You should note that the 5.52 GHz demo chip was not running at the 170W TDP, but somewhere below it.
---
Update: We asked AMD about the TDP and PPT values that the company used for its Computex 2022 demo against the Core i9-12900K. AMD tells us:
"The Computex demo utilized a 16-core pre-production sample not yet fused to specific power values, but was operating below our final 170W TDP spec."
Naturally, that doesn't tell us if the demo processor consumed 50W below the 170W spec, or just one single watt below the spec. However, that's the information the company has to share on the matter. We'll update if we learn more.
Specific wording from the Reddit source in the article, "170W TDP spec." Rather, in the direct quote, "[...]it was operating in a range below the new 170W TDP group we've developed." This is referring to the 170W TDP, 230W PPT group from AMD_Robert's previous message.
So it could very well be drawing more than 170W. It could be drawing less. The wording, like all corporate PR speak, is there to give them wiggle room.
Inline with the direct AMD source, I agree: my "65W TDP" 3700X draws ~80W+ at stock (without PBO, PBO2, etc, etc, etc).
Nobody uses actual TDP anymore. Intel 12900ks is 150W PBP (processor base power) but it has 241W Maximum Turbo Power which it actually uses for anything other than idle. The actual specs explain exactly what power the CPUs use and TDP is nowhere to be found.
which is ironically more accurate than AMD now, since the caveat is base frequency. so even though they're weaseling around it, its technically the true power draw as is the max turbo power give or take a few watts. AMD's number is just "screw you, here's what the cores might draw, maybe," which doesn't even reflect cooling requirements anymore since heat density has increased every release.
AMD stated that 230W is maximum socket power draw. Don't worry, each Zen4 CPU will have the specs clearly visible just as Intel does with the 12900k. Until 12900k Intel mentioned exact TDP like the 11900k which has 125W TDP but we all know that Intel was playing a cruel joke on consumers and the 11900k was drawing 296W at peak draw and 230W average under full load (AnandTech's own numbers).
TDP doesn’t stand for total displaced power, but THERMAL DESIGN POWER. TDP means that for the chip to properly function, you must be capable of cooling the chip at the rated TDP. The chip properly functions at base frequencies, with turbo frequencies being extra performance covered by warranty.
I hope they have some reasonable power level options out of the gate as well. I have no desire to have a space heater under my desk in the summer. The 5700X/5800 is my target thermal/clockspeed/core profile at 65W. I'd hoped to buy whatever its AM5 successor wound up being, and switch to AMD at the start of a new socket lifecycle. But if they're just going to go full Intel on power consumption, maybe I'll go AM4 after all.
The 6-8 cores will use a lot less. But you always have the option of underclocking or adjusting the TDP down yourself. You can adjust a 125W chip down to 35W if you want.
More reasonable power level options? AMD has had 65w TDP CPU’s for years that trump Intel’s 65w CPU’s in efficiency. While the Intel chips regularly blow passed 100w+ with all the turbo and boost shenanigans, AMD generally remain well below that on their 65w chips with their version of boost clock, achieving identical or better performance per watt.
Obviously Intel finally changed this up with the 12th gen but at the high end they are still using power consumption as a crutch.
The irony here is the 5800X uses the same amount of power as the 5950X. Now the 5700X is a great low power chips that is within 5% or less of the performance of a 5800X. Honestly, I wish the 5700X was available at launch, as I have two 5800X chips, and both are very hard to cool properly.
Intel has started this war with Alder Lake CPU(higher performance with higher wattage). And now, it is AMD's turn. 50% or higher of Zen4 performance comes from higher clock speed. I think this is a very quick and dirty fix to stay in competition. You should stick with: advanced packaging means better performance and same wattage. Going from 7nm to 5nm process should make better performance chips with the same wattage or same with less wattage.
Meh. Apple is leading the charge with high performance and low power SoCs. AMD and Intel are doing the opposite. It might be time for Qualcomm with Nuvia to come in and kick AMD and Intel's ass on the PC side soon.
I'd take this with a grain of salt before going all doom and gloom. People have been exaggerating the effects of Intel's thermal ceiling for years. It's pretty rare I'm pinging my CPU at 100% for more than a short while it hardly effects room temps. You just need adequate cooling for those bursts.
If you _are_ constantly running @100% you should be looking into HEDT or low end server solutions instead of strangling a mainstream desktop CPU for all it's worth. That means you're costing yourself in productivity more than a few higher dollar AC bill.
Now GPUs I'll agree need to be reigned in as they actually are ran at full tilt for hours and they're already getting ridiculous. My room becomes noticeably warmer while gaming but never while compiling or decompressing even though I have one of those "OMG how do you put up with all that HEAT?!" Intel chips.
How many cores are you pegging while compiling? An average game is only loading up 4-6 cores heavily, but with boost is already scratching at thermal limits - despite not actually loading up every core. Running at "100%" (or not) doesn't mean much in the era of boost and out-of-the-box extended thermal/power limits. Raise the core limits enough and half your cores can eat as much power as all of them are allowed to combined.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
21 Comments
Back to Article
nandnandnand - Thursday, May 26, 2022 - link
You should note that the 5.52 GHz demo chip was not running at the 170W TDP, but somewhere below it.---
Update: We asked AMD about the TDP and PPT values that the company used for its Computex 2022 demo against the Core i9-12900K. AMD tells us:
"The Computex demo utilized a 16-core pre-production sample not yet fused to specific power values, but was operating below our final 170W TDP spec."
Naturally, that doesn't tell us if the demo processor consumed 50W below the 170W spec, or just one single watt below the spec. However, that's the information the company has to share on the matter. We'll update if we learn more.
jeremyshaw - Friday, May 27, 2022 - link
Specific wording from the Reddit source in the article, "170W TDP spec." Rather, in the direct quote, "[...]it was operating in a range below the new 170W TDP group we've developed." This is referring to the 170W TDP, 230W PPT group from AMD_Robert's previous message.So it could very well be drawing more than 170W. It could be drawing less. The wording, like all corporate PR speak, is there to give them wiggle room.
Inline with the direct AMD source, I agree: my "65W TDP" 3700X draws ~80W+ at stock (without PBO, PBO2, etc, etc, etc).
coburn_c - Friday, May 27, 2022 - link
If the chip consumes 230w, why isn't the TOTAL DISPLACED POWER 230w? Marketing lies, they should be suedsgeocla - Friday, May 27, 2022 - link
Nobody uses actual TDP anymore. Intel 12900ks is 150W PBP (processor base power) but it has 241W Maximum Turbo Power which it actually uses for anything other than idle. The actual specs explain exactly what power the CPUs use and TDP is nowhere to be found.whatthe123 - Friday, May 27, 2022 - link
which is ironically more accurate than AMD now, since the caveat is base frequency. so even though they're weaseling around it, its technically the true power draw as is the max turbo power give or take a few watts. AMD's number is just "screw you, here's what the cores might draw, maybe," which doesn't even reflect cooling requirements anymore since heat density has increased every release.sgeocla - Friday, May 27, 2022 - link
AMD stated that 230W is maximum socket power draw. Don't worry, each Zen4 CPU will have the specs clearly visible just as Intel does with the 12900k.Until 12900k Intel mentioned exact TDP like the 11900k which has 125W TDP but we all know that Intel was playing a cruel joke on consumers and the 11900k was drawing 296W at peak draw and 230W average under full load (AnandTech's own numbers).
Otritus - Friday, May 27, 2022 - link
TDP doesn’t stand for total displaced power, but THERMAL DESIGN POWER. TDP means that for the chip to properly function, you must be capable of cooling the chip at the rated TDP. The chip properly functions at base frequencies, with turbo frequencies being extra performance covered by warranty.IBM760XL - Friday, May 27, 2022 - link
I hope they have some reasonable power level options out of the gate as well. I have no desire to have a space heater under my desk in the summer. The 5700X/5800 is my target thermal/clockspeed/core profile at 65W. I'd hoped to buy whatever its AM5 successor wound up being, and switch to AMD at the start of a new socket lifecycle. But if they're just going to go full Intel on power consumption, maybe I'll go AM4 after all.nandnandnand - Friday, May 27, 2022 - link
The 6-8 cores will use a lot less. But you always have the option of underclocking or adjusting the TDP down yourself. You can adjust a 125W chip down to 35W if you want.Samus - Friday, May 27, 2022 - link
More reasonable power level options? AMD has had 65w TDP CPU’s for years that trump Intel’s 65w CPU’s in efficiency. While the Intel chips regularly blow passed 100w+ with all the turbo and boost shenanigans, AMD generally remain well below that on their 65w chips with their version of boost clock, achieving identical or better performance per watt.Obviously Intel finally changed this up with the 12th gen but at the high end they are still using power consumption as a crutch.
Golgatha777 - Friday, May 27, 2022 - link
The irony here is the 5800X uses the same amount of power as the 5950X. Now the 5700X is a great low power chips that is within 5% or less of the performance of a 5800X. Honestly, I wish the 5700X was available at launch, as I have two 5800X chips, and both are very hard to cool properly.Spoelie - Sunday, May 29, 2022 - link
You can turn a 5800x into a "5700x" with 1-3 bios settings (eco mode or pbo limits), depending on your boardAkram Al - Friday, May 27, 2022 - link
Intel has started this war with Alder Lake CPU(higher performance with higher wattage). And now, it is AMD's turn. 50% or higher of Zen4 performance comes from higher clock speed. I think this is a very quick and dirty fix to stay in competition. You should stick with: advanced packaging means better performance and same wattage. Going from 7nm to 5nm process should make better performance chips with the same wattage or same with less wattage.lmcd - Friday, May 27, 2022 - link
Huh? The FX-9590 existed. If anything, the low-power blip lasted longer than expected.brucethemoose - Saturday, May 28, 2022 - link
TBH Nvidia/AMD really started the war with bonkers GPU TDPs, as they showed that consumers (as a whole) don't particularly care about efficiency.The FX-9000 series was an anomaly Intel ignored, as buying one never make any sense.
lemurbutton - Friday, May 27, 2022 - link
Meh. Apple is leading the charge with high performance and low power SoCs. AMD and Intel are doing the opposite. It might be time for Qualcomm with Nuvia to come in and kick AMD and Intel's ass on the PC side soon.shabby - Friday, May 27, 2022 - link
Can i buy that m2 ultra and stick it in my pc?melgross - Saturday, May 28, 2022 - link
Why would anyone want to buy a pc? You get what you deserve.Ian Cutress - Sunday, May 29, 2022 - link
*gestures wildly at ~360m PCs bought last year*Zodwraith - Thursday, June 2, 2022 - link
I'd take this with a grain of salt before going all doom and gloom. People have been exaggerating the effects of Intel's thermal ceiling for years. It's pretty rare I'm pinging my CPU at 100% for more than a short while it hardly effects room temps. You just need adequate cooling for those bursts.If you _are_ constantly running @100% you should be looking into HEDT or low end server solutions instead of strangling a mainstream desktop CPU for all it's worth. That means you're costing yourself in productivity more than a few higher dollar AC bill.
Now GPUs I'll agree need to be reigned in as they actually are ran at full tilt for hours and they're already getting ridiculous. My room becomes noticeably warmer while gaming but never while compiling or decompressing even though I have one of those "OMG how do you put up with all that HEAT?!" Intel chips.
Alexvrb - Sunday, June 26, 2022 - link
How many cores are you pegging while compiling? An average game is only loading up 4-6 cores heavily, but with boost is already scratching at thermal limits - despite not actually loading up every core. Running at "100%" (or not) doesn't mean much in the era of boost and out-of-the-box extended thermal/power limits. Raise the core limits enough and half your cores can eat as much power as all of them are allowed to combined.