31–40 of 148 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't find it. Intel has obscured the measurement too much. AMD is guilty of this as well but on a much smaller scale then Intel.
Sheesh. So the only way is to settle on a few cpu models and search for reviews that have measured the actual power consumption?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sheesh. So the only way is to settle on a few cpu models and search for reviews that have measured the actual power consumption?
Even that is specific to that chip/mobo/PSU/Case/CPU cooler setup. So unless you match what was used in the article your mileage will vary a lot.
Still waiting for Lenovo Yoga Slim 7 which appears to be at the sweet spot for battery life, power and size.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also doesn't pass the smell test in that the single core performance is higher than the Ryzen 4900 and it also has both more cores and more threads yet it is far behind on multicore performance? Likely some thread affinity issue that just needs a patch.
At the turbo clock the i9-10900F is 5GHz vs. 4.3Ghz for Ryzen 9 4900HS. At the base clock the i9-10900F is 2.8GHz vs. 3GHz for the Ryzen 9 4900HS. Basically implies that Ryzen has better performance per watt, which doesn't affect absolute performance until you exhaust the power budget and have to lower the clock speed, i.e. use all the cores instead of just one. edit: 4900HS, not 4900H
4900H: 4.4ghz boost, 3.3ghz base
4900HS: 4.3ghz boost, 3.0ghz base
Hmm I need some schooling please: "The TDP for the latter part is 35 W while the i9-10900F is listed at 65 W, but being an Intel desktop processor that just reflects the TDP for the base clock, with much higher energy demands required for higher clocks (e.g. maximum PL1 has been recorded at 170 W)." So where do I find the actual maximum power consumption on recent desktop CPUs then? Do I set a limit in the BIOS? Do I…
> So where do I find the actual maximum power consumption on recent desktop CPUs then? Unfortunately you do this by putting it on a motherboard and and generally putting an amp meter on the 12v EPS rail. Either that or just power from wall. The CPU vendors have worked really hard to hide this. Mostly because for most people it's largely irrelevant these days as the CPU will scale to cooling and power delivery. There…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is worth noting that this is the i9-10900F, not the i9-10900k (thank you, Intel, for the lovely naming scheme). I'd expect the -k variant to be at least as fast as the i9-9900k.
Also, 9900 was much easier to say... how do you pronounce 10900? "Ten-thousand-nine-hundred"? Feels tortured. "Ten-nine-hundred"? Yeesh.
this doesn't quite pass the smell test. I can't quite tell if there's a way to filter out results from overclocked parts in geekbench, but it looks like these results for the i9-10900F are significantly lower than typical results for a stock i9-9900K. hard to believe they would do worse on the same process with more cores.
I think the key thing you've missed is the i9-10900F is a 65W part, while the i9-9900K is 95W. Given both are on basically the same manufacturing process with basically the same architecture, it's really not surprising the i9-10900F isn't keeping up with the i9-9900K in max load scenarios. Having 50% more power easily makes up for 20% fewer cores. Which is then also why the 4900HS is able to be so competitive with it…
> And although TDP is a made up number that has very little meaning, it is roughly what the CPU will settle into when the boost duration has exceeded. So eventually under a constant multithreaded workload the 9900K and 10900F should settle in to their 95W and 65W limits respectively.
this part isn't quite true. TDP for intel parts is more like max thermal dissipation at base clocks. most people/OEMs will couple a 9900k with a pretty beefy cooler and set the boost duration to be effectively infinite. in most cases, that part will never hit its base frequency under load. I have a 9700k, and, under the default bios settings for the motherboard, it will happily draw 120-140W indefinitely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So where do I find the actual maximum power consumption on recent desktop CPUs then? Unfortunately you do this by putting it on a motherboard and and generally putting an amp meter on the 12v EPS rail. Either that or just power from wall. The CPU vendors have worked really hard to hide this. Mostly because for most people it's largely irrelevant these days as the CPU will scale to cooling and power delivery. There…
You'd think "power consumption for prolonged 100% all-cores workload" would be the most relevant thing when selling server chips specifically, though, since it translates directly into OpEx. And yet even on those data sheets it's nowhere to be found.
This works because server motherboard manufacturers only ever build to that spec and not one iota beyond it for cost reasons.
But yeah... average expected draw is going to be interesting and most manufacturers won't give a number to avoid getting sued.
Those numbers should feature prominently alongside the 65W figure.
It does not look good for Intel at the moment.
Hmm I need some schooling please: "The TDP for the latter part is 35 W while the i9-10900F is listed at 65 W, but being an Intel desktop processor that just reflects the TDP for the base clock, with much higher energy demands required for higher clocks (e.g. maximum PL1 has been recorded at 170 W)." So where do I find the actual maximum power consumption on recent desktop CPUs then? Do I set a limit in the BIOS? Do I…
You can't find it. Intel has obscured the measurement too much. AMD is guilty of this as well but on a much smaller scale then Intel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd think "power consumption for prolonged 100% all-cores workload" would be the most relevant thing when selling server chips specifically, though, since it translates directly into OpEx. And yet even on those data sheets it's nowhere to be found.
So for that it's "Easier" because you check the VRM spec for the socket for server. That's the maximum draw the manufacturer expects any CPU for that socket to ever pull. Then generally most of the higher end parts will vary clock speed vs cores etc to stay on that line. This works because server motherboard manufacturers only ever build to that spec and not one iota beyond it for cost reasons. But yeah... average ex…
Of course you also have to consider the cooling capacity of your chassis. 170W in a 1U form factor needs a hell of a lot of airflow to avoid thermal throttling, especially on a dual CPU motherboard. Plus you gotta fit the power supply and everything else in there.