Jump to content

Core i9-9900K Power & Thermals, Did Linus (and OC3D TV) Get it Wrong?

schwellmo92
3 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Car people are fng idiots for 100% directly causing the lack of investment and slow mass adoption of CVT. Properly designed they last longer, perform better, and have better efficiency. Ugh that makes me so pissed off as an engineer (with significant power systems experience).

 

Guess what? People thought CVTs were so boring and non-responsive that multiple manufacturers gave their CVT launches discrete steps to mimic the stupidity that is hardwired into people that lurching gear shifts are somehow more fun and better. Completely avoiding the point.

 

I swear, I've never in my life heard someone complain that a snowmobile was unfun to drive, and basically every snowmobile uses a cvt. CVT direct control and much more rapid feedback responses are way more engaging than slowass manuals (dual clutch manuals are not manuals. They never have been and never will be).

I have only ever heard people warn against CVT's here in Aus.  Much of the narrative I hear is attributed to mechanics who claim they are scrap metal after 100K.  I know nothing about them personally, but with that kind of reputation going around it doesn't surprise me that we don't see many of them advertised as a selling point.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Benjamins said:

Honestly I don't like the disconnect of car people vs engineers on their stance on the CVT.

For performance and efficiency the CVT is the best type of transmission.

 

But Manual is the most fun.

Try driving a manual in stop and go LA traffic.

 

Even with a motorcycle it's no fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

44 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I have only ever heard people warn against CVT's here in Aus.  Much of the narrative I hear is attributed to mechanics who claim they are scrap metal after 100K.  I know nothing about them personally, but with that kind of reputation going around it doesn't surprise me that we don't see many of them advertised as a selling point.

CVTs are newish, a lot of the newer versions are a lot better. but many car manufactures are moving towards CVT, like Subaru is CVT only for the past few years (in the auto trims). Toyota just made a new version in the past year or so.

 

 

40 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Try driving a manual in stop and go LA traffic.

 

Even with a motorcycle it's no fun.

Well I mean its more fun when you are driving for fun.

if you want to annoy me, then join my teamspeak server ts.benja.cc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

So do we have any conclusion? In order to keep the "best CPU for gaming" nice and cool. Set the TDP limit on the mobo for 95w. However, the performance will barely better than the "half as cheap" 2700X. Or we turn up the TDP limit, overclock the motherfxxker. But get ready to run it at TJmax all the time. Yeah, sure running the CPU at TJmax is just fine. Afterall, it's an Intel CPU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, asus killer said:

TDP is something subjective depending on how you measure it, you can see this by the discussion here. If they define their TDP values like that, i fell they aren't misleading no one. It's not even in small fine print, it's pretty obviously stated next to the value.

When it is used in one way for more than a decade, engineers and other people understood it in that way, than if you change your definition, you are wrong.

Simple as that.


And the TDP is understood as an upper limit while under load, in some cases even more than the maximum the CPU could produced, was introduced in the 90s.

And now you expect people to change their mind, when most apply to this old definition from the 90s? 
And even the compatition applys to those rules.

 

Then you are wrong, when everyone is against you.

5 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

CVT

Too complicated.

Ancient, wasn't really reliable.

Now with computer support they might be a bit better.

but they are said to be unreliable...

 

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

When are you going to realise that you are the only one who is wrong on this. 

100 People and 10 companys saying TDP is the maximum under normal operation with useful software and always was.

2 People and 1 Company saying the TDP is something at some "base clock", has a mode where this can be overshoot, without any information about this mode. And a Default where overshooting that is encouraged.

 

Who is wrong?!

 

And why do YOU defend Intel so much when they were the ones who originally defined the TDP?
That is the one you can read on Wikipedia, Wikichip and everyone agrees to that - just you do not. And Intel does not.

 

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

It has been explained to you at least 30-40 times on this forum by at least 5 different people now.  Your desire for TDP to be something it is not and your failure to understanding why that is important is what is the problem here, not Intel.

Its not just me.

Its a couple of people right now, after the 9900K Review.

Including Ian Cutress from Anandtech:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/21

 

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Seriously every single Intel thread gets derailed by you **** about TDP nowadays.  

1. I'm criticising the Intel TDP Definition, wich you don't seem to like for whatever reason...

2. I'm not alone (anymore), there are more people having doubts about the Intel TDP definition because in out of the box situations, the CPU doesn't abide by those rules, wich makes it kinda useless...

3. THEY changed their TDP definition. I cited their original definition.

from the "Measuring Processor Power - Intel" from Intel themselves.

 

4. It wasn't really an issue until now.

And even the Hardware press is taking this on...

"Hell is full of good meanings, but Heaven is full of good works"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deli said:

So do we have any conclusion? In order to keep the "best CPU for gaming" nice and cool. Set the TDP limit on the mobo for 95w. However, the performance will barely better than the "half as cheap" 2700X. Or we turn up the TDP limit, overclock the motherfxxker. But get ready to run it at TJmax all the time. Yeah, sure running the CPU at TJmax is just fine. Afterall, it's an Intel CPU.

Basically, essentially that's about the gist of it...

 


And don't criticize the Intel TDP definition, wich is at base clock or compare them with AMD TDP wich is on all circumstances. And cTDP is on at default on AMD, not Intel. But its the Motherboard manufacturers fault, not Intel who might have allowed or even encouraged that to look better in benchmarks...

"Hell is full of good meanings, but Heaven is full of good works"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

I have only ever heard people warn against CVT's here in Aus.  Much of the narrative I hear is attributed to mechanics who claim they are scrap metal after 100K.  I know nothing about them personally, but with that kind of reputation going around it doesn't surprise me that we don't see many of them advertised as a selling point.

Off topic rant #1

 

Spoiler

Some mainstream Nissan models had issues like that with the transmission, but realistically it isnt any different than the myriad of other vehicles that come up with issues with transmissions. Nissan offered 120k mile warrantees on the things with 'affected' units. Properly designed (again I emphasize this because stupid people have been encouraging companies to get away from proper design so that their perceived standard of expected behavior is met), belt driven systems are as reliable or more reliable than gear chains. Unfortunately chains/metal belts are perceived as up market and thus we get suck with inferior products in some cases. Also when chains/metal fails, the shrapnel causes enough damage that often the entire transmission just gets replaced instead. Sigh.

1 hour ago, The Benjamins said:

 

CVTs are newish, a lot of the newer versions are a lot better. but many car manufactures are moving towards CVT, like Subaru is CVT only for the past few years (in the auto trims). Toyota just made a new version in the past year or so.

 

 

Well I mean its more fun when you are driving for fun.

Off topic rant #2


 

Spoiler

 

In fairness, CVTs are literally 100+ years old and have been used for decades in basically every single snowmobile (I have a '67 Yamaha with a CVT for example). But yes the technology is still evolving a lot. But I think you take a lot of people who didnt grow up being told manual is better/more fun, and toss them in automatic (standard), automatic (dual clutch shifter), manual,  or cvt, no one would choose a manual.

 

People who want absolute control would choose dual clutch transmissions (which are NOT manual even when marketed as such, just as an automatic transmission in M with button shifting is not manual) because they offer the perceived benefits of manuals without half the delay and lurch, while being easier to drive and control (of course a purist might note that DCT is much heavier than conventional manuals and potentially harder to fix).

 

People who just want to feel the car respond to their touch as much as possible all the time would choose the CVT (similarly to how among certain car enthusiast circles w/ their head less stuck up you know where., direct drive electrics are extremely popular).

 

I also dont think anyone would choose standard automatics compared to cvt if again they hadn't been told that the conventional car noise/lurch profile is the best. 

 

An analogous statement in my mind is the extreme disproportionate popularity of Harley Davidson motorcycles in certain parts of the US purely because of cultural inertia.

 

 

LINK-> Kurald Galain:  The Night Eternal 

Top 5820k, 980ti SLI Build in the World*

CPU: i7-5820k // GPU: SLI MSI 980ti Gaming 6G // Cooling: Full Custom WC //  Mobo: ASUS X99 Sabertooth // Ram: 32GB Crucial Ballistic Sport // Boot SSD: Samsung 850 EVO 500GB

Mass SSD: Crucial M500 960GB  // PSU: EVGA Supernova 850G2 // Case: Fractal Design Define S Windowed // OS: Windows 10 // Mouse: Razer Naga Chroma // Keyboard: Corsair k70 Cherry MX Reds

Headset: Senn RS185 // Monitor: ASUS PG348Q // Devices: Note 10+ - Surface Book 2 15"

LINK-> Ainulindale: Music of the Ainur 

Prosumer DYI FreeNAS

CPU: Xeon E3-1231v3  // Cooling: Noctua L9x65 //  Mobo: AsRock E3C224D2I // Ram: 16GB Kingston ECC DDR3-1333

HDDs: 4x HGST Deskstar NAS 3TB  // PSU: EVGA 650GQ // Case: Fractal Design Node 304 // OS: FreeNAS

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Basically, essentially that's about the gist of it...

 


And don't criticize the Intel TDP definition, wich is at base clock or compare them with AMD TDP wich is on all circumstances. And cTDP is on at default on AMD, not Intel. But its the Motherboard manufacturers fault, not Intel who might have allowed or even encouraged that to look better in benchmarks...

The Intel TDP still works well for the likes of i5 8600. However we are enthusiast. If we buy a CPU like 9900k, of course we want the highest clock speed, performance possible. Technically, Intel isn't lying(Intel likes to play the game of definition). It's just very unfortunate the 95w TDP is an completely irrelevant piece of information for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Off topic rant #1

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Some mainstream Nissan models had issues like that with the transmission, but realistically it isnt any different than the myriad of other vehicles that come up with issues with transmissions. Nissan offered 120k mile warrantees on the things with 'affected' units. Properly designed (again I emphasize this because stupid people have been encouraging companies to get away from proper design so that their perceived standard of expected behavior is met), belt driven systems are as reliable or more reliable than gear chains. Unfortunately chains/metal belts are perceived as up market and thus we get suck with inferior products in some cases. Also when chains/metal fails, the shrapnel causes enough damage that often the entire transmission just gets replaced instead. Sigh.

Off topic rant #2


 

  Hide contents

 

In fairness, CVTs are literally 100+ years old and have been used for decades in basically every single snowmobile (I have a '67 Yamaha with a CVT for example). But yes the technology is still evolving a lot. But I think you take a lot of people who didnt grow up being told manual is better/more fun, and toss them in automatic (standard), automatic (dual clutch shifter), manual,  or cvt, no one would choose a manual.

 

People who want absolute control would choose dual clutch transmissions (which are NOT manual even when marketed as such, just as an automatic transmission in M with button shifting is not manual) because they offer the perceived benefits of manuals without half the delay and lurch, while being easier to drive and control (of course a purist might note that DCT is much heavier than conventional manuals and potentially harder to fix).

 

People who just want to feel the car respond to their touch as much as possible all the time would choose the CVT (similarly to how among certain car enthusiast circles w/ their head less stuck up you know where., direct drive electrics are extremely popular).

 

I also dont think anyone would choose standard automatics compared to cvt if again they hadn't been told that the conventional car noise/lurch profile is the best. 

 

An analogous statement in my mind is the extreme disproportionate popularity of Harley Davidson motorcycles in certain parts of the US purely because of cultural inertia.

 

 

Unlike Intel CPUs at the moment I like the CVT in my new Subaru Legacy (2018)

if you want to annoy me, then join my teamspeak server ts.benja.cc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Deli said:

It's just very unfortunate the 95w TDP is an completely irrelevant piece of information for us.

Quote

Technically, Intel isn't lying(Intel likes to play the game of definition).

And exactly that is the Problem, that the "Intel TDP" is a rather useless value right now for most people.
As shown in the example with the ISK110, you need to know the max. consumption of the CPU...

But also other Small Form Factor builds...

 

Cooling 150W with a Noctua NH-L12S isn't great...

"Hell is full of good meanings, but Heaven is full of good works"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

And cTDP is on at default on AMD, not Intel.

Yes it is, the Asus Maximus XI Hero default cTDP is 95W and that is why every review with the motherboard has lower thermals and power than every other review. Reviewers did NOT change that value, it is default and is following the Intel spec.

 

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

I'm not alone (anymore), there are more people having doubts about the Intel TDP definition because in out of the box situations, the CPU doesn't abide by those rules, wich makes it kinda useless...

The CPUs do abide by it, they won't if the motherboard changes the cTDP away from spec. They will however abide by what ever cTDP spec you set, if it's set higher than the upper power draw limit then you won't actually see the CPU hit power limits. For example if you set the cTDP on the 9900k to 140W it will not use any more power than that long term. cTDP is a hard limit, it's configurable but the CPU will not draw more than what the value is set to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yes it is, the Asus Maximus XI Hero default cTDP is 95W and that is why every review with the motherboard has lower thermals and power than every other review. Reviewers did NOT change that value, it is default and is following the Intel spec.

Looks like I was correct on my "120w is not enough for the rated all-core boost"

 

Quote

In this case, for the new 9th Generation Core processors, Intel has set the PL2 value to 210W. This is essentially the power required to hit the peak turbo on all cores, such as 4.7 GHz on the eight-core Core i9-9900K.

 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/21

In fairness, the PL2 is 210w but it ONLY drew 170w to get 4.7GHz on all cores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, schwellmo92 said:

Looks like I was correct on my "120w is not enough for the rated all-core boost"

They do note below during testing that it actually uses 168W for all core turbo, wonder where that 210W is documented though. I imagine other motherboard makers set their cTDP to that value, need someone with one of these Z390 to confirm what it is set to.

 

Also

Quote

If you believe that TDP is the peak power draw of the processor under default scenarios, then yes, TDP is pointless, and technically it has been for generations. However under the miasma of a decade of quad core processors, most parts didn’t even reach the TDP rating even under full load – it wasn’t until we started getting higher core count parts, at the same or higher frequency, where it started becoming an issue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

When everyone is wrong or "fails to understand", than the thing its about, is wrong.

Easy as that.

 

Or would you agree that FX9590 has a TDP of 95W as well??

 

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

Really you're going to blame Intel for others running their CPU out of spec just because they allow it? They could change it to a hard fixed limit but I bet you wouldn't actually like that.

I had a discussion with Buildzoid about this. The 95 watt TDP spec by Intel is correct and has always been the spec. The ones breaking it are motherboard manufacturers through the use of MCE and expanded power targets. The turbo frequency is something you should completely disregard. It's a frequency the CPU will target if thermals and TDP limits permit, but is by no means guaranteed, much like Nvidia's boost clock. The difference I'm seeing here is that the previous generations (probably) weren't constrained by TDP like the new 8 core part is, hence we did not see TDP throttling in reviews. So basically the turbo clocks are misleading and completely irrelevant in the case of the single and two core turbo because few applications that will actually be constrained by performance will use so few cores. Turbo clock is essentially "spec padding" for the product sheet.

CPU - Ryzen Threadripper 2950X | Motherboard - X399 GAMING PRO CARBON AC | RAM - G.Skill Trident Z RGB 4x8GB DDR4-3200 14-13-13-21 | GPU - Aorus GTX 1080 Ti Waterforce WB Xtreme Edition | Case - Inwin 909 (Silver) | Storage - Samsung 950 Pro 500GB, Samsung 970 Evo 500GB, Samsung 840 Evo 500GB, HGST DeskStar 6TB, WD Black 2TB | PSU - Corsair AX1600i | Display - DELL ULTRASHARP U3415W |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

100 People and 10 companys saying TDP is the maximum under normal operation with useful software and always was.

Good for them, TDP is specific to each manufacturer as defined by them, As has been pointed out too many times before you cannot mixn match TDP specs.  Why can you not understand this?

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

2 People and 1 Company saying the TDP is something at some "base clock", has a mode where this can be overshoot, without any information about this mode. And a Default where overshooting that is encouraged.

Good for them too, as I said above and as has been pointed out to you again and again, TDP spec is only relevant to the product.  You cannot say Intel's TDP is wrong because you prefer AMD.  It doesn't work that way.

 

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Who is wrong?!

You are.  Absolutely without question.

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

And why do YOU defend Intel so much when they were the ones who originally defined the TDP?

Why do you lie about it all the time?  They define the spec, the chip operates within that definition.  Why can't you handle that information?

Why do you insist on labeling the promotion of factual information as "defending Intel"?

 

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:


That is the one you can read on Wikipedia, Wikichip and everyone agrees to that - just you do not. And Intel does not.

you have been told numerous times that the wiki article does not define the TDP for Intel or any company.  This is not proof or evidence of anything except your serious lack of knowledge on the topic.

 

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Its not just me.

Its a couple of people right now, after the 9900K Review.

It's predominately you who has been corrected but keeps posting lies.

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Including Ian Cutress from Anandtech:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/21

 

1. I'm criticising the Intel TDP Definition, wich you don't seem to like for whatever reason...

2. I'm not alone (anymore), there are more people having doubts about the Intel TDP definition because in out of the box situations, the CPU doesn't abide by those rules, wich makes it kinda useless...

3. THEY changed their TDP definition. I cited their original definition.

from the "Measuring Processor Power - Intel" from Intel themselves.

 

4. It wasn't really an issue until now.

And even the Hardware press is taking this on...

 

Criticizing the Intel definition of TDP is fine, telling everyone it's wrong is lying about it.    The problem here is you make such silly statements about it.  It is as plain as day you don't understand it from the number of times you have brought up the most ridiculous of arguments and not realised how silly they are.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Carclis said:

 

 Turbo clock is essentially "spec padding" for the product sheet.

Turbo clock is like value adding, It's Intel's way of giving the customer the best permanence each chip can handle without modification.   It is also a way to ensure there is a minimum performance spec.   Which if you ask me should be how all products are made, imaging if car companies advertised the min  KW a motor produces, then gave you a scale of how much it can achieve for short periods under load?  

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Off topic rant #1

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Some mainstream Nissan models had issues like that with the transmission, but realistically it isnt any different than the myriad of other vehicles that come up with issues with transmissions. Nissan offered 120k mile warrantees on the things with 'affected' units. Properly designed (again I emphasize this because stupid people have been encouraging companies to get away from proper design so that their perceived standard of expected behavior is met), belt driven systems are as reliable or more reliable than gear chains. Unfortunately chains/metal belts are perceived as up market and thus we get suck with inferior products in some cases. Also when chains/metal fails, the shrapnel causes enough damage that often the entire transmission just gets replaced instead. Sigh.

Off topic rant #2


 

  Hide contents

 

In fairness, CVTs are literally 100+ years old and have been used for decades in basically every single snowmobile (I have a '67 Yamaha with a CVT for example). But yes the technology is still evolving a lot. But I think you take a lot of people who didnt grow up being told manual is better/more fun, and toss them in automatic (standard), automatic (dual clutch shifter), manual,  or cvt, no one would choose a manual.

 

People who want absolute control would choose dual clutch transmissions (which are NOT manual even when marketed as such, just as an automatic transmission in M with button shifting is not manual) because they offer the perceived benefits of manuals without half the delay and lurch, while being easier to drive and control (of course a purist might note that DCT is much heavier than conventional manuals and potentially harder to fix).

 

People who just want to feel the car respond to their touch as much as possible all the time would choose the CVT (similarly to how among certain car enthusiast circles w/ their head less stuck up you know where., direct drive electrics are extremely popular).

 

I also dont think anyone would choose standard automatics compared to cvt if again they hadn't been told that the conventional car noise/lurch profile is the best. 

 

An analogous statement in my mind is the extreme disproportionate popularity of Harley Davidson motorcycles in certain parts of the US purely because of cultural inertia.

 

 

Oh, I have no real personal opinion on them, I just thought it was interesting that your posts was reflective of my personal experience.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Turbo clock is like value adding, It's Intel's way of giving the customer the best permanence each chip can handle without modification.   It is also a way to ensure there is a minimum performance spec.   Which if you ask me should be how all products are made, imaging if car companies advertised the min  KW a motor produces, then gave you a scale of how much it can achieve for short periods under load?  

Well performing well for the 16 or so seconds before adhering to spec isn't going to help the consumer out (outside margin of error) in a lot of cases and it only muddies the water for those trying to gauge how much power the system will actually draw. For instance if your PSU was right on the limit but was able to support the CPU at it's rated TDP then the 16 seconds outside spec would lead to failure. It's also not guaranteed what clock speed will be settled on under prolonged loads and if it will be just the base clock or still a turbo speed. The issue now is that turbo speeds will last long enough to produce high scores for benchmarks and reviews but not long enough to provide benefits in real world tasks.

CPU - Ryzen Threadripper 2950X | Motherboard - X399 GAMING PRO CARBON AC | RAM - G.Skill Trident Z RGB 4x8GB DDR4-3200 14-13-13-21 | GPU - Aorus GTX 1080 Ti Waterforce WB Xtreme Edition | Case - Inwin 909 (Silver) | Storage - Samsung 950 Pro 500GB, Samsung 970 Evo 500GB, Samsung 840 Evo 500GB, HGST DeskStar 6TB, WD Black 2TB | PSU - Corsair AX1600i | Display - DELL ULTRASHARP U3415W |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Carclis said:

Well performing well for the 16 or so seconds before adhering to spec isn't going to help the consumer out (outside margin of error) in a lot of cases and it only muddies the water for those trying to gauge how much power the system will actually draw. For instance if your PSU was right on the limit but was able to support the CPU at it's rated TDP then the 16 seconds outside spec would lead to failure. It's also not guaranteed what clock speed will be settled on under prolonged loads and if it will be just the base clock or still a turbo speed. The issue now is that turbo speeds will last long enough to produce high scores for benchmarks and reviews but not long enough to provide benefits in real world tasks.

And that's the thing about TDP limits, frequencies will scale based on per core load up to the configured limit so there is no fixed or predetermined clocks. This is exactly the same as boost clocks on GPUs, frequencies will boost to the maximum possible within thermal and TDP limits and there is no fixed amount. It's different per game, per application and per cooling solution.

 

So it's totally fine that GPUs do this but not for CPUs, sounds like a double standard to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, leadeater said:

And that's the thing about TDP limits, frequencies will scale based on per core load up to the configured limit so there is no fixed or predetermined clocks. This is exactly the same as boost clocks on GPUs, frequencies will boost to the maximum possible within thermal and TDP limits and there is no fixed amount. It's different per game, per application and per cooling solution.

 

So it's totally fine that GPUs do this but not for CPUs, sounds like a double standard to me.

I sure hope no one finds out how IBM measures thermals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Oh, I have no real personal opinion on them, I just thought it was interesting that your posts was reflective of my personal experience.

I got that ;) I just wanted to vent a bit heh.

LINK-> Kurald Galain:  The Night Eternal 

Top 5820k, 980ti SLI Build in the World*

CPU: i7-5820k // GPU: SLI MSI 980ti Gaming 6G // Cooling: Full Custom WC //  Mobo: ASUS X99 Sabertooth // Ram: 32GB Crucial Ballistic Sport // Boot SSD: Samsung 850 EVO 500GB

Mass SSD: Crucial M500 960GB  // PSU: EVGA Supernova 850G2 // Case: Fractal Design Define S Windowed // OS: Windows 10 // Mouse: Razer Naga Chroma // Keyboard: Corsair k70 Cherry MX Reds

Headset: Senn RS185 // Monitor: ASUS PG348Q // Devices: Note 10+ - Surface Book 2 15"

LINK-> Ainulindale: Music of the Ainur 

Prosumer DYI FreeNAS

CPU: Xeon E3-1231v3  // Cooling: Noctua L9x65 //  Mobo: AsRock E3C224D2I // Ram: 16GB Kingston ECC DDR3-1333

HDDs: 4x HGST Deskstar NAS 3TB  // PSU: EVGA 650GQ // Case: Fractal Design Node 304 // OS: FreeNAS

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

And that's the thing about TDP limits, frequencies will scale based on per core load up to the configured limit so there is no fixed or predetermined clocks. This is exactly the same as boost clocks on GPUs, frequencies will boost to the maximum possible within thermal and TDP limits and there is no fixed amount. It's different per game, per application and per cooling solution.

 

So it's totally fine that GPUs do this but not for CPUs, sounds like a double standard to me.

Generally GPU rated boost clocks are available within their stated TDP (usually even higher boost than advertised), that's the difference here.

 

I'm not saying Intel are wrong, they obviously have some clever marketing but it is definitely misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

And that's the thing about TDP limits, frequencies will scale based on per core load up to the configured limit so there is no fixed or predetermined clocks. This is exactly the same as boost clocks on GPUs, frequencies will boost to the maximum possible within thermal and TDP limits and there is no fixed amount. It's different per game, per application and per cooling solution.

 

So it's totally fine that GPUs do this but not for CPUs, sounds like a double standard to me.

Oh and people accept that phones do this, and laptops do this.

LINK-> Kurald Galain:  The Night Eternal 

Top 5820k, 980ti SLI Build in the World*

CPU: i7-5820k // GPU: SLI MSI 980ti Gaming 6G // Cooling: Full Custom WC //  Mobo: ASUS X99 Sabertooth // Ram: 32GB Crucial Ballistic Sport // Boot SSD: Samsung 850 EVO 500GB

Mass SSD: Crucial M500 960GB  // PSU: EVGA Supernova 850G2 // Case: Fractal Design Define S Windowed // OS: Windows 10 // Mouse: Razer Naga Chroma // Keyboard: Corsair k70 Cherry MX Reds

Headset: Senn RS185 // Monitor: ASUS PG348Q // Devices: Note 10+ - Surface Book 2 15"

LINK-> Ainulindale: Music of the Ainur 

Prosumer DYI FreeNAS

CPU: Xeon E3-1231v3  // Cooling: Noctua L9x65 //  Mobo: AsRock E3C224D2I // Ram: 16GB Kingston ECC DDR3-1333

HDDs: 4x HGST Deskstar NAS 3TB  // PSU: EVGA 650GQ // Case: Fractal Design Node 304 // OS: FreeNAS

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carclis said:

Well performing well for the 16 or so seconds before adhering to spec isn't going to help the consumer out (outside margin of error) in a lot of cases and it only muddies the water for those trying to gauge how much power the system will actually draw. For instance if your PSU was right on the limit but was able to support the CPU at it's rated TDP then the 16 seconds outside spec would lead to failure. It's also not guaranteed what clock speed will be settled on under prolonged loads and if it will be just the base clock or still a turbo speed. The issue now is that turbo speeds will last long enough to produce high scores for benchmarks and reviews but not long enough to provide benefits in real world tasks.

But that's just it.   Intel have tested the chip and know it can get as high as X Freq (calling it the boost freq), but they cannot guarantee it will stay there because they have no control over the cooling solution, the load type or how clean the power is and so on.   That is why TDP is rated at base clock.  You buy a processor that runs at base, It is advertised to be able to boost to X freq. for short periods of heavy use,  but if you are going to force the chip to run in boost all the time then it is expected you know what you are doing.  It's like a car, the manufacturer guarantees the engine to run within it's RPM limit, if you remove the limiter and over rev the engine, is it now false advertising because the engine uses more petrol? is it now the manufactures fault that your tank is too small for longer trips?

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

So...skip this gen and not go Asus?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×