napataWith Intel it was just the case of Intel not caring if mobo manufacturers ignored their TDPs, but if you ran a mobo (like ASUS intially) that actually followed the rules then a 150W TDP Intel CPU would never draw more then 150W.

napataHopefully AMD also changes their stance on TDP as their TDP shennanigans are even worse than past Intel where you need to randomly apply the official number with a random factor to get the actual max power draw.

The thing is with AMD CPUs the discrepancy just isn't all that big, a 7900X for example has a 170W TDP and 230W PPT, real world power draw closer to 200W, with Intel CPUs you get like literally 200-300% higher power draw than what the TDP would suggest is out of the box.

They should just not even list any TDP values at this point, I get that it's not a good look to say "350W" or whatever, so just get rid of that.

Vya DomusThe thing is with AMD CPUs the discrepancy just isn't all that big, a 7900X for example has a 170W TDP and 230W PPT, real world power draw closer to 200W, with Intel CPUs you get like literally 200-300% higher power draw than what the TDP would suggest is out of the box.

They should just not even list any TDP values at this point, I get that it's not a good look to say "350W" or whatever, so just get rid of that.

No, the weird thing with AMD is that the TDP*1.35=PPT formula only means the CPU's power limit, not the actual power consumption. Sometimes the power limit is completely bonkers, only to stay in line with the TDP number, which is kind of like a recommendation for cooling, even though it's incomparable with Intel TDP numbers and their requirements for cooling. A cooler that can barely keep a 150 W Intel CPU under the throttling limit will most definitely throttle an AMD CPU with a lot less power used. There's also X3D and normal AMD CPUs that have entirely different heat characteristics. I get it, AMD wanted TDP to be about cooling, not power, but it doesn't work either way.

AusWolfNo, the weird thing with AMD is that the TDP*1.35=PPT formula only means the CPU's power limit, not the actual power consumption. Sometimes the power limit is completely bonkers, only to stay in line with the TDP number, which is kind of like a recommendation for cooling, even though it's incomparable with Intel TDP numbers and their requirements for cooling. A cooler that can barely keep a 150 W Intel CPU under the throttling limit will most definitely throttle an AMD CPU with a lot less power used. There's also X3D and normal AMD CPUs that have entirely different heat characteristics. I get it, AMD wanted TDP to be about cooling, not power, but it doesn't work either way.

I don't know what you mean, AMD CPUs throttle primarily because of the temperature limit, the power limit is rarely reached out of the box because of that, that's why their TDP figure is pretty accurate.

Example of the 7900X with a 170W TDP :


Looks pretty in line with that figure.

ir_cowNot like "Whoosh" it went over my head?

Nope, that's usually done with "Swoosh" hehehe :D

Yeeeeey, it's the Keep Spending edition!

TrompochiYeeeeey, it's the Keep Spending edition!

It is expensive, but it's also fantastic quality silicon. It's noticeably ahead of the pack. I wish AMD offered a pre-binned Ryzen as well. Really great stuff if you want a well-behaved system. Of course to the average user, it's about as irrelevant as it comes

Dr. DroI wish AMD offered a pre-binned Ryzen as well.

But how do you do that when you have one chip for every purpose imaginable...

WirkoBut how do you do that when you have one chip for every purpose imaginable...

Same as Intel does, just carefully select out of the batch that become 7950X's anyway.

And let’s call it the ‘Ryzen 9 7950X Black Edition’

Vya DomusI don't know what you mean, AMD CPUs throttle primarily because of the temperature limit, the power limit is rarely reached out of the box because of that, that's why their TDP figure is pretty accurate.

Example of the 7900X with a 170W TDP :


Looks pretty in line with that figure.

Not necessarily. The 7800X3D has a PPT of 162 W (120 W TDP × 1.35), but only consumes 80-90 W under full load. Its temperature limit is 89 °C, but it only reaches 82-83 under a be quiet Dark Rock 4. Your example shows a CPU with a PPT of 230 W (170 × 1.35). AMD said that running these CPUs up to the temperature limit is fine. They never said that they'll boost up to the temperature limit no matter what, which has been falsely parroted by many people online. In a way, they behave just like Intel CPUs: they'll stop boosting if they reach a power limit, temperature limit, or the voltage-frequency curve, whichever comes soonest.

KirederfAnd let’s call it the ‘Ryzen 9 7950X Black Edition’

While that would be fair, unlike Black Editions of the past, the 7950X is not the horrible power hog and space heater.

Dr. DroSame as Intel does, just carefully select out of the batch that become 7950X's anyway.

You're talking about binning, yes?

lexluthermiesterYou're talking about binning, yes?

Yes, carefully selected chips that can consistently hit highest clocks at lowest power characteristics ahead of the pack, that's what KS's are essentially

Dr. DroSame as Intel does, just carefully select out of the batch that become 7950X's anyway.

Very good dice have a good chance of ending up under a Threadripper IHS, that's the difference.

Dr. DroIt is expensive, but it's also fantastic quality silicon. It's noticeably ahead of the pack. I wish AMD offered a pre-binned Ryzen as well. Really great stuff if you want a well-behaved system. Of course to the average user, it's about as irrelevant as it comes

Would make sense, considering that they did that with RDNA 2 GPUs with the x50 XT "refresh" (re-release).

AusWolfWould make sense, considering that they did that with RDNA 2 GPUs with the x50 XT "refresh" (re-release).

The 50XT cards were a bit more than just a bin, they had some hardware level improvements and a new stepping altogether, while the KS are all about silicon quality. Even the "14th Gen" have absolutely no hardware (or even software) level differences vs. 13th Gens, with all distinction being done at the binning level

I'm gonna wait till the 15900 specifically because it's supposed to have a brand new motherboard.

QUANTUMPHYSICSI'm gonna wait till the 15900 specifically because it's supposed to have a brand new motherboard.

There won't be a 15900, it's going to be a core ultra 1??x

Dr. DroYes, carefully selected chips that can consistently hit highest clocks at lowest power characteristics ahead of the pack, that's what KS's are essentially

Yeah and charge extra for it. Not a great idea if you ask me. Plus, it robs the buyer of a chance to get a cpu that would oc better or have lower temps etc.

ratirtYeah and charge extra for it. Not a great idea if you ask me. Plus, it robs the buyer of a chance to get a cpu that would oc better or have lower temps etc.

See it from the average guy's perspective: it's a whole lot cheaper than buying and testing 20+ flagship CPUs yourself... and way way cheaper than ordering it from a business that selected binned CPUs like Silicon Lottery used to be - if you even had access to something like that. Besides, it's well established that if you're after general performance, the regular one is less than 5% behind, so what's the big deal? Buy the standard if you don't care, buy the binned one if you'd like to have a shot. Works for me.

Dr. DroSee it from the average guy's perspective: it's a whole lot cheaper than buying and testing 20+ flagship CPUs yourself... and way way cheaper than ordering it from a business that selected binned CPUs like Silicon Lottery used to be - if you even had access to something like that. Besides, it's well established that if you're after general performance, the regular one is less than 5% behind, so what's the big deal? Buy the standard if you don't care, buy the binned one if you'd like to have a shot. Works for me.

Missing the point here. You are not looking specifically for the higher quality but instead you buy a CPU and if you get lucky you get a better chip for the same price as the regular costs. If you start dividing lower and higher quality then the price changes. Just like Intel charged more. So for an average guy's perspective, it would be better to keep the prices low and still get a chance of a better chip.

ratirtMissing the point here. You are not looking specifically for the higher quality but instead you buy a CPU and if you get lucky you get a better chip for the same price as the regular costs. If you start dividing lower and higher quality then the price changes. Just like Intel charged more. So for an average guy's perspective, it would be better to keep the prices low and still get a chance of a better chip.

I guess both are valid ways of seeing it, but the fact remains that the standard CPUs are still very much available for a lower price point. As for me, i'd rather pay the extra $150 than rely on blind luck. You could always get an amazing chip, or a total stinker back in the day. And it's not like the standard K CPUs are guaranteed to be stinkers overall, you can still get a very good unit - the good i9-14900K chips have very similar electrical characteristics to the i9-13900KS in general. The bad ones don't, but the good ones do, and that's just fine by me. The 14900KS should guarantee a chip that's in the very uppermost silicon quality range.

Dr. DroI guess both are valid ways of seeing it, but the fact remains that the standard CPUs are still very much available for a lower price point. As for me, i'd rather pay the extra $150 than rely on blind luck. You could always get an amazing chip, or a total stinker back in the day. And it's not like the standard K CPUs are guaranteed to be stinkers overall, you can still get a very good unit - the good i9-14900K chips have very similar electrical characteristics to the i9-13900KS in general. The bad ones don't, but the good ones do, and that's just fine by me. The 14900KS should guarantee a chip that's in the very uppermost silicon quality range.

You got it wrong a bit but i get where you're at. Your premise though is, there is a better one or best so pay more. If it is 5% only why pay $150 for it? You just get a CPU and boom you got the good one. It is not a matter "you need to get lucky" this better quality comes as an add on. You don't look for it or expect it specifically. In the second hand market you can sell it as the better quality this benefits you not the company.

ratirtYou got it wrong a bit but i get where you're at. Your premise though is, there is a better one or best so pay more. If it is 5% only why pay $150 for it? You just get a CPU and boom you got the good one. It is not a matter "you need to get lucky" this better quality comes as an add on. You don't look for it or expect it specifically. In the second hand market you can sell it as the better quality this benefits you not the company.

Way I see it, if it's got slightly better electrical characteristics that will help me "tame the beast" so to speak, since I do not really do exotic cooling or anything like that, it makes it worth it for me. The extra few MHz that it's guaranteed to do also make it a happy purchase for me.

TDP: 150W

Possibly the most useless spec ever written, I'd love to see someone test the 14900KS at a locked 150W PL1/PL2 TDP as written just to see how pitiful it is.

Vya DomusThe thing is with AMD CPUs the discrepancy just isn't all that big, a 7900X for example has a 170W TDP and 230W PPT, real world power draw closer to 200W, with Intel CPUs you get like literally 200-300% higher power draw than what the TDP would suggest is out of the box.

They should just not even list any TDP values at this point, I get that it's not a good look to say "350W" or whatever, so just get rid of that.

When Intel had TDPs there was 0 discrepancy if the mobo didn't ignore it. Intel's TDP was 100% on the mark whereas for AMD the real limit is PPT. Why pick the 7900x for your example and not the 7950x? I just checked the review and it drew 235W with a 170W TDP. The only reason the 7900x is only using 200W is because it's running at 95C. Give it a better cooler and power draw will go up to 230W.

AMD's numbers are always fake (unless you cripple them with a terrible cooler) while Intel's numbers are fake depending on which mobo you put it in. Plenty of mobos did run the Intel CPUs at stock values though. It's just that reviews always use high end mobo's and those never had any limits applied. A 11900K will draw exactly 125W if you put it a low/midrange mobo. Reviews will show it drawing 250-300W though. That's why I liked PCGH as they always put Intel's CPUs at stock values so no unlimited power shennanigans.