- Joined
- Nov 26, 2021
- Messages
- 1,746 (1.51/day)
- Location
- Mississauga, Canada
Processor | Ryzen 7 5700X |
---|---|
Motherboard | ASUS TUF Gaming X570-PRO (WiFi 6) |
Cooling | Noctua NH-C14S (two fans) |
Memory | 2x16GB DDR4 3200 |
Video Card(s) | Reference Vega 64 |
Storage | Intel 665p 1TB, WD Black SN850X 2TB, Crucial MX300 1TB SATA, Samsung 830 256 GB SATA |
Display(s) | Nixeus NX-EDG27, and Samsung S23A700 |
Case | Fractal Design R5 |
Power Supply | Seasonic PRIME TITANIUM 850W |
Mouse | Logitech |
VR HMD | Oculus Rift |
Software | Windows 11 Pro, and Ubuntu 20.04 |
I agree that stock settings matter far more than tuned ones as those are what the vast majority of buyers will use.I agree but the argument your jumping into isn't that you couldn't tune the 9800X3D to be more efficient. Arkz was making the argument that these CPUs are primarily for gaming and therefore efficiency outside of gaming doesn't matter in addition to implying a 20w difference isn't notable.
My counter-argument was that these CPUs are indeed used outside of gaming (my own personal use case was used as proof of that). I'd also say that 20w figure is misleading for a few reasons, including it's assumption that said user only plays light to moderately demanding games, assumes they never use any other heavy application, and assumes that shrugging at 20w doesn't materialize as a polciy towards part selection in general which results in the end user selecting more power hungry components across the entire build thus resulting in a larger increase in power consumption as compared to those who rank efficiency as a more important critereon.
Only a small selection of enthusiasts will have the know-how to be able to tune these CPUs which is why out of the box stats are so important. You could argue that nearly any CPUs is efficient when tuned, even the 14900K (and certain TPU members do make that very argument and it is valid, for a very small group of people).