We have only this measure of power draw of Zen. No other. I can't compare this to any other measure, that the one AMD did. I suppose that the monitor, PSU and other components were the same, except MB and CPU.I tested SMPS ATE units... I know all this. I'm not talking about any of it.
I'm telling you to check previous CPU data and compare your methodology of actual power draw compared to how accurate it is for them.
Hint: very inaccurate.
Q9650 used to show as 60W full load in P95 with your 'deductive' methodology a la ~50W with Blender.
That Blender scene is not full load or max power, why does this have to be spelt out to you? It is lower than average load.
Sent from HTC 10
(Opinions are own)
I think they might not clock as high as Intel as they are salvaged 8c16t parts.
What data have you to say that intel will overclock more?Without knowing how Zen OC's or even its exact IPC its to early to make this assumption. Although I also suspect that the intel chips will OC better.
They said stock configuration. I suppose this means BIOS default, not "power management disabled". I don't think that retail CP and MB ship with power management disabled.I never questioned the validity of HFR data, you seem hell bent on the idea that I want to discard the 18W power figure for BDW-E.
The same HFR table has Sandy Bridge-E and Ivy Bridge-E at 6W and 3.6W idle power. I ask you how can that be explained and your only answer is I'm using "irrelevant data" and "inadequate methodology"? Is this a joke? I'm using your data!
And I was talking about the same video.
The systems in that video were configured for optimal performance. Optimal performance likely entails disabling sleep states, maybe even keeping CPUs at base speed even when idle. This strongly affects idle power usage and skews power usage estimates based on power delta.
A defective core could be fused off, how is that going to change how high the good cores clock? When they bin for speed, they bin (I believe) for the highest clock all the cores can run stable at, so they all clock at the slowest core. What if the defective core was the slowest? Fusing those cores off would allow the others to clock higher.
Then you have cores that are fused off that are not defective, either they aren't clocking as high as they should or they work fine but the market demands lower core SKUs.
Not Zen.We have only this measure of power draw of Zen. No other. I can't compare this to any other measure, that the one AMD did. I suppose that the monitor, PSU and other components were the same, except MB and CPU.
To what should I compare?
They should correct the legend below the pic, though, since it s written that they are the source for the diagram...
What data have you to say that intel will overclock more?
I have the lower TDP, the lower consumption, the higher base clock and the higher transconductance that let me think that Zen will overclock more. What data have you to backup your claim?
I never questioned the validity of HFR data, you seem hell bent on the idea that I want to discard the 18W power figure for BDW-E.
The same HFR table has Sandy Bridge-E and Ivy Bridge-E at 6W and 3.6W idle power. I ask you how can that be explained and your only answer is I'm using "irrelevant data" and "inadequate methodology"? Is this a joke? I'm using your data!
Abwx: you've provided no data, just pseudoscience guesses based on selective input, which you can't explain how they are relevant or valid. I wouldn't have thought this but right now, bjt is doing a far better job than you. You're lagging.
Specialists of pseudo sciences are those who dont produce numbers and are left using hollow words as smoke screen of their either poor or biaised analysis.
No enginer will ever try to contradict BJT2 or me when we state that power losses in the PSU are 10% and 10-12% in the CPU power supply, yet that s what you are explicitely doing, as if it was possible to reinvent electronics for the purpose of "argumenting" endlessly and uselessly...
I keep writing I agree with the 18W power measurement for BDW-E and you keep writing I disagree with the measurement of 18W for BDW-E. This concludes our discussion.Anyway it s telling that you automatically abunded in the other direction, that is, to question the measurement made with BDW as eventually exagerated
Not Zen.
Any previous parts from Agena, Deneb, Bulldozer. Use your methodology and show us how your method is accurate to approximating actual power draw. Try to convince us.
Abwx: you've provided no data, just pseudoscience guesses based on selective input, which you can't explain how they are relevant or valid. I wouldn't have thought this but right now, bjt is doing a far better job than you. You're lagging.
Sent from HTC 10
(Opinions are own)
Maybe reading comprehension is not your strong suit but i did not make any claims, i simply said i SUSPECT that intel will clock better. For the simple reason that they have had years to perfect their process on the KL cores and the mobo manufacturers have also had years to dial in the VRM's and stability of higher clocks. AMD is coming in with brand new CPU and brand new socket, it will take some time to get the bugs worked out. I hope im wrong and it also hits 5Ghz like intel but time will tell. We just dont know yet, which is why i didnt make any claims.
Once again, AMD is doing PR and nothing as such can be taken from that video. You have no idea of most of the setup and their parameters.AMD did that video, not me. That video show that Ryzen draw less power than 6900K at same load. If you don't trust that methodology, you can pick any 6900k review you want, subtract few watt and here you have Zen power draw at 3.4GHz, overvolted and on a MB with a not final BIOS...
I will not waste anymore time trying to convince you that Zen draw less power than the 6900K if you don't even believe AMD videos and CanardPC reviews...
No body told you otherwise.Specialists of pseudo sciences are those who dont produce numbers and are left using hollow words as smoke screen of their either poor or biaised analysis.
No enginer will ever try to contradict BJT2 or me when we state that power losses in the PSU are 10% and 10-12% in the CPU power supply, yet that s what you are explicitely doing, as if it was possible to reinvent electronics for the purpose of "argumenting" endlessly and uselessly...
Once again, AMD is doing PR and nothing as such can be taken from that video. You have no idea of most of the setup and their parameters.
I asked you to prove your methodology as accurate, but once again you back out when asked to backup your claims with any data.
The rest of it means nothing to me except wild ass guessing sprinkled with some technical epithets to fool the commoner.
Sent from HTC 10
(Opinions are own)
if you don't even believe AMD videos and CanardPC reviews...
Once again, AMD is doing PR and nothing as such can be taken from that video. You have no idea of most of the setup and their parameters.
I asked you to prove your methodology as accurate, but once again you back out when asked to backup your claims with any data.
The rest of it means nothing to me except wild ass guessing sprinkled with some technical epithets to fool the commoner.
Sent from HTC 10
(Opinions are own)
AMD CPUs reach 4.3GHz turbo clock on the 28nm bulk and 4.9GHz OC on air, on a 65W APU and on the same AM4 boards on which Zen will be installed. I think, given the evidences, that the same you says for INTEL can be said also for AMD. Otherwise we should derive that the 14nm FF is worse than 28nm BULK?
So, what other things make you think that Zen will overclock less?
I was unaware that AMD released zen test CPU's on 28nm bulk, got any links? or that they had a zen APU already functioning.
CanardPC 4-5 month before launch, on an ES, very possibly not even final silicon... using an average load. Hmm.You are forgetting CanardPC, that measured the power at 12V and confirmed, moreless, AMD claims.
I proved the metodology was accurate: i posted links to a PDF of a paper about VRMs and a webpage with efficiency diagram of PSU...
What else should I do? Steal a Zen rig and perform by myself the tests?
You know that i was talking of Bristol Ridge. What i want to highlight is that AMD knows how to make high clock chips...
Since Zen clocks higher and draw less power than 6900K and it's not even finished (it's an ES), what make you think that it will overclock less?
You cant compare different archs and assume it will yield the same results. The P4 was probably one of the best OC'ing chips in history with some hitting 8+ghz on suicide runs, something im not even sure has been broken to this day. This doesnt mean that all intel CPU's that came after can obtain the same OC's.