birdie - wut?



- wut?



Have you read what you wrote at least once? ;-)







That's not power consumption, that's PL2 - peak power consumption for a very short period of time. Power consumption is rumored to be 125W and unlike AMD Intel sticks to what it advertises (unless a motherboard vendor has set the limits differently). I know AMD fans have infiltrated all social media and forums but AMD'ism shouldn't infiltrate your reasoning and sanity.



And while we're at it let me remind everyone that AMD rated the Ryzen 7 3700X CPU 65W while in reality its sustained power draw is 91W. No one bats an eye about this obvious marketing lie.



Edit: made bold the statement about motherboard vendors setting their own limits - people who've replied to this message clearly cannot read.





ppn 200mm2 5.Ghz is pushing to the limits and is hitting 250 watts with AVX2 only. For the average user that is never needed so we are looking at down to earth 125 watts. Not bad at all. 10nm 8 core tiger lake around 200mm2 will be the same power at the same clocks. Then the 50% smaller die 100mm2 on 7nm which is the equivalent of 5nm TSMC.

It is like people are so f*cking blind, cannot even understand that some things do NOT make sense AT ALL. Want an example? Oh ok, SO PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE i9-7920X IS CAPPED AT ABOUT 140W?? MAYBE ITS BECAUSE INTEL HAS A *DIFFERENT* DEFINITION OF TDP FOR X299 WOWOWOWOW ITS LIKE INTEL CHANGED THEIR STORY A LOT OF TIMES ok whatever, but please, i may not have a college degree, but PLEASE explain to me how a 9700K takes less energy than an 8700K. 9700K has more cores."for the average user" Ok the average user is totally going to buy a 8 core 16 thread processor because they totally need 8 cores and 16 threads (soon to be 10 cores 20 threads) because the average user wants to spend 500$ *on a CPU alone*. The average user goes for i3s and i5s for Intel because they are much cheaper, and because they have less cores, ~60W is a good estimate. Now, the people that buy higher performance parts, usually need much more performance, hence why they bought a CPU with more cores in the first place, therefore the "125W realistic power draw" is nonsense. Who in their right mind pays *five hundred* dollars on an *unlocked* processor that they *won't* overclock, but will buy a high end cooler for it (since Intel doesn't provide coolers with these unlocked parts)? It should be simple, but i guess everyone nowadays needs a 9900K with five hundred gigahurtz and all the speed in the world.