Intel releases 35W Intel Core i9-11900T and Core i7-11700T Rocket lake procs (with 115W PL2)
Click here to post a comment for Intel releases 35W Intel Core i9-11900T and Core i7-11700T Rocket lake procs (with 115W PL2) on our message forum
Fox2232
We can still power limit AMD's chips as we please. CPU then follows settings as closely as physically possible.
(It will not lower clock below lowest possible, and it will not decrease voltage below lowest possible. For example: 2700X has lowest clock 600MHz and Voltage 0.8V when using power limits to govern CPU.)
Side note, while Ryzen Master did not allow 2700X power limit under 70W, BIOS enables users to set even 15W.
(I did not try lower power limit than 15W as in that experiment series I was loading all cores with CB-R15. And 2700X 8C/16T under full load and 0.8V had 600MHz on all cores while eating actual 16.5W. Idling at 12W, which left very small space for actual single boosting. So experiment was over at that point for 2700X.)
ruthan
It as to have some switch to disable these power hungry mods and they should be off by default.. Is someone have good enough cooling ok, but this is killing whole low power cpu and easy to cool concept..
Kaarme
It would be pretty funny to buy a low power 35W CPU on purpose, only to find out it regularly boosts up to well over 100W on the default settings. I'd understand 60W. Any more should require altering a setting in the bios.
Noisiv
yeeeeman
Yes, fully agree with you @Noisiv
So many naysayers. Intel is trying to squeeze as much performance as they can within the confinements that they have (old process).
I don't understand what is wrong with having a short burst of extra performance if the cooler and the physics behind it supports it.
If you have a super tiny case with very hot temperatures, obviously the CPU won't be able to do it, so it'll stay at lower wattages.
The fact that Intel went to 300W in the top K parts, yeah, that is a bit too much, but again, you can disable that via BIOS switch and stay under the designated TDP, if that is really what you want. But do understand that working with an older process that needs to be pushed so high (over 5Ghz) means you will have big power numbers.
AMD simply enjoys the benefits of using a better process, that isn't even their design or work. TSMC is the one to congratulate.
asturur
Kaarme
schmidtbag
TLD LARS
That 11900T baseclock downclock to 1500MHz is brutal.
A Ryzen 5800U at 1900MHz baseclock and 15W TDP will run circles around this, and it would not have this crazy almost 4 times higher peak boost TDP as the 11900T has.
TheDeeGee
I wonder how the 11700T does in gaming.
Can't even find 10700T gaming benchmark comparisons.
Guess no one buys these.
tsunami231
Wake me when CPU actual respect there TDP
Undying
EspHack
or just set windows power plan to "power saving" and you will see it downclocking to around 1ghz with vcore under 1v, it will still reach max clocks when stressed, albeit with a slight delay, it increases my UPS runtime estimate substantially from what I've seen
alas, marketing team has to justify its salary I guess
Noisiv
SamuelL421
schmidtbag
Fox2232
@Noisiv : No disrespect, but grow a pair when you write about me. And honestly, when you use someone's name in attempt to shame other member...
Now to your mailman fallacy. Following is not statement of facts, it is opinionated and based on false assumption anyway.
=> Fact check 1: intel's TDP is not "maximum power" one should be designing their system for. It is power CPU is supposedly eating (according to intel's internal test procedure) when all cores run at base clock and are loaded with intel's defined workloads.
=> Fact check 2: intel's TDP does not mean cooling required. Unless it is cooling required "to sustain base clock" in long run.
End user's experience changes depending on manufacturer following 35W "maximum" TDP you wrote about.
- System builder which follows 35W cooling maximum is going to run at throttling temperature under all loads and may in infinite amount of time get to average 35W power draw. This system will likely spin its poor 35W cooling solution to max as BIOSes tend to do exactly that when CPU is overheating.
- System builder which tries to keep CPU cool with 65W cooling solution is bound to face much higher power draw. CPU is going to thermally throttle anyway, but at higher clock and after longer period of time. And noise situation will be similar.
- System which does not alter intel's boosting mechanism is either thermally throttling or uses extensive amount of energy. So one adhering to 35W may as well get 65W cooling and limit fan's rpm to turn it into 35W for quietness. (And then enjoy thermal throttling as that's what this design is meant to do anyway.)
And this means, you can as well use 25W cooling, it will throttle anyway. But i7-11700T will then thermally throttle to 900MHz when all cores are under load. (My 2700X did remain at 1.66GHz when limited to 25W.)
- - - -
So here you have intel's vs AMD's approach and consequences.
AMD: repaste/upgrade cooling to get lower temperature and quieter system
Intel: repaste/upgrade cooling to get higher clock and higher power draw, temperature remains same in long run unless you beat intel's PL2.
Review POV using strong cooling:
AMD: review shows end user's experience (performance) just with lower temperatures
intel: review shows performance which may be achievable if only end user bought as strong cooling
There is dishonesty somewhere in there. And if you remember intel's SDP, and compare it to their actual TDP definition, you'll know more of it:
Isn't it funny when one is all talk about power, but part they are hiding in "datasheet" is thermal solution requirement?
Isn't it funny when other talks about thermals, but part they are hiding in "datasheet" is actual power specification?
Noisiv
https://abload.de/img/sscrwn23222j2b.png
https://abload.de/img/uhttps3a2f2ftse1.mm.blyko8.jpg
Fox2232
Noisiv
bothering the mailman. 🙄
It's INTEL'S DEFINITION OF TDP. It can hardly be considered "false".
Now, write this down in your little logic book:
A definition is false only in two senses:
either the definition is applied to the wrong thing or the definition states an impossible combination of concepts, such as immortal animal, for no animal can be immortal.
[...]
And thus, it is evident that a definition can not be false except in so far as it implicates a false affirmation.
--
Thomas Aquinas
if you figure your way out of that, give intel a call with any of remaining grievances. Stop