News Intel Core i5-10500T and Core i7-10700T Leaked With 92W and 123W Peak Power Consumption

[Admin]

SiSoftware shows Core i5-10500T and Core i7-10700T with peak power consumption of 92W and 123W, respectively.

Intel Core i5-10500T and Core i7-10700T Leaked With 92W and 123W Peak Power Consumption : Read more

 

[King_V]

Pushing the power boundaries of "optimized for low power" to new and dizzying heights...

 

[everettfsargent]

So, you know, I've never been in the loop, so to speak.

But with these so-called low power CPU's, that never seem to have the necessary heat sinks, for 247 operations, at their highest spec'ed turbo frequency, will someone please write reviews stating such?

I really don't care if they have a 666THz turbo bin as it will only do that frequency for like 666 nanoseconds!

Heck, 92W and 123W are, as the headline states, are peak, as in almost instantaneous.

I am of a mind that these low power processors can't even run above their intended base states for 247 operations (e. g. code that occupies all cores/threads at 100% utilization).

 

[MasterMadBones]

I am of a mind that these low power processors can't even run above their intended base states for 247 operations (e. g. code that occupies all cores/threads at 100% utilization).

An 8750H, which has the same core/thread configuration as the 10500T, will run at around 2.8 GHz all-core on a 35W TDP-down after the PL2 time limit has expired.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Yawn.

 

[InvalidError]

So much for the 'T' models being low-power. Who actually buys these things? Looks like Intel is on a quest to find out the absolute limits of what it can get away with on Comet Lake. Get every penny it can before Zen 3 comes out and likely annihilates anything Intel can currently do on 10-14nm.

 

[King_V]

Who actually buys these things?

Well, this guy:

Which makes me sound repetitive, but honestly, Intel's bringing this kind of parody on themselves.

 

[Darkbreeze]

We can't see your image King_V.

 

[King_V]

Weird, the URL is https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/p...yHOXoWGm7Ptisywth10lqgcqHU361LAD1sra5iZvd8esQ but I know I don't own that image - yet it's visible to me. I simply found it on a Google image search.

If not, I guess I'll try this: