Shifting goalposts - how typical. First you replied suggesting that someone who can write code implementing some random data structure in C knows something or two about building PCs, when the reality is that the two aren't even remotely related.Someone that builds PCs and codes in C has vastly more knowledge than the average PC user.
Outliers as in reviews that specifically show more than typical gains for either side - how convenient of you to ignore that part of my comment. Some fans of a particular team tend to show their true nature quicker than you can get your PC infected browsing the internet on IE 11 and Windows 7."Outliers", because they don't fit the Intel apologist(tm) handbook. Intel could enforce these limits on reviewers and board makers (including mandating PL1/PL2), but they don't. Hmm, what could Intel possibly gain by allowing their hardware to run out of spec for internet benchmarks?
Unrelated topic.And...I wonder... is it the same idea that was behind their SPEC cheating?
Also unrelated.Or how about this one?
At spec means following specs according to Intel datasheets. Default means what is allowed as stock behaviour - and that includes PL1=PL2 typically with unlimited tau.But that's exactly what testing "at spec" means. It includes forcing Intel's default PL1 / PL2, whose wattages are lower than the unchecked furnaces Intel allows in benchmarks.
Where. Show me. My first mention of code:Shifting goalposts - how typical. First you replied suggesting that someone who can write code implementing some random data structure in C knows something or two about building PCs, when the reality is that the two aren't even remotely related.
Yep, absolutely. That's on full display right now with your posts. Poor, poor lil' Intel, the $181 billion corporation needs tamz_msc to defend m'lady's honor.Some fans of a particular team tend to show their true nature quicker than you can get your PC infected browsing the internet on IE 11 and Windows 7.
Intel 14900K specs:At spec means following specs according to Intel datasheet
Processor Base Power 125 W
Maximum Turbo Power 253 WIn a lot of these scenarios, without any controls, AMD is not only producing better gaming performance in raw framerate, but at a lower power consumption. Since these two are directly related in a formula, that gives AMD an efficiency advantage in games. Even when we lock the power or the FPS, generally speaking, AMD appears to hold an advantage in gaming.
Your second sentence is an assertion of your coding ability. Your third sentence's first part is a display of narcissistic behavior. The second part is where you imply that you're "not a computer illiterate moron" (owing to your previous statement), with the implication that having to look up what ICC_max is goes beyond your ability, despite you not being a computer illiterate.I'd never heard of this setting until now and had to look it up. I know how to write a double-linked list in C using free() and malloc(). I bet most people in this forum can't do that, so I'm not a computer illiterate moron by any stretch of the imagination.
My Z690-A WIFI DDR4 also has Enhanced Turbo on Auto by default, which I suspect to mean Enabled. That is MSI MultiCore Enhancement, forcing Single Core turbo clock speeds for All Core.Here's how it happens on my MSI Z690 board.
"Narcissistic", that's a big word. Did you google search that before or after you google searched ICC_max?Your second sentence is an assertion of your coding ability. Your third sentence's first part is a display of narcissistic behavior. The second part is where you imply that you're "not a computer illiterate moron" (owing to your previous statement), with the implication that having to look up what ICC_max is goes beyond your ability, despite you not being a computer illiterate.
Answer the question: does 253W on Intel's spec sheet mean "uncapped power"?So here you have yourself strongly indicating that someone of your calibre ought not to have to look up datasheets to figure out what safety limits are there in Intel CPUs, because of your coding abilities - when the truth is that one can be great at coding without having an iota of any clue about the thermal and electrical characteristics of a CPU.
I set PL1 and PL2 to 105W on my Z690 rig just for efficiency sake, but I had no idea ICC_max was even a configurable setting.
Once you have to change out of the box settings you're already past 90% of users, whether Intel or AMD...
Did you encounter it? I have not encountered it on any of my Alder Lake machines, though they are 12600K and 12100 so less likely to be operating at the edge even if the motherboard gives them too much leeway.Knew this was happening before it even was a story.
It’s the other way around really, the PL1/PL2 limits are pointless and you’re better off just using IccMax. I suppose You could ignore IccMax if you set your PL1/PL2 to a value like 200W but it’s suboptimal.Limiting power consumption via PL reduction probably causes the system to ignore ICC_max anyway. From what I can tell, all it does is set the current limit the CPU could draw if all the other failsafes against that behavior permit it. It looks like it only comes into play if your mobo settings effectively let your system boost to the moon, e.g. PL2=253W becomes more of a joke than an actual limit.
Tweaking ICC_max seems pointless when you can (and should) be tweaking PL values instead, unless you're an extreme overclocker that may WANT your CPU running up against a user-definable current limit. If that's you and you know what you're doing, have at it!
I'd never heard of this setting until now and had to look it up. I know how to write a double-linked list in C using free() and malloc(). I bet most people in this forum can't do that, so I'm not a computer illiterate moron by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm not necessarily against Intel releasing a 400W CPU; there's definitely a market out there for the fastest thing possibly and damn the cost.410W power draw with a "spec" TDP of "150W", LMAO.
Intel Core i9-14900KS Limited Edition CPU Leak: Up To 6.2 GHz Clock, Over 100C Temps & 400W+ Power Consumption
Intel's upcoming flagship Core i9-14900KS Limited Edition CPU has leaked out within OCCT and it's an insane beast in all regards.wccftech.com
Just saying, but the stated TDP has nothing much to do with how much power they actually draw.And so would their performance. Intel gets creamed at lower wattages.
Just saying, but the stated TDP has nothing much to do with how much power they actually draw.
We can see that intel draws 330 on a 253W power limit, which means that the power limit WAS NOT ENFORCED.
Also ZEN draws more power than intel at every other TDP limit below the highest one.
If you limit the 14900k to 200W it will use 141W on average against the 128W average of the 7950x and will still be faster overall, zen is still more efficient just by far not as much as people think.
So no, intel does not need to run their CPUs at 350-400W to make benchmarks look better.
Intel could force a 200W limit and still be on top.
Gaming has worse efficiency because they don't park the e-cores, does zen still use game mode turning off one cxx?
Intel Core i9-14900K Raptor Lake Tested at Power Limits Down to 35 W
There's no denying that Intel's Core i9-14900K is a power hog. This article examines the power, performance and thermals effects of limiting its power consumption, with very interesting results. Additionally, we investigate undervolting to determine if efficiency can be optimized even further.www.techpowerup.com
It isn't the fastest, though.I'm not necessarily against Intel releasing a 400W CPU; there's definitely a market out there for the fastest thing possibly and damn the cost.
Intel has been playing this game for years. Every CPU generation increases the gap between base and turbo, and between "TDP" and power draw @ wall. If someone points this out, they get told it's their fault for "not doing proper research".It's ridiculous that they still list it as a 150W TDP though. Anyone who's designing a thermal solution for a 14900KS and actually using that value is going to get no more performance out of it than a 14900K since both will be throttling at Tjmax. If you're going to do that, own it and list a reasonable TDP.
\shrug It's the fastest they can make.It isn't the fastest, though.
Threadripper is far faster at multi-threading and still uses less power.
X3D is faster overall in gaming and uses far less power.
Intel has been playing this game for years. Every CPU generation increases the gap between base and turbo, and between "TDP" and power draw @ wall. If someone points this out, they get told it's their fault for "not doing proper research".
It’s the other way around really, the PL1/PL2 limits are pointless and you’re better off just using IccMax. I suppose You could ignore IccMax if you set your PL1/PL2 to a value like 200W but it’s suboptimal.
With my 14900K running IccMax=307A, Cinebench R23 maxes out at 228W, power virus apps like Prime95 or YCruncher barely pull more than 200W. Cinebench R15 will pull 253W since it’s not as heavy though.
No, I'm not. You'll never get anywhere near 300W with IccMax=307A, it's the limiting factor 9 times out of 10.You seem to be missing the fact that people are getting system instability from allowing ICC_Max to remain at 307a while the PL values are effectively being ignored by the motherboard.
Icc is the parameter that is used as a proxy for power draw in all IC design. Therefore Icc_MAX is what is specified at the design phase.ICCMAX is pretty much performing the role that PL4 used to, it is there to limit the peak transients. I would assume than there has to be a benefit by expressing it as Ampers instead of Watts, most likely than it would not be affected by any Voltage shenanigans like vDrop depending on load.
| Vcc_max | Vcc = VID - Icc*R |
| Vcc_typ | Vcc = VID - TOB - (Icc*R) |
| Vcc_min | Vcc = VID - 2*TOB - (Icc*R) |
No, I'm not. You'll never get anywhere near 300W with IccMax=307A, it's the limiting factor 9 times out of 10.