GALAX GeForce RTX 3080 SG review
Palit GeForce RTX 3080 GamingPro review
MSI GeForce RTX 3080 GAMING X TRIO review
ASUS GeForce RTX 3080 TUF Gaming review
GeForce RTX 3080 Founder review
Gigabyte B550 Vision D review
HP EX900 PRO 1TB NVMe SSD review
GeForce RTX 3070, 3080 and 3090 preview & analysis
Be Quiet! Dark Power Pro 12 - 1500 Watt PSU Review
ASUS ProArt PA278QV Monitor Review
AMD Ryzen 7 Extreme Edition Spotted - 8 cores - 4.3 GHz - 15 Watts Ultra-portable?
The news never stops for and from AMD is seems. This round the UL ORB is listing a reather curious tagged processor from AMD,. a Ryzen 7 Extreme edition?
Thai PC aficionado TUM_APISAK stumbled into it, and claims this might be a "Renoir" based product. If you look at the base clock of 1.80 GHz we're inclined to say it has to be a mobile part. However, it can boost all the way up to 4.30 GHz. The processor gets 8 cores and 16 threads enabled for SMT. This "Extreme Edition" processor looks to be running 100 MHz faster seen from the Ryzen 7 4800U, which is locked in at 15-Watt for TDP with a 4.20 GHz max boost. Yeah, TDP is a flexible thing these days. Fast ultra-portable anyone?
AMD Ryzen 7 4700G Renoir spotted, 8c/16t and Vega'ish Integrated GPU - 05/10/2020 03:09 PM
If you have read our Ryzen 3100 and 3300X reviews, you will have noticed that one of my arguments was that these procs likely would have been better off if they'd had an IGP (integrated graphics proc...
Lenovo Launches ThinkPad Laptops Powered by AMD Ryzen PRO 4000 - 05/08/2020 08:23 AM
Selected ThinkPad T, X and L series powered by AMD Ryzen PRO 4000 Series Mobile Processors announced in February are coming very soon. Delivering smarter IT innovations for better user experiences, th...
Review: AMD Ryzen 3 3100 and 3300X processors - Quad Core Galore - 05/07/2020 03:00 PM
Today we're reviewing a series of quad-core processors as released by AMD. The Ryzen 3 3100 and 3300X that we test bring is back a few years in time, where quad-cores were the norm. These, however, a...
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X Has a fully enabled CCX, unlike the Ryzen 3 3100 - 04/24/2020 05:15 PM
This week AMD announced two entry-level quad-core processors, the Ryzen 3 3100 and 3300X. The difference between the two 4-core / 8-thread parts, however, is to be found in the way how the active pro...
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X Single Core Cinebench 15 Score Leaks - 04/23/2020 01:13 PM
It is not much to go with, but a Ryzen 3 3300X Single thread/core Cinebench 15 score leaked onto the web by a Redditor with a fairly awesome nickname. ...
JamesSneed
Senior Member
Posts: 989
Joined: 2017-02-14
Senior Member
Posts: 989
Joined: 2017-02-14
#5787574 Posted on: 05/11/2020 10:13 PM
I meant engineers don't seem to be failing at making proper cooling solutions.
Well even for cooling purposes it is misleading, since 4.3GHz isn't sustainable for very long. But yes, actual power draw would be much appreciated too.
I meant engineers don't seem to be failing at making proper cooling solutions.
Reddoguk
Senior Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: 2010-05-26
Senior Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: 2010-05-26
#5787604 Posted on: 05/12/2020 01:35 AM
My 2600X is listed @ 95w but if you look at the average over time then the actual figure is only 22w but only if you fix the stupid Ryzen Power Plan from 90% always on down to 5% and use the PC 80% of it's usage isn't gaming but just browsing and watching movies an stuff.
So maybe it's an average usage scenario over time. Must be that because no way is it using 15w while boosting past 4gigs.
My 2600X is listed @ 95w but if you look at the average over time then the actual figure is only 22w but only if you fix the stupid Ryzen Power Plan from 90% always on down to 5% and use the PC 80% of it's usage isn't gaming but just browsing and watching movies an stuff.
So maybe it's an average usage scenario over time. Must be that because no way is it using 15w while boosting past 4gigs.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 5268
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 5268
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5787757 Posted on: 05/12/2020 03:20 PM
Cooling is only 1/3 of the problem. Keep in mind too that people who buy a CPU like this aren't depending on burst performance; they're intending to do heavy workloads. Battery life and getting the performance you paid for are more important.
15W for a max TDP is great - that's the kind of power consumption that will last you for hours with predictable performance. But I wouldn't be surprised if this CPU exceeds 65W. The cooling solution obviously will prevent it from using that much power for very long (especially if the heatsink is rated for a 15W TDP), so you're paying for performance you won't get often. The entire reason you'd buy a CPU like this over a lower-clocked variant is so you can get tasks done quicker, but you're not saving that much time if it keeps throttling performance. If you buy more accessories to keep your laptop cooler, then you are defeating the portability of it.
Also remember that efficiency doesn't scale linearly with clock speed. So even if you're able to do 10 minutes of work in less than 5 minutes, you could be using up more than 10 minutes of power. This is especially true in a laptop, where the fan would have to work disproportionately harder than it would on a lower-clocked model. What's the point of having a higher clock speed if you could be limiting your total performance?
Of course, the key word here is "could". It's possible that this isn't significantly more inefficient, especially if the cooling solution prevents you reaching inefficient clock speeds.
I meant engineers don't seem to be failing at making proper cooling solutions.
Cooling is only 1/3 of the problem. Keep in mind too that people who buy a CPU like this aren't depending on burst performance; they're intending to do heavy workloads. Battery life and getting the performance you paid for are more important.
15W for a max TDP is great - that's the kind of power consumption that will last you for hours with predictable performance. But I wouldn't be surprised if this CPU exceeds 65W. The cooling solution obviously will prevent it from using that much power for very long (especially if the heatsink is rated for a 15W TDP), so you're paying for performance you won't get often. The entire reason you'd buy a CPU like this over a lower-clocked variant is so you can get tasks done quicker, but you're not saving that much time if it keeps throttling performance. If you buy more accessories to keep your laptop cooler, then you are defeating the portability of it.
Also remember that efficiency doesn't scale linearly with clock speed. So even if you're able to do 10 minutes of work in less than 5 minutes, you could be using up more than 10 minutes of power. This is especially true in a laptop, where the fan would have to work disproportionately harder than it would on a lower-clocked model. What's the point of having a higher clock speed if you could be limiting your total performance?
Of course, the key word here is "could". It's possible that this isn't significantly more inefficient, especially if the cooling solution prevents you reaching inefficient clock speeds.
Kool64
Senior Member
Posts: 786
Joined: 2006-10-21
Senior Member
Posts: 786
Joined: 2006-10-21
#5787805 Posted on: 05/12/2020 05:22 PM
Doesn't seem very extreme to me.
Doesn't seem very extreme to me.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 324
Joined: 2017-02-15
Is this not the 4900U or whatever that chip was that's yet to release for the mobile line yet, to tackle intel's top-end back into the trash-heap where intel belongs?