[heydabop]

> Consider that even with the most high end CPUs, they include the copper slug stock coolers than can make even a 45W rated CPU thermal throttle.

While isn't true for either the i9-10850K or the i7-10700K, but one is included for the i7-10700. However overclocking is mostly irrelevant on the 10700 since it requires changing your motherboards clock and most people won't bother.

Honestly I love what they're doing. With AIO coolers in abundance getting liquid cooling no longer requires researching and building a custom loop, and is nearly as easy as installing air cooling. If my PSU's 12V rail can deliver 250W, and my cooler can easily displace 250W, why not let my processor consume that much?

> The end result is that Intel is already pushing their chips to near maximum performance, power efficiency be damned, leaving zero room for overclocking

Isn't this what silicon lottery was doing before? Intel saw that market space and is now filling it directly. Overclocking has never been about power efficiency anyway (undervolting of course is), it's always been decreasing gains as you increase the voltage and clock rate. Also, as an owner of a i9-10850K, I can confirm that there is room for overclocking (tho not much or else it would be an i9-10900K), and you can find many instances of people overclocking their i9-10900Ks as well.

Intel has figured out what their high-performance non-business users want and are delivering on it perfectly. This is even one/two of the reasons that siliconlottery is listing as to why they're closing.

[joncrane]

>If my PSU's 12V rail can deliver 250W, and my cooler can easily displace 250W, why not let my processor consume that much?

1) Because electricity costs money 2) In the summer, your AC also has to get rid of that heat from your conditioned space, using even MORE electricity.

[leetcrew]

> 1) Because electricity costs money

not to an extent that really matters to a home user. let's say you actually let your cpu draw 250W 24/7. average US consumer electricity rate is ~$0.13/kWh. that would add ~$23 to your monthly electricity bill. certainly a lot for a single component, but not likely to matter to the sort of person who would buy a high end cpu in the first place. if you could get the same performance using 100W, you would only save about $14 each month. and of course most people don't max out their cpu 24/7, so the actual savings would be even less.

[SV_BubbleTime]

> add ~$23 to your monthly electricity bill.

Household of three, my electric bill is $50-75mo. So… that seems like a huge jump as percentage.

Plus I don’t HAVE to be a hypocrite. If I say I care about climate, pollution, energy, I can chose to run a more efficient processor like a Ryzen or an M1.

[heydabop]

> So… that seems like a huge jump as percentage.

Their estimate would require stress testing it every second of every day. Even if you game 4 hours every day (which would be a lot imo if you have a 9-5 job), you're looking at peak usage of 150-200W (most games won't utilize 20 threads), which using OPs costs numbers comes out to $3/month.

Fwiw I pay extra to get my electricity from wind and ride my bike ~25 miles round trip anytime I commute to work or the gym, which alone saves me over $3 and prevents ~20 lbs of CO2 per trip.

But it's not like what we do on an individual level really matters anyway. :/ The idea of a "carbon footprint" was BPs clever way of shifting climate responsibility from corporations to the consumers. I at least hope every little bit we do does help.