Question Core Ultra 200K excessive consumption

[psaez84]

Hello, as seen in what Intel has announced, these processors reach 159 watts in their most relaxed version, the 245K, the one with 8+6 cores. Even the version without integrated graphics.

It seems absurd to me. Is it that Intel is ignoring power consumption and they are going around with their pants down, not caring that they consume a ton? What happened?

If there are still more than decent processors with excellent consumption and integrated graphics like the AMD 8700G that has a consumption of 65 watts... what are they doing at intel with 160 wats of power consumption on that CPU? it is almost triple... is the performance almost triple too? I think I'm missing something... it has no sense paying for something with triple consumption if it doesn't have triple performance.

EDIT: To answer everyone that is telling that 159 is only just a few peaks, and that the average will be much less, that's not what Intel is telling us. They are telling in the next table that 125w is a base power, which is not idle, but probably an average measurement, and will not be a peak, and 125 is double of the TDP of the 8700G of amd with a very powerfull integrated graphics card and 16 threads at 5.1 ghz... It only has a TDP of 65w, and after searching on google I can't find anywhere nothing about peaks of more than 65w on 8700G

So... something is very broken on intel new generations with power consumption.

Notice that 265KF without integrated graphics has peaks of... 250W !!!!

 

[rgd1101]

I haven't see the review yet. are you just looking at the spec?

 

[dwd999]

Hello, as seen in what Intel has announced, these processors reach 159 watts in their most relaxed version, the 245K, the one with 8+6 cores. Even the version without integrated graphics.

It seems absurd to me. Is it that Intel is ignoring power consumption and they are going around with their pants down, not caring that they consume a ton? What happened?

If there are still more than decent processors with excellent consumption and integrated graphics like the AMD 8700G that has a consumption of 65 watts... what are they doing at intel with 160 wats of power consumption on that CPU? it is almost triple... is the performance almost triple too? I think I'm missing something... it has no sense paying for something with triple consumption if it doesn't have triple performance.

Those are momentary peak power specs; its not like they expect to draw that much power 100 percent of the time. The average draw is much lower. The same applies to the AMD 8700G.

 

[Amdlova]

The tdp design is when you use at maximum power of the cpu.
I have tested some versions of the lga1700 12700t 13100t 13500t 13600t and now a 14600t. All have range of 35w to 105w TDP.
These cpu has a incredible 1.2 - 1.5w idle on windows. The average power draw is 10w to 15w,
The pl2 gives the maximum frequency for 7 sec on the average. And it will give the right amount of energy what the system need. I see my system drawing the max 54 watts of power on pl2.

But it's not your cpu will eat the total power of your system.

Your motherboard High end can draw from 20w to 50w
Your overclocked ram can draw 10-20w
The ssds when have high usage can draw 5-7w
Your graphics can idle from 7-30w.

Today my system use 60w on idle with the cpu drawing 2w idling.

 

[psaez84]

I haven't see the review yet. are you just looking at the spec?

Those are momentary peak power specs; its not like they expect to draw that much power 100 percent of the time. The average draw is much lower. The same applies to the AMD 8700G.

The tdp design is when you use at maximum power of the cpu.
I have tested some versions of the lga1700 12700t 13100t 13500t 13600t and now a 14600t. All have range of 35w to 105w TDP.
These cpu has a incredible 1.2 - 1.5w idle on windows. The average power draw is 10w to 15w,
The pl2 gives the maximum frequency for 7 sec on the average. And it will give the right amount of energy what the system need. I see my system drawing the max 54 watts of power on pl2.

But it's not your cpu will eat the total power of your system.

Your motherboard High end can draw from 20w to 50w
Your overclocked ram can draw 10-20w
The ssds when have high usage can draw 5-7w
Your graphics can idle from 7-30w.

Today my system use 60w on idle with the cpu drawing 2w idling.

To answer everyone that is telling that 159 is only just a few peaks, and that the average will be much less, that's not what Intel is telling us. They are telling in the next table that 125w is a base power, which is not idle, but probably an average measurement, and will not be a peak, and 125 is double of the TDP of the 8700G of amd with a very powerfull integrated graphics card and 16 threads at 5.1 ghz... It only has a TDP of 65w, and after searching on google I can't find anywhere nothing about peaks of more than 65w on 8700G

So... something is very broken on intel new generations with power consumption.

Notice that 265KF without integrated graphics has peaks of... 250W !!!!

 

[nvfan99]

We'll have to see the reviews before we can make a determination if this is something worth getting worked up over. It may be just like Alder Lake again where Intel went all out to win the multi-core benchmarks over Zen 3, but it ran pretty efficient in gaming.

 

[Amdlova]

The 8700G is a notebook chip on the AM5. Have some Differences over the ryzen counterparts, It's a very efficient chip. The intel chip to KEEP the clock's higher will have higher TDP the 245k may be have same performance of the ryzen 7900x at fullpower can eat 230w!

my little cpu with 94w put it close to 12700k and ryzen 7700x

 

[Phaaze88]

They are telling in the next table that 125w is a base power, which is not idle, but probably an average measurement, and will not be a peak,

Processor Base Power rating, or PL1, applies to the power limit at base clock with all cores loaded.
Max Turbo Power, or PL2, also applies to all core loads, but Intel Turbo Boost is in the mix.
There's also Tau, or turbo boost duration, which is how long boost is allowed to run before it backs off to PL1. It varies depending on processor class and motherboard settings.

For the longest time, Max Turbo Power/PL2 was left out. Intel recently started including it in the Alder Lake specs.
Most users aren't going to run without turbo boost, so why omit that info?