Intel 9th Gen Paid Benchmarks Take Advantage of NDA Periods

[Stefan Payne]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You know I've looked on the box,  I can't find an image of one that does.  In fact the spec sheet (in arc or bellow the product) is the only place I have seen the TDP.

both my LGA2011 i7 have TDP mentioned.

Its on the Sticker with the Barcodes, first line:
"i7-3820 3.6GHz 10MB Cache, LGa2011 130"

Same with the 3930K

 

The i7-920 does not have it...

 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

...wich makes it totally useless and sugarcoated, wich is what I'm talking about the whole time.

And Intel should be criticised for such a useless definition without much real world usage...

No, it makes it a simple spec that is defined so that engineers can make a cooling solution to suit the intended end use. It is not useless at all, not by any stretch of the imagination.

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

That is the new definition that Intel changed - and nobody noticed.

Everyone noticed. Please.

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

I've linked an old document citing the old Intel TDP specification, from the "Measuring Processor Power Document", though its a bit older (April 2011):

"Intel defines TDP as follows:  The upper point of the thermal profile consists of the Thermal Design Power (TDP) and the associated Tcase value.  Thermal Design Power (TDP) should be used for processor thermal solution design targets. TDP is not the maximum power that the processor can dissipate. TDP is measured at maximum TCASE.1.  The thermal profile must be adhered to to ensure Intel’s reliability requirements are met.  Note:  Different processors SKU’s have different TDP’s.  At the time of this writing, Intel® Xeon® processors for 2 socket servers (5600 series) are available with a TDP specification from 40W up to 130W depending on the particular SKU1. "

 

Products and end uses change, as such so does the way in which the engineering specs are measured and presented.  If you change materials when building a bridge you would design it using the old data sheet would you?  Of course not.

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Somewhere between then and now they changed the TDP definition from this upper limit to something towards the Baseclock - without the introduction of another power measurement for maximum boost frequency/turbo...

Yes, most likely becasue the upper limit back then was where the CPU always ran, I.E before Dynamic frequency scaling. No need to set a frequency  base frequency if the clock doesn't go past it under normal end user conditions.

 

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

...wich is the point I'm trying to make...

At least one that agrees with me here.

And no, I'm not misunderstanding it, Intel is sugarcoating it and its a mostly useless value with the changes they made sometime in the last couple of years. Because most of the Time, the Intel TDP was the upper end of power to be dissipated, not the lower end like today.

You are misunderstanding.  Not every manufacturers intends for the CPU to run at full boost, it is dynamic, if a manufacturers know s the CPU will only ever run at base because it is a HTPC or a security camera PC then they only need a cooling solution to work at base clocks.

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

They did that because they had to print 125 or maybe even 150W TDP on the box without the change to the specification, if they would have stuck with the old definition they used for more than 10 years (since the Original Pentium! or even before that).

For example:

https://ark.intel.com/products/49949/Intel-Pentium-Pro-Processor-166-MHz-512K-Cache-66-MHz-FSB

https://ark.intel.com/products/49935/Intel-Pentium-II-Processor-233-MHz-512K-Cache-66-MHz-FSB

 

...wich nobody really does and is also the lower limit of the CPU under load...

So they never should have called this number "TDP" but something else (SDP for example, mentioned before)...

 

Thing is that the Turbo boost is part of the default configuration and should be included into the TDP and not excluded like they did here...

Thing is thaty not all end uses require turbo boost and the TDP spec is for engineers not consumers.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

both my LGA2011 i7 have TDP mentioned.

Its on the Sticker with the Barcodes, first line:
"i7-3820 3.6GHz 10MB Cache, LGa2011 130"

Same with the 3930K

 

The i7-920 does not have it...

 

so it's in with the product specs and not part of the marketing guff.  That makes a huge difference you know.

 

 

[leadeater]

19 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

TDP is not the maximum power that the processor can dissipate. TDP is measured at maximum TCASE.1.

Measured at maximum TCASE means base clocks, that's how the thermal management of the CPU works. Once you're at TCASE you're at base frequency, it's just not literally spelled out.

 

20 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Somewhere between then and now they changed the TDP definition from this upper limit to something towards the Baseclock - without the introduction of another power measurement for maximum boost frequency/turbo...

See above.

 

CPUs in 2011 had boost clocks and were TDP rated at base clocks

CPUs in 2018 have boost clocks and are TDP rated at base clocks.

 

I'm not sure what's changed?

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I'm not sure what's changed?

 The hatred for Intel is more intense since then maybe?

[Droidbot]

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

...and thus it is totally fine to critizize them when they are sugarcoating their TDP definition, wich Intel seems to do, wich leads to problems with notebooks and other stuff...

Manufacturers have a seperate document describing the power usage and power behaviour of the processors they are designing for. 

[leadeater]

29 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

if they would have stuck with the old definition they used for more than 10 years (since the Original Pentium! or even before that).

For example:

https://ark.intel.com/products/49949/Intel-Pentium-Pro-Processor-166-MHz-512K-Cache-66-MHz-FSB

https://ark.intel.com/products/49935/Intel-Pentium-II-Processor-233-MHz-512K-Cache-66-MHz-FSB

Not possible, those old CPUs have no boost states, very limited power states (power gating) or any real power saving features at all. They are either in a limited form of idle state but operating at full frequency or at full power state and full frequency, entering idle state was very rare.

 

Since every SKU has a different frequency and no clock controls they all require their own TDP ratings.

 

These conditions cannot be brought forward to CPUs of today, we have many power state controls, idle/sleep state controls as well as boost states. Yesteryear TDPs died when variable clocks became a thing.

[lacion]

I wonder, where this benchmarks released only for US-based marketing? or were they also released officially for other countries?

 

for the looks of it, looks like they would be violating a bunch of regulation on advertising in the EU

[pas008]

8 minutes ago, lacion said:

I wonder, where this benchmarks released only for US-based marketing? or were they also released officially for other countries?

 

for the looks of it, looks like they would be violating a bunch of regulation on advertising in the EU

how so? plz explain

[JoostinOnline]

3 hours ago, Fooshi said:

"X is just as bad as Y, though" is not a legit argument.

It is when someone is pretending that who they buy from is better. I'm under no illusions about Intel. They're an awful company. But so are AMD, NVIDIA, Google, Microsoft, etc. If you really think that a biased advertisement is the worst of the worst then you aren't at all familiar with the industry. Nobody actually believed the 9900k was 50% faster in gaming, or made purchases based on that.

[lacion]

18 hours ago, pas008 said:

how so? plz explain

AFAIK you can't do any type of false advertising, like including false facts.

 

one of the reasons why you never see any kind of numbers or single studies attach to marketing.

[GoldenLag]

15 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

Nobody actually believed the 9900k was 50% faster in gaming, or made purchases based on that.

you would be surprised.............

 

local articles put the 5,2ghz overclock (leak) at 1,5volts on the 9600k as an quote: "amazing upgrade over the 8600k"..............

[pas008]

2 hours ago, lacion said:

AFAIK you can't do any type of false advertising, like including false facts.

 

one of the reasons why you never see any kind of numbers or single studies attach to marketing.

what advertising?

wasnt this just intel sponsored?

with only intel confirm its right on their end of intel products?

how can intel confirm any of amds numbers? are they amd now?

[lacion]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

what advertising?

wasnt this just intel sponsored?

with only intel confirm its right on their end of intel products?

how can intel confirm any of amds numbers? are they amd now?

Do you talk only in questions?

[pas008]

3 minutes ago, lacion said:

Do you talk only in questions?

answer them and you will have your own answer

 

[lacion]

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

answer them and you will have your own answer

 

how on earth can i answer your questions if i was asking one.

 

 

do you realize we had 3 interactions so far and yours been 99% questions

[pas008]

1 minute ago, lacion said:

how on earth can i answer your questions if i was asking one.

 

 

do you realize we had 3 interactions so far and yours been 99% questions

lol so

answer those questions and then tell me how intel would have any problems in eu

[lacion]

Just now, pas008 said:

lol so

answer those questions and then tell me how intel would have any problems in eu

i never said intel will have a problem in the EU, hence why i started my interactions in this thread with a question.

 

 

[pas008]

6 minutes ago, lacion said:

i never said intel will have a problem in the EU, hence why i started my interactions in this thread with a question.

 

 

thats why I asked my questions to have you come to your own conclusion

 

everyone is crying foul, but intel just sponsored and confirmed their numbers

[lacion]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

thats why I asked my questions to have you come to your own conclusion

 

everyone is crying foul, but intel just sponsored and confirmed their numbers

dude, relax, i was asking a question.

 

stop acting like some kind of white knight

[pas008]

3 minutes ago, lacion said:

dude, relax, i was asking a question.

 

stop acting like some kind of white knight

white knight lol

I am simply pointing out the facts

and also its most likely why many others have washed it over

[lacion]

Just now, pas008 said:

white knight lol

I am simply pointing out the facts

and also its most likely why many others have washed it over

you're not pointing any facts, your only asking questions as answers to other questions.

[pas008]

16 minutes ago, lacion said:

you're not pointing any facts, your only asking questions as answers to other questions.

facts because you should know the answers to those questions after reading the article

 

and then you can come up with your conclusion which is intel sponsored these

company fucked up amds, intel cant confirm amds numbers its not intels product, but can confirm their own product

and if you want more info you would know many companies have done many benchmark/s releases or previews before nda was up with other sponsored companies too

[lacion]

2 hours ago, pas008 said:

facts because you should know the answers to those questions after reading the article

 

and then you can come up with your conclusion which is intel sponsored these

company fucked up amds, intel cant confirm amds numbers its not intels product, but can confirm their own product

and if you want more info you would know many companies have done many benchmark/s releases or previews before nda was up with other sponsored companies too

wtf does that have to do with my question?

[pas008]

1 minute ago, lacion said:

wtf does that have to do with my question?

simple

does intel own this? so how in the world can they get in trouble with eu if they dont own this article they only sponsored it