News Intel's Raptor Lake Reportedly Has 350W Turbo Mode, But Only on New Motherboards

Sorry but a power draw like that is insane
2 minutes at 150W or 1 minute at 300W, which one do you think uses more power?
This isn't a power draw it's a choice, you can fine tune all the software you use and only apply high power to the ones where it makes sense.

Nobody runs their cars at full speed to get to the corner grocery store, why do you think that people would use 350W to play tetris?.

<Moderator edit for content>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reactions: KyaraM

jeremyj_83

Distinguished
2 minutes at 150W or 1 minute at 300W, which one do you think uses more power?
This isn't a power draw it's a choice, you can fine tune all the software you use and only apply high power to the ones where it makes sense.

Nobody runs their cars at full speed to get to the corner grocery store, why do you think that people would use 350W to play tetris?.
The difference is 2 minutes at 150W is a heck of a lot easier to cool than 1 minute at 300W even though they use the same absolute amount of power.

The 350W limit wouldn't be hit during Tetris, that is just a useless comment. You would find that happening during things that are going to stress the CPU. You might even see that while playing some games but for sure during AVX type stuff.
 
The difference is 2 minutes at 150W is a heck of a lot easier to cool than 1 minute at 300W even though they use the same absolute amount of power.
No it's not harder unless the CPU can blow up within 60 sec, you can let the CPU increase temps and deal with the heat after it clocks down again.
harder to cool is only relevant for sustained power draws.
The 350W limit wouldn't be hit during Tetris, that is just a useless comment. You would find that happening during things that are going to stress the CPU. You might even see that while playing some games but for sure during AVX type stuff.
That's why I said that you can tune each thing you run and only allow high power to the things where it makes sense.
 
Reactions: KyaraM

King_V

Illustrious
Ambassador
You can always tell how competitive intel thinks amd will be given by how high they let the power limit run. 350w is insane and tells me that intel is really concerned
That's my suspicion. It smacks of a little bit of desperation.

Short-sighted stupidity, in my opinion.

Sane People: "Rocket Lake used too much power, and ran too hot!"

Intel: "CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!!"

Sane People: 🤦‍♂️
 

Gam3r01

Titan
Moderator
That's my suspicion. It smacks of a little bit of desperation.

Short-sighted stupidity, in my opinion.

Sane People: "Rocket Lake used too much power, and ran too hot!"

Intel: "CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!!"

Sane People: 🤦‍♂️
Crazy to think a processor like the FX 9590 now looks reasonable in terms of power consumption.
Same case back then too, throw was much power at an 8320 as you can and market it as a higher performing processor.
 

Co BIY

Distinguished
Jun 18, 2015
784
174
19,190
9
Noted to self:

- After lunch Patent "Combination AIO + Big Air Cooler."

"Air Loop"
"Liquid Breeze"

I'm sure one of you out there has the photoshop skills to mock that up nicely for demonstration purposes.
 
Reactions: bit_user

Eximo

Titan
Ambassador
Just going to have to design motherboards with cooling on both sides and build a double-sided heatspreader clamp system.

Ooh, back to Slot processors! We can take die stacking to the next level!

New ATX 3.0 16-pin connector on one edge, full width PCIe 5.0 to connect to the board. Front side can be CPU cores and cache, back side can be iGPU and HBM or what have you. System memory is an issue, might have to integrate that too.
 

jeremyj_83

Distinguished
No it's not harder unless the CPU can blow up within 60 sec, you can let the CPU increase temps and deal with the heat after it clocks down again.
harder to cool is only relevant for sustained power draws.
Yes it is harder to cool. A CPU heats up VERY quickly and you have to be able to remove all that excess heat. Even if you only have the CPU running at 300W for a minute you will need a large liquid cooler to remove all the waste heat. Where as at 150W you can easily remove that with a good quality air cooler.

That's why I said that you can tune each thing you run and only allow high power to the things where it makes sense.
You didn't say that at all. Your exact word were "Nobody runs their cars at full speed to get to the corner grocery store, why do you think that people would use 350W to play tetris?." You are now just making up something to try and not look like you were called out on a useless comment.
 
Reactions: bit_user and King_V

jeremyj_83

Distinguished
That's my suspicion. It smacks of a little bit of desperation.

Short-sighted stupidity, in my opinion.

Sane People: "Rocket Lake used too much power, and ran too hot!"

Intel: "CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!!"

Sane People: 🤦‍♂️
Probably being done just to try and keep their reign as the "Fastest Gaming CPU."

A couple months ago analysts were saying that the competition on performance between Zen 4 and Raptor Lake will probably be almost equal. However, they all agreed that AMD will easily win the efficiency competition.
 
Reactions: bit_user

bit_user

Splendid
Ambassador
No it's not harder unless the CPU can blow up within 60 sec, you can let the CPU increase temps and deal with the heat after it clocks down again.
How much thermal mass do you think a CPU has?

And it's non-trivial to transfer 350 W of heat into a heatsink. I'm reminded of Toms' testing of Skylake 18-core HEDT CPU, where they found the bottleneck to keeping it cool was actually in the CPU package, itself.

Here's a really solid writeup of just how challenging it is to cool a CPU, when you get in the neighborhood of 300 W. It's not pretty.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/-intel-skylake-x-overclocking-thermal-issues,5117.html

Here's what happens at just 300 W:

"Now, can we hit the 300W mark without our system dying a fiery death using our trusty Alphacool Eiszeit 2000 Chiller? To make a long story short: yes, we can...for about 10 minutes. After that, the voltage converters hit 105°C and the CPU’s frequency drops to 1.2 GHz with a power consumption of 70W. That’s enough for the components to recuperate quickly, after which the whole sequence starts over, resulting in an endless loop.​
So close, but no cigar. Then again, who else out there uses an Alphacool Eiszeit 2000 Chiller? Most folks won't be able to push their system to the brink of death like this without delidding their processor first. Even with our high-end cooling solution, the Tpackage measurement exceeds 100°C, while the cores run at 94°C and up. This can’t be called sufficient cooling by any stretch of the imagination."​

You might think: "okay, so they managed 10 minutes", but:
  • that was only 300 W
  • the CPU die & heat spreader are quite large (18-core @ 14 nm)
  • the chiller they used costs about $1k
This does not bode well for 350 W turbo. Good luck to all who try, but I expect most will hit a thermal ceiling before they get near Tau.
 
Last edited:
This does not bode well for 350 W turbo. Good luck to all who try, but I expect most will hit a thermal ceiling before they get near Tau.
Well first of all this rumor has to be proven real first...
Then this 350W boost could have a much shorter TAU than even the 56-60 sec of the normal turbo.
Also from what we have seen from previous models they have no real issue with running full performance even at 100 degrees and intels turbo is even made to always push to 100 degrees because anything below that is wasted potential.
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/gaming/resources/how-intel-technologies-boost-cpu-performance.html
Intel® Adaptive Boost TechnologyOpportunistically increases all-core turbo frequency when current, power, and thermal headroom exists. Works below a temperature limit of 100°C.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY