It's incredible relative to what it was before, it's been a while since power consumption of the same architecture dropped so much without a shrink. And a fairer comparison with the 3700X would be to clock it higher to try to match the overall higher performance of the 9900KS (or to reduce to the 9900KS down), the power consumption comparison would be much closer.Maybe... But a 3700x 8 core (85 watts) vs a 9900ks 8 core (142 watts) 57% more power ???? What is incredible about that ? That they are so handicapped on power ?
If the same level of power reduction is in the 10980XE vs 9980XE, then the 5.1 GHz all-core overclock might actually be possible with off-the-shelf cooling.Power efficiency is incredible for 14nm.
Edit: Consumes 50 watts less than the i9 9900K @ 5GHz.
I've provided a link.Maybe... But a 3700x 8 core (85 watts) vs a 9900ks 8 core (142 watts) 57% more power ???? What is incredible about that ? That they are so handicapped on power ?
Since you did not provide a link, I am going to go look for it.
142 watts vs 130 is not 30% Its more like 10%. And they had a year to make that happen. In that same time frame, AMD has done way better than that.I've provided a link.
Naturally, the 7nm node of the Ryzens is going to be more power efficient, but at those clocks, the Intels are well outside that efficiency window but the previewed 9900KS is over 30%+ more power efficient (than a comparable 9900k) - a far cry from the doom and gloom some have predicted on this forum. I think it bodes well for the 10 core i9-10900K processor.
It's 142 watts of the 9900KS vs 192 watts of the 9900K @ 5GHz so, yes, it's 30%+ more efficient than the 9900K at that clock - which is already well outside of optimal efficiency for the 14nm process.142 watts vs 130 is not 30% Its more like 10%. And they had a year to make that happen. In that same time frame, AMD has done way better than that.
Now why again is this so great ?
Edit; I had it backwards... It takes MORE at stock. Now overclocked it takes 15 watts less.
Oh boy, I can get 5% more FPS @50% more power....
Because gaming is my primary use, and I dont really care about productivity? Each to his own, but maybe you could consider occasionally that other uses may have different priorities than you.Maybe... But a 3700x 8 core (85 watts) vs a 9900ks 8 core (142 watts) 57% more power ???? What is incredible about that ? That they are so handicapped on power ?
Since you did not provide a link, I am going to go look for it.
Edit: from their conclusion:
Intel has extended its lead in gaming over AMD's lineup, but you have to keep that in perspective. The Ryzen 9 3900X offers a lower price point and is more agile in heavily-threaded workloads, particularly in productivity applications. It's also comes with other advantages, like support for PCIe 4.0. If you're not chasing the bleeding edge of gaming performance or overclockability, the Ryzen 9 3900X still offers a compelling blend of price and performance in both gaming and productivity applications.
So, as we already knew it wins in games by a little, but gets destoyed at anything else at the same price or more. And usess 57A% more power (and heat)
So why again is this good ?
Because gaming is my primary use, and I dont really care about productivity? Each to his own, but maybe you could consider occasionally that other uses may have different priorities than you.
That's actually pretty impressive if the numbers hold true.
I'll wait for more reviews to see if there is any "funny business" from this pre-production CPU review.
I’m really getting sick and tired of power use determination being calculated by applications that rely on AVX workloads. The VAST majority of consumer workloads use zero AVX code. It’s so moronic.Power efficiency is incredible for 14nm.
Edit: Consumes 50 watts less than the i9 9900K @ 5GHz.
View attachment 12121
Link
I was comparing stock vs stock. Now you can twist the facts any way you want, I really don't care....It's 142 watts of the 9900KS vs 192 watts of the 9900K @ 5GHz so, yes, it's 30%+ more efficient than the 9900K at that clock - which is already well outside of optimal efficiency for the 14nm process.
I get the idea that the 9900 has some insane clocks but is there a game where a 5ghz 8700 couldn't honestly deliver within 1-2 frames of a 9900KS at this point?
You aren't getting 5 Ghz on a 8700 non-K though.
Fixed but you had to of had known i meant the 8700k.
That'll be 4.1GHz/4.2GHz ACT (95w 9900K running AVX code) at 130 watts compared to 5GHz 9900KS at 142 watts. I suspect this may be 4.7GHz though. The i9 9900KS has no AVX offset. It'll run all workloads at 5GHZ, assuming cooling requirements are met. That's incredible.I was comparing stock vs stock. Now you can twist the facts any way you want, I really don't care....
Where did you hear that? AVX offset is a feature of the micro-architecture, AFAIK.The i9 9900KS has no AVX offset. It'll run all workloads at 5GHZ, assuming cooling requirements are met. That's incredible.