- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Messages
- 595 (0.23/day)
Smarter boost algorithms have absolutely nothing to do with this. Intel already had Speedstep to take care of dynamically downclocking the CPU to lower power states during low-intensity workloads In fact they've had it since 2005, so long that their trademark on Speedstep lapsed in 2012.I'm not sure where you and I disagree. All these CPUs will work at 95W at their designated baseline clocks. With beefier heat sinks you can extract more performance. Nothing has changed, except the boost algorithms that have become smarter. Would you prefer a hard 95W limitation instead or what's your beef here?
My 6700K has no trouble downclocking to save power when it's not necessary. The 3rd Gen i5 I'm typing this on has no trouble with that either. The Pentium 4 660 had it, I can find from a cursory google. In fact, support for the power-saving tech was originally mainly difficult not due to the platforms, but because of a lack of operating system support for the feature. "Smarter" power saving algorithms should have nothing to do with "Turbo boost" technology.
We disagree in that you think it is reasonable for Intel to consider a 9900K as "working according to spec" at 3.6GHz and "Overclocked" at 4.7GHz, when clearly these products are actually designed to run at higher clocks, and are expected to by consumers, and *will run* at higher clocks, it's just that it is only achievable at a *much* higher TDP than intel claims their CPU actually has.
They can't have their cake and eat it - Either the 9900K is "The world's fastest gaming CPU (At 150W TDP)", or it is a 95W part (but isn't anywhere close to being the fastest gaming CPU at that TDP).
Intel should not be allowed to advertise this product as both of these mutually exclusive things.