danbert2000x570 for ITX is pointless. And the 3700x will definitely still use less power than a 9700k. Some of those figures upthread were total system power draw, the CPU specific power draw tops off around 90-100 W.

So the real culprit here for the mass power usage is x570 chipset?

TurmaniaYour avg.Joe would have no idea how to update the bios to run a new gen cpu he will have to take it to the service or buy an old cpu. In any case a lot more money and time lost nevermind the inconvenience caused.

Easy solution to that problem is you look for a board with "AMD Ryzen 3000 Desktop Ready." Man, that took a lot of time, and effort to find.

Here's an example of the board I recently purchased.

TurmaniaSo the real culprit here for the mass power usage is x570 chipset?

Yes the x570 chipset is essentially one of the I/O dies from a Ryzen 3 processor pressed into use as a chipset controller. x570 boards also need PCIe redrivers which use power. With an x470 ITX board, you're going to be using a lot less power. Even in the case you would use an x570, the heat won't be going out through the processor so your CPU cooler would not be taxed extra. You would just get more heat in the case. But honestly, for an ITX system where you don't even have more than one PCIe slot, and what with the PCIe 4.0 SSDs not providing any real-world performance increases, it's just not necessary unless you absolutely need Thunderbolt, which I'm pretty sure is available on the AsRock x570 ITX boards.

www.thefpsreview.com/2019/07/08/amds-x570-chipset-is-definitely-more-power-hungry-than-x470/

This article states that the x570 can take 30 watts extra compared to the x470. The following TechPowerUp review was tested using x570:

www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-3700x/18.html

So if you subtract 30 watts from some of the under stress tests, you'll see that the 3700x is perfectly fine for ITX. In fact, with the x570 it's still neck and neck with the 9600k, 9700k at gaming with power consumption.

Intel could turn a lot around if they'd just be willing to drastically cut prices and compete instead of holding so fast to their premium price setup. They are slowly but, at this rate we'll be in 4th or 5th gen Ryzen before they price competitively.

Turmaniaplease explain

As other users and I have pointed out multiple times, the X3700 doesn't use more power than a competitive Intel chip.
The extra power draw is for the X570 board and chipset.
You don't need a X570 board to support a new X3700, a B series board will do it for cheaper, and the identical performance.
TDP isn't a measurement that we can compare from Intel to AMD due to the difference in how it's calculated.
AMD is cheaper for the same performance across every class, except where they have Intel beat at core counts, and now if the extra options matter (they don't).
Amazon prices USD today are.

X3700 399.00
9900K 494.00

Motherboards are about equal Intel board's do seem about $20 higher, so an extra 100 for a GPU goes a lot further than 100 more on a CPU.

Is any of this wrong?

Now we take the issues of the 9900K, it runs hot even with a good cooler. That costs more. With a standard air cooler a lot of users were reaching over 100C and the chip was throttling. So your accusations of AMD not reaching rated speed is invalid unless you also want to address Intel's issues with throttling.

Is there even a 9900K review with the stock cooler? No, as you need to buy a cooler, meaning an extra 40-50 minimum.

Have I gotten anything wrong yet?

SteevoHave I gotten anything wrong yet?

1. The difference in power of the chipset is a few W... nothing to write home about. I think 9W to 15W?? Something similar.
2. The X goes at the end.. 3700X. :p
3. No K series CPU includes a cooler IIRC.
4. X570's average board price is notably higher than Z390.

:)

TurmaniaYou keep on saying that a lot. But this thread was about going to be newly introduced I9 9900KS. yet many uninformed or should I dare to say in more political term, Some mislead souls, complaining about power usage and or heat levels and dare to say mislead information about 95W TDP values. I just wanted to inform that a supposedy same core and same thread cpu from AMD which has a 65W rating is more power hungry and runs hotter, nevermind its made from newly 7nm process and or not reaching its rated clocks. I am not talking about myself but more for your average user Joe.

That graph is whole system load under a gaming title. It is flawed to conclude that two CPUs are equal in maximum power consumption from such a chart. Gaming does not fully load a multi core CPU versus something like encoding. That is why CPUs of all types are so close together, as I bet none of them are even remotely close to their maximum possible power consumption. I guess if you game 24/7, that 10w of savings could add up, but that is in the margin of error when it comes to the net system consumption. Just look at how more powerful CPUs of the same architecture and generation don’t even scale appropriately on that graph. I wouldn’t hang any conclusions on it with such inconsistencies.

las9900KS won't run hot using decent cooling. 9900K can run 5 GHz on all cores using cheap 240 aio or dual tower air coolers like nh-d14/d15.

My 9900K at 5.2 GHz (no AVX offset) peaks at 50C in gaming using custom water, 8 year old head and low ppi rads .. Same head that I used on my 2600K back in the days, for 4.8 GHz..

Performance is clearly improved compared to stock (watch any review that tests 9900K stock vs 5 GHz and you'll see the same).

Games don't just use one thread, lol?

9900K already beats 3900X in most real world testing and 9900KS will beat it even more

Anyone that has experience with high fps gaming and emulation software knows what I'm talking about

Just to clarify, i know most games run multiple cores. But there are still some games around like Stellaris, which run only on one core.

@las I bought the 9900K especially for Primegrid, since it has a very high AVX Performance. But when i run it with Primegrid, it can draw as much as 240W. You can PM me, when you would like to test your setup with Primegrid.
And when you argue, that your emulators are well optimized for intel CPUs, Primegrid is as well. And since the intel hasn't changed it's architecture over the last few years, Primegrid can utilize the CPUs very well. And i would like to see, if you could run it with your clocks :)

EarthDog1. The difference in power of the chipset is a few W... nothing to write home about. I think 9W to 15W?? Something similar.
2. The X goes at the end.. 3700X. :p
3. No K series CPU includes a cooler IIRC.
4. X570's average board price is notably higher than Z390.

:)

1. There is a 30W difference shown in many reviews.
2. Dammit Jim
3. Exactly, anyone who claims Intel is cheaper apples to apples is wrong.
4. I wouldn't buy a X570 board, and the apples to apples comparison would be a X470 board.

But I'm glad I got it right. I'm all for competition, it gets us the consumer the best options.

Steevo1. There is a 30W difference shown in many reviews.
2. Dammit Jim
3. Exactly, anyone who claims Intel is cheaper apples to apples is wrong.
4. I wouldn't buy a X570 board, and the apples to apples comparison would be a X470 board.

But I'm glad I got it right. I'm all for competition, it gets us the consumer the best options.

1. The difference is single watts between x470 and x570 pch. Not much. It's on amd slides. If you have a link testing only the pch draw, link me. Otherwise it was 4.8W (x470) to 11W in x570)
www.anandtech.com/show/14161/the-amd-x570-motherboard-overview
3. You asked about reviews with one.. I was explaining why there are none. You arent overclocking amd without a half decent cooler either...not that it can get past it's own feet.
4. What you would buy and apples to apples may be different things. Z390 and x570 are apples to apples... or z370 and x470...etc. But when talking chipsets designed for the platform, latest cpu and mobo vs latest cpu and mobo, x570 is more expensive.

Not trying to prove or disprove your other talking points. Nor do I want to discuss it. But just clarifying. :)

EarthDog1. The difference is single watts between x470 and x570 pch. Not much. It's on amd slides. If you have a link testing only the pch draw, link me. Otherwise it was 4.8W (x470) to 11W in x570)
www.anandtech.com/show/14161/the-amd-x570-motherboard-overview
3. You asked about reviews with one.. I was explaining why there are none. You arent overclocking amd without a half decent cooler either...not that it can get past it's own feet.
4. What you would buy and apples to apples may be different things. Z390 and x570 are apples to apples... or z370 and x470...etc.

Not trying to prove or disprove your other talking points. :)

X570 has PCIe4, where is the Intel board with it?
Almost every review has shown just using PBO/Stock turbo and letting it do it's magic results in the best performance, so why screw with a good thing?



amp.hothardware.com/news/amd-x570-chipset-voracious-power-consumption-compared-x470

www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_x470_vs_x570_review/29

Almost all show 30W difference, and the same performance.

Pushing my Ryzen 5 3600 at stock settings shows a Package Power of 87.23 watts otherwise it's at or under 65 watts.

SteevoX570 has PCIe4, where is the Intel board with it?
Almost every review has shown just using PBO/Stock turbo and letting it do it's magic results in the best performance, so why screw with a good thing?



amp.hothardware.com/news/amd-x570-chipset-voracious-power-consumption-compared-x470

www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_x470_vs_x570_review/29

Almost all show 30W difference, and the same performance.

first link shows exactly what I said...read the graph the review.

Second link isnt chipset alone... if I missed it, I'm mobile...sorry.

The loose graph isnt apples to apples. Different motherboards and chips. Again, specs show 4.8 and 11W.

Again, not getting into the merits or demerits of the platform (but if you want a nugget to chew on, pcie 4.0 is just about useless unless you're packing 3 m.2 drives or a rare breed that can utilize the bandwidth in faster drives - surely means nothing for gpus considering 3.0 x16 doesnt bottleneck a 2080ti - maybe in a few years.. but by then, intel will be there too)....just facting...take or leave it... I'm out. :)

Is this release boring as hell and not interesting at all?

Prima.VeraIs this release boring as hell and not interesting at all?

Yes

Prima.VeraIs this release boring as hell and not interesting at all?

For me it is funny :)

aaroliini1Have you read this www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-3600/4.html ? You only loose around 5% using ryzen 3000 prosessors while using fastest gpu today. If you downgrade to something like 1080 gtx or lower you won't see hardly any difference in fps. And if you are using 2080ti that 10-30 fps increase is pretty useless. You're still getting over 140fps almost in every game.

I have intell 9700k and my brother has ryzen 3700 and both have 1080ti. I have better fps in every game but you cant tell difference in game if fps display is not on.

Yes, I can easily tell the difference between 80-120 fps and 100-140 fps. Difference between fps drops to 80 and 100 is like night and day for me. The magic with a high refresh rate monitor happends at 100+ fps for me and pretty much everyone I know who also uses HRR monitors. I prefer 120 minimum tho and will most often lower graphical settings till this happends. I don't tolerate drops below 100, it feels like stuttering when this happends. FPS over IQ any day. Smoothness is number one. Something many Ryzen owners seems to not care about, and it's fine, some people just like putting everything at Ultra and stay in the 40-80 fps range (GPU BOUND). I simply won't.

When you run games like I do, and most serious or competitive players do, CPU will be the bottleneck, the end. Ryzen has much lower min, max and avg fps when CPU is bottleneck for gaming in pretty much every game outthere and this is a fact.

Go watch this video instead -
9700K easily beats 3900X in gaming. Especially in minimum fps. There is simply way too many games that perform much worse on Ryzen compared to Intel (when looking at CPU bound / high fps gaming instead of GPU bound). Yes, some games perform decent on Ryzen and people love to mention these titles, just like they love to talk about Cinebench numbers (except single thread it seems), in reality, the overall performance is lacking. With Intel you get solid performance across the board, not just in a few titles. There is not a SINGLE GAME where Intel CPU results in subpar performance. Every game performs flawless using an Intel chip, 8th + 9th gen at 5+ GHz, as good as it gets for gaming and emulation.

This is why 120-240 Hz monitor owners should choose carefully. Nothing new here. Ryzen 3000 is doing better than 1000/2000 but Intel 8th/9th gen is beating Ryzen 3000. In some games we're talking 25-40% higher minimums (again, watch the 40 min video instead of simply denying this fact - Watch current fps instead of avg and watch carefully when he talks about minimums, AMD is simply not on par.) Avg. fps is "only" 10-20% better but minimum can be 25-50% higher at times, only for a few seconds sometimes, but you will feel it instantly. I know I will.

Watch how much behind the 2700X is too ... ALOT - And people claimed 2700X was only 5-10% slower in gaming ... Yeah right. 1st gen Ryzen was (and is) terrible for high fps gaming, 2nd gen was better but still much slower than newer Intel chips. 3rd gen Ryzen is somewhat "fine" but Intel is clearly still better, especially true if you're not a 30-60 fps gamer using a 60 Hz monitor.

High fps gamers knows what I'm talking about..

@las Did you read my last message about my use-case for the 9900K and why it is not practical for me?

trparkyYeah, because it's got to be stupid high. They don't want to scare people off.

OK sure, go Intel and get five to eight percent more performance while paying nearly thirty percent more. That makes a hell of a lot of sense. NOT!

Not everyone needs ultra-extreme high FPS, that's something that only the top one percent of gamers want; the rest of us will get what offers the best bang for the buck and that's AMD.

What's your definition of cheap? Money doesn't grow on trees for many of us.

Now that I've seen benchmarks of Ryzen 3000 I really do have to admit that going with the 8700K was a mistake. The Z370 chipset is essentially dead and so I have no upgrade path, thanks a lot Intel.

Intel is much faster than 5-8% haha, unless you do GPU bound gaming maybe. Obviously CPU does not matter much if you're GPU Bound.

Even 8700K wrecks 3900X in gaming when both are overclocked.

Why do you need an upgrade path? You change your CPU every year or? Makes no sense. Unless your CPU is inferior to begin with and you already KNOW you will replace it ASAP (like 1st gen Ryzen owners did)

This is my problem, especially since i run heavily optimized AVX 2 stuff

in a nit picking world life can get really complicated.. he he..

i only game and do normal stuff and my answer to the 9900K out of spec over heating problem is to turn hyper thread off.. its the only way i can run 5 g on all cores without hitting 100 C.. my gaming and benchmark temps with HT off are just below 70 C..

trog

It seems x570 is the real culprit here for making ryzen cpus consume more power. They made it more efficient but at the same time less with the introduction of x570. Kind of shooting themselves in the foot. Having a fan in the size of 4cm in those motherboards would make you question the longetivity and the sound of the system as well. I don't know why AMD was in such a rush to bring out that chipset. Perhaps they should fix the software and bios issues first before selling the products. But this has always been AMD's problem even with their new gpu's. Send first fix later.Intel on the other hand, should focus on more with their 10nm process and actually stop stalling it with these cosmetic makeovers like i9 9900ks.hoping to buy some more time with it.

TurmaniaIt seems x570 is the real culprit here for making ryzen cpus consume more power. They made it more efficient but at the same time less with the introduction of x570. Kind of shooting themselves in the foot. Having a fan in the size of 4cm in those motherboards would make you question the longetivity and the sound of the system as well. I don't know why AMD was in such a rush to bring out that chipset. Perhaps they should fix the software and bios issues first before selling the products. But this has always been AMD's problem even with their new gpu's. Send first fix later.Intel on the other hand, should focus on more with their 10nm process and actually stop stalling it with these cosmetic makeovers like i9 9900ks.hoping to buy some more time with it.

The difference between X470 and X570 chipsets is 4.8W to 11W.

lasIntel is much faster than 5-8% haha, unless you do GPU bound gaming maybe. Obviously CPU does not matter much if you're GPU Bound.

Even 8700K wrecks 3900X in gaming when both are overclocked.

Because some of us don’t have money trees in our backyards. In my case, I’d be GPU bound because of the GTX1060 that I have. My GPU will be maxed out long before my CPU, even with a Ryzen chip. As for getting the higher end nVidia’s GPUs, I can’t afford them.

Besides, I straight up refuse to pay more than $400 for GPU. I won’t give that greedy bastard at nVidia any more money than I have to.

emotional bunch of people on these forums