Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

AMD chip at 105w (and AMD give real tdp), while the Intel chip is at 185w (and Intel give tdp in non turbo mode).

Intel is currently getting absolutely destroyed on that front.



> AMD chip at 105w (and AMD give real tdp), while the Intel chip is at 185w (and Intel give tdp in non turbo mode).

Both AMD & Intel list TDP for all cores used at base clock frequencies. The major difference is Intel heavily leverages what they call all-core boost to never actually run at their base clock, allowing them to list rather ridiculously low base clock frequencies. For example the i9-9900K's base frequency is listed at 3.6ghz, but the all-core turbo frequency is a whopping 4.7ghz. That difference is how you end up with a CPU that expects a whopping 210W of sustained power delivery (the 9900K's PL2 spec) even though its TDP is only 95W.

AMD doesn't (didn't?) have an all-core boost concept, so their base clocks are just higher, making their TDP number closer to real-world. But still technically base-clock numbers and not boost numbers, and so you will still see power draw in excess of TDP.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: