Quote from: Lemon on April 13, 2020, 16:54:50
TDP =   thermal design power not how much power is used. People often get that confused.

really? so why users and media, and oems ofc , still uses this meaningless number?

Quote from: Lemon on April 13, 2020, 16:54:50
TDP =   thermal design power not how much power is used. People often get that confused.

While that's true, there is this thing called conservation of energy. If you actually follow TDP and choose a cooler capable of dissipating just 65 W, you'll be sacrificing performance. Inevitably, the 130 W boost will overwhelm the cooler. What people seem to forget is that turbo boost was meant, IIRC, to be temporary, short term boost. And if you look at it this way, Intel's TDP makes sense. But we've come to expect boost to be almost indefinite which is supported by marketing and media. And the chips can actually do it. If that's what you want to achieve, TDP is useless. It's also useless for sizing the power supply.

And that's what people criticize. The official TDP bares no relation to the touted performance.

Ha!!! direct comparison of Intel and AMD's TDP !!  the author is just an amateur.

At that pricing they don't look like very good value to me.

TDP =   thermal design power not how much power is used. People often get that confused.

Quote from: Bill on April 12, 2020, 14:10:05
I hate when articles list TDP.  Everyone in tech knows Intel TDP is at base clocks and typically run 2-3 times what they list... AMD are typically closer to actual power.  Intel chips are more power hungry since the last generation of chips.  Please don't just state Intel has a lower TDP because the average consumer thinks that means lower power, while that's not true at all.

I don't think specifications are out yet. If it's like the previous generation, turbo boost should be limited to 130 W. But there are motherboards that can push a lot more than that (well over 200 W), kind of turning a 9900 into a 9900K. The gap between them becomes pretty small. Of course, you're probably getting a lower bin silicon. I don't think this is what Intel wants. They want to sell you 9900K or 9900KS. But that's what you can get.

Yes, TDP is a pretty useless information. It tells me what it's intended for. Not much else. If you want to hit the same all core frequencies, you should count with +25 % compared to 9900. I wouldn't bet on it being much more efficient.

Quote from: Bill on April 12, 2020, 14:10:05
I hate when articles list TDP.  Everyone in tech knows Intel TDP is at base clocks and typically run 2-3 times what they list... AMD are typically closer to actual power.  Intel chips are more power hungry since the last generation of chips.  Please don't just state Intel has a lower TDP because the average consumer thinks that means lower power, while that's not true at all.

not an amd vs intel question but oem+media vs consumers. same with "ips" or "10th gen". marketing names against humanity.

I hate when articles list TDP.  Everyone in tech knows Intel TDP is at base clocks and typically run 2-3 times what they list... AMD are typically closer to actual power.  Intel chips are more power hungry since the last generation of chips.  Please don't just state Intel has a lower TDP because the average consumer thinks that means lower power, while that's not true at all.