[TacticalCoder]

> 15% overall is good but nothing earth shattering

Interestingly though the 9700X seems to be rated at 65W TDP (compared to a 105 TDP for the 7700X). I run my 7700X in "eco mode" where I lowered the TDP to max 95 W (IIRC, maybe it was 85 W: I should check in the BIOS).

So it looks like it's 15% overall more power with less power consumption.

[hajile]

AMD used to give decently accurate TDP, but Intel started giving unrealistically optimistic TDP ratings, so AMD joined the game. Their TDP is more of an aspiration than a reality (ironically, Intel seems to have gotten more accurate with their new base and turbo power ratings).

9700x runs 100MHz higher on the same process as the 7700x. If they are actually running at full speed, I don't see how 9700x could possibly be using less power with more transistors at a higher frequency. They could get lower power for the same performance level though if they were being more aggressive about ramping down the frequency (but it's a desktop chip, so why would they?).

[ComputerGuru]

I know AMD has joined the “fudging the TDP numbers” game but you should still be able to more or less compare TDP across their own products.

[tracker1]

Assuming they don't tweak the TDP formula, which they can and have iirc.

[hajile]

For the same node, you aren't cutting power by 40% while increasing clockspeeds. At best, they could be aggressively cutting clockspeeds, but that means lower overall performance.

Marketing seems a more likely reason (and I don't believe it would be the first time either).