power efficient CPU for gaming

[Islam Ghunym]

I currently have the I3-8100 in my build.

using power monitoring apps, the CPU package peak wattage was 35 watts (28 average while gaming), the I3-8100 also does not have a boost clock, I managed to undervolt it a bit reaching 30W of peak wattage usage, but if i want to upgrade my CPU now, what should I pick for for more power efficicieny (the most power efficient upgrade regardless the price) and I cant go higher than 60 watts, it is only for gaming , I thought about the I3-9300 or the I3-9300T since it has a good boost clock but I have no idea how far can this boost take up more power and if there will be remarkable difference, I have no idea at all about other CPU power usage, the TDP refers to nothing....

I am also thinking about the I5-9600T or I5-9400T but don't know if they will be power efficient, 8700T, 9700T, 9900T too, i know those are very expensive but I need to have an idea about their power efficiency, however some people said that K processors can be as efficient as T series when underclocked, but I still believe it is not due to high base clock and thermal design, any idea??

[Sorenson]

They’re all 14nm and pretty much the same architecture so they will generally use about the same amount of power. I would go with the i7 8700t or 9700t since they have more cores.

 

 Why are you trying to run your desktop cpu at a lower tdp than most laptops?

[Islam Ghunym]

6 minutes ago, Sorenson said:

They’re all 14nm and pretty much the same architecture so they will generally use about the same amount of power. I would go with the i7 8700t or 9700t since they have more cores.

 

 Why are you trying to run your desktop cpu at a lower tdp than most laptops?

I don't like laptops and I want a power efficient desktop, I also like to look at the internal parts which are invisible in laptops, I am also using solar system so low power is an important element for my 24/7 always on desktop

[Islam Ghunym]

9 minutes ago, Sorenson said:

I would go with the i7 8700t or 9700t since they have more cores.

I5-9600T has even more cores than the I7-8700T, but as far as i know more than 4-6 cores won't matter anymore for gaming so i would go for the more power efficient one and i still don't know if they take up more than 60 watts

[Fasauceome]

Third gen Ryzen processors are proposed to be far more efficient than current gen, you should consider waiting for the data on the new processors before you make a decision.

[Islam Ghunym]

1 hour ago, Sorenson said:

They’re all 14nm and pretty much the same architecture so they will generally use about the same amount of power

not sure about that since the i3-8100 take way less power than the I9-9900 non k

[Sorenson]

1 minute ago, Islam Ghunym said:

I5-9600T has even more cores than the I7-8700T, but as far as i know more than 4-6 cores won't matter anymore for gaming

First off a solar powered gaming pc is awesome. Second, it depends on what you’re playing. Newer games are taking advantage of more cores, so I would personally recommend at least 6 cores now. The 8700t has hyperthreading which can help in certain workloads, but I don’t think it matters much for gaming.

[Islam Ghunym]

1 minute ago, fasauceome said:

Third gen Ryzen processors are proposed to be far more efficient than current gen, you should consider waiting for the data on the new processors before you make a decision.

dk but as rumored they are 7 nm power hungry chips. 

[.Apex.]

1 minute ago, Islam Ghunym said:

I5-9600T has even more cores than the I7-8700T, but as far as i know more than 4-6 cores won't matter anymore for gaming

i5-9600T has 6 Cores and 6 Threads, while the i7-8700T has 6 Cores 12 Threads, which is far better

And no, that used to be the case but not these days, games scale well even above 8 Cores, but the sweet spot seems to be 6-8 cores, but anyway I would also recommend the i5-9400F if you have a discrete GPU, shouldn't consume more than 60W, probably a bit less than that
 

1 minute ago, Islam Ghunym said:

not sure about that since the i3-8100 take way less power than the I9-9900 non k

You're comparing a 4 core 4 thread CPU with an 8 Core 16 Thread CPU

[Sorenson]

Just now, Islam Ghunym said:

not sure about that since the i3-8100 take way less power than the I9-9900 non k

The wattage is based off of their base clock. When they boost up they will use more power than their tdp rating. That is why the 9900 will use more power. 

 

The 8700t has like a 2.4ghz base clock while the 8700k has a base clock of 3.7

[Islam Ghunym]

1 minute ago, _Syn_ said:

You're comparing a 4 core 4 thread CPU with an 8 Core 16 Thread CPU

sure but I won't go for more than 60 watts, it will be dam hell, I prefer to give the extra watts to my next GPU upgrade, I currently have the GTX 1060 running at 60 watts

[Islam Ghunym]

4 minutes ago, _Syn_ said:

i5-9600T has 6 Cores and 6 Threads, while the i7-8700T has 6 Cores 12 Threads, which is far better

yeah I was wrong, just sleep deprived 

[Sorenson]

1 minute ago, Islam Ghunym said:

sure but I won't go for more than 60 watts, it will be dam hell, I prefer to give the extra watts to my next GPU upgrade, I currently have the GTX 1060 running at 60 watts

What power supply do you have? If you’re looking for power efficiency it is also important to make sure you have an efficient power supply.

[Islam Ghunym]

5 minutes ago, Sorenson said:

What power supply do you have? If you’re looking for power efficiency it is also important to make sure you have an efficient power supply.

i got a good EVGA 500W 80 plus bronze one with Erp Lot 6, going for more efficient power supplies will cost alot while it may save only 10 watts, however i still consider that

[Jurrunio]

I wont spend more for T chips if that's the case, even on cheap boards you could limit the CPU's frequency and voltage.

[Islam Ghunym]

11 minutes ago, Sorenson said:

The wattage is based off of their base clock. When they boost up they will use more power than their tdp rating. That is why the 9900 will use more power. 

 

The 8700t has like a 2.4ghz base clock while the 8700k has a base clock of 3.7

I think i may use your notice as a way to expect power usage

[Islam Ghunym]

Just now, Jurrunio said:

I wont spend more for T chips if that's the case, even on cheap boards you could limit the CPU's frequency and voltage.

I agree but will that give me good power value as T series do? I have no idea about the differnce, but from some sites I saw a recorded peak power usage for I7 and I9 and they were very very high tho, it may not be the case with i9-9900T, dk the difference

[Islam Ghunym]

21 minutes ago, _Syn_ said:

but the sweet spot seems to be 6-8 cores

the only game i know that get benefit from 6 cores is Hitman 2 so the 2 extra cores could be helpful for background things, but I have almost nothing in the background but still considerable

[RobFRaschke]

Keep in mind that K skus or ryzen chips are unlocked, therefore can be multiplier under-clocked and under-volted to whatever power target you want, so long as you can test for power usage and stability effectively. A 9300T uses less power because it has a lower base clock and voltage and is programmed to scale only to specific power targets. So it's plug and play low power draw, but you can do the same thing manually too.

[Fasauceome]

29 minutes ago, Islam Ghunym said:

dk but as rumored they are 7 nm power hungry chips. 

AMD announced that the 7nm node would double the efficiency. I have heard no rumors about Ryzen 3000 being power hungry

[Islam Ghunym]

Just now, RobFRaschke said:

Keep in mind that K skus or ryzen chips are unlocked, therefore can be multiplier under-clocked and under-volted to whatever power target you want, so long as you can test for power usage and stability effectively. A 9300T uses less power because it has a lower base clock and voltage and is programmed to scale only to specific power targets. So it's plug and play low power draw, but you can do the same thing manually too.

do all coffelake cpus come with the same efficiency? does hyperthreading require more power? does going for higher baseclock less efficient?

[Jurrunio]

17 minutes ago, Islam Ghunym said:

but from some sites I saw a recorded peak power usage for I7 and I9 and they were very very high tho

because they didnt underclock, most likely didnt undervolt either.

 

3 minutes ago, Islam Ghunym said:

does hyperthreading require more power?

yes, along with higher speed. Efficiency doesnt change

[Islam Ghunym]

39 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

AMD announced that the 7nm node would double the efficiency. I have heard no rumors about Ryzen 3000 being power hungry

hoping tho, from what i got is that they take more than 60 watts but i can underclock them a bit, seems confusing, is double the efficiency better than current 14 nm intel coffelake processors? edit: it should be better 

[RobFRaschke]

Just now, Islam Ghunym said:

do all coffelake cpus come with the same efficiency? does hyperthreading require more power? does going for higher baseclock less efficient?

There is some conjecture that T series are cherry picked just like K series are, but with little physical evidence that I've seen.

 

Higher baseclock requires more power, but is not necessarily less efficient. There are two means of measuring efficiency. Instructions per clock and performance per watt. Performance per watt is similar in function to performance per dollar. More in depth reviews like those I've seen an AnandTech assess Performance per watt.

[Islam Ghunym]

Just now, Jurrunio said:

yes, along with higher speed. Efficiency doesnt change

you mean that hyperthreading will give more performance by raising required clock, so it won't change efficiency by itslef?