|
|
|
|
|
|
by ajross
1385 days ago
|
|
|
That's not a TDP, which is a sustained metric (originally designed for board/cooling design integration) and shows 125W for that part. The 250W number is a new thing they're calling "Processor Boost Power" and I guess it's intended to represent some kind of "maximum short term draw" number. That's not something that's been historically reported for other parts, so it's kinda wrong to try to compare them 1:1. |
|
|
even in this thread you see people saying "wow intel pulls 250W against AMD's 105W processors"... when the comparable PPT number for AMD this generation is actually 230W, and their previous-gen number was 145W.
It's a huge marketing disadvantage, just like with node naming for fabs. Intel's 14nm is hugely better than GF 14/12nm or TSMC 16/12nm, and 10ESF is comparable to TSMC 7nm (although much later ofc). When the competitors are playing marketing games, to some extent you just have to start playing them too.
Desktop/HEDT TDPs used to pretty much cover boost clocks, the "tau" concept always officially existed but (eg) 5960X has a 143W idle-to-prime95 power delta as measured by Anandtech, so, the 140W tdp is pretty much sufficient to cover any "normal" non-prime95 AVX load at full boost clock. Similarly 4770K is a 85W TDP on paper and the measured idle-to-prime95 is 88W. Overclocked desktop loads could go higher of course, but most people overrode tau limits anyway in those cases. So in practice, tau limit was pretty much only a thing that existed on laptops in the intel world, because there was always enough TDP available to cover boost clocks, in a stock configuration.
https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph8426/67026.png
Then AMD came along with Ryzen and started marketing around base TDPs, and made their boost TDP this other higher number (but it's not a boost TDP guys, it's, uh, PPT, yeah!!!!)... and allowed it to boost to the higher number for an unlimited period of time. 9-series really started pushing it and Tau limits started becoming a problem, but it looks really bad to have a 145W TDP when the competition has 105W... even if it's the same actual power consumption in practive. So over time Intel more or less had to move to the same "TDP/PPT" concept as AMD.
It's really really noxious in laptops where AMD allows processors to boost to 50% (more than the desktop chips even!) above their configured TDP for an unlimited period of time. Yeah partners get to pick the cTDP for the particular laptop, but either way an AMD chip with a 15W cTDP gets to use 50% more power than an Intel with a 15W cTDP, for an unlimited duration, which is a huge functional advantage... basically a 15W AMD laptop is more comparable to a 25W Intel laptop in terms of power draw, and a 25W AMD will pull more power than a 35W Intel. So they move themselves up a whole power bracket through The Magic Of Technical Marketing (tm).
https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16084/Power%20-%2015W%20Co...