[UPDATE - 220W CPUs? Get yo chiller] All Your + Are Belong To Us - Comet Lake S performance review leaks AND Power Consumption/Heat Output outted

[uzzi38]

10 hours ago, 5x5 said:

Update - we have power boys
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Comet-Lake-S-may-require-hefty-CPU-coolers-Core-i9-10900F-shown-to-have-a-170-W-PL1-TDP-and-224-W-PL2-for-a-4-6-GHz-all-core-boost.460196.0.html

It's worth pointing out that OEMs can and will set whetever the heck PL1, PL2 and Tau they want because Intel doesn't stop them from doing otherwise. The device in here is an OEM PC, so it's altogether possible that when it comes to DIY later, final values may be lower or (more likely) higher.

 

Enjoy your housefire!

[S w a t s o n]

Footage: Man observes comet lake entering atmosphere

 

If you think the comet is hot just wait for lake to burn down the launchpad

[uzzi38]

8 hours ago, S w a t s o n said:

Footage: Man observes comet lake entering atmosphere

 

If you think the comet is hot just wait for lake to burn down the launchpad

At this point I honestly don't know what's worse...

 

If you want a datapoint for how bad Comet Lake is, then here's one for you:

 

Cinebench R15 1T turbo on the 10875H at 4.9GHz (reminder, it's rated for 5.1GHz 1T boost under the official specs, +200mhz over this is via Turbo Velocity Boost) and it pulls 35W. And this is a relatively light workload that, iirc, doesn't include any AVX. Certainly not AVX2.

 

Imagine that. The entire power budget of the 4900HS on a single core for 4.9GHz. In a laptop. 

 

But I guess it's part of Intel's strategy to improve gaming experience, I mean think of all the RGB you get as your VRMs start glowing on multi-core workloads!

[5x5]

3 minutes ago, uzzi38 said:

At this point I honestly don't know what's worse...

 

If you want a datapoint for how bad Comet Lake is, then here's one for you:

-snip-

And imagine the shit battery life on Intel laptops when the CPU is pulling 4 times the power of a similar class one from 2 years ago

[uzzi38]

2 hours ago, 5x5 said:

And imagine the shit battery life on Intel laptops when the CPU is pulling 4 times the power of a similar class one from 2 years ago

Okay, that's one thing I want to try and make clear: for the most part battery life =/= power consumption, and higher ST frequencies don't have a huge effect on battery life. Reminder, Comet Lake-U has a 4.9GHz 1T turbo on the 10510U, yet the battery life is fantastic.

 

The higher boost frequencies won't have the largest effect on battery life... the main reason for poor battery life in their -H chips is because of how Intel does their -H chips. See, all their -H chips are really just full desktop dies, just put onto a different package, whereas on AMD's side they use the same dies for laptops in both the -U and -H segments.

 

This makes quite a big difference as those smaller dies - often called ULV dies - cut down several features (ever wondered why Picasso, Raven Ridge and Renoir only have a x8 PCIe link for the GPU, or why AMD cut down the cache?), significantly more power gating and various other in-silicon optimisations to minimise leakage as well as idle power draw. 

 

With Picasso and Raven Ridge, it didn't matter for AMD as their power gating and management was so poor they did horrendously in battery life even despite them using the same die for both segments. With Renoir, it looks like they put in a hell of a lot of time working on all of that optimisation to get a product they could use in mobile and use well, which is why the Zephyrus G14 and G15 have such good battery life despite using -H chips that are allowed to boost up until ~65W (though for <10 seconds).

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, uzzi38 said:

 which is why the Zephyrus G14 and G15 have such good battery life despite using -H chips that are allowed to boost up until ~65W (though for <10 seconds).

It seems after that they settle back down to 3.2Ghz to maintain 35W too.  Which is a bit a of a whatever really, I mean how many people are going to be using the thing at full tilt on battery all the time?

[uzzi38]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It seems after that they settle back down to 3.2Ghz to maintain 35W too.  Which is a bit a of a whatever really, I mean how many people are going to be using the thing at full tilt on battery all the time?

Exactly. Nobody does, which is why nobody really tests battery life like that

I mean, they often do, but nobody cares about the sustained performance battery life figures. Stuff like PCMark10 results are worth talking about, because more often than not if you're on battery you're doing short, bursty workloads - the type of which is exactly what that suite tests.