Intel lying about their CPUs' TDP: who's not surprised?

[newtekie1]

Incorrect. The base clock is the clock from which the total operating clock is derived which is why CPU's have multipliers and have for 30+years. You are talking about Base Operating Frequency. If you are going to insult and attempt(poorly) to correct someone like @unclewebb, who knows a LOT more about tech than you do, try NOT to embarrass yourself in the process.

Actually, the correct name for it is Processor Base Frequency. If you are going to attempt(poorly) to correct someone do not embarrass yourself in the process. The context made it clear what base clock speed I was talking about, Uncleweb obviously knew what I was talking about. You're post is just trolling and off topic at this point.

This is a 65W TDP CPU as per the Intel slide right above it. I even specifically mentioned that even if you reduce all of the idle load (50W) you'll still be grossly out of spec.

And that is whole system power WITH Turbo boost enabled. Show me some numbers with turbo disabled and then we can talk.

 

[ThrashZone]

The 16:00 minute mark of the first video you posted shows that Cinebench R20 power consumption is 200W. That is well under the 250W short term turbo power limit that Intel recommends the 10900K should be set to. It does not take 56 seconds to complete R20 so a 10900K should have no problem completing this benchmark at its full rated speed with zero power limit throttling.

If the BIOS sets a 10900K to the default turbo values, 125W long, 250W, short and 56 seconds, Cinebench R20 will run at full speed for the entire test. Turbo boost does not last indefinitely. If you run Cinebench R20 multiple times back to back, the turbo boost reserve will be gone and the CPU will throttle based on the long term 125W limit.

Spoiler

I know people have been saying this for a long time but I cannot remember seeing any documentation from Intel that guarantees anything. Since the 2nd Gen Core i, Intel has always recommended that the long term turbo power limit be set equal to the TDP. This is still recommended with the 10th Gen. When I first boot up after installing a new BIOS version, my motherboard stops and specifically asks if I want to set the CPU up to the default power limits or not. If I select Yes, it sets the power limits to the Intel default values.


I agree. I bought an Intel CPU with a 125W TDP rating and when set to default specs, it runs at a maximum of 125W. I got exactly what was advertised. No complaints. I am even happier that Intel left the power limits unlocked so I can jack them up sky high, overclock this CPU and get more performance than what I paid for. Thanks Intel.

Hi,
I didn't need either of the videos I got the short story why throttling was happening so I just posted them so others could watch if they wanted too

Already been said throttling will kick in after 44 seconds "max bios setting for power state is [448]" and it does, my screen shot shows minimum vid dropping to 4.018Mhz and so did cache drop to 38 lol

Real point was 5.1 on 10900k didn't beat my ols 7900x at 4.9 I believe until I switched MCE remove all limits on so yeah I was a little pissed lol

 

[trickson]

OMG 9 pages and I can not figure out who is lying now!

I think YOU all are liars no one knows the truth, You can't handle the TRUTH.
Watts and voltage and TDP who's lying to me???

 

[Bill_Bright]

I'm sure people have opinions about me using a Mac as a daily driver.

You traitorous scumbag! LOL

So do PSU calculator websites need to account for these boosts in power?

Sure can't speak for all but you can be confident the best PSC calculator (and the one many others are based on) the eXtreme OuterVision PSU Calculator ensures in its estimates that the recommended supplies are more than adequate.

It is important to remember that no PSU calculator ever wants to suggest an underpowered supply. So they all pad the results to ensure that never happens. Plus whenever PSU size is being calculated (either manually or via a calculator), it must be assumed that it is possible (no matter how remote the possibility) that there could be a moment in time when the CPU and the GPU, motherboard, RAM, drives, fans and all other attached devices will maximize their demands at the same time. While unlikely, it is possible, so calculators account for that.

So stick with the eXtreme OuterVision PSU Calculator and you will have nothing to worry about. If you are a worry-wart and still concerned, add an extra 50 - 100W to the calculator's results and sleep soundly at night - with one eye open, of course.

 

[r9]

the magical lighting inside the melted sand make zappy zappy

I always wanted to know how CPUs actually work. Thanks!

Intel's Desktop TDPs No Longer Useful to Predict CPU Power Consumption

Intel's higher-end desktop CPU TDPs no longer communicate anything useful about the CPUs power consumption under load.

www.extremetech.com

Lying about power consumption numbers to make your products look good is just despicable.
Thank God I have a 4690k which means I don't have to deal with this mess.

So Max base and Max boost W rating would be the best representation.

 

[cst1992]

Your base operating frequency is 3.5-3.9. You are overclocked right now.. My 3770K did 4300 with stock volts too.

Volts are not stock; the voltage at 4.3GHz is higher than voltage at 3.5GHz.
I just let the motherboard auto-set it for me.

 

[freeagent]

Its all so confusing what is stock anymore

Is it balls to the wall or is it time to hug a tree I just don't know anymore.

 

[Zach_01]

So Max base and Max boost W rating would be the best representation.

So something like this that I posted 5 pages back. Intel will never advertise this with those high numbers. Some SKUs are hitting x3~4 the "advertised" TDP.




Nobody is lying. Intel or AMD are just telling a part of the truth. You have to read behind the lines. Its typical marketing...

By Intel:
"Thermal Design Power (TDP) represents the average power, in watts, the processor dissipates when operating at Base Frequency with all cores active under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload. Refer to Datasheet for thermal solution requirements"

AMD's formulae of TDP as I described with simple words also a few pages back

 

[Bill_Bright]

We are going around in circles - saying the same things over and over again.

 

[Zach_01]

We are going around in circles - saying the same things over and over again.

Yes, and I hope these pics will end it...



I've been saying these from 4th page... sadly

 

[Bill_Bright]

I've been saying these from 4th page... sadly

The merry-go-round was going long before then. I'm hopping off.

 

[trickson]

We are going around in circles - saying the same things over and over again.

Right! I mean 9 pages and it's not even about Intel lying anymore lol.
It has Morphed!

 

[Vayra86]

And that is whole system power WITH Turbo boost enabled. Show me some numbers with turbo disabled and then we can talk.

No no no.... Look again at the Intel spec sheet. It clearly says TDP is 65W. Not 70. Not 80. Not 75 for five seconds. It says 65W in the same line as it is saying 'Up to' a number of clock speeds.

NOWHERE does Intel specify something about turbo TDPs. Why doesn't the Intel spec sheet say 'Up to 100W' to match their 'up to' turbos? I mean, we're spending 9 pages now trying to figure out if someone's lying to us.

The answer's right there. This isn't a half truth or anything... its a spec sheet that lies to you. None of those CPUs go 'Up To' their rated frequencies on 65W.

On top of that, even Intel itself specifies that usage may run over the TDP that is specified if you read the small print. So who are we kidding here? Ourselves? And, again, don't come out saying 'this was always like that' because its clear the goal posts have shifted since Intel specifies PL1/PL2 and uses TVB and whatnot. All that is, is lots of smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that they really need those 120+ Watts to do anything worthwile in competitive performance.

And here's the kicker... they ALREADY lied to us because those turbos only count for a small number of cores, not the whole CPU - another nice little bit of info that's gloriously fallen off those spec sheets, gosh I wonder why. And again, looking back at pre-Skylake... you could load an all-core OC at turbo clocks within stock voltages, or sometimes even under them. Good luck w that today.

This is the marketing reality slowly shifting our own realities. We already took some baby steps in the past, but luckily not everyone forgets.

OMG 9 pages and I can not figure out who is lying now!

I think YOU all are liars no one knows the truth, You can't handle the TRUTH.
Watts and voltage and TDP who's lying to me???

Everyone, obviously. Trust no one. Always ask your CPU where he's been today and how hot he got.

 

[trickson]

Who's zoomin who??

 

[newtekie1]

No no no.... Look again at the Intel spec sheet. It clearly says TDP is 65W. Not 70. Not 80. Not 75 for five seconds. It says 65W in the same line as it is saying 'Up to' a number of clock speeds.

NOWHERE does Intel specify something about turbo TDPs. Why doesn't the Intel spec sheet say 'Up to 100W' to match their 'up to' turbos? I mean, we're spending 9 pages now trying to figure out if someone's lying to us.

The answer's right there. This isn't a half truth or anything... its a spec sheet that lies to you. None of those CPUs go 'Up To' their rated frequencies on 65W.

On top of that, even Intel itself specifies that usage may run over the TDP that is specified if you read the small print. So who are we kidding here? Ourselves? And, again, don't come out saying 'this was always like that' because its clear the goal posts have shifted since Intel specifies PL1/PL2 and uses TVB and whatnot. All that is, is lots of smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that they really need those 120+ Watts to do anything worthwile in competitive performance.

And here's the kicker... they ALREADY lied to us because those turbos only count for a small number of cores, not the whole CPU - another nice little bit of info that's gloriously fallen off those spec sheets, gosh I wonder why. And again, looking back at pre-Skylake... you could load an all-core OC at turbo clocks within stock voltages, or sometimes even under them. Good luck w that today.

This is the marketing reality slowly shifting our own realities. We already took some baby steps in the past, but luckily not everyone forgets.

From Intel's spec sheets:

Processor Base Frequency​

Processor Base Frequency describes the rate at which the processor's transistors open and close. The processor base frequency is the operating point where TDP is defined. Frequency is typically measured in gigahertz (GHz), or billion cycles per second.

TDP​

Thermal Design Power (TDP) represents the average power, in watts, the processor dissipates when operating at Base Frequency with all cores active under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload. Refer to Datasheet for thermal solution requirements.

Max Turbo Frequency​

Max turbo frequency is the maximum single core frequency at which the processor is capable of operating using Intel® Turbo Boost Technology and, if present, Intel® Thermal Velocity Boost. Frequency is typically measured in gigahertz (GHz), or billion cycles per second.

They aren't lying about anything, they are telling you exactly the specs and how they define TDP as well as the maximum boost. If you don't like the processor going beyond the rated TDP, turn off turbo boost and STFU about it. But guess what, you better turn of PBO on your AMD processor too, because guess what happens to the power consumption when PBO is active.

Neither is lying about their processor's power consumption. Some people are seeing a number, doing no research on what that number means or how it is determined and instead just assuming it means something it doesn't.

 

[Vayra86]

From Intel's spec sheets:







They aren't lying about anything, they are telling you exactly the specs and how they define TDP as well as the maximum boost. If you don't like the processor going beyond the rated TDP, turn off turbo boost and STFU about it. But guess what, you better turn of PBO on your AMD processor too, because guess what happens to the power consumption when PBO is active.

I can see the merit of your point of view about it, but can you see the merit in mine? I'm playing the unsuspecting customer, trying to get 'a little bit' informed. They google Intel and get that spec sheet.

What happened to informing them properly? Honestly? You did not answer that question in relation to my example. Yes, we can read the full Intel bible on how its supposed to work, but can you reasonably expect that, or should Intel define TDPs on the spec sheet just as they do clocks - within a range, and not a set value?

Money can also be made by making sure your DYI'ing customers know what they're getting. We've had several reports of mishaps related to this in recent past.

And the silly thing is, they now report a 125W TDP and a separate value as well for turbo's I believe, but its still too low.

And obviously for AMD the rules aren't any different.

 

[newtekie1]

I can see the merit of your point of view about it, but can you see the merit in mine? I'm playing the unsuspecting customer, trying to get 'a little bit' informed. They google Intel and get that spec sheet.

What happened to informing them properly? Honestly? You did not answer that question in relation to my example. Yes, we can read the full Intel bible on how its supposed to work, but can you reasonably expect that, or should Intel define TDPs on the spec sheet just as they do clocks - within a range, and not a set value?

On the spec sheet of every modern processor on Intel's website, every relevant spec has a big i next to it. You click on that and it tells you all the information you need to know about that spec. If the consumer is too stupid to actually research and read what these specs mean when Intel makes it so insanely easy, then that's the consumer's fault. They don't even put little numbers next to the spec and make you scroll down to the bottom to read little tiny fine print. It is a i and you click it and it comes right up tell you what the spec is.

Now, go over to AMD's website and look at the spec sheet for the 5950X. It says TDP of 105w and gives absolutely no information about how that TDP is determined. Is that the TDP at the base clock? Is it the TDP at the maximum boost clock? Can you answer that for me based solely on the information provided on the 5900X product page?

 

[Vayra86]

On the spec sheet of every processor on Intel's website, every relevant spec has a big ? next to it. You click on that and it tells you all the information you need to know about that spec. If the consumer is too stupid to actually research and read what these specs mean when Intel makes it so insanely easy, then that's the consumer's fault. They don't even put little numbers next to the spec and make you scroll down to the bottom to read little tiny fine print. It is a huge ? and you click it and it comes right up tell you what the spec is.

You do realize that ARK isnt exactly the first place to look nor is it something Intel actively directs you to when they do marketing, right?

 

[Zach_01]

And obviously for AMD the rules aren't any different.

Even though AMD's CPU power consumption also exceed TDP, AMD's TDP is very very different in comparison with Intel TDP (the meaning).
For example if you install a better cooler/TIM on the AMD CPU (from the one that AMD took measurements) with lower thermal resistance, (1) the rated TDP is going up by a little if PPT is the same.... (2) and going up by a lot (obviously) if PPT is higher because of lower internal CPU temp = higher clocking (under PPT limit permission)
But the 1st section is the interesting one.

 

[newtekie1]

You do realize that ARK isnt exactly the first place to look nor is it something Intel actively directs you to when they do marketing, right?

Who said anything about ark? It's literally on the standard product page for the processors on Intel's website. Here, try this: Go to Google and search 10900K. Ignore the fact that the Ark page is the first result(because ignoring the first result on Google is definitely what the average consumer does). Go to the second result, which is the Intel product page for the 10900K. Click on that. It immediately takes you to the spec sheet. Click the i next to TDP.

You still want to try to say Intel's making it hard for the average consumer?

Oh, and by the way, how are you doing on figuring out how AMD TDP numbers are determined?

 

[trickson]

Okay it is official this thread is; INSANE.

 

[Zach_01]

Because some people fail to understand what each manufacturer states with advertised TDP, doesnt make the thread insane but something else...

 

[trickson]

Because some people fail to understand what each manufacturer states with advertised TDP, doesn't make the thread insane but something else...

9 Pages all talking in circles I call that ; INSANE.

I'm dizzy and hopping off this merry-go-round ....

 

[Vayra86]

Who said anything about ark? It's literally on the standard product page for the processors on Intel's website. Here, try this: Go to Google and search 10900K. Ignore the fact that the Ark page is the first result(because ignoring the first result on Google is definitely what the average consumer does). Go to the second result, which is the Intel product page for the 10900K. Click on that. It immediately takes you to the spec sheet. Click the i next to TDP.

You still want to try to say Intel's making it hard for the average consumer?

Oh, and by the way, how are you doing on figuring out how AMD TDP numbers are determined?

Not at all, if you 'want to know more about thermal solutions' you need to refer to the manual. In other words, dive deep.

Why can Intel not specify the max TDP on the website then and there?

Intel® Core™ i9-10850K Processor (20M Cache, up to 5.20 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel

Intel® Core™ i9-10850K Processor (20M Cache, up to 5.20 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.

www.intel.com

And I already told you AMD has a similar responsibility, stop dodging, jesus christ.

 

[Frick]

OMG 9 pages and I can not figure out who is lying now!

I think YOU all are liars no one knows the truth, You can't handle the TRUTH.
Watts and voltage and TDP who's lying to me???

Science.