stop thinking that AMD is more efficient!!!!!

[planetary problem]

intel has MUCH lower power draw while idling due to the (much hated) E-cores, these draw like 4 watts while idling and that's with the power measurement software running (its not much but maybe half a watt?). In comparison, AMD draws 50-30 watts while idling (50 watts for the duel CCD chips). i mean if you work on your PC 9 hours a day then AMD has lower total power draw but realistically, i don't think that most people do. also a honorable mention and "proof" of intel's efficiency is dragon range watching YouTube, literally half the battery life in the same capacity battery, in this case you cant even say that AMD performs better (dragon range is more performant for MT but almost within margin of error in ST), i can watch 4K YouTube on a i7 3770k from 10 years ago just fine (without frame drops). intel is not more efficient for everyone but mostly everyone.

 

one exception to what i am writing are the Ryzen 7000X3D CPUs during pure gaming, only the i3 12100 is better for performance per watt than them (in gaming), they still have worse idle (power wasted because of chiplet communication i think) but have enough of a lead during work to negate this (on most intel SKUs, the i5 13400(f) is pretty efficient, even when compared to the i5 12600k(f)). 

[Guest]

amd lower price go

 

 

 

Spoiler

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

[Blqckqut]

we arent

we just like low prices

i personaly dont care about power bill

we are fully aware of the power draw

 

until u start overclocking an intel chip the way ud overclock a ryzen, then ur left with a toasty mess

 

amd baby

[Fasauceome]

Usually when people reference the efficiency of AMD CPUs, they're talking about at load, not at idle. Not that it's not meaningful to compare idle power draw, because yes that does make a real difference, but it's a very relative comparison (until AMD decides to add E-cores then who knows what it will look like)

10 minutes ago, planetary problem said:

also a honorable mention and "proof" of intel's efficiency is dragon range watching YouTube, literally half the battery life in the same capacity battery, in this case you cant even say that AMD performs better

Laptops are a different story. People don't usually say that Ryzen CPUs are better or more efficient in laptops, and yes, if someone does say that they are probably mistaken. Only very recent AMD laptop CPUs have made good improvements in power efficiency.

[AndreiArgeanu]

I don't think most people care about efficiency that much. Unless the system is part of a large deployment in an office, school, etc. where there's 100's or even thousands of deployed systems you're not going to notice the difference in your powerbill. It also depends on your workload. If you spend most of your time browsing, then sure you'll see better efficiency with Intel, but you wouldn't be running the 300W 13900k anyway if that's what you spent most of your time doing anyway. If you do any CPU intensive workload, be it gaming, video editing, coding (code compilation primarily) you are going to see better efficiency with AMD, in either case you'll again, hardly see any difference on your bills unless it's a large deployment of computers.

 

The main reason I've chosen ryzen is price. Platform cost for AM4 is lower and so is the 5600 than the 12400, given the choice between spending 200£ vs 260£ to get similar performance. I'll take the cheaper option any day.

[planetary problem]

18 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

they're talking about at load, not at idle.

then why are people recommending them based on efficiency in new builds and planning?

 

20 minutes ago, Blqckqut said:

we just like low prices

of what? their CPUs are priced about the same in my opinion (more cores(intel) vs more ST performance (AMD), you pick) while having more expensive motherboards and RAM (in case of DDR 4 but intel also works with high latency, cheaper DDR5)

[GuiltySpark_]

1 minute ago, planetary problem said:

then why are people recommending them based on efficiency in new builds and planning?

What would be the reasoning not to? 

 

Are you suggesting that one of the two vendors we have for consumer CPU's should be avoided at all costs? 

[planetary problem]

10 minutes ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

I don't think most people care about efficiency that much.

fair enough, but still i still don't get why people think AMD is more efficient. hopefully meteor lake changes things (it likely will as they are jumping 2 proper TSMC nodes and a half proper TSMC nodes compared to AMD's half proper 1, not to mention the IPC difference and lower clocks (giving the same power to more silicon gives better performance)) (the proper is because TSMAC 4nm and 5nm are similar)

 

6 minutes ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

Are you suggesting that one of the two vendors we have for consumer CPU's should be avoided at all costs?

no, i have recommended Ryzen 7000 myself to many people, but what i am saying that there is one MAJOR factor that people seem to forget during the "it depends" argument, AMD does win in a lot of cases, but thing is so does intel and it depends on what you are doing. i started this thread because i think people just look at intel's lineup and go..... thats inefficient!, in reality, again, it depends

[John Reactor]

AMD CPUs power hungy? Pff. Did someone noticed how much power NVida GPUs are sucking from the wall? :)

[Avocado Diaboli]

My car is also highly fuel efficient while I'm not driving it.

[GuiltySpark_]

20 minutes ago, John Reactor said:

AMD CPUs power hungy? Pff. Did someone noticed how much power NVida GPUs are sucking from the wall?

Less then the current AMD ones, that's for sure. 

(why is this misinformation still still spread) 

[planetary problem]

15 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

My car is also highly fuel efficient while I'm not driving it.

there is a fundamental deference between standby (idling) and off, in you car scenario, standby would be waiting for the red light to turn green, how would you feel if you spent 1 liter of fuel just waiting for the light to turn green? now compare it to a car that uses 100ml while doing that , that's the comparison we are doing (in the context of a CPU )

[Avocado Diaboli]

9 minutes ago, planetary problem said:

there is a fundamental deference between standby (idling) and off, in you car scenario, standby would be waiting for the red light to turn green, how would you feel if you spent 1 liter of fuel just waiting for the light to turn green? now compare it to a car that uses 100ml while doing that , that's the comparison we are doing (in the context of a CPU )

If you let your car idle for hours, turn it off. Replace the word "car" with "PC". Same concept. Don't leave stuff running while you're not using it. Not that outlandish of a concept, right?

 

Never mind that electricity is still cheap enough that you could leave a PC idling for an entire month and pay next to nothing for it. Electricity is usually calculated based on kWh which tops out at 30 cents per kWh in the US for example. You do the math on how much you save. 

[Beerzerker]

5 minutes ago, planetary problem said:

there is a fundamental deference between standby (idling) and off, in you car scenario, standby would be waiting for the red light to turn green, how would you feel if you spent 1 liter of fuel just waiting for the light to turn green? now compare it to a car that uses 100ml while doing that , that's the comparison we are doing (in the context of a CPU )

I get what you are going with here but the thing is does an AMD use more power UNDER LOAD than an Intel or not?
Idle itself doesn't mean much since if a person is using the machine it's doing something (Work) and that's when it's demanding power which is alot of the time but to be fair, not all of it.

Yes, I agree that there are a ton of variables in play that can and will affect just how much power a chip will draw, the most obvious one is the exact chip model in question.
Naturally a smaller chip by Intel will draw less power than a larger cored chip from AMD and the reverse by name is true but one variable is the actual application of the system.
Is it being used for web surfing, gaming, video editing/encoding.... Or what?

Each useage has it's own set of power demands for whatever chip is doing the work.

If wanting to use a smaller chip for encoding, does it use less or actually more than a larger chip would, due to the longer time it spends under load doing this work such as taking 20 minutes to complete the work with a larger chip vs 3 hours to do the same thing with a smaller one?

Said power used being measured with a device that monitors power consumption like the power meter on the side of your home or apartment building that measures how much has been used over time.

Both makes are good for what they do, that much is true and even though I prefer AMD, I have and do use Intels too.
There is nothing by either that would make me want to go exclusive to one or the other, in my case it's simple preference.

[planetary problem]

5 minutes ago, Beerzerker said:

There is nothing by either that would make me want to go exclusive to one or the other, in my case it's simple preference.

that i think we can all agree on, for now... i started this thread because everyone seems to think AMD is more efficient.

 

16 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

If you let your car idle for hours, turn it off. Replace the word "car" with "PC". Same concept. Don't leave stuff running while you're not using it. Not that outlandish of a concept, right?

do the same thing with your phone and you will realize what im trying to say, and also i would prefer a 2 second wake up time with all my apps open instead of a 7 second on time with all the apps closed and windows running its whole other mess of stuff during boot

[Avocado Diaboli]

23 minutes ago, planetary problem said:

do the same thing with your phone and you will realize what im trying to say, and also i would prefer a 2 second wake up time with all my apps open instead of a 7 second on time with all the apps closed and windows running its whole other mess of stuff during boot

My phone doesn't get continuous power from the grid. My PC does. Also, you can put your PC into hibernate instead of sleep and basically continue where you left off with the same wake up time.

 

See the problem with your approach is to appeal to the notion that there is nuance but conveniently ignore the nuance inherent in the statement "AMD is more efficient". Because that's never the entire statement. You just chose to interpret it that way in order to go on your little rant that idle power draw is something people ignore when discussing power draw during work loads. Because that's usually what people are interested in, how much can X do with Y amount of power. The metric "how long can a PC idle with Y amount of power" is not important to most people. 

[WildDagwood]

15 minutes ago, planetary problem said:

that i think we can all agree on, for now... i started this thread because everyone seems to think AMD is more efficient.

 

do the same thing with your phone and you will realize what im trying to say, and also i would prefer a 2 second wake up time with all my apps open instead of a 7 second on time with all the apps closed and windows running its whole other mess of stuff during boot

When efficiency tests are being done it's while completing a task, so it's not incorrect when people say they're more efficient because that's what they're referring to. Granted, they could elaborate more on the statement, since it's not true as a broad stroke, but people care less about idle usage because, as others have mentioned, you can always shut it off when not doing anything. I really don't see the point in arguing about how efficient a processor is when doing nothing, personally.

 

You're shifting the goalpost then, because you caring about a few seconds to get going has nothing to do with processor efficiency, and certainly has no meaningful impact on your productivity. It seems like you're just ranting because your particular use case involves a lot of idling.

[maartendc]

I think this belief stems from the time of the 10900K, 11900K CPU's. Those were absolute power hogs to be able to come close to top AMD performance. And even then, the xx600K parts were not that bad.

 

I think people are slow to adapt their "common knowledge".

 

Also, the 5800X3D was pretty power efficient for the performance...

[BabaGanuche]

Why would I stop thinking something that is true? AMD is way more efficient than Intel for desktop CPU's with stock settings. This is a chart that shows the amount for energy for a CPU to compute a fixed amount of work. You have to go to 8th to get the first Intel CPU and 16th to get the second one.

 

 

 

Source:

Mic drop

[Fred Castellum]

1 hour ago, BabaGanuche said:

Why would I stop thinking something that is true? AMD is way more efficient than Intel for desktop CPU's with stock settings. This is a chart that shows the amount for energy for a CPU to compute a fixed amount of work. You have to go to 8th to get the first Intel CPU and 16th to get the second one.

After reading through the thread this is such a minor topic to complain about. Good video to bring up as a source but I think OP is complaining about the idle power draw on AMD vs Intel CPUs instead of under load. Still though... that comes down to how people use their systems(how long they idle vs go under load) and if they really care about the power draw at all.... power usage under load tends to be the bulk of where power is used in your whole session.

[cooky560]

At present, an AMD system meets my needs, so I'm buying AMD, if that changes, I will stop buying AMD. I don't get why people keep pushing for one system over another, buy what works for your needs.

[cmndr]

6 hours ago, planetary problem said:

intel has MUCH lower power draw while idling due to the (much hated) E-cores, these draw like 4 watts while idling and that's with the power measurement software running (its not much but maybe half a watt?)

$100ish 5600g on $80ish b450m say what?

 

---

 

With that said on a bang/$ perspective I do think Intel is the right, budget choice going much higher than that. Intel KNOWS they have the inferior product and they're pricing accordingly. Hard to beat 13600k and 13700k pricing. 

[WallacEngineering]

9 hours ago, planetary problem said:

intel has MUCH lower power draw while idling due to the (much hated) E-cores...

 

So a couple things here...

 

AMD is more efficient in some cases, less efficient in others, just watch some Gamers Nexus Reviews. Steve does a great job at including efficiency graphs.

 

So AMD 7000-X CPUs are NOT very efficient, that much is true. They are very power hungry and still loose to Intel in terms of single-core AND multi-core performance.

 

However, AMD 7000-NON-X CPUs are incredibly efficient at stock settings. Steve showed the number of watt-hours it took to render the GN logo and AMD Non-X CPUs reign supreme at stock settings. This is because they draw about 50% less power than the X CPUs but are only about 10% slower overall, this is enough to push the efficentcy curve above Intel's 13th Gen overall.

 

Also, the 7800X-3D in particular is the most efficient CPU in the world. And this isn't just in gaming - its also in productivity. You see, the 7900X-3D and 7950X-3D both have a CCD that does NOT have 3D V-Cache on it. Because of this, those cores can boost higher and draw lots more power.

 

 

But the 7800X-3D is a single CCD CPU, so ALL of its cores are lower-clocked with lower voltage and heat to protect the sensitive 3D Cache. Because of this, even under All-Core workloads, the 7800X-3D only draws about 80 watts, 90 if you overclock it. That's literally half the power draw of Intel's mid-range i5-13600K, but it's not that much slower in terms of getting the work done.

 

@BabaGanuche Thanks for the post to a Steve Review

 

AMD CPUs can become even more efficient still by utilizing undervolting which AMD CPUs take very well and yield absolutely stunningly efficient results.

 

To be honest, they can be even more efficient than this. Part of the reason AMD CPUs run so hot is the IHS. To retain AM4 cooler compatibility with the new AM5 platform, AMD made the IHS on the Ryzen 7000 CPUs super thick so it could fill the gap and make proper contact with existing AM4 coolers.

 

Why does this matter? Because the thick IHS traps heat, and a hotter CPU is automatically less efficent than a cool one. As heat rises, so does electrical resistance. This is a fundamental LAW of electricity and thermodynamics. As a CPU gets hotter, it needs more voltage and more wattage to stay at the same processing speed.

 

JaysTwoCents Modified his 7950X shortly after it came to market with the then-prototype DerBauer/Thermal Grizzly Ryzen 7000 Lapping tool and shaved 0.8mm off the IHS. This lowered temps by a staggering 12°C once he got it working properly with proper contact. And he didn't even do the best job, he rushed the process and ended up with an overall poor result.

 

If you were to properly lap and shave down a Ryzen 7000 IHS by the maximum 1.6mm supported by the Thermal Grizzly lapping tool, the result would be an incredibly efficient CPU the likes of which Intel could never hope to match in its wildest dreams.

 

I believe you need to do more research before you go on rants. Ive seen some of your other rants in the forums and once again they were far from accurate.

[planetary problem]

4 hours ago, WallacEngineering said:

I believe you need to do more research before you go on rants. Ive seen some of your other rants in the forums and once again they were far from accurate.

i never said intel is strait up better, and i also said this previously in this thread, they both have very good CPUs and their power efficiency depends on the workload. i started this thread cuz people seemed to think that AMD is strait up more efficient

 

4 hours ago, WallacEngineering said:

If you were to properly lap and shave down a Ryzen 7000 IHS by the maximum 1.6mm supported by the Thermal Grizzly lapping tool, the result would be an incredibly efficient CPU the likes of which Intel could never hope to match in its wildest dreams.

they just have a node advantage? and they both have thick IHS? intel is jumping 2.5 nodes with meteor lake, finally matching AMD node to node and then i think you will have a different opinion. i don't seem to be the one with poor research here

[Lurking]

On 5/4/2023 at 7:26 AM, planetary problem said:

intel has MUCH lower power draw while idling due to the (much hated) E-cores, these draw like 4 watts while idling and that's with the power measurement software running (its not much but maybe half a watt?). In comparison, AMD draws 50-30 watts while idling (50 watts for the duel CCD chips). i mean if you work on your PC 9 hours a day then AMD has lower total power draw but realistically, i don't think that most people do. also a honorable mention and "proof" of intel's efficiency is dragon range watching YouTube, literally half the battery life in the same capacity battery, in this case you cant even say that AMD performs better (dragon range is more performant for MT but almost within margin of error in ST), i can watch 4K YouTube on a i7 3770k from 10 years ago just fine (without frame drops). intel is not more efficient for everyone but mostly everyone.

 

one exception to what i am writing are the Ryzen 7000X3D CPUs during pure gaming, only the i3 12100 is better for performance per watt than them (in gaming), they still have worse idle (power wasted because of chiplet communication i think) but have enough of a lead during work to negate this (on most intel SKUs, the i5 13400(f) is pretty efficient, even when compared to the i5 12600k(f)). 

I'm sorry if I missed it. But where are you getting that 50W idle number from? My 7900  (dual CCD) uses 10-12W (EPO enabled) when idling (meaning just writing on this site and having 10 tabs open). It has a TDP (no EPO) of 65W, and uses 90W with no EPO under full load. So using 50W idling indeed would be bad. Currently 11 cores are sleeping and one at 600MHz. Sometimes 2 cores idle at 400MHz. So there is no way it would use a large fraction of the full 90W.  Many reviews also list the idle power consumption, so it isn't something that isn't talked about. It doesn't look like AMD is worse than Intel, at least not in a meaningful way.

 

You are correct, for normal use the load and idle power consumption matter. But you also have monitors, the MB, PSU inefficiencies and so on. i have two 43"monitors, i doubt 5W for CPU matters. But again, i don't even see what you say about 50W while idling. so if your 4W for intel and my 12W for AMD are true, we talk about 8W difference. Sure, would be nice to reduce the 8W. but this hardly is the deciding factor to go with AMD or Intel. 

 

Load power consumption is very important since the whole cooling (case, cooler, fans) design is based on that and also may require larger PSU. Anyone designing a PC will be concerned with cooling. It also can add a significant expense. So getting 50-100W less full load power draw is important, even if you don't run full load all the time.