Seems it's not just Intel with higher TDP on new(er) CPUs

It's sound bad.....The worlds today have fuel crisis, mean while it-productions still sleepings beauty...:sleep:

170W for 16 full fat hyperthreaded cores seems like a reasonable number. Same per-core as 85W for 8 cores and 43W for quad core.

Don't need 16 cores or want to use 170W of power? I'll bet AMD has some lower power and core count parts for you.

Please AMD dont follow Intel down this dark path.

16 cores plus IGP, aren’t all this series supposed to have IGP?

So if the 170W is for both that isn’t bad especially if it’s able to game at 1080 in one chip.

Aren't these chips supposed to have a built in GPU, albeit a very basic one?

TheLostSwedeAren't these chips supposed to have a built in GPU, albeit a very basic one?

yes the increase in TDP is probably due the high clocks Zen 4 will be using not a huge deal to be honest. This isn't the second coming of Rocket lake like some people will be posting in this thread.

if you want a powerful CPU get cooling to match, otherwise buy a lower powered CPU. That's what i have done, rather than whine how much power it uses.

Can't wait to see how AMD handle a LGA socket for these.

The 5950x with PBO enabled can already consume that amount of power. This is just making sure the socket is ready for all those CPU and not repeat the A320 motherboard issue that had crappy VRM.

Also, that might help a bit on the binning side as right now stock the 5950x consume about the same as the 5800x while still clocking higher. This might mean cheaper dual ccd sku, higher margin, more availability etc.


As of myself, I am not that shock about that since in game, I will be GPU limited and won't use full power anyway. If i am maxing the CPU, it's quite possible that i won't max out gpu power anyway so globally my power consumption will remain reasonable.

And Intel CPU right now can consume more when fully loaded, but in game, since they can do stuff faster until gpu limited, they actually consume less since they spend more time idling.

TheLostSwedeAren't these chips supposed to have a built in GPU, albeit a very basic one?

It's rumored to be RDNA2 albeit with very few cores, so "basic" in terms of raw power, but not features. I hope they keep AV1 decoding capabilities unlike the disappointments that RX6500/6400 were.

Their current 105w parts are capable of well over 200w.. can’t say I am surprised really..

TiggerSeems it's not just Intel with higher TDP on new(er) CPUs

170W is low compared to 240-250W me thinks, and morevoer when it will most possibly have more and more powerful cores/threads.

daoson5It's sound bad.....The worlds today have fuel crisis, mean while it-productions still sleepings beauty...:sleep:

Those chips are mostly for enthusiasts or rich people so, don't be sad for these people.

HD64G170W is low compared to 240-250W me thinks, and morevoer when it will most possibly have more and more powerful cores/threads.

Those chips are mostly for enthusiasts or rich people so, don't be sad for these people.

That's running R23 or similar though, they use less than AMD gaming. Lets see how much these use when running PBO etc as they more than likely will be, bet its 200w+

It's been a while since I checked, but I could swear I recall CoreTemp shows my 5900x pulling 150W when she's doing thread heavy tasks such as encoding videos to h.264. I'm not sure if it's an accurate reading, but with a 240mm AIO the temps keep in the mid 60s.

I don't think 170 TDP would be too outlandish.

People need to remember that AMD's TDP does not equal power consumption. In AMD speak, 105w TDP means 142w PPT. Using the same numbers, 170w TDP will equal 230w PPT.

I couldn't care less either way, but the the hypocrisy of 'Intel power consumption=bad, and AMD power consumption=just dandy' is rampant in this thread already.

TiggerThat's running R23 or similar though, they use less than AMD gaming. Lets see how much these use when running PBO etc as they more than likely will be, bet its 200w+

I have a sub showing 240w ppt from a round of R23.. only problem is I don’t remember if it was manual or PBO driven. Running something like Linpack is ok for 215+ ppt with clocks dipping down to 4500. Even that is a little intense..

weekendgeekI couldn't care less either way, but the the hypocrisy of 'Intel power consumption=bad, and AMD power consumption=just dandy' is rampant in this thread already.

Typical tbh

freeagentI have a sub showing 240w ppt from a round of R23.. only problem is I don’t remember if it was manual or PBO driven. Running something like Linpack is ok for 215+ ppt with clocks dipping down to 4500. Even that is a little intense..

As long as you can cool it, what does it matter :cool:

Lew Zealand170W for 16 full fat hyperthreaded cores seems like a reasonable number. Same per-core as 85W for 8 cores and 43W for quad core.

Don't need 16 cores or want to use 170W of power? I'll bet AMD has some lower power and core count parts for you.

One could also just use lower power limits; they can be tweaked downward too.
Often the performance penalty is not even that significant even after substantial decreases in power. This appears to be the case with Alder Lake for example.

If anything I would feel annoyed if there were artificial limits limiting potential peak performance. This often happened in the past.

This does make sense IMO.

The 5950X and 3950X at work do seem seriously hampered by their 105W TDP. Realistically, my 5800X at home scales linearly with PPT from 85W up to about 125W before the diminishing returns kick in which means that a 5950X needs a 250W PPT, which translates to around an 185W TDP just to reach the sweet spot.

Our render nodes with the 16C chips use NH-U14 coolers and I set a manual PBO with a 200W PPT limit, and a 90C thermal throttle point. They are all temperature-limited and pull about 175W according to Ryzen Master when rendering on 32T.

I expect that main reason for the increased TDP is the integrated GPU. Beyond that, I don't see why AMD can't include Eco Mode like they already do with existing Ryzen options, allowing for some downclocking with major efficiency gains. Or even incorporate their "active balancing" algorithm that lets AMD's mobile APUs shift power between CPU and iGPU depending on workload.

weekendgeekPeople need to remember that AMD's TDP does not equal power consumption. In AMD speak, 105w TDP means 142w PPT. Using the same numbers, 170w TDP will equal 230w PPT.

I couldn't care less either way, but the the hypocrisy of 'Intel power consumption=bad, and AMD power consumption=just dandy' is rampant in this thread already.

Well said the bias is real here

Sounds like they just gave it a more accurate rating, TBH

Solid State BrainOne could also just use lower power limits; they can be tweaked downward too.
Often the performance penalty is not even that significant even after substantial decreases in power. This appears to be the case with Alder Lake for example.

If anything I would feel annoyed if there were artificial limits limiting potential peak performance. This often happened in the past.

As someone who routinely UCs & UVs and well as OCs & OVs (where possible) CPUs and GPUs on every machine that allows me to, I fully agree. Just give me the capability to use the hardware to it's limits, whether that's efficiency (my pref) or performance. I'm just too cheap to buy Intel K SKUs and #70 or #90 MoBos to do that on the hi power side for CPUs, but at least I can do a little of that with B450 and R3 & R5 AMD CPUs.

At 170 watts for my 5950X , 69C and about 29400 R23 , with a 360 AIO, using ASUS DOCS 4425/4375 , 1.150V , will be interesting to compare for sure .

You can just use PBO to hit the high peepeetees :)