Intel lying about their CPUs' TDP: who's not surprised?

[lexluthermiester]

your wrong he is actually right lol

For my 4690k there is no Base Operating Frequency.
I have set a Balanced power profile in Windows, which means, it goes down to 800MHz when in idle, and at 4.3GHz when on load, because those are the clocks I've set in the BIOS.
The base frequency is 3.5, which of course I can set if I disable Turbo Boost, but I haven't and so it's just indicative. I could just force-set the multiplier to 28 in the BIOS and have it run at 2.8GHz, but that'd be a waste of a good chip.

Actually, the correct name for it is Processor Base Frequency.

That depends on where you read it. However, base clock is NOT the same as operating frequency.

If you are going to attempt(poorly) to correct someone do not embarrass yourself in the process.

How witty.

You're post is just trolling and off topic at this point.

You need a refresher on the definition of "troll".

With Bill Bright on this one, I'm out.

 

[Hachi_Roku256563]

That depends on where you read it. However, base clock is NOT the same as operating frequency.

the base clock
is the clock that the cpu is def gonna hit
most likely in the worst scenarios ie
intel i5 in surface without fan thermal throttles
BUT it wont go lower then the 1.10ghs base

 

[lexluthermiester]

the base clock
is the clock that the cpu is def gonna hit

Incorrect. Base clock is the clock speed that is used to determine operating clock via multipliers. This is how CPU's are binned differently. Some can run higher and thus have a high multiplier. Example. My Xeon W3680 has a default multi of 25. So when the multiplier is applied to the base clock of 133mhz, it get's the base operating frequency of 3.33ghz because 133mhz x 25 = 3.3ghz. It can turbo faster and it down-clocks lower, and it does so by dynamically changing the multiplier. The base clock always stays the same, 133mhz.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Incorrect. Base clock is the clock speed that is used to determine operating clock via multipliers. This is how CPU's are binned differently. Some can run higher and thus have a high multiplier. Example. My Xeon W3680 has a default multi of 25. So when the multiplier is applied to the base clock of 133mhz, it get's the base operating frequency of 3.33ghz because 133mhz x 25 = 3.3ghz. It can turbo faster and it down-clocks lower, and it does so by dynamically changing the multiplier. The base clock always stays the same, 133mhz.

You're being unnecessarily pedantic. Google "base clock", and almost the entire first page of results talks about base operating frequency. Correct or not, it's become more-or-less colloquially accepted. I don't think anyone here mistakenly thinks BCLK is being discussed.

 

[Gmr_Chick]

Get a Tesla then.
The 2021 Model S gets 100+ MPGe at highway speed and the Plaid version has a 200 mph top speed.

Was that a Spaceballs reference?

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Get a Tesla then.
The 2021 Model S gets 100+ MPGe at highway speed and the Plaid version has a 200 mph top speed.

Was that a Spaceballs reference?

I can't believe I missed that.

 

[cst1992]

Was that a Spaceballs reference?

Elon is like that He's - how people say - a "man of culture".

Right! I mean 9 pages and it's not even about Intel lying anymore lol.
It has Morphed!

Tell me about it. I'm not even sure where the conversation is going anymore, and it's my thread!

That depends on where you read it. However, base clock is NOT the same as operating frequency.

No need for that attitude.
Base clock(which is 100MHz for most processors) is not the same as base frequency(3.5GHz for the 4690k).

BUT it wont go lower then the 1.10ghs base

That's definitely not true.
My CPU has a minimum multiplier of x8, which means it can(and does at idle) operate at 800MHz.
I can (via the BIOS) make it operate at 800MHz on load(it only consumes 15W maximum, even in Prime95), but then it's obviously very slow.

 

[Deleted member 202104]

Was that a Spaceballs reference?

Hahaha. Yeah, it's an upgrade from Ludicrous mode. Elon must like that movie. I just wish they include some raspberry jam for the radar.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

From Intel's spec sheets:







They aren't lying about anything, they are telling you exactly the specs and how they define TDP as well as the maximum boost. If you don't like the processor going beyond the rated TDP, turn off turbo boost and STFU about it. But guess what, you better turn of PBO on your AMD processor too, because guess what happens to the power consumption when PBO is active.

Neither is lying about their processor's power consumption. Some people are seeing a number, doing no research on what that number means or how it is determined and instead just assuming it means something it doesn't.

Pbo, is not turned on by default, Intel however does turn there's on by default.
AMD chips do boost without pbo on but it's in it's title precision boost overclocking.
These thing's are not the same not how these companies present them.

 

[Palladium]

It would be fun to go to BestBuy or similar to see if the salesman gives you the whole truth about Intel TDP or just part of the truth. Start up Cinebench R23 and 5 minutes later you will be able to ask one of two questions.

1) Why is this 5 GHz CPU running so slow?

or

2) Why is this 125W CPU sucking 250W?

Kind of like a car company that advertises that their car can go 200 mph or get 50 mpg. Sure it can. Just not at the same time.

I want TDP to mean actual power draw during all core sustained max turbo clocks at maxed workloads, no ifs or buts.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

I want TDP to mean actual power draw during all core sustained max turbo clocks at maxed workloads, no ifs or buts.

And I want a gold-plated toilet seat, but it's just not in the cards, baby.

 

[newtekie1]

Not at all, if you 'want to know more about thermal solutions' you need to refer to the manual. In other words, dive deep.

Why can Intel not specify the max TDP on the website then and there?

View attachment 187216

Intel® Core™ i9-10850K Processor (20M Cache, up to 5.20 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel

Intel® Core™ i9-10850K Processor (20M Cache, up to 5.20 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.

www.intel.com

And I already told you AMD has a similar responsibility, stop dodging, jesus christ.

Intel provides a thermal solution, exception on high end processors that Intel expects people that are building a computer using those processors are versed enough to know how to pick the appropriate thermal solution.

Besides that, the TDP listed for their processors is the number you can use to buy a thermal solution. There is no need to "dive deep." If you guy a 65w CPU and put a thermal solution that is capable of handling 65w, then you'll get the performance Intel promises, end of discussion. Intel is not lying.

That depends on where you read it. However, base clock is NOT the same as operating frequency.

Really? You should tell that to AMD...and nVidia...oh and TPU. Maybe, just maybe, Base Clock IS actually an interchangeable term in the industry for Base Frequency...

Pbo, is not turned on by default, Intel however does turn there's on by default.
AMD chips do boost without pbo on but it's in it's title precision boost overclocking.
These thing's are not the same not how these companies present them.

The default setting on every X series AMD board I've built with has PBO set to auto, which is essentially on. But even with it off, AMD CPUs still turbo boost and go beyond their rated TDP.

I want TDP to mean actual power draw during all core sustained max turbo clocks at maxed workloads, no ifs or buts.

And people in Hell want ice water.

 

[Zach_01]

I want TDP to mean actual power draw during all core sustained max turbo clocks at maxed workloads, no ifs or buts.

Yeah, you can develop your own chip and promote it the way you like or the way you understand.

TDP is not a potential total max power consumption... period.
Its the minimum thermal solution to get the advertised performance in duration the manufacturer specifies.
They do not list this on the box, either of them... They dont mean the exact same thing in comparison (Intel vs AMD) but the word "Thermal" in the title should get people to think if they want to know more than just what cooler to use. If not then stick to TDP as a minimum for the HSF/or whatever.

The default setting on every X series AMD board I've built with has PBO set to auto, which is essentially on. But even with it off, AMD CPUs still turbo boost and go beyond their rated TDP.

While its true that the default PBO setting is auto its not mean On. Only when it is Enabled you get the expansion in TDC/EDC/PPT limits. On Auto or Disabled the limits are the SKU's default limits. RyzenMaster can confirm this.

 

[newtekie1]

Yeah, you can develop your own chip and promote it the way you like or the way you understand.

Or, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, disable all boosting and run at the base clock only. Since that is the configuration where TDP is defined.

While its true that the default PBO setting is auto its not mean On. Only when it is Enabled you get the expansion in TDC/EDC/PPT limits. On Auto or Disabled the limits are the SKU's default limits. RyzenMaster can confirm this.

I probably mispoke originaly when I said PBO, I should have just said Turbo Boost. PBO goes beyond turbo boost as you pointed out. But even with PBO off, AMD processors still exceed their related TDP when turboing, so it is a moot point.

 

[cst1992]

I want TDP to mean actual power draw during all core sustained max turbo clocks at maxed workloads, no ifs or buts.

Guess you'll have to found your own chip company for that...
I say do it. Intel is on the decline anyway.

Yeah, you can develop your own chip and promote it the way you like or the way you understand.

You beat me to it.

Or, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, disable all boosting and run at the base clock only. Since that is the configuration where TDP is defined.

That's such a waste...

 

[Vayra86]

Intel provides a thermal solution, exception on high end processors that Intel expects people that are building a computer using those processors are versed enough to know how to pick the appropriate thermal solution.

Besides that, the TDP listed for their processors is the number you can use to buy a thermal solution. There is no need to "dive deep." If you guy a 65w CPU and put a thermal solution that is capable of handling 65w, then you'll get the performance Intel promises, end of discussion. Intel is not lying.



Really? You should tell that to AMD...and nVidia...oh and TPU. Maybe, just maybe, Base Clock IS actually an interchangeable term in the industry for Base Frequency...



The default setting on every X series AMD board I've built with has PBO set to auto, which is essentially on. But even with it off, AMD CPUs still turbo boost and go beyond their rated TDP.



And people in Hell want ice water.

We'll agree to disagree

 

[Bill_Bright]

I say do it. Intel is on the decline anyway.

Come on! That's pure bullfeathers.

Just a tiny bit of homework (which you and I already talked about!) shows Intel is far from in decline.

Microsoft, Intel share gains lead Dow's nearly 250-point climb

Microsoft's shares have climbed $7.99, or 3.4%, while those of Intel are up $1.33, or 2.4%

The increase in PC sales has helped Intel

The positive impact of 2020 on PC sales was once again seen thanks to the 2020 fourth quarter results shared by Intel. The chip maker announced that its revenues on the PC side increased by 33 percent compared to the previous year. Laptop revenues increased by 30 percent.

Intel Stock Rises on Fourth-Quarter Earnings Beat as PC Sales Continue to Impress

Intel (ticker: INTC) logged overall fourth-quarter net income of $5.9 billion, which amounts to $1.42 a share, compared with a profit of $6.9 billion, or $1.58 in the year-ago quarter. Adjusted for restructuring and acquisition costs, earnings were $1.52 a share.

The results handily beat Intel’s own sales forecasts for the fourth quarter, and topped consensus estimates, allowing outgoing CEO Bob Swan to leave the company on something of a high note.

“We significantly exceeded our expectations for the quarter, capping off our fifth consecutive record year,”

And for the record, this all helps AMD too.

Are there ups and downs? Sure. And has AMD gained market share? Yes and no. AMD no longer enjoys the advantage of selling less expensive processors as they did in the past because today, in most segments, their processors are similarly priced. AMD was climbing in the desktop share but still below 50%. Intel, however, dominates in the more rapidly growing laptop market.

But more significantly in terms of timing with your comments, while AMD was gaining marketshare the last few years, this last year shows where, Intel Claws Back Desktop PC and Notebook Market Share From AMD, First Time in Three Years.

So please! For those unwilling to do your homework and verifying your facts before posting, leave the unsubstantiated and clearly false commentary out.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Intel provides a thermal solution, exception on high end processors that Intel expects people that are building a computer using those processors are versed enough to know how to pick the appropriate thermal solution.

Besides that, the TDP listed for their processors is the number you can use to buy a thermal solution. There is no need to "dive deep." If you guy a 65w CPU and put a thermal solution that is capable of handling 65w, then you'll get the performance Intel promises, end of discussion. Intel is not lying.



Really? You should tell that to AMD...and nVidia...oh and TPU. Maybe, just maybe, Base Clock IS actually an interchangeable term in the industry for Base Frequency...



The default setting on every X series AMD board I've built with has PBO set to auto, which is essentially on. But even with it off, AMD CPUs still turbo boost and go beyond their rated TDP.



And people in Hell want ice water.

Auto isn't pbo on, boot Ryzen master it says auto overclocking, board run, turn pbo on and Ryzen reports pbo on.
Auto is board run.
Default is default AMD run.
Pbo is and pbo on.

And I too see all board's set to auto, not pbo or default.

 

[Mouth of Sauron]

Remember several years ago, when Intel actually had FANBOYS, so - remember all the noise about power-efficiency their Sandy Lakes or whatever had, because they like used 30W less than AMD?

30W is/was for me 2 LED lightbulbs, of course during the peak CPU activity, which is only yadayadayada...

Still, people did that - "AMD CPUs are power-hungry hogs and with Intel I'll save so much energy to buy a palace and a yacht, while making the world a better place..."

 

[newtekie1]

That's such a waste...

Yep, just like worrying about your CPUs power consumption. Performance comes at a price. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Auto isn't pbo on, boot Ryzen master it says auto overclocking, board run, turn pbo on and Ryzen reports pbo on.
Auto is board run.
Default is default AMD run.
Pbo is and pbo on.

And I too see all board's set to auto, not pbo or default.

As I already clarified before you made this post, I misspoke when I said PBO. I mean the standard turbo boost AMD uses. The processors exceed their rated TDP with PBO off, so arguing about what the default setting is for PBO is totally moot.

 

[trickson]

Remember several years ago, when Intel actually had FANBOYS, so - remember all the noise about power-efficiency their Sandy Lakes or whatever had, because they like used 30W less than AMD?

30W is/was for me 2 LED lightbulbs, of course during the peak CPU activity, which is only yadayadayada...

Still, people did that - "AMD CPUs are power-hungry hogs and with Intel I'll save so much energy to buy a palace and a yacht, while making the world a better place..."

Is this while mining or not?
Because mining is soooooo green!

 

[Bill_Bright]

Remember several years ago, when Intel actually had FANBOYS,
"AMD CPUs are power-hungry hogs and with Intel I'll save so much energy to buy a palace and a yacht, while making the world a better place..."

Wow. So says the guy who just clearly painted himself an AMD fanboy with his one and only post in this thread!

And how ironic that comment, when on your own profile page you say this,

I doubt I'll post more here. This was a nice place, and I'll still prefer highly professional reviews, but the forum become trollocratia. I wish you well with established troll with very little knowledge. If you ever see this, then I have a MIGHTY NEED to say something on certain topic.

What do you call someone who joined a thread because they had a "MIGHT NEED" to criticize others?

Oh well.

***

I have always found it amazing and puzzling why some put so much emphasis on the cost of the CPU when the CPU is just one, and often NOT the most expensive component in a computers.

After factoring in the cost of the motherboard, RAM, drives, graphics card, case, PSU, Windows, monitor, speakers, keyboard and mouse (which all cost the same regardless the platform), spread those costs over the expected life of the computer, is the price of the CPU really that significant? Especially if you just happen to prefer Blue over Red and so are willing to pay extra for it? I think not.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Yep, just like worrying about your CPUs power consumption. Performance comes at a price. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

As I already clarified before you made this post, I misspoke when I said PBO. I mean the standard turbo boost AMD uses. The processors exceed their rated TDP with PBO off, so arguing about what the default setting is for PBO is totally moot.

Now I can't talk for r5000 ,anything earlier stays within its Tdp at Default settings.
And goes no where near double or triple if it did.

I'm out down players about, the stage is yours.

 

[newtekie1]

Now I can't talk for r5000 ,anything earlier stays within its Tdp at Default settings.
And goes no where near double or triple if it did.

I'm out down players about, the stage is yours.

Nope. Ryzen 3000 goes beyond spec when turboing too. See here: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900xt/18.html

The idle power consumption of the whole system is 54w, the all-core load is 195w. That's a 141w increase under load, so we know the 105w rated 3900XT is actually consuming at least 141w, and is probably closer to 155-165w. But we know for sure it is going beyond its rated TDP.

The Ryzen 2000 series is the same deal. See Here: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-2700x/18.html

The idle power consumption of the whole system is 49w, the all core load is 213w. So we know the processor under load is consuming at least 164w, and likely closer to 180-190w.

And you guessed it, the Ryzen 1000 series is the same deal: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-1800x/14.html

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Seems Ryzen master lies by quite a bit too then eh, I'll look into it.
3800X pbo on ppt225 tdc 150 edc125 says the cores are pulling 85 watts at 4.2 crunching here I think maybe AMD are calling out the wattage the actual cores will use not the whole chip perhaps but I have not seen Ryzen master report higher than the Tdp wattage used by the core's, hwinfo too and I do have a killawatt but obviously it can't really do anything but whole system.
And your whole system assumptions are tat the memory and subsystem also ramps with load and needs accounting for plus PSU losses.
And you don't comment on two to three times the wattage pulled pl1 and 2 so I can see where your at, I'll still be leaving you too it.