Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Don’t engage.
Don’t engage.
This is where it gets a bit interesting for AMD. AMD’s version of “TDP” isn’t comparable to Intel’s. You can’t point to a 95W TDP on the 8700K and compare it to a 95W TDP on the 1700X. The numbers are reached in different ways.
For AMD, TDP is calculated by subtracting 42 from 61.8 and dividing by 0.189. Those numbers are derived from the following: AMD claims that the “optimal” tCase temperature is 61.8 degrees, hence 61.8. AMD also says the optimal ambient temperature at entrance to the heatsink fan is 42 degrees at the inlet. They also say that the minimum degrees per Watt rating of a heatsink to achieve rated performance should be 0.189 thermal resistance.
View attachment 167752
Hmm odd that looks nothing like 140 watts or even close to it. You keep trying to peddle that lie but no one is buying it.
Tomshardware isn't measuring power. They simply reporting the reading of the internal sensors of the CPU. Not only their numbers not agree with real measurements or real cooling requirements (e.g. the rating of official coolers), but the numbers published by Tomshardware not even agree with readings at the wall.
We already know that AMD marketing TDP values are derived from an invented formula that doesn't represent real TDP: "AMD marketing formula for TDPs is lies." Read the thread.
Tomshardware isn't measuring power. They simply reporting the reading of the internal sensors of the CPU. Not only their numbers not agree with real measurements or real cooling requirements (e.g. the rating of official coolers), but the numbers published by Tomshardware not even agree with readings at the wall.
We already know that AMD marketing TDP values are derived from an invented formula that doesn't represent real TDP: "AMD marketing formula for TDPs is lies." Read the thread.
Oh so now Toms Hardware is no good.
View attachment 167791 View attachment 167789
View attachment 167792
*munches on popcorn*
Oh so now Toms Hardware is no good.
View attachment 167791 View attachment 167789
View attachment 167792
You don't get to decide what is real and what isn't.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13544/why-intel-processors-draw-more-power-than-expected-tdp-turbo
This article about ends the dispute, which is why it has become such an irrelevant topic.
Tomshardware isn't measuring power. They simply reporting the reading of the internal sensors of the CPU. Not only their numbers not agree with real measurements or real cooling requirements (e.g. the rating of official coolers), but the numbers published by Tomshardware not even agree with readings at the wall.
We already know that AMD marketing TDP values are derived from an invented formula that doesn't represent real TDP: "AMD marketing formula for TDPs is lies." Read the thread.
The power-consumption measurement hardware that our German colleague relies upon is quite the setup. It includes two multi-channel scopes, current clamps, slimline probes, and a 5 ¾-digit multimeter. In all, that's more than $10,000 worth of equipment.
Tomshardware isn't measuring power with a probe so their numbers are irrelevant. The 168W and 202W at the wall measured by BitTech and KitGuru are compatible with 110--120W at the socket level for the 1800X (whose real TDP is 128W). GamerNexus doesn't measure the 1800X, but measures the 1700 and obtains 80W in the 12V channel using Blender, which is a correct value because the real TDP is 90W.
The laws of physics do. That is the reason of why the the technical docs and the coolers are rated for the real TDPs, not for the marketing values.
Ian's article is very misguided.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13544/why-intel-processors-draw-more-power-than-expected-tdp-turbo
This article about ends the dispute, which is why it has become such an irrelevant topic.
Ian Cutress at Anandtech said:It should be noted that up until this point, almost every stock test in every CPU review in existance has been run at 'out of the box', and NOT 'Intel Recommended'.
That pretty much rebuts your point, as again, it's up to the reviewers to verify settings and performance.
intel recommended is base clock only
...TDP only, as spelled out in the article.
And their graphs show that TDP is only observed in continuous stat at stock clocks.
Their graphs don't show any clocks...
PL1 state is at rated, PL2 is like 100w higher, the fact that intel doesn't even ship a stock cooler is enough to suggest they are playing bullshit with your TDP dreams.
The 2700 ships with a Wraith Spire, the only ones that don't have coolers is the Thread ripper SKU'sAMD doesn't ship coolers on many enthusiast CPUs either...?
I don't see the issue here with Intel. They've rated their parts, board makers have done something different.
You are mistaken. Trust their own words:
https://www.tomshardware.com/review...ement-cpu-gpu-components-powenetics,5481.html
or your goto guy for disinformation (The Stilt) that gave up has no real equipment or site and is way out of date.
Adding measuring at the wall should never be used as a metric. Especially with modern VRMs.
That article mentions a new power measurement system that will be installed in their US labs and will be used for future reviews. The review of the 1800X was made before that and it didn't measure power but simply reported reading of CPU sensors. So your post is irrelevant.
Not only the Stilt did bring us one of the more rigorous and extensive reviews of Zen and Zen+, but his power measurements agree with other reviews, with cooler ratings, and with technical docs.
In fact, we were the first to break the news of Polaris’ tendency to draw too much current from the PCI Express slot in our AMD Radeon RX 480 8GB review, thanks to this hardware.
To what length will you go. LOL. Do you really think they wrote the article before they started using the equipment. They even mention that the equipment was used to measure the 480s pcie overdraw. circa 2016.
They have the equipment, they use it.
The only way to see 104.7W ish "Package Power" quoted by Tom's Hardware is to actually manually limit the PPT to 105W, instead of the default 141.75W (which is used when PBO is disabled).
AMDs death was greatly exaggerated. 3950x would be cool too own but, I am content with my 1600, 2600 and 1700.
Intel has problems and this time, they cannot buy their way out of it or hope for an Isreali miracle. Also, Hector Ruiniz is not in control this time.
Before we go further down this rabbit hole.
PSUs are typically 70-85% efficient, so power measured at the wall is 15-30% more than actual board usage.
VRMs are typically 90% efficient, so power measured there is typically 10% more than socket usage.
A good motherboard VRM talk. Gamers Nexus' Buildzoid
So no matter how well you measure things, the processor gets less than what you're able to measure.
What? Intel's HEDT sold very well. And AMD has taken a big chunk of those numbers. Now they are offering a 600+ chip and less then half the price of slower/hotter chip's? AMD has just taken a majority of Intels HEDT sales and it is HUGE for them. With the new ThreadRipper's coming, Intel has just lost ALL OF their highest margin non enterprise segments.If it's $600+ then very few gamers and/or mainstream users are going to buy that processor and motherboard. It will sell as well as Intel HEDT systems...not very well.
There is little to no "silicon lottery" with any of the Zen's. Cool adequately, and they are all within a few 100 MHz. Your paying for out of the box speed/OC. and that is fine.The "problem" is that the 8C CPU chiplets won't be the same high level binned chiplets found in the 12C and 16C CPUs, so getting the 8C CPU to overclock to 4.7 GHz on 1-2 cores cores like the 16C does out of the box won't be easy or might be impossible due to silicon lottery.
Just for the record the shinny 3950x will be around 750$.