51–60 of 156 posts
This is great for the price. My main complaint is power consumption. Intel is still delivering wonderful performance, but the performance per watt isn’t great at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a reason why people are so stressed over high power consumption in new CPUs? The majority of the time it wont use anywhere near that and I just accept it as a “stock OC”.
I think the concern is scalability. A very high performance per watt is a signal that it the processor design will be difficult to scale practically. Beyond that, at scale, is it good to have high-consumption computers all over the world before we have widespread renewable energy? Probably not ideal.
I doubt too many computers based on these parts will be running that hot for any significant time. It's much more likely to experience bursty loads - compiling something big, crunching a massive amount of data - than sustained ones, such as a build server or something similar.
If the CPU is managing GPU-based number crunching, keeping it busy will require a lot of GPUs, which will make the CPU's thermal output a rounding error next to the rest of the data furnace.
300w PL1/PL2 limits compared to 253 on the 13900k. I know these chips are made for specific reasons - to win benchmark crowns - but both Intel and AMD are cranking power through the roof to get the smallest of marginal gains. Such a waste.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NVIDIA A100 is like 400W and being dumped by the truckload into datacenters as fast as the fabs can deliver them. I don't think a little "waste" in premium desktop CPUs that are going to struggle to sell more than a half million units is worth crying over. For sure this is more fun to watch than another liquid cooling overclocking rig.
cries in climate change
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are usually sipping power is my point. The high boosts being possible is a bonus if you need it but won’t hurt if you don’t. It’s the best of both worlds. As far as energy use we’re it’s such a tiny amount of energy compared to any given appliance.
For me it's about how much heat they put out. I have to crack a window I'm winter when gaming. I think others are concerned with a trend that extrapolates to something insane power consumption where power use grows exponentially to megawatts where clock speed is growing asompotically to say 10ghz
Back in the Amiga era, I inverted the PSU fan of a very loaded 2000 (lots of memory, SCSI, Video Toaster, etc) and piped in the output of an air-conditioner directly to it (with a little bit of epoxy sculpting). It stopped crashing and worked happy for a long time until being replaced by a boring Windows box running NT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really wish perf per watt would catch on as the metric to chase for enthusiast/prosumer-oriented desktop CPUs. Or be advertised at all, really.
They already are though. The currently shipping Intel and AMD chips perform similarly at 65W.
As someone who only needs raw CPU single-thread power when waiting for an executable to link (while using a stock linker for rust and taking a release build takes minutes, which is not much time but also a lot of time), I wonder whether I should go with the new M2 Max's or build a desktop computer (%99 of the time, I will be sitting my desk) with these shiny CPUs to get the most single-thread power (the parallelizati…
300w PL1/PL2 limits compared to 253 on the 13900k. I know these chips are made for specific reasons - to win benchmark crowns - but both Intel and AMD are cranking power through the roof to get the smallest of marginal gains. Such a waste.