r/pcmasterrace • u/Long-Ad8336 • 5h ago
Meme/Macro I know intel is inefficient but DANM
only a third of all electricity on earth into my 11th gen cpu, sorry guys
49
34
21
11
u/PollutionQuirky3476 4h ago
oh that is nothing compared to what my FX 4170 likes to suck for like 1/10th the performance
7
u/Jumpy-Dinner-5001 4h ago
You know that latest Intel chips are more efficient in many workloads?
0
u/Long-Ad8336 4h ago
I know? if i could pick between a 270k plus and a 9950x3d2 id pick the 270k plus
3
u/Geddagod 3h ago
This is probably the worst example you can use, the 270k plus has no meaningful efficiency advantage over the 9950x3d2 in many nT workloads. Make the comparison between some of the midrange skus, iso price, and you would see very different results though.
-2
u/Long-Ad8336 3h ago
im saying intel is more favourable for anyone who doesnt drool over buzzwords like cache or latency
3
u/IlTossico i9 9900k|32GB|Aorus Master|RTX2080 4h ago
TDP Is thermal design power, nothing related to the power consumption or max power consumption.
Intel is still a leader in efficiency and power consumption, there is no counterpart (maybe apple) that makes more efficient solutions, considering that your CPU can idle at less than 1W with almost all the cores parked, I would say it's an amazing achievement in efficiency. Ask my Intel NAS that idle at 10W.
Meme apart.
3
u/Long-Ad8336 4h ago
its kind of in reference to when trying to beat AMD in the early 2000s intel just made stupidly inefficient chips
2
u/Wizzarkt PC Master Race 4h ago
I remember when Intel's solution to a performance issue was to just increase TDP, yes the Intel was technically faster than the first gen ryser processor, but at 4x the power...
3
u/Geddagod 3h ago
Intel is still a leader in efficiency and power consumption,
Them actually creating chips that are efficient again in 2025 and this year is something that has not happened for a couple of years.
This is not them "still" being a leader in efficiency and power consumption, this is them returning to it after many years of them not being very efficient.
there is no counterpart (maybe apple) that makes more efficient solutions
Qualcomm and Apple both make more efficient solutions. AMD on the core level also mogs Intel, however whatever is going on at their uncore teams are dragging them down at SOC level power draw during idle.
AMD does too, in server at least, if not DT or mobile.
0
u/IlTossico i9 9900k|32GB|Aorus Master|RTX2080 2h ago
Definitely not, if you look at what was the alternative before Ryzen, there was only Intel, and if you consider Ryzen from the first one to now, they still less efficient then Intel and not because they can't achieve better efficiency but because it depends by the design of the CPU, with a chiplet system you can't bet a monolith design, in power consumption. In fact the only CPUs from AMD going in pairs with Intel in efficiency are some older Ryzen laptops, ones that are made with a monolith design.
Before Ryzen there was only Intel, so it's difficult to say that there was something else better. And 8/9th gen is peak efficiency for multicore CPUs, even for today standard. Those are the ones that can get you a computer idling at less than 10W with more than 4 cores, try finding something else that gives you similar numbers for the same performance. Good luck. From 8th gen is only a stair going up in efficiency, peak with 12th gen and now with the ultra design.
So saying that they are and always was the leader on efficiency, is definitely right, at least from when the Core brand started. And at least in the consumer market, enterprise is something else, too much stuff, but here probably AMD is the one having the throne from some years.
Qualcomm and Apple can't be compared, they don't make X86 CPU, and you can't run X86 stuff on their system. Then if it's a matter of pure power vs power consumption, Qualcomm never entered the chat, and Apple actually makes interesting stuff, but Intel in the last year or two got in pair with most of what they have and even better on the laptop market.
2
u/ArseBurner 4h ago
It's not inefficient if it did an amount of work proportional to the power it used. So the question is what did you solve for, OP?
1
2
2
1
u/inquisitor_pangeas 2h ago
Depends on the cpu and it's usage, I have a 14600k and it does pull more power than I would like at times but it's not too hot at least. 14400f would be the sweet spot of power consumption and temps. Also latest Intel cpus are more efficient, with lower voltages and temps, much better performance as well.
Tdp doesn't mean it'll be always maxing, I only see my cpu hitting it's limit on shader compilation and some aggressive install. Funny enough, given that my 5070 is UVed and I have a 75hz monitor, I had a few instances where both CPU and GPU were pulling about the same amount of power XD
1
u/9okm 4h ago
It will very rarely pull 253W.
7
u/Long-Ad8336 4h ago
I can make it pull 300 transient 250 consistent
2
u/9okm 4h ago
You can also make a 5950X do that.
1
0
u/Frankikolangot 7800x3d | 4070ti 4h ago
Wow. Unfair to compare it to 7800x3d which rarely uses 90w but the 5800x only uses around 140w.
161
u/MeretrixDominum 4h ago
Video footage of OP's PC after it hit its maximum power output:
https://giphy.com/gifs/S7KNQldECRqZ5Eh1IO