Dylsmurf

The higher-end laptop CPUs from Intel are around 45w TDP, the current AMD offerings are 65w minimum. Manufacturers will have to do a little design work to make all this work, though it's not at all impossible. If they can keep a 220w graphics card cool, an extra 20w on the CPU isn't impossible. tl;dr: You'll see the 65w CPUs in laptops I assume - the R7-1700 and below. I'm doubtful about the 1700x or 1800x being in a laptop.

According to a review someone linked earlier as proof they don't meet their TDPs (https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2017/03/08/amd-ryzen-7-1700-review/6), we have proof the 1700 does. Let's start by explaining efficency (in short form) - there's loss over the length of the PSU cable (around 2-5%, depending on length and if an extension is used, 2% in this calculation), there's power supply efficiency (approx 87% at these loads) and there's internal efficiency (dropping voltages to ~1.3-1.4v). In total, I'll be assuming a summarized 75% efficiency. If we subtract 25% of waste from 132 we're left with 99w for the complete system. Subtracting around 75w* leaves us with 24w for the MB, RAM, HDD/SSD, etc etc. More precisely, I think the R9 390 is using a lot of the idle power... lol Off the same review the Moving on from that review (there's so many flaws and variables), in other reviews, the 1800x is shown to use around 146w from the wall for content creation. This review used a power supply which is around 91% efficient at the same loads, and they don't throw in a random R9 390. The total draw after efficiency is ~115-120w, which is around 20-25w over TDP for the MB/etc. I would assume in reality it's using ~85w and the MB/etc closer to 30w. Note this is for nominal loads though, for Prime95 this may jump to ~110w for the CPU - as should be expected. (http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-processor-review,7.html) (http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review,7.html) (http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1700_review,7.html) *Note 75w is subtracted as TDP is calculated for maximum thermal output under nominal usage. Prime95 is ABSOLUTE MAX usage, not nominal in any way at all. Also note some Intel chips use **lower** than TDP, though this is an entirely different matter. tl;dr: Ryzen 1700: ~65-75w content creation, ~75w Prime95 load Ryzen 1700x: ~85-95w content creation, assumed ~110w Prime95 Ryzen 1800x: ~85-97w content creation, assumed ~115w Prime95.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or just clueless, but I can re-explain... You stated Ryzen CPUs don't meet their thermal targets, I assumed this is because you've misinterpreted reviews showing such CPUs pulling x watts from the wall. I've then included calculations in my above post as to why these amounts from the wall are perfectly normal and actually prove the chips are pulling around the correct amounts. I would assume the other components are actually using ~40w and the CPU is pulling around 10w over TDP, but this is due to Prime95 not being a nominal load. As with the CPU cooler, the wraith spire is 95w - AMD says this straight up. The fact it keeps the CPU at ~47c at stock clocks shows it all, lol. Here's their actual 65w: Note basically the same heatsink just with a larger fan. As with my last post, if you're lazy, read the bloody tl;dr before replying... tl;dr: You claimed AMD Ryzen chips aren't meeting their TDPs correctly, reviews and tests show they are. If you want to understand how to read the test data, read full post + my last full post. Also AMD includes a 95w cooler for their 65w CPU, this is known. It's a generous inclusion for overclocking head room.

Have you updated? SoC is there on mine and I've not had any problems (yet)... Plus bios forces a fixed clock, where as Ryzen Master allows windows power modes to still do their thing.

I thought this at first but in reality the difference is as simple as downloading Ryzen Master, putting in 3.9Ghz @ 1.35 (and 1.05 SOC) and clicking save+apply on the 1700. There's nothing else to it - I'm yet to here any 1700 owners who weren't able to push 3.9, though some rare few I've heard struggle with 4.0. The 1800x is good for those who want guaranteed higher clocks (you can basically be assured they'll manage 4.0), but this luxury comes at a price... The 1700x on the other hand has no real place - there's no benefit to it over a 1700 at this stage. tl;dr: ~$70 + 95w TDP cooler for downloading a program and typing in a few figures.... You've basically saved yourself $100 for literally 5 minutes work.

Overclocked my Ryzen 1700 to 4Ghz @ 1.37V. Currently running it at 3.9Ghz @ 1.35v due to only having a stock cooler. It manages at 4Ghz, but on a hot day it'd be pushing it without after market cooling... Some reviews say they've only managed 3.9 on the 1700, but mine managed 4.0 very easily. Overall the 1700x is useless (1700 100% can do the same as it) and the 1800x is a $150 jump for the guarantee that it'll clock to ~4.0/4.1. tl;dr: How far a 1700 will go is luck, but almost all chips should manage 3.9, with a guarantee of 3.7.

TDP is calculated by maximum heat output under normal usage. Prime95 is NOT normal usage - it's designed to push your CPU to the absolute maximum amount of power it can pull. As with your comment, I'm not sure this is true at all. A lot of reviews/etc are showing the power draw from the wall then complaining that it's drawing ~170w. Doesn't take rocket science to understand 170w from the wall is ~145w at 3.3, 5 and 12v (total). This equates to 50w for the motherboard, fans, pumps, RGB, SSDs/HDDs, etc if the CPU is 95w. The 1700 shows around 135w at the wall. 135w is ~115w internally. Subtract 65w from 115 and you have the same ~50w offset yet again. Oh and yep, your motherboard does use a fair bit of power (20w+) - those heat sinks aren't there for nothing! tl;dr: Total system draw - power supply efficiency - ~50w for other components = TDP. Note there's factors of the efficiency of x370 vs Intel chipsets and other variables which play a part, but overall the numbers do add up and some tests actually show the exact power draw(s) from the 3.3, 5 and 12v rails rather than at the wall to further confirm this TDP.

Put simply the average user doesn't need that much processing power. If you do, invest in a server and place it in another room.... Other than that, 1700 is the one that's really amazing for your needs*. They ALL overclock quite similarly (with-in ~100Mhz), the difference is just how far windows is willing to underclock them. My 1700 happily underclock to 1.5Ghz and parks all but 1c2t automatically when not in use, instantly boosting back up to 8c16t @ 3.9Ghz when required. This is all done automatically by Windows. *I'm assuming you want something for moderate day-to-day use that can boost right up for rendering when required. If you're rendering very often, like I said originally, go for a server in another room instead. If any of my assumptions here are wrong feel free to reply correcting me and I'll provide more precise advice. As with your question, a 140w CPU puts out 140w of thermal energy. Once you overclock (at those higher rates) this is easily closer to 200-220w TDP at max load. 200-220w TDP is around about equivalent to a ~250w heater sitting in your room, turned on to max 24/7. The 1700 can do the same multi threaded loads at around 95-100w TDP (3.9Ghz @ 1.35v).

The cooler is <40dB at 1050RPM (approx. 50% power), goes to around 50dB at full power. The cooler manages 220w FX series chips fine, even with overclocks... The Ryzen series chips won't push much further than 120-140W - it'll manage fine. Here's the results of a 140w Intel chip with that cooler: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2662-nzxt-kraken-x52-x62-x42-review-and-benchmarks-noise-temp/page-3 Note they've overclocking to around 150w TDP, though you'll only be pushing your Ryzen to ~130w - you'll see even lower temps.

You don't need anywhere near 1.5v for this... Had mine running fine on stock cooler at 4Ghz 1.37V. Temps were high 60s dipping into low 70s running Prime95, but room temp was only ~25c. On a hot day you'd need aftermarket cooling for this. These cores are basically just the same silicon as 1800x's. Overall, I'd recommend 3.9Ghz @ 1.35v and 1.1V SOC. This should be perfectly stable at around 95-110W TDP. (The included cooler is designed for 95w TDP - you'll be pushing it on warmer days) Note the system will seem fine without the higher SOC but instantly crashes on physics tests - you need the extra voltage. You could try 1 or 1.05, but stock 0.9 simply won't cut it.

I would personally recommend the Ryzen 7 1700. It has enough power (and cores) that you can simply install it and let Windows deal with the rest - no Ryzen Master or overclocking required. The advantage of this (and leaving things to Windows) is low power states for lower work loads. Currently (while typing this) my computer is idling at around 1-2% CPU usage and Windows (in response to this) has 'parked' 7 of the 8 cores (14 of the 16 threads). It also has underclocked the remaining cores to 1.53Ghz at a lower voltage, resulting in a reduced power draw of ~2w. This allows for 43c temps with the fan on my stock cooler at 500 RPM (literally silent from outside the case). Once I open a program that needs some extra power (video rendering for example) Windows pushes the core up to ~3.4Ghz, instantly activates all cores and allows for insanely quick rendering times. The cooler is audible then, though not unpleasant, managing ~65c temps @ 1300-1400RPM. On hotter days the cooler may spin a little faster, but it'll manage fine. Overall, the advantage of the 1700 is it has a cooler out of the box, is faster and will double as an efficient power saver when you're not rendering anything. Edit: Seems the Windows built in power management actually works with Ryzen Master - you'll simply be seeing the max speed for it. I've now set mine to 3.7Ghz now.

Depends entirely on what your intended use is. My reason for upgrading was to reduce power consumption and heat output without any loss to performance. I've over halved my power consumption (140w+ CPU down to ~55w at full loads), heat output (in line with this) and still managed to gain a hefty ~60% performance increase over my overclocked 8350, so I couldn't be more happy with my purchase. I use my computer for occasional video encoding so the ability to actual encode without my room boiling or nuclear power plant overloading is amazing. Not many reviews are really mentioning the power efficiency, but imo it's really something that should be outlined - it's actually quite impressive, especially when compared to the 140w Intel equivalents.

Yeah, the old coolers were terrible. Was extremely impressed with the new design, ended up returning the AIO I purchased as for stock clocks it's really not required.

Havent overclocked my chip yet, but with Windows 10 managing everything (through power settings) it manages 3.2Ghz @ 60°C. The temperature inside is currently around 24-27°C. I can change the fan profile to standard and it'll comfortably manage this at ~64°C while basically silent (in an NZXT S340 case - thick glass+metal to dampen sound). Asus AI Suite estimates this is around 50-55W power usage - I assume the full 65w would be seen at the higher 3.7Ghz boost clock and stock boostclock voltages (Windows automatically reduces this a little, though seems to manage well). At these higher clocks I assume you would start to see the higher ~67-70°C and higher, noticable fan speeds on warmer days. Note: These are NOTHING like the old FX series fans. No more 7000RPM jet engines.... When I say noticable here, I mean they're actually audible - if you're going for absolute silence this is when you begin to need after market cooling. This in no way means the noise levels are uncomfortable - they're easily bearable.