Quote from: _MT_ on February 01, 2021, 13:23:35Quote from: Grinnie Jax on February 01, 2021, 05:05:10High-end motherboards are designed to allow overclocking. That's where things can get complicated. And yes, the 900K has a very big short term power limit that an Epyc or Xeon wouldn't have to be ashamed of (or would they, since efficiency can matter in servers quite a lot). Also, quite a lot of the manufacturers have a history of "cheating" - tricking the processors into drawing more power than they should, ignoring Intel's guidelines. You could have even something like 9700 consume horrendous amounts of power because of it, trying to brute force some extra performance out of the chip. Because of the nature of the power and performance relationship, you can reduce power draw into sane levels without much sacrifice. Not to mention that these extreme power draws tend to be in AVX512 workloads. Which Ryzen doesn't support.
2) Secondly, power consumption. Rocket Lakes are damn power hogs, easy to see from the leaks and the mere fact that Z590 boards have power stages enough for 64-core Threadripper. Several leaks suggest that 250-300W under load for sure.
So no, these processors shouldn't consume 300 W and certainly not for prolonged periods. Unless the motherboard is naughty and is trying to fry your processor. 11900K shouldn't be any less efficient than 10900K and there are two fewer cores to feed (so, at any given all-core frequency, you should see at least 20 % less power being drawn just because there are 20 % fewer cores).
Quote from: Zulny R on February 01, 2021, 03:39:25That's not how TDP works. When AMD says 5900X has 105 W TDP, it doesn't mean it has a 105 W power limit. Not long term, not short term. It's just a number their marketing people happen to like. It doesn't really have a meaning. How much it will really take depends quite a bit on temperature. Simply put, the better cooling you have, the more power it will take (and the more performance it will give). You can't compare TDP figures. Intel and AMD have different ways of calculating it and at least in the case of AMD, it truly is meaningless. It's really quite funny. I recommend you look it up. You'd need to know actual power limits. And then you need motherboards that actually follow the guidelines and do what Intel and AMD say they should. It can be a surprising amount of work getting a stock motherboard to behave like it should.
For short time, YES
Rendering more than 5 minute 11900k will clock at 3.5 GHz @ 125 watt while 5800x will clock at 3.8 @ 105 watt
5800x will be faster
Unless you tinkering TDP , for prolonged gaming 5800x will be faster
Quote from: Grinnie Jax on February 01, 2021, 05:05:10High-end motherboards are designed to allow overclocking. That's where things can get complicated. And yes, the 900K has a very big short term power limit that an Epyc or Xeon wouldn't have to be ashamed of (or would they, since efficiency can matter in servers quite a lot). Also, quite a lot of the manufacturers have a history of "cheating" - tricking the processors into drawing more power than they should, ignoring Intel's guidelines. You could have even something like 9700 consume horrendous amounts of power because of it, trying to brute force some extra performance out of the chip. Because of the nature of the power and performance relationship, you can reduce power draw into sane levels without much sacrifice. Not to mention that these extreme power draws tend to be in AVX512 workloads. Which Ryzen doesn't support.
2) Secondly, power consumption. Rocket Lakes are damn power hogs, easy to see from the leaks and the mere fact that Z590 boards have power stages enough for 64-core Threadripper. Several leaks suggest that 250-300W under load for sure.
Quote from: i9 on January 31, 2021, 20:57:13Quote from: ariliquin on January 31, 2021, 10:21:30
Single thread only, and almost no difference to top AMD CPU, what's the point when the AMD smashed the Intel in multicore and power consumption?
To be honest, those 8 Intel i9 cores are enough to beat latest ryzen 9 cores in programs that uses upto 10 cores which is vast majority of the programs. But there are a few highly threaded programs for rendering / cinema3D that can effectively use more than 10 Ryzen cores. For everyone else Intel systems will be faster. Also i9 is cheaper than Ryzen 9 since you don't have to pay for the additional cores that will be unused almost all the time.
Quote from: i9 on January 31, 2021, 20:57:13Quote from: ariliquin on January 31, 2021, 10:21:30
Single thread only, and almost no difference to top AMD CPU, what's the point when the AMD smashed the Intel in multicore and power consumption?
To be honest, those 8 Intel i9 cores are enough to beat latest ryzen 9 cores in programs that uses upto 10 cores which is vast majority of the programs. But there are a few highly threaded programs for rendering / cinema3D that can effectively use more than 10 Ryzen cores. For everyone else Intel systems will be faster. Also i9 is cheaper than Ryzen 9 since you don't have to pay for the additional cores that will be unused almost all the time.
Quote from: ariliquin on January 31, 2021, 10:21:30
Single thread only, and almost no difference to top AMD CPU, what's the point when the AMD smashed the Intel in multicore and power consumption?