• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

90c+ CPUs

Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,610 (1.86/day)
Location
Thessaloniki, Greece
System Name PC on since Aug 2019, 1st CPU R5 3600 + ASUS ROG RX580 8GB >> MSI Gaming X RX5700XT (Jan 2020)
Processor Ryzen 9 5900X (July 2022), 200W PPT limit, 80C temp limit, CO -6-14, +50MHz (up to 5.0GHz)
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aorus Pro (Rev1.0), BIOS F39b, AGESA V2 1.2.0.C
Cooling Arctic Liquid Freezer II 420mm Rev7 (Jan 2024) with off-center mount for Ryzen, TIM: Kryonaut
Memory 2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo GTZN (July 2022) 3667MT/s 1.42V CL16-16-16-16-32-48 1T, tRFC:280, B-die
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro+ RX 7900XTX (Dec 2023) 314~467W (382W current) PowerLimit, 1060mV, Adrenalin v24.12.1
Storage Samsung NVMe: 980Pro 1TB(OS 2022), 970Pro 512GB(2019) / SATA-III: 850Pro 1TB(2015) 860Evo 1TB(2020)
Display(s) Dell Alienware AW3423DW 34" QD-OLED curved (1800R), 3440x1440 144Hz (max 175Hz) HDR400/1000, VRR on
Case None... naked on desk
Audio Device(s) Astro A50 headset
Power Supply Corsair HX750i, ATX v2.4, 80+ Platinum, 93% (250~700W), modular, single/dual rail (switch)
Mouse Logitech MX Master (Gen1)
Keyboard Logitech G15 (Gen2) w/ LCDSirReal applet
Software Windows 11 Home 64bit (v24H2, OSBuild 26100.2605), upgraded from Win10 to Win11 on Jan 2024
In addition to my previous (#224)

All core avg boost during R23 is 4.45GHz, (effective 4.35~4.4GHz depending the core/CCD)
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
7,762 (2.77/day)
Location
Back in Norway
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, 110/95/110, PBO +150Mhz, CO -7,-7,-20(x6),
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling LOBO + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14 @3800c15
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UC@2250MHz max @~200W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G603
Keyboard Keychron K3/Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
Those dents are from the pair of vice grips used to rip the plate off the chip. Not literally, but a great handle for a delid. I heat the plate with a soldering torch for removal.


Yessir, I am completely aware we are not talking about the same thing. lol. I knew that when I told you a second time my reason to quote you in the first place.
... so why on earth did you continue discussing this, if you knew we weren't talking about the same thing? Is that how you generally discuss things with people, by inventing your own parameters for whatever is being discussed just so that you can invent a scenario in which you're right, rather than discuss the matter at hand?
Simply can't take Der Bauers word on the plate being to thick, or too small or too large without testing with other plates, It's simply an opinion made statement and nothing more.
But ... he never said that. He said it's too thick. Given its other dimensions. Not "assuming all variables are in play, this is universally too thick in all situations". He was talking about an actual AM5 CPU in an actual AM5 socket with an actual AM5 IHS. Within those parameters, a thinner IHS would be better. It's possible that a larger IHS would also be better, but the socket can't fit a larger IHS, so that is entirely irrelevant.
My point is that I've tested various sized plates and don't think thinner would suffice given the nature of current gen chips and the very heavily packed transistor area which the die sizes are getting smaller and smaller. This makes less surface area, a thicker or perhaps just larger in general might actually work better.
Not relevant to this discussion.
No, you don't need to use an IHS plate to increase how tall a CPU sticks out from a board. They could force cooler manufacturers to accommodate this minor issue, which isn't AMD's issue, but the end users. I've not read any statement from AMD concerning the design. Again, these are mostly assumptions.
I mean ... can you read at all? Are you trying to? In order to maintain cooler compatibility, they needed to make the CPU taller, which was done through a thick IHS. Yes, they could have forced cooler manufacturers to adjust their designs. That would have broken compatibility with AM4 coolers. That is the whole damn point.
Unless someone can slap a statement here (From AMD themselves) as to WHY the IHS plate is thicker, then it's all fake news. After a quick google search, there's just a bunch of guessing going on there.....
It's not guesswork. We know they kept Z-height the same despite moving to a lower profile LGA socket. We know they made an unusually thick IHS for the socket size. We know they kept Z-height the same specifically to maintain cooler compatibility. This is not guesswork, this is putting together a two-piece puzzle with an instruction manual and arrows indicating where the pieces fit together.

CPU doesn't consume hardly any power a all. Super inefficient really. Most of the energy is dissipated as a heat, not being used.


An engine for example on average is about 30% efficient. All that fuel used and the rest dissipated by heat and cooled 3 ways. Water, Air and Oil.
This is utter and complete nonsense, and the comparison is fundamentally invalid. A CPU is not a combustion engine, nor does it produce kinetic energy. This is not comparable. A CPU is always close to 100% efficient, as its work output is not a meaningful physical change in anything else (save for signalling to RAM, storage and other I/O, which are all very low power compared to the power draw of a CPU (yes, RAM, SSDs and AICs consume their own power, but that power does not come from the CPU - the only power leaving the CPU as electricity is it's I/O signals)). For a CPU to be inefficient in this way, it would need to turn its electricity into something else than heat, as heat is a byproduct of the computation process. The specific ways we convert electric energy into thermal energy is how computation takes place.

A combustion engine is inefficient because we're unable to extract all the energy from the combustion process as kinetic energy, useful work - mainly because there are multiple forms of energy conversion going on, with fuel energy converted to both kinetic and thermal energy at the same time. As you say, that balance stops around 30% kinetic (though it could theoretically be increased through recapturing heat and turning it back into electricity and powering an ancillary electric engine or similar). The heat is waste, i.e. inefficiency, because the heat isn't useful, and isn't a result of the kinetic energy being converted further, but is explicitly energy converted into a not useful form. In a CPU, the only energy conversion happening is electric to thermal - but crucially, we don't care about the energy conversion - we're not looking to produce a useful form of energy. That's not the desired output. The desired output is computation. Thus, even when all that energy turns into heat, it's still near 100% efficient - because the fact that the energy turns into heat doesn't play into the question of efficiency. We're not looking to produce any other form of energy than thermal energy. Movement is what you want from a combustion engine, making any waste heat not movement, and thus inefficient. Computation is what you want from a computer, and as heat is a byproduct of computation, the two do not factor into an efficiency relation in the same way - it's not a question of either getting computation or heat, but both at the same time. Efficiency for a CPU is purely about how much power you need to do a given amount of computation - how much work you can get out of your energy, not how much of it is creating some waste byproduct.

AMD's TDP is utterly meaningless to power consumption
Yes, by design. It's not meant to describe power consumption at all. The problem is that it's used as a "power draw class" designation for marketing, despite this not being what the term actually means. I'd blame AMD's marketing, but, well, we all know just how baffling their decisions can be at times.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
12,674 (5.82/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon B
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x 24 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR5-4800
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT 12 GB
Storage 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2
Display(s) Dell S3422DWG, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333 2.1 speakers, AKG Y50 headphones
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Logitech MX Master 2S
Keyboard Logitech G413 SE
Software Bazzite (Fedora Linux) KDE
At least for AMD if you disable PB, performance boost, the upper clock is the base clock on any situation (ST or MT).
Also with PB on and under minimum cooling conditions (TDP formula) you will get base clock at least on any given all core workload, even on the heaviest one.

So because 99.99% of users are not meting these situations the base clock is a speed that a CPU will not stop and has no meaning. But it’s not a random number.
That's true for Intel, as well. If you disable boost, the CPU will run at base clock. But on Intel, that's roughly where your TDP is. For example, my 11700 has a base clock of 2.5 GHz. If I enforce its factory 65 W PL1 (which is indicated as TDP), it'll run at 2.8 GHz in Cinebench and around 2.6 in Prime95.

AMD's TDP on the other hand, is completely bonkers. Their equation is putting a "=" sign between power and temperature like they were the same thing, completely ignoring all science in the topic. Also, power is nowhere in the formula, which to me is completely absurd.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
7,564 (1.77/day)
That's because TDP has nothing to do with power & even back in the days of Haswell, IB, SB or Nehalem Intel's "TDP" were absurd. The slight difference back then was of course that Intel chips ran generally below their "TDP" while they almost completely ignore that number these days, even PL2 IIRC. AMD on the other hand will generally enforce PPT more strictly.

U n titled.pngUn titled.png
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
12,674 (5.82/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon B
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x 24 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR5-4800
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT 12 GB
Storage 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2
Display(s) Dell S3422DWG, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333 2.1 speakers, AKG Y50 headphones
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Logitech MX Master 2S
Keyboard Logitech G413 SE
Software Bazzite (Fedora Linux) KDE
That's because TDP has nothing to do with power & even back in the days of Haswell, IB, SB or Nehalem Intel's "TDP" were absurd. The slight difference back then was of course that Intel chips ran generally below their "TDP" while they almost completely ignore that number these days, even PL2 IIRC. AMD on the other hand will generally enforce PPT more strictly.
Running below TDP was fine. There's nothing wrong with planning your system (PSU, motherboard, cooling) around a CPU that eats less than you originally anticipated. I'm not sure about Alder Lake, but up to 11th gen, TDP was strictly enforced in PL1. Of course you can disable it if you know your system can handle the power and heat.

AMD's PPT is essentially a PL1 on Intel with no PL2 to accompany it. That should be advertised as TDP, not their lucky lottery numbers that they pulled from outer space.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
7,564 (1.77/day)
I'm not sure about Alder Lake, but up to 11th gen, TDP was strictly enforced in PL1. If course you can disable it if you know your system can handle the power and heat.
Not really, they threw away "TDP" or ran away from this concept starting 8700k ~


Screenshot (74).png

Screenshot (75).png

Basically TDP was never about power consumption but more about marketing!
Screenshot (73).png

Intel knew the only way to beat AMD was through absurd clocks but you couldn't sell chips with 250~270W "TDP" so this what you get.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
12,674 (5.82/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon B
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x 24 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR5-4800
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT 12 GB
Storage 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2
Display(s) Dell S3422DWG, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333 2.1 speakers, AKG Y50 headphones
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Logitech MX Master 2S
Keyboard Logitech G413 SE
Software Bazzite (Fedora Linux) KDE
Not really, they threw away "TDP" or ran away from this concept starting 8700k ~


View attachment 263725

View attachment 263729

Basically TDP was never about power consumption but more about marketing!
View attachment 263727

Intel knew the only way to beat AMD was through absurd clocks but you couldn't sell chips with 250~270W "TDP" so this what you get.
The first diagram shows exactly what I'm talking about. You have a short period of PL2 followed by a constant enforcement of PL1 = TDP.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
7,564 (1.77/day)
i9 is doing 135W, i7 is 121W & i5 is 96W & you can see they're all exceeding the TDP even though it's just marginal for the i5 & around 8% for i9 chip.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
12,674 (5.82/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon B
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x 24 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR5-4800
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT 12 GB
Storage 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2
Display(s) Dell S3422DWG, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333 2.1 speakers, AKG Y50 headphones
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Logitech MX Master 2S
Keyboard Logitech G413 SE
Software Bazzite (Fedora Linux) KDE
i9 is doing 135W, i7 is 121W & i5 is 96W & you can see they're all exceeding the TDP even though it's just marginal for the i5 & around 8% for i9 chip.
I don't understand the i5, as it has a 125 W TDP. There is something wrong with the i9 as well. Maybe the motherboard had some hidden feature that should have been disabled. Many Z590 and B560 boards were accused of this. My Asus TUF B560M Wifi on the other hand, strictly enforces a 65 W PL1 on my 11700 unless I turn on the "Asus Optimizer". Heck, it doesn't even let it use its PL2 for the full Tau. Instead of 28 s, it starts enforcing PL1 just after a couple of seconds. According to HWInfo, it is a constant 65 W as well.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
7,564 (1.77/day)
Ok, I missed the i5 default TDP. Just saw the cTDP option here ~

But you can see with enough cores, like on the i7, the TDP is basically meaningless.
My Asus TUF B560M Wifi on the other hand, strictly enforces a 65 W PL1 on my 11700 unless I turn on the "Asus Optimizer".
Because they're not looking to win benchmarks with the locked chips. They're going with the same TDP levels for what 10-15 years now? So with the number of SKU's Intel sells it's impossible to set every one of them at various "TDP" levels. Like I said TDP is just about marketing.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
12,674 (5.82/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon B
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x 24 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR5-4800
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT 12 GB
Storage 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2
Display(s) Dell S3422DWG, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333 2.1 speakers, AKG Y50 headphones
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Logitech MX Master 2S
Keyboard Logitech G413 SE
Software Bazzite (Fedora Linux) KDE
Ok, I missed the i5 default TDP. Just saw the cTDP option here ~

But you can see with enough cores, like on the i7, the TDP is basically meaningless.

Because they're not looking to win benchmarks with the locked chips. They're going with the same TDP levels for what 10-15 years now? So with the number of SKU's Intel sells it's impossible to set every one of them at various "TDP" levels. Like I said TDP is just about marketing.
It's not impossible, and they're doing it with PL1. Nothing prevents them from inventing new levels. The reason why it's still 65 W and 125 W is better marketing, you're right about that. But the concept of TDP itself is not marketing. On Intel, it really is the amount of power the CPU uses in some circumstance. If AMD had PPT = TDP, with whatever number they come up with, I would have no issue. They could easily sell 88 W, 142 W and 230 W CPUs, but it would look bad compared to Intel, so they had to invent their bullshit formula. Their TDP still means Thermal Design Power, but you have to multiply it by x1.35 before you get any value that describes what power the CPU actually uses under any circumstance. This is not indicated on any product page, so you have to read reviews to know what you're dealing with. That's the issue.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
7,564 (1.77/day)
Ok, what's TDP for you? Only Power consumption? Tbf most enthusiasts also see it this way but no it's never been that. This from back in 2019 ~
Screenshot (77).png
It may have changed since then even internally at Intel. But the larger point is right now it's a moving target because while the TDP's have remained fairly stable around 100~150W on desktop chips at the higher end we now have 16 even 32 cores (definitely with AM5) & they can't possibly fit in that number.
but it would look bad compared to Intel, so they had to invent their bullshit formula.
Intel would still be worse because they've gone PL1=PL2 on unlocked chips.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2022
Messages
489 (0.57/day)
System Name Firestarter
Processor 7950X
Motherboard X670E Steel Legend
Cooling LF 2 420
Memory 4x16 G.Skill X5 6000@CL36
Video Card(s) RTX Gigabutt 4090 Gaming OC
Storage SSDS: OS: 2TB P41 Plat, 4TB SN850X, 1TB SN770. Raid 5 HDDS: 4x4TB WD Red Nas 2.0 HDDs, 1TB ext HDD.
Display(s) 42C3PUA, some dinky TN 10.1 inch display.
Case Fractal Torrent
Audio Device(s) PC38X
Power Supply GF3 TT Premium 850W
Mouse Razer Basilisk V3 Pro
Keyboard Steel Series Apex Pro
VR HMD Pimax Crystal with Index controllers
Burn baby burn! We all need to work in Fusion or something so we can run our sand square things at a morbillion times per second or something. Also heat up Earth to Venus levels.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
12,674 (5.82/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon B
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x 24 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR5-4800
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT 12 GB
Storage 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2
Display(s) Dell S3422DWG, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333 2.1 speakers, AKG Y50 headphones
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Logitech MX Master 2S
Keyboard Logitech G413 SE
Software Bazzite (Fedora Linux) KDE
Ok, what's TDP for you? Only Power consumption? Tbf most enthusiasts also see it this way but no it's never been that. This from back in 2019 ~
View attachment 263732

It may have changed since then even internally at Intel.
TDP for me = average power consumption at base clock. I'm kind of oldschool, I know. :)

I'm willing to accept other definitions. What I'm not willing to accept is a formula that has temperature on one side and power on the other side of the equation.

Intel would still be worse because they've gone PL1=PL2 on unlocked chips.
That was a bad decision, imo.
 

freeagent

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2018
Messages
8,955 (3.90/day)
Location
Winnipeg, Canada
Processor AMD R7 5800X3D
Motherboard Asus Crosshair VIII Dark Hero
Cooling Thermalright Frozen Edge 360, 3x TL-B12 V2, 2x TL-B12 V1
Memory 2x8 G.Skill Trident Z Royal 3200C14, 2x8GB G.Skill Trident Z Black and White 3200 C14
Video Card(s) Zotac 4070 Ti Trinity OC
Storage WD SN850 1TB, SN850X 2TB, SN770 1TB
Display(s) LG 50UP7100
Case Fractal Torrent Compact
Audio Device(s) JBL Bar 700
Power Supply Seasonic Vertex GX-1000, Monster HDP1800
Mouse Logitech G502 Hero
Keyboard Logitech G213
VR HMD Oculus 3
Software Yes
Benchmark Scores Yes
I was under the impression that AMD got their tdp at full load, stock setting. So on my 5900x it would be 3700MHz. Which at stock setting it will drop down to those clocks with a heavy load. Even if that heavy load doesn’t bring the cpu to 60c.

Stock settings suck.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
12,674 (5.82/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon B
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x 24 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR5-4800
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT 12 GB
Storage 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2
Display(s) Dell S3422DWG, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333 2.1 speakers, AKG Y50 headphones
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Logitech MX Master 2S
Keyboard Logitech G413 SE
Software Bazzite (Fedora Linux) KDE
I was under the impression that AMD got their tdp at full load, stock setting. So on my 5900x it would be 3700MHz. Which at stock setting it will drop down to those clocks with a heavy load. Even if that heavy load doesn’t bring the cpu to 60c.

Stock settings suck.
I personally don't look at TDP with AMD. I just do the math: the 5900X has a "TDP" of 105 Watts. 105 x 1.35 = 142 W. That's the PPT (max. power consumed by default). Every other number is meaningless to me.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
Messages
3,348 (1.69/day)
System Name Still not a thread ripper but pretty good.
Processor Ryzen 9 7950x, Thermal Grizzly AM5 Offset Mounting Kit, Thermal Grizzly Extreme Paste
Motherboard ASRock B650 LiveMixer (BIOS/UEFI version P3.08, AGESA 1.2.0.2)
Cooling EK-Quantum Velocity, EK-Quantum Reflection PC-O11, D5 PWM, EK-CoolStream PE 360, XSPC TX360
Memory Micron DDR5-5600 ECC Unbuffered Memory (2 sticks, 64GB, MTC20C2085S1EC56BD1) + JONSBO NF-1
Video Card(s) XFX Radeon RX 5700 & EK-Quantum Vector Radeon RX 5700 +XT & Backplate
Storage Samsung 4TB 980 PRO, 2 x Optane 905p 1.5TB (striped), AMD Radeon RAMDisk
Display(s) 2 x 4K LG 27UL600-W (and HUANUO Dual Monitor Mount)
Case Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic Black (original model)
Audio Device(s) Corsair Commander Pro for Fans, RGB, & Temp Sensors (x4)
Power Supply Corsair RM750x
Mouse Logitech M575
Keyboard Corsair Strafe RGB MK.2
Software Windows 10 Professional (64bit)
Benchmark Scores RIP Ryzen 9 5950x, ASRock X570 Taichi (v1.06), 128GB Micron DDR4-3200 ECC UDIMM (18ASF4G72AZ-3G2F1)
I just did -10 curve on all core and left everything else auto. I hit around 28.4k in R23

Oh and +200 on the uh, override? Thing. 4.4ghz all core and 4950mhz single.
Ok. interesting. I found before overriding defaults for PPT, TDC, and EDC I can independently do an all core -20 so I have some headroom to play with. 4.4ghz all core and 4950mhz is pretty similar to what I was getting but I need to improve how I'm documenting and observing frequency to know for sure. Depending on how I balance things can get 4.525ghz to 4.575ghz all core or 5.025ghz on a few cores depending on how I balance PPT, TDC, and EDC before curve optimization.

The truth is that the higher the SKU the smaller the room for negative curve shifting. Almost all or most 5600X can do -30 steps on all 6 cores, depends on boost override too.
My CPU (5900X) on couple of cores can't do past -5 and I have the rest so far at -9 up to -19. Also currently the boost override is +75MHz, PPT 148, TDC 101, EDC 138.
Peak temp for all core boost is under 70C but on every other stuff wants to go to 80C or even more. I have a limit of 76C so cant pass that.

Avg clock on a couple of cores on games is 4.7~4.85GHz depending the type of game with a peak of 4.95~5.0+GHz
Yea it seems depending on the combination I try I either stay around 60c or spike above approaching 80c. I have to admit I was getting impatient last night during testing various combinations but also it seems if I set PPT too high in relation to EDC it blows past my set EDC limit (ignoring it :mad:) making testing more problematic. I'm not on the latest BIOS/UEFI at the moment and maybe I need to be in order to do this properly.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,610 (1.86/day)
Location
Thessaloniki, Greece
System Name PC on since Aug 2019, 1st CPU R5 3600 + ASUS ROG RX580 8GB >> MSI Gaming X RX5700XT (Jan 2020)
Processor Ryzen 9 5900X (July 2022), 200W PPT limit, 80C temp limit, CO -6-14, +50MHz (up to 5.0GHz)
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aorus Pro (Rev1.0), BIOS F39b, AGESA V2 1.2.0.C
Cooling Arctic Liquid Freezer II 420mm Rev7 (Jan 2024) with off-center mount for Ryzen, TIM: Kryonaut
Memory 2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo GTZN (July 2022) 3667MT/s 1.42V CL16-16-16-16-32-48 1T, tRFC:280, B-die
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro+ RX 7900XTX (Dec 2023) 314~467W (382W current) PowerLimit, 1060mV, Adrenalin v24.12.1
Storage Samsung NVMe: 980Pro 1TB(OS 2022), 970Pro 512GB(2019) / SATA-III: 850Pro 1TB(2015) 860Evo 1TB(2020)
Display(s) Dell Alienware AW3423DW 34" QD-OLED curved (1800R), 3440x1440 144Hz (max 175Hz) HDR400/1000, VRR on
Case None... naked on desk
Audio Device(s) Astro A50 headset
Power Supply Corsair HX750i, ATX v2.4, 80+ Platinum, 93% (250~700W), modular, single/dual rail (switch)
Mouse Logitech MX Master (Gen1)
Keyboard Logitech G15 (Gen2) w/ LCDSirReal applet
Software Windows 11 Home 64bit (v24H2, OSBuild 26100.2605), upgraded from Win10 to Win11 on Jan 2024
AMD's TDP on the other hand, is completely bonkers. Their equation is putting a "=" sign between power and temperature like they were the same thing, completely ignoring all science in the topic. Also, power is nowhere in the formula, which to me is completely absurd.
You are missing the point of what AMD is declaring with their TDP number
AMD’s is way more complicated than this and has no real value to the user as it’s formulated in a way to tell something to cooler manufacturers mostly …only
They are not telling that power is same thing with temperature.
Nowhere near that. This is applied physics (thermodynamics).

They are telling to the cooler manufacturers that under a specific tCase (CPU IHS surface -lid- temp), a specific tAmbient (ambient air temp on inlet of the cooler's fan) and a specific thermal resistance cooler (HSF θca) an X amount of heat will be transferred from the IHS to the ambient air.
So cooler manufacturers have to design coolers that comply (to a minimum) to those parameters.

In order to understand this you have to understand first how heat transfer works. Roughly It involves a temperature (t)Delta between 2 objects/surfaces and the thermal resistance of what is in between them.
The higher the tDelta as the temp difference between 2 objects and the lower the heat resistance between them the more heat will be transferred and vise versa.

As tDelta they are meaning the CPU IHS surface temp (tCase) and the air temp on the inlet of the cooler fan (tAmbient).
Thermal resistance of cooler is HSF (HeatSink-Fan) θca (theta c a, measured in °C/W)


(tCase - tAmbient) / (HSF θca) = TDP
In their formula they are taking as granted the tAmbient will be 42C (as an inside of a case that has been wormed up by the system)

1664546037635.png

So cooler manufactures on minimum they have to come up with a HSF design that can maintain the CPU IHS surface at 61.8C under 42C ambient, when the CPU is on maximum power draw. In case of 3900X is the 142W (PPT).
So... if they slap on top of the 3900X a HSF with thermal resistance at least of 0.189 °C/W the transferred heat will be ~105W.

Reasonable question:
But the CPU is "producing" 142W of heat as all the electrical energy is transformed into thermal energy... Where is the heat between 105W and 142W?

This is not mentioned anywhere but you have to think that this system (CPU, HSF, ambient) is not a closed/sealed one from the rest of the world.
The CPU is in contact with the board through the socket and also some air is around the outer edges of the CPU.
So the rest of the heat 142-105= 37W will be dissipated by the board from the surrounding components and the back of it. Yes boards are hot around the socket of a 142W CPU on max power.
And this should be true on those parameters (tCase/tAmbient/θca) AMD specifies.

Here is AMDs claims of TDP:
"TDP is about thermal watts, not electrical watts. These are not the same.
TDP is the final product in a formula that specifies to cooler vendors what thermal resistance is acceptable for a cooler to enable the manufacturer-specified performance of a CPU.
Thermal resistance for heatsinks is rated in a unit called θca ("Theta C A"), which represents degrees Celsius per watt.
Specifically, θca represents thermal resistance between the CPU heatspreader and the ambient environment.
The lower the θca, the better the cooler is.
The θca rating is an operand in an equation that also includes optimal CPU temp and optimal case ambient temp at the "inlet" to the heatsink. That formula establishes the TDP.



I cannot break it down better than this, I'm sorry.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 185158

Guest
... so why on earth did you continue discussing this, if you knew we weren't talking about the same thing? Is that how you generally discuss things with people, by inventing your own parameters for whatever is being discussed just so that you can invent a scenario in which you're right, rather than discuss the matter at hand?

But ... he never said that. He said it's too thick. Given its other dimensions. Not "assuming all variables are in play, this is universally too thick in all situations". He was talking about an actual AM5 CPU in an actual AM5 socket with an actual AM5 IHS. Within those parameters, a thinner IHS would be better. It's possible that a larger IHS would also be better, but the socket can't fit a larger IHS, so that is entirely irrelevant.

Not relevant to this discussion.

I mean ... can you read at all? Are you trying to? In order to maintain cooler compatibility, they needed to make the CPU taller, which was done through a thick IHS. Yes, they could have forced cooler manufacturers to adjust their designs. That would have broken compatibility with AM4 coolers. That is the whole damn point.

It's not guesswork. We know they kept Z-height the same despite moving to a lower profile LGA socket. We know they made an unusually thick IHS for the socket size. We know they kept Z-height the same specifically to maintain cooler compatibility. This is not guesswork, this is putting together a two-piece puzzle with an instruction manual and arrows indicating where the pieces fit together.


This is utter and complete nonsense, and the comparison is fundamentally invalid. A CPU is not a combustion engine, nor does it produce kinetic energy. This is not comparable. A CPU is always close to 100% efficient, as its work output is not a meaningful physical change in anything else (save for signalling to RAM, storage and other I/O, which are all very low power compared to the power draw of a CPU (yes, RAM, SSDs and AICs consume their own power, but that power does not come from the CPU - the only power leaving the CPU as electricity is it's I/O signals)). For a CPU to be inefficient in this way, it would need to turn its electricity into something else than heat, as heat is a byproduct of the computation process. The specific ways we convert electric energy into thermal energy is how computation takes place.

A combustion engine is inefficient because we're unable to extract all the energy from the combustion process as kinetic energy, useful work - mainly because there are multiple forms of energy conversion going on, with fuel energy converted to both kinetic and thermal energy at the same time. As you say, that balance stops around 30% kinetic (though it could theoretically be increased through recapturing heat and turning it back into electricity and powering an ancillary electric engine or similar). The heat is waste, i.e. inefficiency, because the heat isn't useful, and isn't a result of the kinetic energy being converted further, but is explicitly energy converted into a not useful form. In a CPU, the only energy conversion happening is electric to thermal - but crucially, we don't care about the energy conversion - we're not looking to produce a useful form of energy. That's not the desired output. The desired output is computation. Thus, even when all that energy turns into heat, it's still near 100% efficient - because the fact that the energy turns into heat doesn't play into the question of efficiency. We're not looking to produce any other form of energy than thermal energy. Movement is what you want from a combustion engine, making any waste heat not movement, and thus inefficient. Computation is what you want from a computer, and as heat is a byproduct of computation, the two do not factor into an efficiency relation in the same way - it's not a question of either getting computation or heat, but both at the same time. Efficiency for a CPU is purely about how much power you need to do a given amount of computation - how much work you can get out of your energy, not how much of it is creating some waste byproduct.


Yes, by design. It's not meant to describe power consumption at all. The problem is that it's used as a "power draw class" designation for marketing, despite this not being what the term actually means. I'd blame AMD's marketing, but, well, we all know just how baffling their decisions can be at times.
No way a cpu is 100% efficient. You wouldn't dissipate heat because the electrical energy ....

Is watts

Is converted

To BTU

Thus

TDP

THERMAL design point.

Not power consumption because it uses very little of that power.

In the example, the energy used in ICE is converted as you said into kinetic energy. The rest dissipated as a heat. And why engines are also rated by the KW not by horse power. But only 30% of that energy is kinetic. The rest just wasted and dissipated as heat.

You are missing the point of what AMD is declaring with their TDP number

They are not telling that power is same thing with temperature.
Nowhere near that. This is applied physics (thermodynamics).

They are telling to the cooler manufacturers that under a specific tCase (CPU IHS surface -lid- temp), a specific tAmbient (ambient air temp on inlet of the cooler's fan) and a specific thermal resistance cooler (HSF θca) an X amount of heat will be transferred from the IHS to the ambient air.
So cooler manufacturers have to design coolers that comply (to a minimum) to those parameters.

In order to understand this you have to understand first how heat transfer works. Roughly It involves a temperature (t)Delta between 2 objects/surfaces and the thermal resistance of what is in between them.
The higher the tDelta as the temp difference between 2 objects and the lower the heat resistance between them the more heat will be transferred and vise versa.

As tDelta they are meaning the CPU IHS surface temp (tCase) and the air temp on the inlet of the cooler fan (tAmbient).
Thermal resistance of cooler is HSF (HeatSink-Fan) θca (theta c a, measured in °C/W)


(tCase - tAmbient) / (HSF θca) = TDP
In their formula they are taking as granted the tAmbient will be 42C (as an inside of a case that has been wormed up by the system)

View attachment 263747

So cooler manufactures on minimum they have to come up with a HSF design that can maintain the CPU IHS surface at 61.8C under 42C ambient, when the CPU is on maximum power draw. In case of 3900X is the 142W (PPT).
So... if they slap on top of the 3900X a HSF with thermal resistance at least of 0.189 °C/W the transferred heat will be ~105W.

Reasonable question:
But the CPU is "producing" 142W of heat as all the electrical energy is transformed into thermal energy... Where is the heat between 105W and 142W?

This is not mentioned anywhere but you have to think that this system (CPU, HSF, ambient) is not a closed/sealed one from the rest of the world.
The CPU is in contact with the board through the socket and also some air is around the outer edges of the CPU.
So the rest of the heat 142-105= 37W will be dissipated by the board from the surrounding components and the back of it. Yes boards are hot around the socket of a 142W CPU on max power.
And this should be true on those parameters (tCase/tAmbient/θca) AMD specifies.

Here is AMDs claims of TDP:
"TDP is about thermal watts, not electrical watts. These are not the same.
TDP is the final product in a formula that specifies to cooler vendors what thermal resistance is acceptable for a cooler to enable the manufacturer-specified performance of a CPU.
Thermal resistance for heatsinks is rated in a unit called θca ("Theta C A"), which represents degrees Celsius per watt.
Specifically, θca represents thermal resistance between the CPU heatspreader and the ambient environment.
The lower the θca, the better the cooler is.
The θca rating is an operand in an equation that also includes optimal CPU temp and optimal case ambient temp at the "inlet" to the heatsink. That formula establishes the TDP.



I cannot break it down better than this, I'm sorry.
Yes you can.

It's called electrical wattage converted to BTU.

Next time, at full load, observe the wattage of the cpu. Then use the table below to see how much thermals you need to dissipate.

It's really that simple.


To further add....

So if a cpu ( or anything that uses an energy source) was 100% efficient, you would have NOT the need to dissipate heat.
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,610 (1.86/day)
Location
Thessaloniki, Greece
System Name PC on since Aug 2019, 1st CPU R5 3600 + ASUS ROG RX580 8GB >> MSI Gaming X RX5700XT (Jan 2020)
Processor Ryzen 9 5900X (July 2022), 200W PPT limit, 80C temp limit, CO -6-14, +50MHz (up to 5.0GHz)
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aorus Pro (Rev1.0), BIOS F39b, AGESA V2 1.2.0.C
Cooling Arctic Liquid Freezer II 420mm Rev7 (Jan 2024) with off-center mount for Ryzen, TIM: Kryonaut
Memory 2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo GTZN (July 2022) 3667MT/s 1.42V CL16-16-16-16-32-48 1T, tRFC:280, B-die
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro+ RX 7900XTX (Dec 2023) 314~467W (382W current) PowerLimit, 1060mV, Adrenalin v24.12.1
Storage Samsung NVMe: 980Pro 1TB(OS 2022), 970Pro 512GB(2019) / SATA-III: 850Pro 1TB(2015) 860Evo 1TB(2020)
Display(s) Dell Alienware AW3423DW 34" QD-OLED curved (1800R), 3440x1440 144Hz (max 175Hz) HDR400/1000, VRR on
Case None... naked on desk
Audio Device(s) Astro A50 headset
Power Supply Corsair HX750i, ATX v2.4, 80+ Platinum, 93% (250~700W), modular, single/dual rail (switch)
Mouse Logitech MX Master (Gen1)
Keyboard Logitech G15 (Gen2) w/ LCDSirReal applet
Software Windows 11 Home 64bit (v24H2, OSBuild 26100.2605), upgraded from Win10 to Win11 on Jan 2024
Next time, at full load, observe the wattage of the cpu. Then use the table below to see how much thermals you need to dissipate.

It's really that simple.


To further add....

So if a cpu ( or anything that uses an energy source) was 100% efficient, you would have NOT the need to dissipate heat.
I can convert watts to horsepower too... and?
Complicating things even further is not the way to go IMHO.

Sorry but I do not see how this can contribute to the conversation here of how AMD and Intel define TDP.
 

freeagent

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2018
Messages
8,955 (3.90/day)
Location
Winnipeg, Canada
Processor AMD R7 5800X3D
Motherboard Asus Crosshair VIII Dark Hero
Cooling Thermalright Frozen Edge 360, 3x TL-B12 V2, 2x TL-B12 V1
Memory 2x8 G.Skill Trident Z Royal 3200C14, 2x8GB G.Skill Trident Z Black and White 3200 C14
Video Card(s) Zotac 4070 Ti Trinity OC
Storage WD SN850 1TB, SN850X 2TB, SN770 1TB
Display(s) LG 50UP7100
Case Fractal Torrent Compact
Audio Device(s) JBL Bar 700
Power Supply Seasonic Vertex GX-1000, Monster HDP1800
Mouse Logitech G502 Hero
Keyboard Logitech G213
VR HMD Oculus 3
Software Yes
Benchmark Scores Yes
TDP/PPT is whatever you want it to be, to a point. Funny my 105w TDP cpu is really doing 235w. Not sure why the argument.
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,610 (1.86/day)
Location
Thessaloniki, Greece
System Name PC on since Aug 2019, 1st CPU R5 3600 + ASUS ROG RX580 8GB >> MSI Gaming X RX5700XT (Jan 2020)
Processor Ryzen 9 5900X (July 2022), 200W PPT limit, 80C temp limit, CO -6-14, +50MHz (up to 5.0GHz)
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aorus Pro (Rev1.0), BIOS F39b, AGESA V2 1.2.0.C
Cooling Arctic Liquid Freezer II 420mm Rev7 (Jan 2024) with off-center mount for Ryzen, TIM: Kryonaut
Memory 2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo GTZN (July 2022) 3667MT/s 1.42V CL16-16-16-16-32-48 1T, tRFC:280, B-die
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro+ RX 7900XTX (Dec 2023) 314~467W (382W current) PowerLimit, 1060mV, Adrenalin v24.12.1
Storage Samsung NVMe: 980Pro 1TB(OS 2022), 970Pro 512GB(2019) / SATA-III: 850Pro 1TB(2015) 860Evo 1TB(2020)
Display(s) Dell Alienware AW3423DW 34" QD-OLED curved (1800R), 3440x1440 144Hz (max 175Hz) HDR400/1000, VRR on
Case None... naked on desk
Audio Device(s) Astro A50 headset
Power Supply Corsair HX750i, ATX v2.4, 80+ Platinum, 93% (250~700W), modular, single/dual rail (switch)
Mouse Logitech MX Master (Gen1)
Keyboard Logitech G15 (Gen2) w/ LCDSirReal applet
Software Windows 11 Home 64bit (v24H2, OSBuild 26100.2605), upgraded from Win10 to Win11 on Jan 2024
TDP/PPT is whatever you want it to be, to a point. Funny my 105w TDP cpu is really doing 235w. Not sure why the argument.
If PPT is 235W the TDP(by AMD) is not 105W but it is way more than that, depending the on the CPU temp, ambient conditions and the cooler's capacity and thermal resistance.
And its certainly not what we want it to be. Its what physics defines it to be.
 

freeagent

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2018
Messages
8,955 (3.90/day)
Location
Winnipeg, Canada
Processor AMD R7 5800X3D
Motherboard Asus Crosshair VIII Dark Hero
Cooling Thermalright Frozen Edge 360, 3x TL-B12 V2, 2x TL-B12 V1
Memory 2x8 G.Skill Trident Z Royal 3200C14, 2x8GB G.Skill Trident Z Black and White 3200 C14
Video Card(s) Zotac 4070 Ti Trinity OC
Storage WD SN850 1TB, SN850X 2TB, SN770 1TB
Display(s) LG 50UP7100
Case Fractal Torrent Compact
Audio Device(s) JBL Bar 700
Power Supply Seasonic Vertex GX-1000, Monster HDP1800
Mouse Logitech G502 Hero
Keyboard Logitech G213
VR HMD Oculus 3
Software Yes
Benchmark Scores Yes
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,610 (1.86/day)
Location
Thessaloniki, Greece
System Name PC on since Aug 2019, 1st CPU R5 3600 + ASUS ROG RX580 8GB >> MSI Gaming X RX5700XT (Jan 2020)
Processor Ryzen 9 5900X (July 2022), 200W PPT limit, 80C temp limit, CO -6-14, +50MHz (up to 5.0GHz)
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aorus Pro (Rev1.0), BIOS F39b, AGESA V2 1.2.0.C
Cooling Arctic Liquid Freezer II 420mm Rev7 (Jan 2024) with off-center mount for Ryzen, TIM: Kryonaut
Memory 2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo GTZN (July 2022) 3667MT/s 1.42V CL16-16-16-16-32-48 1T, tRFC:280, B-die
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro+ RX 7900XTX (Dec 2023) 314~467W (382W current) PowerLimit, 1060mV, Adrenalin v24.12.1
Storage Samsung NVMe: 980Pro 1TB(OS 2022), 970Pro 512GB(2019) / SATA-III: 850Pro 1TB(2015) 860Evo 1TB(2020)
Display(s) Dell Alienware AW3423DW 34" QD-OLED curved (1800R), 3440x1440 144Hz (max 175Hz) HDR400/1000, VRR on
Case None... naked on desk
Audio Device(s) Astro A50 headset
Power Supply Corsair HX750i, ATX v2.4, 80+ Platinum, 93% (250~700W), modular, single/dual rail (switch)
Mouse Logitech MX Master (Gen1)
Keyboard Logitech G15 (Gen2) w/ LCDSirReal applet
Software Windows 11 Home 64bit (v24H2, OSBuild 26100.2605), upgraded from Win10 to Win11 on Jan 2024
That would be 215w for 235w PPT, 190 EDC.
In order to use AMD's formula you have to know all 3 parameters
1. tCase (IHS)
2. tAmbient (air temp on intake of HSF)
3. θca (thermal resistance of the cooler as a whole, HSF)
 
D

Deleted member 185158

Guest
I can convert watts to horsepower too... and?
Complicating things even further is not the way to go IMHO.

Sorry but I do not see how this can contribute to the conversation here of how AMD and Intel define TDP.
Yes exactly.


Thermal Design Point?

I think wattage converted to BTU is directly on point.

I'm using the ICE as an energy usage, which is the argument that a cpu is 100% energy efficient. Which in fact is the complete opposite.

We waste a lot of energy to store data code.
Then to process it.

Perhaps the example does give a twist, but if YOU think a cpu is 100% efficient like the other gentleman, you're both just plain dead wrong.

I'm done here then. It's no problem Zach. Wasn't trying to draw out a debate, I'm being quoted, which means you guys want replies.

So there's my links to back my statements above.

Enjoy, peace.

That would be 215w for 235w PPT, 190 EDC.
Shawn, AMD measures TDP at the base clock frequency.

The PBO enabled at default is only a perk to the boost algorithm.

So my 2700X for example is 105w at 3.7ghz.

To test the theory, turn off all the boosty stuff, leave your c-states on and default the memory frequency and take a full load measurement. Simple experiment. I found my 2700x to be just about dead on the advertised frequency.

Now try and sell a chip ACTUALLY rated 230w. That's tough to swallow.

It's about processing more and consuming less energy (server market) in the long run.
When a chip can dissipate exactly 0w, it would be then 100% efficient. There is no such thing, but humans will try. I say dissipate because TDP is a Thermal number which you or I, them, and we can convert to BTU.

Intel measures, or once did, not sure today honestly, the TDP of the cpu over an average frequency and power over the life time of the chip. In my opinion here, essentially at or near the base clocks as well considering Intel also "boosts" their chips. Lest we forget the idle time. Off time is not included here.

The Electrical Design Current is the capability of the VRMs on your board. My B450-I ROG will allow 224a and my B450M-A only allows 190a max.

And the wattage is based on them amps. That's your power at a given voltage. Lower voltage and amps, that's the goal. Running a cpu cooler. Dissipating less energy... to simply process a 1 or 0.
 
Top