Intel reportedly delayed 10th gen Desktop Due to high (300w) power consumption

barbacot

2020-01-10 15:00

One thing is for sure: desktop CPU division at Intel is in disarray... Such a big power consumption could be an explanation about why Intel will not have a 10-core mobile Comet Lake CPU currently being limited at eight. I can only imagine the kind of heat that Intel receives right now from motherboard manufacturers because here at guru3d I saw: "Asus was listing close to 30 Intel Series 400 Socket LGA 1200 motherboards on its support site" - these guys must be very angry with the delay at Intel...

#5749502

Tiny_Clanger

2020-01-10 15:00

BLEH!:

:p As someone who works in the nuclear industry (indirectly): Windscale wasn't a "true" meltdown, but a fire.

and a Code Brown 😀

#5749504

cubus

2020-01-10 15:03

For the guys that in two comments reverted to the primal: "you are fan boy; no, you are a fan boy" From Anand review: "The 3700X’s 90W hard-limit puts it at the very bottom of the CPUs we’ve used in our testing today, which is quite astonishing as the chip is trading blows with the 9700K and 9900K across all of our test workloads, and the latter chip’s power consumption is well over 60% above the 3700X’s." Guru3D: check page 7 of the review https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_review,7.html - note: in some graph you have total system power

#5749518

willgart

2020-01-10 16:08

a 3900x under load, the entire system consumes 280W [youtube=LYdV8s2LYuA] or here [youtube=M3sNUFjV7p4] so a CPU consuming 300W alone... and in normal operations.... its huge.

#5749521

Denial

2020-01-10 16:11

karma777police:

They should kill 1200 socket they are planning and move their entire CPU lineup to X299. 2066 socket can handle any power requirements.

Yeah the problem here is totally the socket...

#5749526

ideaconu

2020-01-10 16:33

squalles:

Im checked on anandtech, techpowerup and toms hardware, sorry but is true, maybe youre confusing about thermal dissipation power and power consumption

I looked at anandtech. I could not find that CPU to 300W, except 3970X, a 32 core cpu. 3970x 288W (32 core cpu) [1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/15044/the-amd-ryzen-threadripper-3960x-and-3970x-review-24-and-32-cores-on-7nm/2 3950x 145W (16 core cpu) [2] https://www.anandtech.com/show/15043/the-amd-ryzen-9-3950x-review-16-cores-on-7nm-with-pcie-40/2 3900x 142W (12core cpu) [3] https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/19 How much does the 9900K Consume? An 8 core cpu, 168W (95W rated) 9900KS, the true 5GHZ 8core, is 192 W (see first article). So do please tell, where does anandtech mention that 3950W consumes 300W? Ok, take guru 3d approach, that measured everything, CPU, + video card, + motherboard + ssd+ ram, quote "However, when we take into account the entire PC (motherboard/chipset/GPU/memory/etc.) " https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_threadripper_3970x_review,5.html And still 3950X consumes just 220W, while 9900KS consumes 240W.

#5749527

DrHansGruber

2020-01-10 16:35

squalles:

Im checked on anandtech, techpowerup and toms hardware, sorry but is true, maybe youre confusing about thermal dissipation power and power consumption

I also checked on those websites and none of them can confirm what you are saying. Anandtech: https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/19 Techpowerup: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/18.html Tom's Hardware: https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/reviews/ryzen-9-3900x-7-3700x-review,6214-3.html The only time I could find more than 300W being reported is on Techpowerup for the whole system, including a RTX 2080 Ti, during gaming. Maybe you could link, where you found your data?

#5749528

tunejunky

2020-01-10 16:42

life support for 1k psu's? anyway, while the exact numbers are going to be hard to come by for a while, does anyone really doubt that the power consumption is going to be significant, and significantly larger than a newer uArch running at a smaller process? you can't cheat at physics, only at marketing.

#5749532

Spider4423

2020-01-10 17:01

Denial:

Yeah the problem here is totally the socket...

Its always the socket with intel 😀

#5749547

Caesar

2020-01-10 18:11

Surely, 10th Gen Comet Lake is going to sells GREAT on Alaska and Siberia !!!

#5749548

Fediuld

2020-01-10 18:16

Caesar:

Surely, 10th Gen Comet Lake is going to sells GREAT on Alaska and Siberia !!!

Muahahahah 😀

#5749551

Tiny_Clanger

2020-01-10 18:21

Caesar:

Surely, 10th Gen Comet Lake is going to sells GREAT on Alaska and Siberia !!!

infact anywhere its brass monkeys and you're up to your cobblers in snow for 12 months of the year 😀

#5749553

Kool64

2020-01-10 18:30

I had a record 206 watts being used by my 3700X under 4k FFT with PBO on. Maybe if I could get it to run at 4.7 all core or something it might push 300??

#5749558

Caesar

2020-01-10 18:51

Kool64:

I had a record 206 watts being used by my 3700X under 4k FFT with PBO on. Maybe if I could get it to run at 4.7 all core or something it might push 300??

Comet Lake should have been named to FIRELAKE!

#5749560

Caesar

2020-01-10 19:03

Well, from the title, we read :

The following information, however, is based on chatter/rumor.

I will not comment against....(due to the title of this thread)... ........... as there are much things related to AVX offset..... ...............most motherboard manufacturers seem to have offsets to lower the clock speed for these particular instructions to avoid a BSOD but it's disingenuous to say the CPU runs at that power level stock when in reality to hit that power level you have to run with multi-core enhancement features on a high-end board and then run full AVX instructions with no offset.............. ???? 😕

#5749575

Kool64

2020-01-10 19:47

Caesar:

Comet Lake should have been named to FIRELAKE!

They don't call stress test "burn in tests" for nothing....

#5749588

warlord

2020-01-10 21:07

angelgraves13:

Intel is ironically drowning in all the Lakes they made.

That's a gold comment! LOL 😀

#5749591

D3M1G0D

2020-01-10 21:09

Not too surprising. They're including two more cores while upping the turbo clocks, and they're using the same 14nm node. Intel may be engineering wizards but this is too much even for them.

anticupidon:

Now, this is something. Having a few players in CPU manufacturing, it's easy to play with different measurements and makes some slides in which one is the winner and other the loser. A real standard will clear the picture for everyone and the standardization could be easily translated in layman's terms.

Intel will never allow it. They use the base clock for the TDP while promoting the turbo clock for their CPUs. If they had to list the max or typical TDP (like AMD does) then their CPUs would seem wildly inefficient.

#5749593

RooiKreef

2020-01-10 21:11

Intel should just stop chasing the Ghz game and focus how they can be more efficient. The 14nm node is really biting them hard atm.

#5749594

Denial

2020-01-10 21:13

Honestly using TDP to compare products of any kind is pointless. Gamers Nexus had an excellent video on it - AMD's TDP number doesn't even use electrical power as part of the calculation