest TDP, if they had info on the highest the r5 and lower tiers will go at least they would have a reason for a new article.
Sleepy_Hollowed said:
Well that's nice, not even a drop in the bucket compared with Intel's power usage, but hopefully it sips power when not maxed out.
Click to expand...
Yes 230w against 241w is such a huge difference...
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamesJones44 and KyaraM
duzytv said:
If Amd is ready to compete in the 170-230W range, I wonder if Intel also turns out to compete in the 45-65W range...
Click to expand...
The 12100 is a 60W CPU, the 12400 65W. Not sure which chips you are talking about on the AMD side of things? Heck... My 12700k often uses less than 65W in games, too. Those chips are better than their rep in most day to day use-cases.

Sleepy_Hollowed said:
Well that's nice, not even a drop in the bucket compared with Intel's power usage, but hopefully it sips power when not maxed out.
Click to expand...
Yeah, a drop that only fills up 95% of the bucket, 230W PPT vs. 241W PL1! Really, a difference like night and day. Also, read from several people already that their 5950X can easily draw over 200W, too, if left unchecked, but that's just a minor, unimportant detail, right?

If all Ryzen 9s play in that league, and the 13700k stays at around the consumption and relative performance of the 12700K, then Intel might actually have the less power hungry chip of that performance level next generation...
 
KyaraM said:
The 12100 is a 60W CPU, the 12400 65W. Not sure which chips you are talking about on the AMD side of things? Heck... My 12700k often uses less than 65W in games, too. Those chips are better than their rep in most day to day use-cases.


Yeah, a drop that only fills up 95% of the bucket, 230W PPT vs. 241W PL1! Really, a difference like night and day. Also, read from several people already that their 5950X can easily draw over 200W, too, if left unchecked, but that's just a minor, unimportant detail, right?

If all Ryzen 9s play in that league, and the 13700k stays at around the consumption and relative performance of the 12700K, then Intel might actually have the less power hungry chip of that performance level next generation...
Click to expand...
That's a nice story, but not accurate in testing:
https://www.tomshardware.com/featur...n-amd-vs-intel-cpu-power-consumption-and-heat
 
Sleepy_Hollowed said:
That's a nice story, but not accurate in testing:
https://www.tomshardware.com/featur...n-amd-vs-intel-cpu-power-consumption-and-heat
Click to expand...
And what exactly do you want to prove with that link, which doesn't even test the load scenario I was talking about? Are you trying to tell me I'm lying, or that there is somewhing wrong with my eyes when I monitor power draw of my components? It's not a bloody story. People who actually test gaming power consumption verify my claim about low gaming power draw for even the high-end Alder Lake chips:
www.igorslab.de

Intel Core i9-12900K(F), Core i7-12700K and Core i5-12600K Review - Gaming in really fast and really frugal | Part 1 | igor´sLAB

Intel in fast AND economical? Yes, since the 12th. Generation, i.e. Alder Lake S, this also fits together again. And so today’s text effectively becomes the narrative for a kind of turnaround…
www.igorslab.de www.igorslab.de

Or are they lying and falsifying data now in your opinion? This graph shows that you can literally limit the high-end Alder Lakes to 65W-85W for gaming and wouldn't lose much, if any, gaming performance. And what's more. Your graph isn't even involving the 12100 or 12400 at all. The link above isn't, either, but since I was talking about the 12700K I own, in gaming loads, and since those two are powered even lower... I think in that case it's fine.

Btw, a theretical 60W AMD CPU would draw more power in heavy load scenarios, too. They have a PPT of 1.35 times their TDP, similarly to how Intel chips have a PL1 and PL2 as well. So that 60W Ryzen would have a power budget of around 80W.
 
KyaraM said:
The 12100 is a 60W CPU, the 12400 65W.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think what annoys/concerns a lot of people is that the peak consumption numbers are considerably higher (~90W and ~115W, respectively), and that the BIOS on a lot of motherboards does not respect Intel's maximum turbo duration by default (because it's effectively "free performance"), which leads to noticeably higher-than-expected power consumption on long-running high-utilisation workloads. Obviously, things are more complex when you start to consider total power consumption to complete task, etc..
 
martinch said:
Honestly, I think what annoys/concerns a lot of people is that the peak consumption numbers are considerably higher (~90W and ~115W, respectively), and that the BIOS on a lot of motherboards does not respect Intel's maximum turbo duration by default (because it's effectively "free performance"), which leads to noticeably higher-than-expected power consumption on long-running high-utilisation workloads. Obviously, things are more complex when you start to consider total power consumption to complete task, etc..
Click to expand...
Ryzen also has a higher PPT, which roughly corresponds to PL2, as outlined above, though. The factor is usually 1.35, landing a 65W Ryzen at around 88W, and I heard of people who tuned their chips to the point where they got prettyuch into Intel levels of power draw. It's not like that is only an Intel thing, yet Intel is the one being critized pretty much exclusively for it. Yes, it would be better if they actually stuck to the limits, especially considering that the performance drop isn't that huge while drastically increasing efficiency. There were tests that showed that, too. And Raphael will play pretty much in Intel's ballpark, too, but few people actually seem to mind while Intel is mocked for it all over the place.

Another great way to reign in Alder Lake power consumption is undervolting, though. My 12700k draws 135W at max in Cinebench 23 and the stock 4.7GHz all-core turbo clock, due to my undervolt. I also ran it with a slight OC of 100MHz for a time just to test it. It gave me less than 2% more performance, for 30W more power consumption, so I scrapped it again. 135W is well within the PPT power limits of a Ryzen 9 5900X CPU, while also beating it in that benchmark. It's also only 10W above PL1, and it stands to reason that setting power limits appropriately would result in a very minor performance loss again. Now, to be fair, I realize that my chip might be simply a pretty well-binned one; I actually had that suspicion for a while now. My undervolt is an adaptive plus offset set to 1.24V and -0.135V, respectively; it might be 1.28V, though, I'm not 100% sure and can'tlook right now, but it's somewhere in that ball park. I have seen people on Youtube with worse results, implying that either their chips are not undervolt happy, or mine is exceptionally so. Other benchmarks continuously throw out scores on the higher end of results for my chip, so I'm positive there that it's good silicon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom