be quiet Pure Loop 2 FX 280mm LCS review
HP FX900 1 TB NVMe Review
Scythe FUMA2 Rev.B CPU Cooler review
SK Hynix Platinum P41 2TB M.2 NVMe SSD Review
Corsair K70 RGB PRO Mini Wireless review
MSI MPG A1000G - 1000W PSU Review
Goodram IRDM PRO M.2 SSD 2 TB NVMe SSD Review
Samsung T7 Shield Portable 1TB USB SSD review
DeepCool LS720 (LCS) review
Fractal Design Pop Air RGB Black TG review
Alder Lake consumes up to 28% more energy at peak usage than Rocket Lake
The power needs for Intel's twelfth-generation Alder Lake CPUs have been revealed by China's FCPowerup, a website dedicated to power supply evaluations. This source has previously given accurate information on Nvidia's new 12-pin pcie connector, including the original schematic and pictures.
The tables appear to be from an Intel paper, most likely aimed for power supply manufacturers. It is a problem with the 12V2 rail, which delivers power to the CPU. The table contains parameters for 35, 65, 125, and 165 watts, the latter of which is only relevant to hedt processors from the tenth generation. There is no indication that Alder Lake will include high-performance desktop CPUs.
The continuous flow ratings for Comet and Rocket Lake remain unchanged. Peak values have been increased by up to 28% on the 125W models and by 15% on the 125W models. The latter refers to the peak power usage, which happens often at startup. This is critical information for power supply manufacturers because when the power supply cannot match demand, it frequently shuts down automatically.
Recently, several Alder Lake specifications and benchmarks have appeared online, as has the first purported Z690 motherboard. Now that the criteria for power supply appear to be communicated with manufacturers, all indications point to an imminent formal debut.
Possible prototype Z690 motherboard for Intel Alder Lake CPUs Spotted - 08/02/2021 07:35 AM
Images of a potential Intel Z690 motherboard have appeared on a Chinese social media platform. One such motherboard, shared by a Bilibili user, will be utilized with Intel's forthcoming Alder Lake-S ...
Alder Lake will be announced on October 27 during the “Intel Innovation” event - 07/28/2021 09:04 AM
Following the lead of CEO Pat Gelsinger and the tentative dates Intel has been providing, Intel will hold its Intel Innovation event on October 27 and 28, according to a press release. Everything poin...
Unreleased Intel Core i9-12900K Alder Lake CPUs In China On Sale for 1000 USD - 07/19/2021 08:16 AM
YuuKi AnS, a Chinese hardware blogger who previously released photos and exclusive details about Intel Sapphire Rapids, mentions clandestinely selling Intel's Core i9-12900K Alder Lake CPU (QS) quali...
Intel Core i9-12900K, i7-12700K and i5-12600K Alder Lake-S Desktop Proc Specs leak - 07/15/2021 10:05 AM
Late this year Intel will reveal its BIG-little-based processor, energy-friendly cores, and power full ones. The Desktop processors are developed under the codename Alder Lake-S....
Alder Lake-S sample has 5.3GHz boost clock scores 11300 points in Cinebench R20 - 07/14/2021 08:42 AM
It's a rumor of the highest category this one, but a Chinese forum user claims to have a sample that reaches a boost clock speed of 5.3 GHz. At the end of this year, Intel will introduce the CPUs o...
TLD LARS
Senior Member
Posts: 378
Joined: 2017-03-01
Senior Member
Posts: 378
Joined: 2017-03-01
#5935718 Posted on: 08/06/2021 05:10 PM
Im sorry but the title is highly misleading!
As you might know Power=Voltage times Current.
What is listed here are Power and Current, but no Voltage.
The current listed is for the 12 volt psu output at the motherboard header, not the CPU core voltage, the PSU voltage is the same between 10nm and 14nm and all other CPUes made the last 10 years.
If it was Vcore the amps would be much higher like: 100A * 1Volt = 100Watts.
I am glad I ordered a 5600G instead of something like a i5 12400 for my mediacenter/server, if the Intel 35W TDP uses 20Amps * 12V = 240W peak.
My passive cooled AM1 5350 25W TDP runs fine on a 65W laptop power brick, a 35W TDP Intel would blow the PSU immediately according to this.
Im sorry but the title is highly misleading!
As you might know Power=Voltage times Current.
What is listed here are Power and Current, but no Voltage.
The current listed is for the 12 volt psu output at the motherboard header, not the CPU core voltage, the PSU voltage is the same between 10nm and 14nm and all other CPUes made the last 10 years.
If it was Vcore the amps would be much higher like: 100A * 1Volt = 100Watts.
I am glad I ordered a 5600G instead of something like a i5 12400 for my mediacenter/server, if the Intel 35W TDP uses 20Amps * 12V = 240W peak.
My passive cooled AM1 5350 25W TDP runs fine on a 65W laptop power brick, a 35W TDP Intel would blow the PSU immediately according to this.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 6651
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 6651
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5935720 Posted on: 08/06/2021 05:21 PM
so are big cores when they downclock,big whoop
how many little low power cores does it take to match a regular big core ? can you provide your estimates please ? cause you seem very confident. show me the data then.
You're assuming the big cores will have the opportunity to downclock, or that a downclocked big core is still less power hungry than a little core under full load. Remember: Intel's TDP is measured by base clocks.
ARM is where big.LITTLE started. The differences between ARM's big and little cores has got to be much more subtle compared to what Intel is doing, and yet the differences were still justified, even in non-mobile devices. The big.LITTLE approach is still being used in ARM, so clearly, it has value. It has so much value that Intel is doing it and AMD seems to be seriously considering it.
So what really begs the question is where your confidence is coming from.
Intel's market is primarily focused on Windows. The Windows task scheduler is notoriously bad, and yet, these companies (let's not forget Qualcomm, which has big.LITTLE WOS machines too) are investing in the technology anyway. That to me instills a lot of confidence that this approach is a necessary way forward for peak efficiency.
when I see that small cores can outperform big ones in power eficiency I'll believe they are useful.
or are they only good in comparison to very inefficient big ones ?
Efficiency depends on the task, which is then determined by the task scheduler. If Windows decides to route Cinebench threads to the little cores, their performance-per-watt is bound to favor the big cores. Think of it like vehicles:
A Prius is more fuel efficient than a V8 truck, but the Prius will most likely use up more energy and operate slower towing a boat than the truck. Meanwhile when there is no load, there is nothing you can do to make the truck more efficient than the Prius.
Small cores are only efficient when you're not using them for heavy workloads. Big cores are inefficient when you try to make them do menial tasks.
so are big cores when they downclock,big whoop
how many little low power cores does it take to match a regular big core ? can you provide your estimates please ? cause you seem very confident. show me the data then.
You're assuming the big cores will have the opportunity to downclock, or that a downclocked big core is still less power hungry than a little core under full load. Remember: Intel's TDP is measured by base clocks.
ARM is where big.LITTLE started. The differences between ARM's big and little cores has got to be much more subtle compared to what Intel is doing, and yet the differences were still justified, even in non-mobile devices. The big.LITTLE approach is still being used in ARM, so clearly, it has value. It has so much value that Intel is doing it and AMD seems to be seriously considering it.
So what really begs the question is where your confidence is coming from.
Intel's market is primarily focused on Windows. The Windows task scheduler is notoriously bad, and yet, these companies (let's not forget Qualcomm, which has big.LITTLE WOS machines too) are investing in the technology anyway. That to me instills a lot of confidence that this approach is a necessary way forward for peak efficiency.
when I see that small cores can outperform big ones in power eficiency I'll believe they are useful.
or are they only good in comparison to very inefficient big ones ?
Efficiency depends on the task, which is then determined by the task scheduler. If Windows decides to route Cinebench threads to the little cores, their performance-per-watt is bound to favor the big cores. Think of it like vehicles:
A Prius is more fuel efficient than a V8 truck, but the Prius will most likely use up more energy and operate slower towing a boat than the truck. Meanwhile when there is no load, there is nothing you can do to make the truck more efficient than the Prius.
Small cores are only efficient when you're not using them for heavy workloads. Big cores are inefficient when you try to make them do menial tasks.
Agonist
Senior Member
Posts: 3792
Joined: 2008-10-13
Senior Member
Posts: 3792
Joined: 2008-10-13
#5935724 Posted on: 08/06/2021 05:29 PM
Exact same move I did.
3930k to 1500x.
The 1500x was faster then the 3930k in gaming.
Its not true. I had Sandy-E 3930k before i went to amd again.
Exact same move I did.
3930k to 1500x.
The 1500x was faster then the 3930k in gaming.
TheDeeGee
Senior Member
Posts: 7977
Joined: 2010-08-28
Senior Member
Posts: 7977
Joined: 2010-08-28
#5935725 Posted on: 08/06/2021 05:30 PM
My 8 years old 4770K was glad to retire, it had lots of micro-stuttering due to 4 cores.
at 60hz you are never at max load with any cpu of the last 4 years.
My 8 years old 4770K was glad to retire, it had lots of micro-stuttering due to 4 cores.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 5476
Joined: 2020-08-03
Is that a serious question? The little cores are less power-hungry. So, these power estimates would likely be higher if the little cores were replaced with full size cores. Intel is likely using them to yield more performance without making the already high TDP higher.
so are big cores when they downclock,big whoop
how many little low power cores does it take to match a regular big core ? can you provide your estimates please ? cause you seem very confident. show me the data then.
when I see that small cores can outperform big ones in power eficiency I'll believe they are useful.
or are they only good in comparison to very inefficient big ones ?