Laptop Core i9-10980HK CPU has a power allowance of 135 Watts

#5776978 Posted on: 04/06/2020 11:21 PM

---

That CPU will never get to it's 5.3 GHZ for more than 10 seconds.
I have a DELL LATITUDE 5590 with a mere i7 8650u, a CPU targeted to 15w (at stock speeds) 2.1GHZ, but with turbo boost enabled, it can go up to 4.1GHZ (4c/8t).
I have seen HWMonitor reporting >50W with turbo boost enabled.

While working with it, like compiling stuff or just doing some work, the turbo was fine, the CPU was ramping up it's frequencies, and while It could easily ramping up the fans to very loud noise and temps to 90c, it felt good performance wise, comparing to the silent 2.1GHZ and 60c operation.

Altough, while gaming, it is a disaster. After 1 minute of gaming, the CPU was getting to 100c having massive thermal throotling, dropping frequencies from 3.4GHZ and 4.1GHZ, at each 10 seconds to 900MHZ, performance drops from 80FPS in games to 20FPS each 10 seconds.
Disabling turbo boost and operating at 2.1 GHZ did grant me smooth operation at 70c and not performance drops and same performance in most GPU Bound games (which is easy for a Nvidia MX130).

I can't even imagine how the hell this guys are going to handle a 135w CPU on a laptop.
This is absolutelly ridiculous.
I still have an old laptop with a i5-4200u a (2c/4t) CPU with turbo up to 2.1GHZ, and I've never seen it go above 15w, and it gets locked 2.1GHZ all the time without dropping and with respectable temps.
Intel seems that have gone full retarted where in laptops, heat and noise and efficiency don't matter anymore where it is most important!
Almost feels like the old AMD FX CPUs or the AMD R9 290 -.-
Ridiculous, I end up disabling the turbo of the i7 8650u since it's useless, unless you have probably a very blocky and big laptop!

#5776996 Posted on: 04/07/2020 01:05 AM

---

They look like more desktop CPUs than for laptops..

#5776999 Posted on: 04/07/2020 01:40 AM

---

you must not have a desktop AMD to quote this because it's a marketing stunt made to flip their major weakness around, they are total garbage at idle, AMD, so much that I ended up manually all-core underclocking...snip...snip...and so my 9900k is at like 30Watts at Idle stock and my AMD is at 108Watts idle stock...full stock...what a lot of reviews and youtubers don't say is that they have to heavily tweak their AMD for it to work "properly"

I switched from Intel to AMD and of course have now a way more powerful pc, from 8 to 24 cores but still...with 4°C outside at 4AM my living room was at 27°C tonight....no heating of course just a threadripper...I never had that with a 9900k but it's lowest power wasn't 80Watts non stop ! and it didn't go up to 280-340Watts either...people need to stop fantasizing about AMD, ...
*Note: Comment above edited for clarity a bit. Grammar not corrected.

QUICK FACTS:
If your cooling system is efficient, it will warm the room due to the system expelling/removing the heat from the system.
If you have a 24-core anything and give it work to do, it will warm the room due to above.
If you don't want the room warm, knock down some walls, open a window, buy central AC and have it installed, or get a somewhat inefficient window unit to do the cooling, to alleviate the above.
CPU with many cores use lots more power than CPU with just 2 or 4 cores.
If you don't like high power usage on a CPU, don't buy a BIG CPU, as it will be more likely to warm the room.
This is laws of physics and limits of modern silicon / integrated circuit engineering.

Maybe you're better off with limited TDP chips that are not unlocked for manual adjustments, and keep specifically within spec.
My 3700x stock/stock cooler/ liquid metal TIM doesn't warm the room even 25% as bad as my delidded Phanteks-air-cooled 4790k @ 4.4ghz did, nor does it make nearly as much noise.
I do content creation on my PC, I like my computer area warm enough I can be in a muscle shirt and still survive when I get cold flashes from my blood pressure and sugar levels not being correct, but I don't want it to be like when I had my 4790k and it would bake me out of the room anytime it was 62~65F or warmer outside. The Ryzen even on x570 board (slightly higher total usage vs x470/b450) with a 2070 Super doesn't make it uncomfortable even when it's 75~78F outside and the window is open. Totally get the comment about not wanting it to roast you out of the room 100% though.
I could have gotten a more-core processor, but I didn't want to have to invest a ton in cooling, nor do I wish to OC it as I need the stability paramount. I wanted a computer, not a stove/heater/etc.

So consider putting the tower in another room or get a regular mainstream 8-core or 12-core Ryzen chip. It should be a little better. Nothing about Threadripper advertises or suggests efficiency or power sipping cool-running behaviors. Threadripper is not made for the average Joe's bedroom or living room. It's made to be in an office where there is central AC or other climate controls present, in a production environment, to handle heavy tasks.

ON TOPIC:
Well in any case, if intel can't make efficient CPU's anymore, maybe they should just be in the stove or heater business???

#5777058 Posted on: 04/07/2020 09:03 AM

---

Don't give their marketing folks ideas..."Intel - redefining the Laptop."

#5777082 Posted on: 04/07/2020 10:13 AM

---

you must not have a desktop AMD to quote this because it's a marketing stunt made to flip their major weakness around, they are total garbage at idle, AMD, so much that I ended up manually all-core underclocking
their core control is useless and negative to both perf and power consumption, yes they turn off yes they change clock every 1ms but in the end all it does is add lag, the cpu has to "wake up" something gamers know is atrocious (even years ago on winxp Intel we used utilities to stop cores from "parking") inducing stuttering and unstable fps, you can also see it in work like cinebench where the cpu ramps up, but also all it does at idle is make your cpu or at least part of it run at max speed max voltage seriously heating it up nonstop ! an intel if you really do nothing it's at 800Mhz 0,8V AMD it's at 4,5Ghz and 1,4v on one or more cores....and so my 9900k is at like 30Watts at Idle stock and my AMD is at 108Watts idle stock...full stock...what a lot of reviews and youtubers don't say is that they have to heavily tweak their AMD for it to work "properly"

I haven't encountered any problems like you described with my 3700X, despite adjusting the power plan in Windows to allow for a bit lower clocks and voltage. However, I do agree with you on Intel having more understandable power management in general in my opinion. I liked it how my old Intel CPU (6600K) could drop the clocks (and voltage) very low and still run Youtube videos and such regular desktop stuff no problem. This Ryzen 3700X, however, seems unable to do anything at all without going for the 4GHz or more on one or two cores at least. Naturally it's kind of useless to compare 4/4 CPU to 8/16 directly, but for one reason or another I felt like the Intel system was better than this mysterious AMD system that supposedly has the cores sleeping a lot, but whenever they aren't sleeping, they are pushing to the max. Seeing how the AMD Zen architecture has better IPC than Intel Core in most tasks, I don't see why the cores need to be at so high clocks to do anything. If an Intel core can play a gif animation while running at 900MHz, why can't a Ryzen core do it under 4GHz?